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)
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 7
[ Page 16349 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In Committee B, I call second reading of Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.
PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
Hon. J. Sawicki: I would like to now move that the bill be read a second time.
I am very pleased, of course, even at the best of times, as members in this chamber well know, to be standing up and talking about parks and protected areas. It's perhaps particularly timely that I'm doing it during this week -- Environment Week -- knowing the significance of our protected areas system to protecting the environment, and particularly the significance to British Columbians, who see our parks and protected areas as a symbol of our commitment to the environment and to their own recreational opportunities.
This bill represents the first step in building a new statute that will provide for the effective preservation and future stewardship of a system that I think is world-renowned in terms of our newly expanded parks and ecological reserve system here in British Columbia. During the past century, governments, communities and individuals have contributed an incredible amount of time and energy and dollars to the establishment of our parks. From the designation of the first provincial park in 1911 to those that are included in this bill, the lives of British Columbians have been immeasurably enriched by our provincial parks system. The past decade, as we know, has seen an unprecedented commitment by people across this province to preserve and sustain this natural legacy for our own and future generations.
In recent years we as the government have worked hard with these dedicated people from all walks of life, representing all interests in the province, to ensure the preservation of some of the province's most outstanding ecosystems through what we have called the protected area strategy. Since the inception of the protected areas strategy, the protected area system has expanded significantly. In 1992 protected areas comprised 6.3 percent of the provincial land base. By the end of this year we expect to meet our target of protected areas covering 12 percent of our province, and that is an incredible achievement for the people of British Columbia. This increase in less than a decade will represent the addition of over 5.34 million hectares of land to our protected area system.
[1010]
Hon. Speaker, I want to reiterate just what a tremendous achievement this is. When I travel to other parts of Canada, and certainly to other parts outside of Canada, this achievement and this commitment of British Columbia is very well known, and tremendously admired as well. They said: "How did you do this?"
And I've said: "We have done this through very difficult land use planning processes where all of the stakeholders are at the table and come to a consensus, hopefully -- sometimes we're not quite as successful as that -- on those areas of our province that are so special that we need to ensure that they are protected for this and future generations."
Taking into consideration the parks and ecological reserves that are added through provisions of this bill, B.C.'s protected areas system will now include 530 class A parks and 148 ecological reserves, which would bring the total protected area in British Columbia to about 10.7 million hectares.
The parks and ecological reserves that we've protected over the last century play a really important role. I just want to go through some of the values that we have captured here in our protected areas. Some of them are the protection of outstanding geographical or cultural features and very unique ecological systems in the world. People have often talked -- and I will talk a little bit later in my comments -- particularly about the role of those lands included in ecological reserves, in terms of protecting gene pools and in terms of being natural classrooms, where we can learn and understand about ecosystems so that we can better manage them and ensure that the impact of our human activity is within manageable levels that will allow this ecosystems to keep functioning.
There are other roles that I think people who spend time in the wilderness,
as I do, or spend time in our campgrounds within the provincial parks, as many,
many families and British Columbians do
Fortunately, hon. Speaker, some of these less intangible values also make good economic sense. I want to talk a little bit about some of the economic contribution of some of these parks that we are establishing in this bill will have for communities all across this province. The parks that were designated in the past century, and the ones that will be established by this bill, are priceless treasures. They not only contribute to ecosystems, habitat, biodiversity and existence values, but they also contribute recreational, social and cultural enrichment to the lives of British Columbians.
The creation of parks also promotes sustainability in our economy, and that's very complementary to our government's green economy initiative -- and particularly with my colleague, who is the Minister of Tourism, with whom we have been working closely to ensure that our provincial parks can play a really important role in terms of diversification of rural communities, job creation and other values right in our communities.
[1015]
So investing in our parks does make good economic sense, because British Columbia's unique environment is part
[ Page 16350 ]
of the reason that we are becoming a top destination for businesses and tourism alike. We all benefit from this commitment to environmental protection. I was fortunate, as minister, just very recently to be at an event where some private conservation interests had made a purchase of properties that were unique ecosystems here in British Columbia -- in private hands, being transferred and bought by private conservation interests. The people who were putting up the dollars came from Europe, and they said: "We want to help make these dollars available, because we know how special these values are."
In other parts of the world these no longer exist, and this is very much a reason why tourists want to come to British Columbia. It is increasingly the reason why companies want to invest in British Columbia, and especially why high-tech companies, who want to attract the best and the brightest CEOs and senior management, want to come to British Columbia. Those people are looking for a high quality of life. And to them, a high quality of life increasingly is tied to clean air, clean water and wilderness and protected areas.
So it is not surprising that some of the recent studies that our ministry has done around what the economic contribution of parks and protected areas to our economy indicate that for every dollar spent on developing and maintaining provincial parks, $9 is generated in income to the province. In 1996, it's estimated, provincial parks contributed about $420 million to the provincial gross national product and generated about $170 million in tax revenue -- and that's including 9,500 jobs that directly and indirectly are created by our parks system.
And those are 1996 figures, hon. Speaker. This is the year 2000. Public values all over the world are changing very, very quickly. And I think those economic contribution dollars are probably increasing equally exponentially.
Specifically, what does this bill do? It does create 29 new class A parks and six new ecological reserves. As well, it makes additions to 13 existing schedule A, class A parks. Together these new areas and additions comprise about 264,000 hectares. The parks and ecological reserves contained in this bill have been identified for protection by the land use planning processes that British Columbia has developed.
I want to talk just briefly about the processes that have brought the new parks that are in this bill to the Legislature at this time. I alluded, a little bit earlier in my remarks, to the land use planning processes, where all of the interests, all of the stakeholders, have got around a table to work out land use plans for their region. The fact that they have managed to, with great difficulty, make the painful compromises with each other around a table and treat each other's interests with respect and been able to submit to government the recommendation for establishment of these protected areas, I think, is a real tribute to all of those people. And I think that we owe a great deal of respect to the individual citizens, the environmental groups, the resources industries, workers, resource users, unions, first nations, local governments and all of those people who made such a tremendous personal commitment to the task of land use planning.
To give members of this House just a couple of examples of some of the new parks that are in this piece of legislation, I just want to mention two of them. The first is the Sugarbowl-Grizzly Den Park, which was recommended as part of the Prince George land and resource management planning process.
This park encompasses about 23,000 hectares. It will protect old-growth cedar-hemlock forests; excellent grizzly bear habitat; bear, caribou and marten habitat; and, critical to that area, a caribou movement corridor. It also protects a very unique canyon feature which has historic significance related to the overlanders' journey to the Cariboo gold fields in the 1860s. This park is located on Highway 16 east of Prince George. It already has a developed trail system offering outstanding back-country recreation opportunities that are close to the growing city of Prince George and important for back-country tourism.
[1020]
The second park I would just like to describe briefly for the members is the Pine Le Moray Park recommended in the Dawson Creek LRMP. It's a new class A park of about 33,000 hectares in size. It includes the Link and Mountain Creek watersheds and protects important habitat for many fish and wildlife species, including arctic grayling, caribou, moose and wolverine. This is on Highway 97, and it also provides very accessible back-country recreation opportunities.
So these are just two examples of the parks that try to combine the various value systems and provide recreational opportunities for people in companionship with some of the conservation values and the habitat protection values.
This bill also expands our ecological reserve system. British Columbia has been the leading jurisdiction in Canada in supporting the concept of ecological reserves, which perform a vital function in maintaining biological diversity, protecting genetic materials, and supporting appropriate scientific research and educational activities as primary users. So although the parks and ecological reserves serve somewhat different purposes, they do complement one another, because they both provide a wide range of opportunities for people to experience and learn from the natural world. I think it's always really important, when we are talking about protected areas, and especially ecological reserves, to recognize that we are part of the natural world. We need to understand that web of life of which we are a part and upon which we actually do depend for all of our economic prosperity, as well as, I believe, for our social and spiritual well-being.
Just a couple of examples about some of the new ecological reserves that are included in Bill 17. One of them is the Burnt Cabin Bog, which is about 670 hectares in size. It protects a large wetland complex 15 kilometres southeast of Smithers. Catherine Creek ecological reserve encompasses 45 hectares and will serve to protect a significant old-growth western cedar stand. Finally, the Grayling River Hot Springs, which is over 1,000 hectares, protects a significant hot springs complex and its associated ecological values.
As a result of the planning process, this bill does a couple of other things as well as introducing new parks. It includes additions to existing parks as a result of those same processes. One of the most significant ones I would like mention is the more than 25,000 hectares that are added to Bowron Lake Park as a result of the Prince George and Robson Valley LRMPs. I think, as anyone who is a canoeist knows about the Bowron Lake system, that the addition of these lands will significantly improve the ecological and scenic integrity of this park, which has internationally significant canoeing values. People from all over the world come just to canoe the Bowron Lake Park chain.
As well, more than 22,000 hectares are added to Monkman Park as a result of the Dawson Creek and Prince George
[ Page 16351 ]
LRMPs. Features of conservation and recreational significance will be added to the south boundary of the park. This includes the upper Fontoniko Creek valley, which has significant stands of old-growth spruce, and the Limestone Lake area, which has very high scenic and recreational values, as well as unique hydrological and geological features and areas that provide outstanding alpine hiking opportunities.
I have spent a little time giving some examples, because I really want members in this House to recognize the tremendous scope and depth of the biodiversity and cultural, recreational and economic opportunities that we have in our provincial parks system. We British Columbians have spent almost a century preserving and designating parks and ecological reserves for the enjoyment of current and future generations.
[1025]
As I stand here today at the start of the new millennium, during Environment Week, I feel it is very timely that we make that effort and that commitment to ensure that these outstanding examples of our natural heritage are preserved in undiminished splendour. It's crucial that we have the necessary legislative tools that will provide a framework for the effective and efficient management of this legacy. I believe that guaranteeing the present and future stewardship and sustainability of these wilderness areas is the greatest gift that we can pass on to our children and our grandchildren.
To that end, one of the main objectives of Bill 17 is not only to legislate those new parks that have come out of the land use planning process but also to consolidate parks and ecological reserves established in a number of places, over many decades, in a single new statute. The schedules of the bill which, as hon. members will see, are extensive, consolidate parks and ecological reserves that are currently contained in schedules of the Park Act and a large number of order-in-council protected areas. By consolidating these into one bill, this will allow us to manage the continuum of lands contained in these schedules more effectively, by making sure that they are in one piece of legislation.
Furthermore, as this government has done several times in the last few years, establishing parks and ecological reserves in schedules in an act in front of this Legislature provides the highest possible protection to these areas for permanent retention of their boundaries. Time and time again -- and we certainly heard it through the extensive legacy consultation that happened throughout British Columbia -- British Columbians are clear about that. They want to know that for those areas that we have put in protected status, their boundaries are secure forever.
This is the first time that such protection will be extended to ecological reserves, as these areas have been previously only ever established by order-in-council. So now they too and their boundaries will be secure by an act of this Legislature.
This first step of consolidating parks and ecological reserves in one act will be followed in the future by amendments to provide a consolidated legislative management structure to ensure our ability to manage, protect and sustain this incredibly enhanced system that we have created together as British Columbians over the past decade.
This future act will provide the opportunity to enhance long-term planning and management of protected areas, while building strong relationships between communities and their parks. These elements are critical components of the vision of the Parks Legacy panel. We also heard loud and clear that British Columbians care passionately about their parks; they want to be involved in their management, especially in their own communities. They want to have a role in ensuring that the parks and protected areas play a significant role in their local economy and in their local social structure.
So these are the elements and critical components. Together, this bill that we have in front of us today and the future amendments will form the foundation for our government's coordinated response to the legacy panel report.
This bill also continues the process of replacing the written metes and bounds descriptions for new parks with legally mapped boundaries that are more accurate, more understandable and more practical to use. Now, that may sound like a very small thing. But I can tell you, as somebody who's worked in this area of interest for many, many years, that the confusion that has existed about protected areas that were described in words -- metes and boundaries -- decades ago has been a continuing cause of difficulty in local communities.
Our government, my predecessor in this ministry, began that process of converting metes and bounds to mapped boundaries so that it becomes very clear as to what's inside the protected area and what is outside. And this act continues that process. The maps are referenced in the schedules to the act, and they will be kept on file at the Crown land registry to ensure their accessibility. For the information of members, a set of maps for the new parks and ecological reserves has been provided to the office of the Clerk of the assembly and to each of the caucuses for members' review.
[1030]
I want to conclude my comments at this point on second reading of Bill 17, and I very much look forward to other members' contributions to this debate on what I think is a very significant and very exciting piece of legislation that we have before us.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 17, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, and to let the minister know that on this side of the House we will be supporting this act, and to outline a few of the reasons why we will be.
I think we're truly lucky and, hopefully, grateful people to live in British Columbia. We've inherited land that is a spectacular and tremendous place in the world. It's a refuge for many species as well. As we see species threatened throughout the world, we see in British Columbia an opportunity to protect and enhance ecosystems and parks and protected areas for the future. We have certainly inherited that from generations of British Columbians who have been good stewards of the land.
But times are changing; people's attitudes are changing. I think there is a desire for protected areas and parks to be symbolized more like municipalities are zoned. If I could explain what I mean by that. In the past British Columbia has had a number of uses on the land -- forestry and mining, oil and gas -- which are tremendously important to the history and future of British Columbia. I think that what we are doing here has to be viewed in a holistic sense. We are protecting parks and protected areas; we're ensuring the protection of endangered species through this process.
But on the other hand, we're also protecting a working British Columbia by designating areas that are to be protected.
[ Page 16352 ]
We're also designating areas that will continue to be working forest, areas where mining will flourish, so that the oil and gas industry and the fishing industry and those will continue to be a major part of British Columbia's future.
So I think that for British Columbia, this process has been a good one. I think that the idea of reviewing the LRMP process every ten years, as municipalities review their local area plans, is positive. It allows future generations to have input into what British Columbia will look like and how the land will be used for the benefit of all British Columbians.
The minister said that over the past few years we've seen bills similar to this brought forward, which are designating the protected areas and parks. I think we'll continue to see that until the LRMP process is completed, and hopefully that will be in the next couple of years. The benefits to British Columbia for tourism, economic growth, environmental stewardship and tourism is, I think, enhanced by this
Again I want to reinforce that this process has been undertaken by a vast number of British Columbians. It has tried to enable industry, municipalities and communities to be part of the process, and I realize that some industries have been more supportive of the process than others. Others have found that their interests haven't been looked at in the light that they would have them looked at. I think we will have to continue to refine the process that enables more and more people to be included in it. In the end, the consensus of British Columbians will be the success of operations and processes like this.
[1035]
The minister also said that they're nearing the 12 percent goal for parks. It will be interesting to see, as the other LRMP processes are brought forward, what the final percentage of parkland is and what the final percentage of working forests and areas for industry to be part of is. So we look to the next few years for those results to come to the House. For me, one of the true joys of living in British Columbia is the outdoors, and I think I probably share that with every member of this House and all British Columbians.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill. There are a number of areas that I wish to look at in more depth at committee stage, and that would be to ensure that the park boundaries have not been altered, relative to the LRMP process recommendations for protected area status, to explore some of the minor changes to other acts that lead off the bill and to address some of the outstanding concerns in that area -- also, to determine if any of the parks announced were made outside of the land use planning process. I suspect that probably isn't the case, but I wish to deal with that at committee stage as well.
I would like to join with the minister in congratulating the citizens who have taken part in the LRMP process. I would encourage the government to continue to expand the number of people on those processes so they represent a consensus of British Columbians.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity
Hon. M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure for me today to make an introduction and a short comment. In the gallery we have 30 grade 6 students and 20 adults and their teacher, Mr. Fader, of Our Lady of the Assumption School in my riding in Port Coquitlam. Before I ask the House to make them welcome, I'd like to also acknowledge that amongst the students is a grandson of a former Health minister -- the former Health minister being Jim Nielsen. His grandson Andrew Nielsen is in the gallery. So I think that it's appropriate, as today's Health minister, to introduce not only the school but Andrew Nielsen, the grandson of the former Health minister Jim Nielsen, into the Legislature. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to speak on the bill. I don't know if my
friends have got introductions, but
I want to say a little bit about the bill and reiterate what the bill does. Then I want to say why I'm up here speaking as the Minister of Small Business and Tourism -- how it affects Small Business and Tourism and why it's important.
Just to reiterate, this bill, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, is adding 29 new class A parks and six new ecological reserves to our protected-areas system. We are also expanding 13 existing class A parks. We are also affording the strongest protection for the boundaries of 169 existing class A parks and 136 existing ecological reserves which had previously been established by order-in-council.
British Columbia is the first province in Canada to place the boundaries of ecological reserves in legislation. When I look at the students up here today from Port Coquitlam, an area which I used to represent in the federal Parliament, it's good to see the students here. Once again, young people especially always express the strongest possible support for the environment, because they know that's their future -- clean air, clean water, parks. That's their future. They are some of the strongest supporters for the environment, and I'm glad they're here to hear a debate about the environment.
I might add that the hon. minister and the critic of the opposition spoke -- two very positive speeches. I want to congratulate the minister. She is a pure heart for the environment. She is one of the most committed environmentalists I know. She has never wavered from her positions. She's a strong advocate for the environment. She follows some good ministers in the past. I think she's becoming one of the best, and I congratulate her for her work and her bill. She is a strong advocate, and it's apparent to all of us.
[1040]
I want to say a little bit about why the bill is important for tourism and for small business. The Liberal critic, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, expressed this view a few minutes ago, and I would reiterate that.
You know, tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world right now. Ecotourism -- a part of that, nature tourism if you like -- is the fastest-growing part of tourism. I believe, because of the park system that we set in motion here, that we have almost 12 percent of our parks -- after a great deal of effort and excruciating pain. You know, there are difficulties in doing that.
But it's a good investment, and it will be an investment for the future. We are very well poised here to become the
[ Page 16353 ]
leading area of ecotourism in the world. I predict that areas like the North Island, the Central Coast, the Kootenays, the North Cariboo and the northwest and northeast will become the top areas in the world for ecotourism. That is going to mean a huge growth for British Columbia. It's going to mean a lot of challenges. We're going to have to manage it, but I think we can do that.
We've started, in the government, with a three-part program, if you like. I think it's important to have a plan. In business they have business plans, and in government you should have a plan. A good example of a plan that works is the plan that we had with the film industry. We got together with the film unions and the producers, and we worked out a five-point plan. We've achieved a billion-dollar film industry, the top in North America next to Hollywood and New York. That was a real achievement. I'm convinced it was done through working together, through a partnership between government and the private sector.
Now we have what I think is just the beginnings of a plan, in terms of
developing ecotourism, and these parks fit right into it. The first part of the
plan -- it's a three-point plan -- is to establish what we call gateway
communities -- that is, to pick a community that will be near one of the parks
or near the area of a wilderness or a park, where we could concentrate kind of a
take-off point into the park. We've designated three communities: Valemount,
Wells -- you know, the little town near Barkerville
I meant to add in my earlier remarks that God did give us this beautiful province. It's a nice thing to work with and one of the most beautiful areas in the world.
So the gateway communities are part of the plan. The second part of the plan was to look at areas in the province where we could identify possible developments in ecotourism, where we could offer it up that the government could use its resources in mapping, land use planning and expertise. We could give that to entrepreneurs -- small businesses, mostly -- who want to go and develop the ecotourism business, if you like, and that's beginning to work.
[1045]
Thirdly, we wanted to establish best practices in how to deal with ecotourism. For example, as I often say to people: "Well, you can't have 40 Zodiacs chasing one poor whale. You've got to get the practices to where you don't destroy what you're going to see or what you're going to experience." That's true with viewing grizzly bears on the central coast; it's true with birding; it's true with looking at sheep in the mountains. We have to find ways that we can discipline ourselves so that we don't wreck the beautiful resources and the great animals that we have.
We've chosen to do that with industry. I have said publicly that I prefer that we have industry practices, that we let the businesses get together and make their practices, and I believe that they will do that. If they don't do it, then it's the
role of the government to step in and regulate. But I would prefer that the businesses do that, and that's the third part of our plan. We're working closely with the businesses.
I don't know if you read polls, hon. Speaker. Of course no politician ever admits to reading a public opinion poll -- right? And many slavishly do that and follow them -- not us, of course.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Not us, not us.
But if you look at the Angus Reid poll that came out last week, which the
high-tech people were offering as a support for helping the high-tech industry,
one of the interesting findings was
One of the engines of growth in the province was the tourism industry. I think they're dead-on. We have a $9.2 billion tourism industry; we're looking at $9.4 billion next year. We've got record growth in American tourists. One would expect some of that because of the value of the dollar, but it's also because word of mouth about how good British Columbia is and how good the people and the services are here is going back to the United States. Plus, Tourism B.C. has got a marketing campaign called the B.C. Escapes program, which won a Pacific award in Hong Kong about a month ago for the best marketing program under $5 million in the whole Pacific region of the world.
I'm pretty proud of what they're doing. That is attracting tourists to British Columbia. Now, there are some challenges. I am particularly concerned about the airline mergers.
An Hon. Member: Is this a ministerial statement?
Hon. I. Waddell: No, no. This is a speech on the parks, because it's all tied in with the parks.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: No, no. We need to get people
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. member will listen to me, I'll explain the idea to you.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, hon. members.
Hon. I. Waddell: The idea is to create parks, because it's good to create parks in themselves and to preserve what we've got. But also, it's a good investment, as I argued a few minutes ago. But you need to get people up there to the gateway communities. You need to get people up to Smithers and Terrace and so on. That's why it's important to pay attention, as I suggest to the hon. members, to what's happening with the airline mergers, because there might not be
[ Page 16354 ]
enough capacity to get up there, or there might be very high prices. This is what the small business owners were telling me when I was in Prince Rupert and in Smithers, as well, and the Minister of Employment and Investment and I are very concerned with this.
I just want to draw the members' attention
An Hon. Member: You read the newspapers.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah, I read the newspapers -- even the Liberal
newspaper, the Vancouver Sun. But this
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Oh yeah, they are a Liberal newspaper.
But this is a particularly unbiased article, actually, and that's why I'm reading it.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: That's about it, actually.
Mr. McInnes talks about a plan to create 350,000 hectares of parkland bisected by one of the wildest sections of the Stikine River. It's been agreed to in a regional planning process, and it has now come up to the government for a decision. There were a number of groups, hon. Speaker: natives -- first nations, and I congratulate the Tahltan people in this and Glenda Ferris; environmentalists; ranching; tourism; community interests. In short, there's everybody but mining, and I hope the mining interests would see fit to kind of get with it and take part in these processes.
[1050]
But they've come up with a plan. The reason I mention this is that it's current today, and it recommends that land be protected as parkland in the Stikine corridor between the Spatsizi Plateau wilderness park and the Mount Edziza Park. Well, I was there this summer with the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I went through the area, and I flew in a small plane up the canyon of the Stikine. You know, we have like a Grand Canyon in Canada -- in British Columbia.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member just realized that I'm from
Vancouver. I have a constituency in Vancouver. I never realized, to be honest,
how spectacular it was, and I didn't realize that Mount Edziza is an old, old
volcano
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Perhaps the hon. members don't appreciate a little honesty about this, but that's what someone from the lower mainland sees. I saw a magnificent mountain. I saw an extinct volcano. I saw a canyon that is unsurpassed in beauty, I think, almost anywhere in North America, and now we have a park here where future generations can use this.
Our challenge is to find out how we can use it. I took a small plane with a small operator. Actually, it was a branch of Harbour Air, which flies us over here. It's a small business. I talked to the Tahltans, and they were operating a small business there as well. There were other companies operating in the area, taking in wilderness tours. There were small places where there were beautiful, beautiful lodges which people have developed -- mainly family businesses and so on. So this is a huge potential for investment. It's not just a park for the sake of the park. There are other reasons behind it as well. That's why I'm so proud of what we're doing here.
I want to conclude by saying that I see this as part of the new economy. This is really the new economy in British Columbia. The new economy is going to be based on education; that is, it's going to be a knowledge economy. That's why we're putting so many resources into young people and into education. It's going to be based on a clean environment, and that means clean air, clean water and good parks. It's going to be based on a healthy population, and that means good health care for everybody -- not a two-tiered system, but for everybody in the province. Finally, it also means, as the Minister of the Environment will always remind me, investing in the green economy -- in green businesses -- which is really part of small business. Many of them are small businesses. This is the way of the future. That's why this bill is important. I'm very pleased to support it.
R. Neufeld: I also rise to speak in favour of Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. I am one of the members that lives in the northern part of British Columbia. I have lived there most of my life and have been able to enjoy much of the pristine back country that we have in the province of British Columbia. I respect it very much; so do the people that live where I come from. They enjoy going into the great outdoors. Many of them hunt, but not all of them. They have done that for a long time and would like to continue doing those things. They have enjoyed much of the area.
The Muskwa-Kechika is an area
[1055]
The Tatshenshini is another huge area that was set aside by this government without very much public consultation -- in fact, I would say almost none. There was more consultation with the American government over the creation of the Tatshenshini than there was with the public of British Columbia, unfortunately. The Tatshenshini is a huge area -- again, over a million hectares -- accessible only to, I would say, the very wealthy, not the average British Columbian. In fact, it has locked away a lot of mining that could have helped the province of British Columbia tremendously.
I think that along with parks, along with protected areas and back country, we also have to remember that there must be a viable, good, sound resource industry in the province of British Columbia -- that being all resources. I listened intently to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. I guess he is only concerned about tourism, because he did not once mention that there are other economies in the province of British Columbia that actually make British Columbia tick.
I agree, to a certain degree, that tourism is very important. It's a big part of our economy. But so are the other
[ Page 16355 ]
traditional industries that we have. I think basically about mining, forestry, oil and gas, generation of hydro -- all those industries that we need in this province, actually, along with tourism, if we're going to be able to continue to provide good education and good health care for the people of British Columbia. Goodness knows, in the last number of years the type of health care that we've seen provided by this present government has been less than stellar. Wait-lists are at their longest. People are not able to access the health care system. We have hospitals that are closing around the province. That's because of no plan looking at the province as a whole, at the economy and how you're going to provide those services.
I did notice, though, that the Minister of Small Business spoke once about
mining and actually endorsed mining to a certain degree. I was pleased to see
that, because it is an important part of our economy. He endorsed it in a way
that said that mining is important, that they should actually be at the table in
the LRMP process. I agree: I think that the mining people should be at the LRMP
table. They have chosen not to be. But I think it's incumbent on the present
government -- the Minister of Small Business, the Minister of Energy and Mines
and the Minister of Environment -- to be working with the mining industry to try
and encourage them to come back to the table. I don't think that they have to
British Columbia is highly mineralized. Mining has provided and provides today a huge amount of well-paying jobs. In fact, I'm told that the average wage in the mining industry is the highest of any industry in the province. Some $75,000 a year is the average salary for somebody working directly in the mining industry. Those are the kinds of jobs that actually provide the tax revenue to be able to provide British Columbians, in turn, good health care and good education.
[1100]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
So I think it's important that they're at the table. I know the oil and gas people are at the table in most of those areas; I think it's important that they're there. So is forestry. I think it's important that they're there, because we do have to look at all of those issues very seriously.
I want to come back to the costs of parks and some of the discussions we had
in the past years when this present government decided to put away 12 percent in
parks. It was heralded at that time at 12 percent. It was the Brundtland report
that put forward the 12 percent. People in British Columbia and the government
of the day, under Mike Harcourt, said that they wanted to set aside 12 percent
of the province. So did the opposition parties. I believe that probably people
in British Columbia generally said: "Yes, if we can set aside 12 percent
into parks
The minister said earlier in her speech that we have pretty well reached 12 percent -- I think 11.8 percent or something close to that. It's very close -- 12 percent, give or take a few percentage points, of the province of British Columbia into parks. But as I understand, only half of the land base is reported out. When you think about that, if only 50 percent of the province under the LRMP process has reported out and we're at 12 percent, there are some issues that the present government, in the rest of their mandate is going to have to deal with -- and a future government, whoever that may be.
I think those are serious questions that we should be looking at. I don't take that lightly. I think that's probably part of the problem -- in fact, I know it is part of the problem -- of why the mining industry is no longer at the table. That's one of the issues. I think that somehow we have to look at this in a serious way and say: "Yes, British Columbians bought into 12 percent, but we haven't finished. We're only halfway through the project, and we're at 12 percent."
The other issue is the cost of parks and maintaining them. The minister knows
that. It's very expensive to have parks and maintain them. A good example in my
constituency, a number of years ago, two parks
But what happened a number of years ago was interesting. In the name of saving money for parks -- because it was too expensive to operate them -- they closed over half of Andy Bailey Park. As I understand it, they took out the fire pits, the tables -- those things. They did the same at Prophet River Wayside Park, which is right along the Alaska Highway. They closed it. In fact, I know that at the Prophet River site, the contractor who was maintaining the sites was given the contract to remove all of the fire pits and tables.
[1105]
Then lo and behold, a year later, what shows up as a class A park? Now, remember, it wasn't a class A park when we took out the tables and the fire pits. But a year or so later, when we want to create more parks, guess what shows up? Andy Bailey Park shows up as a class A park. It's in here today; in fact it's No. 8, for the minister's information. And Prophet River -- it's No. 293 -- shows up as a class A park.
It makes one wonder -- and in fact it makes the people in the north wonder -- what in the world is going on. One day it's too expensive to have. A year later we're going to create another class A park, because we want to have -- and add to another bill this big -- some more names so that it looks like we're really looking after things.
This government was quite willing to close those parks and then rename them class A parks. Every year we get a bill about this size that renames every park we have in the province of British Columbia -- that does the metes and bounds of every park we have in British Columbia and that we've had since British Columbia's been a province. You include each and every one of them so it's a nice big fat bill, so it looks good.
I don't think we have to do those kind of things. I think we can add to the act the new parks that are created -- the 29
[ Page 16356 ]
and the six reserves -- quite easily, without going through the whole process. The minister knows quite well that this is just more of an issue to show people or make people think that every year, we've got this many more new parks. And that's not quite true. I would like to see where every year we get down to dealing with the parks that actually are re-created in a bill, rather than trying to rename them all and go through the history of how great it is that we have all these parks.
The other issue that the minister talked about -- and I was quite amazed --
was the issue of secure-forever parks -- that this bill today will secure
forever the metes and bounds of those parks. You know, when I go back and look
at what was created in the LRMP process, which I think is probably not that bad
a process, where you involve as many people as you can locally
I believe that every ten years there's an opener, that you can re-open that process and revisit. I don't think anything is secure forever. The minister will maybe clarify for me whether she thinks that this should stay forever or whether she agrees with the ten-year opener on the LRMP process of every one of these LRMP regions, so that local people can go in and revisit what they've done, what's set up. Maybe there's more to add; maybe there's more to take away. Or maybe I misunderstood the minister. Maybe she means that the metes and bounds that are here today will stay forever and that if you want to add, that's okay, but if you ever want to take away and add somewhere else, you can't do that.
I think we should be looking at these issues with maybe a little bit more
flexibility. I don't say that we should take away any parks, but we should be
looking at them in a more flexible way, so that people ten years from now
The other thing that I think is happening too quickly with the LRMP process is that from the time the process is finished to where you give it to the public, you don't give the public enough time to actually look at it. I appreciate that not all of the public is going to digest all of the issues around some of the larger LRMP processes, but they should be given a decent amount of time. If you're talking about taking six years or so to put together a process for the Muskwa-Kechika, for instance, you should give at least more than a week for the public -- that being all the people -- to have a look at this and see whether they agree with it or not and to voice their concerns. That doesn't mean you will react to all their concerns, but at least give them the opportunity. It's something called consultation, which is sadly lacking in a lot of areas in the province of British Columbia. So I would actually like to see that.
[1110]
Just a couple more things. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism talked
about ecotourism being the future for the province of British Columbia -- that
this was going to mean all kinds of good things for British Columbia; and that
his government is looking very hard at this kind of thing; and that it's really
going to help things. I bring to the minister's attention a company
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The minister says to try the Motor Carrier Commission.
Well, you know what? I think this minister
An Hon. Member: Nine years.
R. Neufeld: Nine years to try and build a ski hill, because there's too much red tape in the province. There's too much control by government. The minister talked about that. He didn't think private enterprise should be doing a lot of it; he thought government should be controlling most of it. And rightfully so, and here they are. They're controlling most of it, and it's not happening, Mr. Speaker. It's not happening.
So I think there are some areas where this government has to reflect on itself, reflect on its own performance, and say: "My goodness. Maybe there are some areas that we're not looking after as well as we actually could. And if we really want to promote ecotourism, we should be doing that instead of just standing in the House talking about it."
I think that with those few short words I will again say that I will vote in favour of Bill 17. I think there are other ways we can go about this. I hope the minister has taken some of the points I've made about how we create these parks and how we actually look after them once they're created -- for the enjoyment of all British Columbians, not just for the rich and wealthy.
Just going back to the Muskwa-Kechika, it's the size of Nova Scotia. It is
huge. Yet some of the issues that happen in those areas after they're set aside
as parks
Not a lot of people own a horse. There are quite a few people, if you're a rancher, who can afford to own a horse. But there are a lot of people that used to access Muskwa-Kechika on four-wheelers or motorbikes. Someone shakes their head. Remembering it's the size of Nova Scotia, that's the problem that some of the people from the lower mainland have: they don't understand the expanse and the size. Try walking into
[ Page 16357 ]
the Muskwa-Kechika; I'll see you in three or four years. Have a good time. Take a real good backpack and about three pairs of shoes, because you'll need them.
[1115]
There are access issues that local people -- and this is again local people -- want. And let's remember, that was what the minister talked about. This is local people and industry making these decisions. So local people want to have a little better access. They're not going to go in there and wreck the alpine; no, they're not. That's their back yard. That's where these people live, and we should respect, understand and know that. They want to be able to have access to those areas. Someone that lives in downtown Fort St. John doesn't own a horse, or Fort Nelson. If you're a rancher and live on the outskirts, you can afford to own a horse. But it's a little more difficult for someone that lives right in town. So there are some issues that we have to deal with.
In fact, there's one last thing I'd like to say. Not this next week but the week after, I'm going to take four days off. Actually, I just found out now that the House isn't even sitting. I am going to go into the Muskwa-Kechika and look around for a while, and I'm going to hike. I'm not going to walk in; I'm going to ride in, in an airplane. You need an airplane to access those areas and to be able to enjoy some of the ecotourism that is being promoted by a new firm that's providing that service in the Muskwa-Kechika. I look forward to that tour and can hardly wait.
I was going to mention a bit about the Bijoux Falls issue, but I notice the member for Peace River South is in the House and is going to speak, I believe, and actually Bijoux Falls falls within his territory. It's much the same issue as I have with Prophet River or Andy Bailey Lake. So with those few words, I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed I, at some point, do want to talk about Bijoux Falls. But before I do, I want to recognize some of the significant parks that have been created. I think the Northern Rocky Mountains Park is worthy of acknowledgment. I know there's a risk when you have a bill with a lot of parks, and there's a tendency, I suppose, for people to want to talk about the parks in their area. But when you are creating a new park with over a million acres of newly designated parklands, I think it warrants acknowledgment or singling out. I want to do that.
I'm pleased with the decision to move ahead with that, and I support it. I also, with less enthusiasm I guess, recognize the Pine Le Moray Park. It's something that came out of the LRMP process, and government has moved on it. Additions to Monkman Park, with Kinuseo Falls as part of the park, are significant, particularly because of the troubles currently facing the community of Tumbler Ridge and their attempt to move into the ecotourism area. I think that an addition to Monkman Park is useful in that respect.
Having said those few words, I did rise because I want to talk about Bijoux Falls. The Ministry of Lands and Parks decided last year that they were going to remove the facilities from Bijoux Falls. Bijoux Falls is a small class A park -- or was -- alongside of Highway 97. A beautiful falls, a nice picnic area -- it's a place where people go, spend an afternoon, have a picnic lunch and stop and stretch their legs. Last year the ministry announced that it was no longer going to provide toilet facilities and park benches at Bijoux Falls. The ministry came to the conclusion, or at least justified this decision, by saying that indeed there was a toilet 40 kilometres on each side of the park and, therefore, no need for those facilities within the park.
[1120]
Some of the other members who are about my age, I guess, have come to appreciate how difficult a 40-kilometre jaunt to the outhouse can be. It's funny. But if you think about it a little bit, what's going to happen at that park? What's going to happen at the park now that the outhouses have been removed and the park benches and the picnic tables aren't there? Either people are not going to stop, or if they do, they are going to use nature in a more basic way. I think that the minister may want to know or be reminded that what we're talking about is $9,000 a year that the ministry was paying a contractor to maintain the park.
But instead, the ministry pulled out the picnic tables, pulled out the toilets -- for a while, actually blocked off the entrances to the park as part of the solution, to dissuade motorists from pulling off and stopping. My constituents have been outraged. For generations they've gone to the park; it's been one of those day trips. It's an opportunity for people -- seniors in their 80s and 90s -- to actually get out and enjoy a park. Because of the terrain around the bottom side of the falls, it's a great place for handicapped people, people in wheelchairs, to get out and visit a park, see some blue jays and enjoy a nice area.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what solution the Parks ministry has come up with to that problem? They simply left Bijoux Falls out of the list. Now, without even a stroke of a pen, the minister simply eliminated Bijoux Falls as a park.
The minister talks about maintaining parks and bounds, saying that no one will ever be able to change a park again. Well, I would argue that the next person could do exactly what this minister's done: bring in a bill, describe all of the parks and leave out the ones you don't like, leave out the ones you don't want to service anymore.
Mr. Speaker, I see the minister shaking her head, and I'll be anxious to hear her explanation. I look at section 2, under "Parks," and it says: "The parks named and described in Schedules C and D are continued or established as Class A parks for the purposes of the Park Act." When you turn to schedules A and C, there is no Bijoux Falls, so one can only assume that the minister has found an ingenious solution to her $9,000 service problem at Bijoux Falls. She has simply eliminated it.
Now the minister appears amused. If indeed I'm wrong -- if indeed section 2 is wrong, if indeed section 2 doesn't describe those parks which are continued or established as class A parks -- perhaps she will explain to me how, then, she will amend this section so that it properly reflects the continuation of Bijoux Falls as a park, if indeed that's her intent.
But I believe -- I have every reason to believe -- that the solution to the problem of a $9,000 dispute with the Minister of Transportation and Highways has been resolved simply by eliminating a park, without even a reference to it. And that's what it is. This is a dispute between bureaucrats in the Ministry of Parks and bureaucrats in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, over who is going to provide services to motorists along the highway. The park is simply a victim of some bureaucratic warfare.
[ Page 16358 ]
If indeed I'm wrong -- if, in reading the act, I'm incorrect -- I'll be happy to hear that. And I will anticipate, then, the minister bringing in an amendment to section 2 that clarifies how parks are described in this section. But I want to tell you that if the minister continues to neglect that area, a future government, I am convinced, will recognize the pressures of the people in the Peace who want to protect a very small, very pristine, very pretty, very accessible little park -- and that's Bijoux Falls Park.
[1125]
I want to conclude by saying that I am troubled with the direction that Parks appear to be going. Parks appear to be fascinated with remote areas, with preservation, and are looking to abandon the services to ordinary British Columbians who like to get out and spend an hour, a day, an afternoon, and can't afford to hire an outfitter to take them into some remote area.
I would further submit that Parks doesn't want them to get there. Parks doesn't want people in their parks. Parks wants to act as preservationist. They don't want, as the Minister of Tourism suggests, to have people flying in from Europe or driving in from the United States to go to these parks -- not at all.
If that were the case, Bijoux Falls, which is on Highway 97, which is
travelled by Americans going on their way to Alaska
Preservation is important, and British Columbia, by most measures, is doing a pretty good job in that area. But it's at the expense of small urban and easily accessible rural parks. I'm disappointed that in fact this act no longer recognizes Bijoux Falls as a class A park; I think that's a travesty.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I thank the hon. members for their comments on second
reading of Bill 17. I will try to respond, just briefly, to some of the points
that have been raised, beginning with the member for Peace River North -- not to
bypass the comments from my hon. critic, who I was
The hon. member has suggested that in addition to recognizing the role of
parks and protected areas, we also need to recognize that there are other strong
resource industries that are important to communities throughout British
Columbia. I certainly agree with him. What the land use planning process
I also think that as we grow in our understanding of what that means and of the impact of human activity on the limits of the ecosystem, we can learn to appreciate that parks and especially ecological reserves can provide that increased knowledge and understanding that will help us manage the other 88 percent of the landscape that may not be in protected-area status. I think we are seeing in many of the resource industries -- forestry, for example -- that there are some companies that are taking leadership roles in terms of changing their practices to be able to achieve a market advantage. Those kinds of understandings do come from having parks, ecological reserves and the knowledge that we can get from them.
[1130]
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
His comments on the 12 percent
If the hon. member is suggesting -- amongst all his comments about support of local processes, respecting local and regional people's ability to influence what happens in their communities and regions for themselves and their children -- that we should now, because we have reached 12 percent, put a stop to these local land use planning processes, then I hope he would clarify that. I think that around this province right now, the people who are devoting their time and energy to come up with land use plans in their areas -- and those that have not yet begun -- would be very interested to know if that is the position of the members opposite, that we should stop these land use planning processes and thereby take away the opportunity for people in British Columbia to sit around those stakeholder tables and work out compromises amongst themselves.
The hon. member also suggested that this is a very fat bill; yes, it is.
There are several schedules to several parks. But I think he did not listen
clearly to my comments. Yes, there are a number of new parks and protected areas
that have been put before this Legislature today. But a substantial amount of
those schedules is the transferring of existing class A parks and ecological
reserves from order-in-council to legislation. That is the reason that the bill
is very fat, and I support that, because when I made my comments, saying that
would ensure we are responding to British Columbians' priorities to have
confidence that their parks and protected areas and ecological reserves are
secure
Any future government, any future Legislature that chooses to question the boundaries of the parks as established will need to come in this House and do that. That is the public's best security, which we can give them, that they will know and understand what is happening to their parks. That is why we put that schedule in place; that is why we are bringing them into this Legislature. I have great confidence that future generations of British Columbians will fight very hard to ensure that those protected areas remain protected. But if the member is saying that in supporting this bill he would still want to leave open the door for a future government -- perhaps from that side of the House over to this side of the House -- to question the boundaries of those parks, to question the parks that we would be protecting by legislation, then, again, I think British Columbians do need to hear clarification of that.
I do want to now address the comments of the hon. member for Peace River South and clarify once again for him
[ Page 16359 ]
the status of Bijoux Falls. I would very much invite
[1135]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
I have clarified in question period to the hon. member that, yes, we are discussing its role. It does serve a very important function to drivers along that highway, being, as the hon. member has said, a very attractive spot that provides the opportunity for a rest stop function or for use by local people; I support that, hon. member. That is exactly why, as I have told him, I've reinforced our commitment to Bijoux Falls and also committed to reviewing his concerns on that. So we are not abandoning the role of Bijoux Falls.
We are not abandoning all of those many small parks that may not be in the piece of legislation at this time for all sorts of different reasons. There are several other parks that are not in this schedule, because we haven't been able to secure a definition of the boundary. There are several parks that are not on this schedule yet because, under land use planning processes, they may include commitments of access for resource development, etc., that may not be compatible under a class A park. So they are remaining under the Environment and Land Use Act. So there are many reasons for many parks to not yet be here in these schedules. I want to assure the hon. member that the fact that Bijoux Falls is not in the schedule today as we debate this second reading does not mean that it is not still a class A park. And I know that the people of that region very much welcome the hon. member's defence of Bijoux Falls.
Finally, I will end on this note, and I think it is a good note to end on, because the member for Peace River South did mention this concern between preservation and recreation. I think that is an important public debate which has happened as part of the Legacy panel that we will need to respond to as we flesh out this Protected Areas of British Columbia Act around the future management of parks.
Clearly British Columbians do feel very strongly -- and we have seen this happen to national parks as well -- that conservation of those fundamental values that we are trying to protect here must take precedence in order to actually have the recreational opportunities, the economic opportunities, whether it's ecotourism or public recreation. So the two are intrinsically linked. We have in British Columbia a continuum of the priorities that each of those goals gets, from ecological reserves, which clearly give precedence to natural systems and protection of ecosystems, right to our most developed parks that are very much given a priority to recreation, whether it's family recreation and campgrounds or other kinds of recreation.
So we have a continuum. I want to ensure, hon. members, that as we continue to work to put in place a management system, a stewardship system, for this magnificent system of protected areas, we will keep in mind that continuum of all of the roles that we want our protected areas to play.
So with that, in closing debate, I do close debate on second reading of Bill 17.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The Speaker: The minister having closed debate, I'll put the question on second reading.
Second reading of Bill 17 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia 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.
[1145]
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call continued debate, second reading, of Bill 16.
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
C. Hansen: I would ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Hansen: There is a group of grade 5 students from York House School in the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. I had the opportunity to meet with them earlier, and I told them there would probably only be maybe ten or 11 MLAs in the House, not realizing that this division was coming. So they had the opportunity to witness yet another part of our parliamentary process. But I would like the House to join me in welcoming the students from York House and the teachers and parents that are accompanying them.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
G. Plant: We were debating and are now again debating Bill 16, the Electoral Districts Amendment Act. I think the debate began yesterday afternoon. I had been talking about the history of electoral boundaries in British Columbia and in particular the history of the process that led to the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the reports that they issued in 1998 and 1999 containing recommendations to change the boundaries of the electoral districts of British Columbia and indeed a recommendation to increase the number of electoral districts in British Columbia.
The commission was appointed, as I said at the conclusion of my remarks yesterday, by order-in-council dated December 4, 1997. It went about its work in compliance with its statutory timetable. It prepared a report to the Legislative Assembly that was dated December 3, 1998, and it then took another six months to allow for public input on the proposals in its first report before tabling a further report on June 3, 1999. That report is the basis of the legislation that the government introduced just a few weeks later to give effect to the recommendations of the commission. In fact, what there was, first of all, was a resolution in this assembly to endorse the recommendations of the commission. That resolution passed.
The way that the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act works is that once there is such a resolution in this assembly, then the government is obliged to introduce a bill giving effect to those recommendations. The government did introduce a bill; it was the Electoral Districts Act. It was introduced and passed in the closing weeks of the session that ended in the summer of 1999.
[ Page 16360 ]
The statutory requirement is that the legislation that is introduced be legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Unfortunately, that actually did not take place, because the bill that was introduced and passed last summer did not in every respect give effect to the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. In fact, the bill that was introduced last summer contained errors in the description of the electoral districts. It contained, I'm told, 380 such errors.
The errors that were contained, I'm told, in the bill that was passed last summer were not the fault of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Rather, they were the result of the failure on the part of the government to do its job properly when it tried to translate the recommendations of the commission into the metes and bounds description that it appended as the schedule to the Electoral Districts Act that it passed last summer.
When you think of the task of drafting a complete set of boundary
descriptions, I think you would not be surprised to
[1150]
As I said yesterday, the whole reason for the problem that we are presented with now and is being fixed, we hope, by the Electoral Districts Amendment Act, 2000 is because the government failed to do what it had to do to appoint the commission in the early years of the current parliament.
Apparently the history is that after the Electoral Districts Act was passed last summer, the chief electoral office, the office of Elections B.C., tried to make some sense of the electoral districts for the purpose of creating the necessary material for the upcoming election -- which of course could have been, I suppose, last fall and could be at any time now. My information is that fairly shortly after Elections B.C. began the task of trying to use the Electoral Districts Act of last summer for the purpose of drawing the necessary maps and presenting and preparing the necessary materials for an election, they discovered errors in the metes and bounds descriptions contained in the Electoral Districts Act.
That is, they found instances where the very technical descriptions of the boundaries in last summer's bill either did not give effect to the recommendation of the Electoral Boundaries Commission or created minor difficulties, minor absurdities, arising from confusing language. And for the most part, although there are 380 of these errors, I am told that the vast, vast majority of them are just technical errors. A line on a map goes left instead of right; it goes north instead of south, with the result that it's difficult to make sense of the description. I'm told that in one particular case, there's a fairly significant change that affected Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain electoral district. It had to do with the location of the boundary of that district on the Coquitlam River. While maybe as many as 2,000 people were affected by that error, I'm told that it has now been corrected.
The opposition has a concern with the process that was followed. As the
errors came to the attention of Elections B.C
I'm told that the Elections B.C. people were working with the government to deal with the problem presented by these errors, and no doubt it is that work that produced the bill that we now have before us. Unfortunately, the Elections B.C. people did not see fit to inform the opposition or the independent members of the Legislature that they had identified these concerns.
[1155]
I want to put that concern on the record, because I think it's important that all members of this assembly and all British Columbians understand that when we create, by legislation, an independent officer of this Legislature, we are not creating another branch of the civil service. We are not creating another arm of government. We are creating something -- at least, we think we are creating something -- quite special and unique. All of the individuals who hold those offices, I think, need to be reminded of that fact from time to time. Indeed, I know that the chief electoral officer has had discussions with members of the caucus of which I'm a member, the opposition, about the concerns that we have about the fact that at least five months went by before we finally heard about these problems.
Of course, the difficulty is that the government then introduces a bill and assures us that the 380 errors that it has now identified are the last set of errors. Because we in the opposition were kept in the dark for five months while this process was being undertaken, and because we in the opposition did not have access on an ongoing basis to the fairly significant resources of Elections B.C. to determine the truth and the accuracy of this material as it was being developed, we're caught in a fairly difficult position.
Just as last summer when we were forced to rely on the assurances of government, which were given, that there were no errors, we are going to be forced to rely on those assurances again. We will seek them in committee stage debate. No doubt we will be given them again. We were given them last summer. Last summer I asked the question whether there were any errors. I was told there were none. That was 380 errors ago.
We now are told that there are no errors, and perhaps indeed that assurance will be correct. We'll see. Perhaps by next week, when the bill comes up for committee debate, there will be amendments, and we'll see some more errors. I certainly hope not. I certainly hope that the Elections B.C. people have learned that there is an important aspect to their role as an independent office of the Legislature.
I really hope that members of the public and the government also get this point: one of the reasons why we're here in this mess, correcting these things, is because the government rushed through a bill last summer. That is what we've been doing, as I said, all week. We've been correcting the government's messes; we've been tidying up their errors from legislation past.
[ Page 16361 ]
One of the reasons we do that is because we have a parliamentary set of rules, a set of standing orders, that gives the government the ability to introduce legislation and to ram it through at the end of a legislative session without exposing it to public debate and without ensuring that the public have a long and careful opportunity to scrutinize it. I know the government has put a motion on the order paper that they think will address that. The sad fact is that it won't address that; it will just move that problem to a different time of year.
This bill is, I think, an absolutely perfect example of the dangers inherent in the practice followed by this government, and a reason why we should take a much different approach to the way in which we expose legislation to the public. I sure hope that the 380 errors that are supposedly corrected in this bill are the last such errors.
Clearly all members on this side of the House want to get on with the business of finalizing the electoral districts, ensuring that they are accurately described. And to that end, we will of course support the legislation. But it seems to me that for the reasons I've indicated, there were some important issues raised here, and I've tried to give you an indication of what those issues were. That concludes my remarks.
Deputy Speaker: The Attorney General, closing debate.
Hon. A. Petter: With an eye on the clock, I'll very quickly close the debate. I'll simply say this. I know the role of the opposition is to oppose, but I am constantly amazed at the ability of the opposition to get bogged down in minutiae and lose sight of the big picture. The fact is that this government has fulfilled the commitment that we made to have a non-partisan process for electoral district drawing and reform. That was pursued through the commission that the member referred to. That commission reported out.
[1200]
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: The member says the legislation
Deputy Speaker: Members, please. The member listened to you, member.
If you could
Hon. A. Petter: The member says the legislation was rushed through
last session. It was rushed through because it was statutorily obliged. The
government was
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: I didn't heckle the member when he spoke. He might extend the same courtesy to me.
It was rushed through because we were statutorily obliged -- as the member, in his own remarks, acknowledged -- to introduce the legislation at the same sitting. And now, in the face of some errors that were made, those errors are being corrected, and the mandate to have a non-partisan electoral redistricting commission and its report fulfilled is being met. That surely is something to celebrate and something I would have thought the member would want to congratulate the government on. He will have an opportunity, if he wishes to pursue questions about specific issues, to do so in committee stage. But he's also already had the benefit of talking to Elections B.C. about any concerns about the process in respect of whether or not these changes do address all of the concerns, and I believe that Elections B.C. believe that they do.
With that, hon. Speaker, I'd simply say that it would be nice if once in a while the opposition would give some credit where credit is due. This has been a non-partisan redistricting process that even the opposition has had to acknowledge and support. If they would lose sight of some of the negativity once in a while and give credit for that -- because that hasn't always been the case in the province -- that would be nice. Just a little balance and little positive reinforcement every so often would be appreciated.
With that, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 16, Electoral Districts 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Bowbrick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 24: ministry operations, $4,536,431,000 (continued).
Hon. P. Priddy: To pick up the question that the member asked at the end of our discussions yesterday, for '99-2000, which was the last fiscal, the amount of money that we provided to help pay BCPSEA fees was $1,162,000. In this fiscal year we're providing $1,250,000. It's an increase of $87,500, so the percentage may change some, but the amount of money has actually gone up.
J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that. That just clarifies some of the figures that we'd seen.
Now I'll just move very quickly into a few items that I would like to address, none of which, I think, will take much time. The first one is the West Vancouver user-pay kindergarten issue. I know that the minister has made statements that she either has or is seeking legal opinions, and I have talked informally with the chair of the school board and others in West Vancouver about this issue. So my question to the
[ Page 16362 ]
minister would be: has she in fact obtained a legal opinion? If so, would she be prepared to share it with us? If not, when might we expect one?
Hon. P. Priddy: The legal opinion that we have is the same as West Vancouver's. As it's currently structured, it is legal under the act for them to do that. However, the minister also has the right, under the act, to have some discussion with them around fees.
J. Dalton: Then, just as a follow-up: given that we're near the end of the school year, it's my understanding that West Vancouver, if this is feasible, would like to go ahead in September with the proposal. Would the minister see any roadblocks, given the rather constrained time lines that we're facing?
Hon. P. Priddy: I guess the question around roadblocks would be one for the West Vancouver school board. Since it is legal, they are able to go ahead and do that. I think the question then becomes: are there some discussions that need to happen around the fees and the lack of subsidy for parents?
[1015]
J. Dalton: Fair enough. That is obviously an issue that has generated much discussion both within the school district and around the province.
I'll move across the river into North Vancouver on another issue. It deals with the voting pattern for school trustees. In the School Act, the minister has the capacity to, and in fact does, make the order within districts such as mine in North Vancouver that comprise more than one municipality. In fact, just to give background, in North Vancouver the district elects four trustees, and the city of North Van elects three. Now, that doesn't necessarily, of itself, cause problems other than the fact that the population is expanding more in the district than in the city. And in fact, at the moment, it is more than 2 to 1, district voters versus city voters. The number of trustees, then, actually doesn't reflect the population base within North Vancouver.
I would like to ask the minister: is the order that she can make under section 30 of the School Act made every three years before the trustee voting? And if a change were to be entertained, would that have to be initiated from the school district or from the municipalities? Could an individual flag that concern? What actually is the background that leads to this?
Hon. P. Priddy: Two things: one of them is that the school board must ask; and secondly, there has recently been a change that enables school boards to alter, if you will, the way trustees are elected. For instance, what has happened up until now is that either you elect at large, period, or you elect from a ward. The change has allowed people -- it's probably more a rural issue -- to do some combination thereof. They don't have to pick one or the other. But the request would need to come from the district.
J. Dalton: That's one, then. Perhaps I may make some inquiries within
the school district itself and see whether there's any appetite
I would like to ask about two other items. One involves the spring edition of "Better Learning," which just arrived in my constituency office the other day. This is a publication that comes out two or three times a year. There was some concern raised when the winter edition came out. In fact, I have the letter in my possession. It was a letter to all principals from the acting director of communications. A point that she made in her letter -- which I think is well founded -- is that they did a testing of parents as to how many had actually received this document. They were "surprised to learn that many had never seen the magazine before." Then a series of suggestions were made by principals and others as to how this document might in fact get from the school to the home, which presumably is its intention.
I might say, as a side issue, that I cannot recall anyone coming into my constituency office and asking for this document, but I do provide them. They're sitting in the front. Importantly, of course, it would be parents who've received this, not necessarily people in general.
So two questions for the minister. First, what is the cost of each of these editions, given that they are published, I think, three or four times a year? Second, has her ministry addressed, or is it addressing, the distribution issue? There's no point in publishing these things at whatever cost if they don't actually get to the customer.
[1020]
Hon. P. Priddy: I think, for the two of them -- because there's an elementary and a secondary one -- it's $600,000 a year in total. The information I have, and it's also the experience I have, is that the distribution is very good at the elementary school level. This is probably true of almost anything you ever send home with a student, that at elementary school it probably gets home reasonably accurately or with a reasonable degree of success. It is harder at secondary levels. Staff in the ministry have been talking with school superintendents, principals and parent groups about whether there might be -- and I don't know at this stage what it is -- a better way to get it to parents of secondary students. The information is useful, and those parents who've seen it have liked it. We are trying to find some better ways to get it to those parents.
J. Dalton: Just one follow-up question. Is this publication just targeted for the public schools, or is it also available in the independent school system?
Hon. P. Priddy: It's certainly targeted to the public school system.
There is no reason why independent schools could not have it. Some of the
information in it would pertain to the public school system. But much of the
information
J. Dalton: The last item I want to address is the site acquisition charges issue. According to information I've read from UBCM, this is now in effect. Can the minister advise as to how many districts will be affected by the site acquisition charge? What factors apply? For example, how many potential students are needed in a new development before this thing is triggered?
Hon. P. Priddy: Our estimate is that's it's probably about 16 districts, but I think the member would know that it's
[ Page 16363 ]
growing districts that will be affected. If you haven't got any growth, then you're not likely to be out acquiring sites, unless it's a replacement school or something and you want a different site for it. But primarily it would be those ones -- Surrey, Nanaimo, Coquitlam -- that you think of as growth districts.
The trigger is: will there be a school needed within the next ten years? I think that in most school districts they look at the kind of housing development going in, the cost estimate of the housing, the ages of children that are typically found in houses of a certain size and a certain cost, etc. At least in Surrey, and I'm sure in other places, they have a fairly sophisticated way of doing that projection. The estimate is that that particular charge is only intended to generate 35 percent of the cost of the site, and the other 65 percent is covered by the province.
K. Krueger: I wanted to raise some issues that I know have been raised in general over the many hours of these estimates, just to talk a little bit about how they specifically affect people in Kamloops and the North Thompson valley. The North Thompson school district was merged with the Kamloops district by this government several years ago. The minister of the day, who was the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, assured me that he would be vigilant that this would not have negative effects on the community of Clearwater, which was really grieving over the loss of its autonomy. Its own school board had run a very well managed little school district and certainly experienced some hard knocks as a result of actually being absorbed into rather than amalgamated with a much larger school district. The issues are common to the whole district, and those issues, I know, have been discussed, as I say, with regard to the general population and other school districts. But I wanted to put some concerns on the record for the minister and hear what she has to say about them.
[1025]
I'm attending numerous graduation ceremonies in my constituency now. There are quite a few high schools. It has struck me that the young people that I'm congratulating as they graduate have had an NDP government since they were in grade 3. They're coming out facing very limited employment options, and many of them, like many other families, are migrating out of B.C. in order to find a future and a career. That's a shame.
As people have migrated out, the student population in our district, of course, has been dropping. It was 18,000; now it's 17,000. It's predicted to be 15,000 over the next several years. Given a funding formula based on enrolment, that causes really severe constraints for our trustees, for the school district and for everyone who's trying to provide excellence in education to children in Kamloops and North Thompson. This year the board is struggling with a $1.3 million shortfall on the basis of the funding formula.
It's not their fault, and it's not local people's fault that the economy has taken the dive that it has and is shrinking the way it is. It's not their fault, but they're left with expensive infrastructure to maintain and look after. It was necessary for 18,000 students but now obviously has 1,000 students less than it did. It's not their fault that the former Premier signed an agreement on class size with the BCTF and other labour agreements that they must fund out of the amount provided to them. And it's not their fault that funding is targeted specifically by the ministry in its complex formula and approaches, all of which tie their hands.
Between those various events and approaches by this government, people are left in a bind, locally. The result is fewer janitors, fewer teachers' aides, more pressure on everybody concerned, teachers who already work a lot of extracurricular time having to look after things like mopping up when a child gets sick in the classroom and all sorts of things that teachers really shouldn't have to do and custodians used to do. Principals are out shovelling sidewalks, when they should be doing administrative functions. People are actually being hurt by trying to take care of physical responsibilities like that when they aren't necessarily in the condition to do it. But there's nobody else to do it. All of these things are issues that really bother people in my constituency. I wanted to hear what the minister thinks about them.
Hon. P. Priddy: It was a long list, so I'll try and make my comments as specific as I can to some of the points that were raised. The member is correct, of course. You do have a declining enrolment. The estimates, however, from your school district are actually that the enrolment is going to start to go up. Well, that's the estimate that we have. We have an estimate of your enrolment starting to go up in about a year's time, or two years' time. So I think you will see an inclining, not declining, enrolment.
I think it's important just to make the comment, in terms of young people graduating from school, that youth employment is actually up, not down. Unemployment is down; youth employment is up. I take the member's point about parts of the province that may be resource-based and that have very high ups but then also have very low downs when there is a challenge in the resource economy. But in terms of your district, you will see an increasing enrolment, and obviously that will be reflected in the budget.
Even though there has been, I think, a decrease over probably the last three or four years of about 2 percent, or 2 1/2 percent, in declining enrolment, the budget has gone up correspondingly by about 4 percent. So it's not as if the budget hasn't gone up because students have gone down; you've had about a 4 percent budget increase even though you've had a decline.
[1030]
That doesn't mean boards aren't challenged to do the kinds of things they want to do. I don't discount the member's comments at all about people taking on jobs that may not be theirs. I realize there's a lot of experience with what aging administrators are and are not able to do on your side of the table, hon. member. I don't remember seeing the other member shovelling snow, but I'm sure that he did.
A Voice: He doesn't have any snow where he lives.
Hon. P. Priddy: Once a year we have snow where he lives.
So my saying that even though your enrolment is down, your budget is up, isn't intended to discount the comments that you're making at all, because boards are challenged. They want to do a lot more for all of their students, and therefore they have to make decisions within that.
[ Page 16364 ]
Just as a matter of interest, this particular school board had about a little over a million-dollar surplus last year. So I don't know if they felt that there wasn't something they wanted to spend that million dollars on or if they didn't have needs that weren't met or not.
K. Krueger: We indeed have had shrewd financial managers attempting to keep a lid on the expenses of the school district and planning for the future. That's how we've gotten by this long, because they did have a bit of a bank account. But presently, as I say, they are grappling with a $1.3 million anticipated deficit. They've been holding public meetings throughout the school district, seeking input from the public as to how they can deal with that and what they should cut in order to not find themselves in the red. I certainly have different statistics in a couple of areas.
Our youth unemployment, by my understanding, is double Alberta's. Alberta also has a resource economy. The economy is another issue, I know, but the point I was attempting to make, of course, is we have lost a lot of the youthful population, the young family population that we used to have. People in that demographic are not coming to British Columbia; they're leaving British Columbia. And because of the per-pupil enrolment funding formula, there's a very real effect on school districts like the one I represent.
There were some articles in May in the North Thompson Star-Journal. I'll just quickly touch on those. The reporter makes the point that the Ministry of Education sets class-size guidelines, negotiates teacher contracts and earmarks slices of the budgetary pie to be allocated for specific purposes, leaving the school districts to try to live within the ministry's complex guidelines and within the funding formula from Victoria. An editor summed up, on May 22 in the North Thompson Star-Journal: "A big part of the problem appears to be the lack of flexibility in how the province doles out the funding. There are no incentives for innovation or doing a better job with less money."
I wonder if the ministry -- given the fact that ours and other districts are facing this crunch of fixed costs versus the per-pupil enrolment funding formula and that it's a box they really can't find any way out of except by cutting services -- has considered means to provide for more autonomy and more flexibility, less targeted funding and actually empowering districts to deal with that issue.
Hon. P. Priddy: The member refers to the provincial collective
agreement that's particularly -- because that's the one we have been hearing the
most about -- around class size in kindergarten and grades 1, 2 and 3. While it
is less than perfect, it has been, I think, a very successful initiative for
children. It is sometimes somewhat harder in rural areas to configure class
size, but the provincial collective agreement, as it pertained to Kamloops --
and that's around non-enrolling teachers and the primary class size
[1035]
The second point I would make is that
G. Hogg: I'd like to make a few comments on the agreement-in-committee and have some response to it. The Principals and Vice-Principals Association issued a report in the fall, in late 1998, in which they said that the major effects to date had included an increase in the number of students who'd been turned away from their schools in their own catchment areas; an increase in the need for reorganization of classes after the beginning of the school in September; an increase in the number of split-grade classes, some of which were of questionable educational value; and a situation where some of the skills and expertise of principals and vice-principals could not be utilized, even when they could have made a unique contribution to the school.
They said that 27 percent of elementary schools had had to turn away students who resided in their catchment area, and at least 750 students from around the province were unable to attend the school nearest their place of residence. They also said that 44 percent of the elementary schools that had to reorganize their classes had to reorganize them classes since September 8, and the majority of those reorganizations were in the elementary schools.
I have now received an update of the evaluation completed recently -- just completed, and I'm not sure whether it's even been released at this date -- in which they're talking about a follow-up to the impact of the agreement-in-committee. It was contracted out, and they're saying at this stage that their discussion and conclusions state that reorganization is now necessary in about one-third of the schools, mostly elementary schools. Although this is down somewhat from the '98-99 school year, more classes are involved in each school, as school size is increasing, and three-quarters of the organizations involve students in grades 1 to 2.
It should be noted that this review was as a result of a 60 percent response rate, so the actual numbers would have to be modified accordingly. Whether or not it's a straight geometric progression that would take place on that, of course, we don't know.
In '99-2000 over 1,400 students were turned away from the schools within their own catchment areas. This is up substantially from the 750 students who were turned away in '98-99. The previously surveyed principals and vice-principals expressed concern about the impact that that was obviously having on students, on their families and on educational performance.
Increasingly, principals and vice-principals are not able to use their expertise as teachers as a result of the agreement-in-committee. Fifty-eight principals and vice-principals have been reassigned from non-enrolling positions, the greatest number from learning assistance and ESL. And only half of the principals indicated that they have been able to find suitably qualified replacement teachers to come into the area.
In addition to principal and vice-principal reassignments, 80 teachers were reassigned -- about the same number that occurred last year -- and many principals and vice-principals are expected to carry out their responsibilities in larger schools with less administrative time. I'm not aware of any other reviews or studies which have taken place in a formal way with respect to the AIC. I'm wondering whether or not the
[ Page 16365 ]
ministry has done any reviews or evaluations which would support, countermand or respond to the conclusions drawn by this review and whether or not the ministry has or is prepared to look at ways of mitigating some of the very deleterious impacts that the agreement seems to have had.
Throughout the course of estimates to this point in time, we've heard from a number of the MLAs the specific issues which have been of concern with respect to their constituencies. They have given, I think, quite annotated and lively accounts of the concerns of particular families that have had to bus considerable distances and been divided; of families who have moved right next door to a school, with one sibling attending the school and the other sibling having to be bused. I think this rollup tends to indicate that the impact is broad-spread across the province. I'd be interested in the minister's response to that and any actions which may be planned to try and mitigate the impact of this.
[1040]
Hon. P. Priddy: People have raised this as a concern, so I'm not suggesting that in a number of districts there are not challenges around how class sizes are organized. There are times when siblings may not be at the same school, and so on. There may be current challenges around this, but I would say that this is not new as a result of the provincial collective agreement. I mean, that's three years old. That doesn't make it an okay thing, by the way. There have always been circumstances in which students cannot go to their local school. Do I think that's a good idea? No. I happen to believe that little children should go to their local schools, if that's what their parents' choice is, but I think that we certainly have seen those circumstances exist before this. I'm not denying, as I say, the issues that people have brought forth at all.
Let me tell you the employers' perspective on this, which is BCPSEA. They've offered some information as well. One of the things they've said -- and this varies from district to district -- is that the BCTF has been relatively accommodating in permitting classes to exceed the maximums where there isn't any sort of commonsense solution available. That might not be the case in some districts I could think of, but it has been the case in a number of other districts where they have been accommodating about going over the maximum when there isn't anything else that really makes sense for people.
The feedback that we've had -- it's primarily anecdotal but is very positive
-- from parents and most administrators and certainly from teachers about the
benefits of having smaller class size
There was apparently some concern, when this came through in the spring of
'98, that there would be
We talked yesterday about the number of grievances over class size. We don't know of any provincial arbitrations currently; there may still be some at the local level. I can't remember at the moment which member we committed to yesterday. But we've already -- and before estimates -- made a commitment that the deputy minister would again be writing to people, as he did before, asking them to just think about flexibility and common sense as it relates to the needs of students.
G. Hogg: I hear the minister saying that the information you have at this point is anecdotal information rather than any type of survey that has taken place or any formal evaluation. I trust that the minister, in explaining that even prior to the agreement-in-committee there were students that were being bused and not able to attend, is not suggesting that the problem has not been exacerbated through the course of this. Certainly it has been magnified many times, manyfold, and while there were some very small examples of that, clearly it is a much larger problem today than it ever was in the past.
There seems to be, whether it's philosophical or cultural, a shift that is
taking place within the schools of taking away from the flexibility of the
administrators to, in fact, be able to respond at the local level to those types
of issues. That's certainly part of the concern that they see. As the former
Minister of Education said to me in estimates
Hon. P. Priddy: Which one?
G. Hogg: Which former minister? The one prior to the one that was just
prior to you -- which will go two back, who was there for awhile and who is
currently the Minister of Finance -- said to me when we talked about class size
and the impact of class size
[1045]
The other comment the minister made was with respect to any baseline data to make any comparative notes to. I was delighted she did that. In our discussions one week ago we talked a lot about baseline data and the need to generate baseline data to do some comparative analyses. So I trust that the commitments that were made will be able to be reinforced by those comments.
With respect to the agreement-in-committee, is the ministry at this point convinced that they are fully funding the agreement-in-committee? Or are there areas and/or parts on which they have received comments from various school boards stating that there are shortfalls which have been generated as a result of this agreement? And what areas might those shortfalls occur in?
Hon. P. Priddy: A couple of points. My staff informs me that indeed -- and I'll speak to a different piece in a minute -- the provincial collective agreement is fully funded. And in point of fact, I think there's probably about $2 million left over in the trust fund that hasn't been drawn on.
But clearly the challenges come around the flexibility issues that you and other members have raised. But when the agreement was done, I think there was an agreement that the board is only obligated to meet that collective agreement to
[ Page 16366 ]
the extent of the dollars for which they're funded. If they can do no more, then there's no liability on their part or for them on that.
G. Hogg: Well, I agree with that. There are certainly school boards who do not believe that they have been fully funded for it and have expressed their concern and consternation. I'm sure the minister is well aware of those and has dealt with a number of them.
Just in concluding the issues around the AIC, I understand the minister to have said that she recognizes that there's an issue of concern with respect to the items we've discussed. At this point the strategy in terms of dealing with that is to have the deputy minister write to the boards or to the superintendents, to ensure that they exercise whatever discretion and flexibility is available to them within the confines. Is that a fair interpretation of what I've heard?
Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, it would be writing to the federation, who really have the ability to help find some of those common sense solutions. In some districts there have been -- I'm not sure of the right term -- between-contract agreements that the board and the teachers associations have reached. I think a reinforcement of that is important.
G. Hogg: I'd be interested in
[1050]
Hon. P. Priddy: We'd be happy to provide that. I think the member knows that EAC is probably the primary committee, but there are others. We're happy to provide that.
G. Hogg: One time frame that we put on previous issues, I think, was 30 days. So would I assume that that would fall within the same time frame in terms of receipt of that?
Hon. P. Priddy: Sooner.
G. Hogg: Even sooner. Thank you.
I'd like to then move on to some issues around accreditation and where we are with that. Perhaps at this stage the minister could just give us a status report with respect to the issue of accreditation. Included in that, I would be interested in the changes that have been proposed by the committee which the minister had appointed, looking at the modifications that are being proposed and the status, focus and direction which those will take at this point.
Hon. P. Priddy: Well, as the member led into
That caused me some significant concern, because I actually do believe that accreditation is a better process if you have teachers there -- because that's who teaches students. So in light of that, I went back to the education advisory committee and asked people if they would have one more try at finding a solution that would allow teachers to comfortably be part of the accreditation process. In that work that the committee did, they looked at a number of things that were changes. I'm not sure if I have them in front of me, but I think I can do most off the top of my head.
One of the things teachers were concerned about was a guarantee of how much work it would be. Historically, people say -- and I don't doubt it -- that it has taken a large amount of time because of the amount of information gathered. The committee, in responding to the BCTF, agreed that in year one of the accreditation there would only be five hours of, if you will, meeting time and one non-instructional day. So that was a change that guaranteed that that would be the only time that people would be required to participate.
Secondly, there was a concern about how the information around foundation skills assessment would be used. We agreed that until there was a trend line, the overall results of that would not be included.
I think one of the other ones was is that we would only ask teachers to gather as much information as they would normally gather for a report card, so that they would not have to go beyond that. That was another one of the changes that BCTF asked for and that we agreed to.
There was a change in terms of the number of questions, and so on, and
categories. It was reduced to 27 -- I don't see that here, but I know that's the
case -- questions. I think this has gone, if I recall, from 50 pieces to
the accreditation down to
So those were the changes the BCTF asked for. The Education Advisory Council, or the working group from that, were very good. People worked very hard and very well together, and they all thought at the end that it was a better process. Every single partner worked on that, and every single partner approved the changes and supported them. As you know, the executive of the BCTF approved them and took them to their representative assembly, who did not. That's the current status.
What I have said is that it will be harder to do accreditation without teachers. I understand that, but I've also said that accreditation will go ahead.
G. Hogg: Can the minister describe for us how we'll go ahead without the teachers and tell us whether there is a plan to bring in consultants from other areas to do accreditation -- whether we're talking about other provinces, other countries, whether we're talking about contracting out to somebody else to do the accreditation -- or whether the minister, as she has been reported a number of times to say, is prepared to make a stand with respect to this and say that teachers will participate in it -- and whether we have advice with respect to the validity of such a statement and whether or not the minister can in fact compel teachers to participate in something which she holds and values so highly?
Hon. P. Priddy: If I can just set aside the teacher part for a moment,
we are beginning
[ Page 16367 ]
dents met a couple of days ago to look at what it's possible to still do in terms of collecting tasks, giving out surveys, etc. And some schools have actually already begun that work.
No, it wouldn't mean bringing in people from wherever. There are external accreditation teams anyway, or the accreditation team is external, as you know. While there are teachers on that, there are administrators and parents and people from the aboriginal community and people from the special education community. And I expect those people will all still be part of the process. Particularly for aboriginal people and parents, accreditation is very, very important, and I don't think they would be willing to let go of this.
So in terms of, "Can the minister compel teachers to participate?" the minister cannot compel teachers to participate. However, BCPSEA has a legal opinion -- and that's theirs, not mine -- that says that if they went to the Labour Relations Board, they would likely get a judgment from the Labour Relations Board that this was an illegal work stoppage and would order teachers to participate. That's within BCPSEA's realm, not mine, and that's the legal opinion I'm told they had.
[1055]
That can happen, I guess. That sure isn't the best way to want to do that. And even if you had that kind of order, I'm not sure, in the end, that you can make people do that if they refuse. I would say, though, that there are a lot of teachers who want to do this as well. I've heard the message from the BCTF representative assembly which says no, and it's fairly resounding for a whole variety of reasons, some of which are about accreditation and some which are not. But there are teachers who do want to participate, and there are schools that will go ahead with their teachers at the table, I think, regardless.
G. Hogg: I appreciate that. If I can again rephrase the minister's words into what I think I'm hearing. That is, the minister is very interested in accreditation and values it, wants to be able to proceed with it and wants to try to find a way that we can have compliance and agreement -- and that people wish to participate in it. However, should that not occur, at that point in time the minister will have to examine every possibility and option that's available to her, including the possibility of exploring the legal opinion which has been given and see what options are available with that. Is that a fair interpretation of the comments which have been made?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think so, except perhaps
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, Chair -- my eagerness to give information.
G. Hogg: Within the narrative in the minister's response she also made
reference to the foundation skills assessment, saying that it was being set
aside at this point in time or being a part of it. I wonder if you could clarify
what the position is with respect to FSA and the role that we have, and whether
or not we're going to be seeing participation from the BCTF, from the teachers,
with respect to that. Another part of that, if I can add a whole pile of
questions in at once, so that we can hopefully get through today by noon
Hon. P. Priddy: I think the answer is yes to most of the latter
questions. Let me start at the beginning. I didn't mean to say set FSA aside at
all. What teachers had said about their concern about accreditation, aside from
the fact that there are certainly teachers who don't support the foundation
skills assessment, was that until there was some trend data, they didn't want
that to be used in terms of
Let me read you the letter, and if you don't have it, by the way, I can copy
it to you: "When reporting foundation skills assessment results, schools
should ensure that there are qualifying statements around trends and trends over
time
[1100]
G. Hogg: I certainly would agree with the comments that the minister made with respect to the foundation skills assessment and the process by which it's implemented. Clearly, again going back to baseline data and trends, it's very important that we don't quickly evaluate based on one snapshot, but that we look at the indications and directions that we're going.
Moving again into the issue of the funding formula, we've heard a number of discussions through the course of these estimates with respect to the funding formula and concerns expressed about those -- rural versus urban. I know the minister hears a constant barrage of questions and concerns with respect to that. I wonder if the minister could perhaps highlight what the three or four most significant concerns with respect to the funding formula are and the methods by which those are being reviewed.
I understand there has been a standing committee looking at that for 150 years or more in an effort to look at and try to resolve some of those issues. I have heard from some of the ministerial staff that they believe that the funding formula is amongst the best in the world, if not the best. I'm delighted that they're defending that position and hope it to be true. We have certainly seen and heard in these estimates representatives from the Kootenays talking about their concerns that the rural areas are feeling that they're ill-served by the funding formula. We've heard the city of Vancouver put forward eight issues that they felt were important. They're concerned that in other provinces there's a recognition of inner-city needs and that there is a formula which allows for and blends in the concerns which reflect the inner-city needs. There is a myriad, a plethora, of concerns that exist around it.
[ Page 16368 ]
I'm interested in the main concerns the minister hears, what the strategies are in terms of dealing with those and whether or not, through the committee, they actually deal with these issues and send responses. I guess the last part of that is whether or not there is an appetite for any changes to the funding formula, given some of the discussions we had on Thursday around being able to give greater authority to local school boards. So there are probably enough questions to get us through till noon.
Hon. P. Priddy: Just to begin, there was a funding formula
The funding formula comment that I hear the most about, other than just, "It doesn't work," and "we need more" -- and I've been a school trustee, so I've said it too; I used to say it a lot, actually, although it's changed some since then -- is the declining enrolment in rural areas. People feel that the formula works well or at least works satisfactorily if you are, for the most part, in a district that doesn't have declining enrolment. If you have declining enrolment, then what I hear from people is that that's a significant concern in terms of how the funding formula responds to that.
The literature I've looked at says that other provinces do actually recognize some socioeconomic indicators, and I've said that's something that we should probably look at. It's a bit of apples and oranges, though, because they don't necessarily provide X amount extra, for instance, for aboriginal children, which is very much about inner-city schools. Inner city, as you and I and I guess everybody knows, isn't really about being in the middle of the city. It's a description of the circumstances in which a school would find itself and is not necessarily related to being in the city. But that's one, actually, that I would want to have a look at. That's not one that's come at me a lot, but it's one I happen to believe.
The declining enrolment is the one that I hear the most about. And if we were going to do this -- and I've certainly looked at it and thought about how that would be possible -- you'd have to, I think, start to look at the benchmarks or core programs or whatever. What is it that every elementary school needs to have? And so you fund that. And then, what is it that the people want to have beyond that? It's also about a very legitimate desire to do more. So you see a program that you want to do, and you can't do it, because it's not accommodated in the funding formula. So it becomes a bit of a lightning rod.
The other thing, though, that I recognize about the funding formula -- and I've learned this lesson out of being the Minister of Health -- is that everybody believes that if we redid the funding formula, they'd be better off. Every school district thinks they'd be better off with a review of the funding formula, just like all health authorities think that they'd get more money. And if it's the same pot, that's actually not going to happen. So that's part of how you go to look at it.
My estimate -- and I've asked about this -- is that it would probably take a
year or just over to do a proper review of the funding formula. I have some
interest in doing it. It's kind of an odd time to be beginning that. But I
actually think the funding formula
[1105]
G. Hogg: Reflecting back on the performance plan that we had and the auditor general's comments with respect to where we're going, saying that we had to move away from process evaluation -- process issues -- and look at starting to move towards outcomes, the ministry has made some valiant attempts at that with respect to the performance plan. It seems to me that if that same principle -- the same philosophy inherent in that -- were to be applied to the funding formula, that would mean that we'd move away from such things as targeted funding, which, again, are part of the process things, and start saying: "Here are some of the outcomes that we expect with respect to the performance of school boards and the performance of their responses to the educational needs of the students contained in there."
I'm wondering whether or not there has been any discussion around moving towards looking at some of the outcomes, whether or not there are some inherent pitfalls -- and we had some brief discussions about that a week ago in terms of those outcomes -- and whether or not the funding formula being shifted towards an outcome measurement as opposed to process, consistent with the auditor general's report, is something which has been examined and in fact is possible.
Hon. P. Priddy: I can't remember if we had this part of the discussion last time, so I'll add this in. We've started to do the work around looking at outcomes. We're doing that with aboriginal students, and there's a keen desire from the aboriginal community for us to do that -- or for us to do it with them. We've begun to do the same thing around outcomes with career programs. I think that if you were going to do a funding formula review, you would want to look at outcomes as well, which means you do have to have some baseline and you do have to have a benchmark in order to actually look at outcomes.
I just want to go to the targeting for a minute, because I know there is a position that money should be less targeted. That may be so -- to add flexibility. I always remind myself, since I was the one who argued for targeted money long before life in government or even life as a trustee, that to ensure that in certain circumstances where boards were not spending dollars on students who really needed them -- i.e., children with disabilities -- you would have to provide some safeguards so that you didn't find yourself back in that particular set of circumstances. That's why the benchmarks about what the core things which an elementary or secondary school must do are so important. But we are trying to move towards outcomes. We've taken some steps, but if you were to redo the funding formula, you'd look more at that.
[1110]
G. Hogg: When we look broadly across the province at the rural as well as the urban concerns that are expressed -- it seems the first response I had from school districts was that something like 16 of them were originally projecting deficits and looking at problems associated with that -- we see an
[ Page 16369 ]
increase in funding. We see $227 more per student this year over last year. Yet we consistently hear school boards saying that they're in the process of having to cut programs.
We saw Delta looking at cutting phys ed, arts and music programs for elementary schools. There was a demonstration in Victoria a day or two ago with respect to the strings and the music programs. Those are not just anomalies and little pieces that happen; they're certainly happening all over the province. Can the minister give us her interpretation of what in fact is happening, when we're seeing a move towards actually putting more dollars into education yet fewer of those dollars seem to be actually making it to the program level?
We're seeing cutbacks in program services to students, yet we see more money going into it. It seems to be a non sequitur. It doesn't make sense to parents. As they say: "We raised $30 million in this province to contribute to educational core needs. We hear that there's going to be more, yet when we go back to school -- not just in those districts which are seeing declining enrolment but also in those which are seeing increasing enrolment -- we're seeing, consistently, year after year after year, cuts to actual programs for students." People have difficulty understanding why that is happening.
Hon. P. Priddy: I think that when the member talks about the sort of things that have been raised in estimates, about districts which have cut programs -- those things are not anomalies, but many of them arise from very different sets of circumstances. So I want to go back to "The additional dollars don't go into programs." I mean, I understand the member's comment, but what I would want to offer in addition to that is: if you are reducing class size for primary children, that does affect a program; that is reaching children. If children are in a class that's three children fewer than they were before or three children fewer than a traditional kindergarten has been, that does affect children.
The money that's been spent on primary class reduction, as well as
non-enrolling teachers
The number of boards with deficits is decreasing some. I think part of this is because boards are choosing to manage somewhat differently. Are there boards that truly -- with the best management in the world and not offering programs that they weren't approved to offer, etc.-- still have a challenge? Probably, but we've had a couple of examples here of districts that started to offer programs that they weren't funded for, based on something they thought might happen. Then, when it didn't happen, they had a program that they had started -- and probably shouldn't have -- with some anticipation that in two years money might come, and their enrolment declined.
[1115]
That's very much the case with a couple of the boards, actually, that are cutting strings programs and similar kinds of programs. While it's not an anomaly, the reasons vary. Some of it is districts that are providing programs that aren't funded for, based on money they think they might get. When that scenario turns out not to be the case, then they're in the position of cutting programs. Other boards, in spite of all the best management and not offering new programs, etc., may struggle at the end. Fair enough. That's one of the reasons that the fiscal framework might need to be looked at differently.
Just out of interest, at the end of the year '99-2000, 42 out of 47 districts have operating surpluses.
G. Hogg: Public policy is about public choices -- making choices that we believe to be in the best interests of students and of our educational system. The minister's response with respect to the class size indicates, and certainly the legislation indicates, that the highest priority in terms of educational outcomes has been placed on class size. I guess when that choice is made and that's reflected, as the minister suggested, with respect to programming, that means that some of the other programming things are not the number one priority. Therefore such things as we highlighted earlier become victims of that process.
I guess some school districts are saying that one of the problems they have with the class size issue is that in the confines of their communities, their ability to best respond to the educational needs and nuances of their community and their students would allow them a little more flexibility in terms of doing that, perhaps saying: "In this class we'd like to have it down to 15; in this one we can tolerate 25. As a result, we have a little more flexibility in terms of being able to address and respond to those needs."
So my only issue there is that, with greater flexibility at the local area and still being able to protect the outcomes, I think that the public policy suggestions in terms of improving the vision statement the minister has -- of having measurably the best educational system in Canada -- can perhaps be addressed in a more reasoned and effective way.
With that, I think my colleague has a couple of questions with respect to
Hon. P. Priddy: Shovelling snow?
G. Hogg: It only snows on his house -- nowhere else in Surrey-White Rock.
The Chair: Recognizing the hon. member for Delta North on shovelling
snow, I thought the minister
R. Masi: On shovelling snow
Well, it is interesting that most boards do come through with surpluses, but remember that that's the expectation: that boards do balance their budgets. Generally, when you balance a budget, you will have a few dollars in the kitty, so it's pretty hard to come out zero-zero. I think that might be a point taken. But in terms of the educational budget secretary-treasurers, of course, deal beyond the realm of the educational programs, and as we've heard, many districts have had a tough time in balancing budgets.
While they're expected to be at least zero-zero, they have to go through difficult situations. Some of the costs that come forward are not particularly recognized. Things like salaries, wages, learning resources, the provincial learning net, etc. are, but when we look at things like the WCB assessments and the huge training costs involved in carrying that out, we have a cost there. We have the excluded group that hasn't been accounted for in terms of the operation of school districts. We have non-statutory benefits, such as extended health and life
[ Page 16370 ]
insurance plans, and no allocation is provided for this. What I'd like to ask the minister is: will there be an adjustment for this, or is this one of these expectations that districts are into right now in terms of cutting to the bone?
[1120]
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm told that last year we did move to recalculate, at
the end of September, to reflect the actual cost of salaries and benefits for
school districts. The WCB rate increases are completely covered. The discussions
we're having with school districts currently
G. Hogg: A year ago we asked some questions in the House with respect to PST exemptions for PACs, and there was a commitment to do a review of that. I know a study has been done, and I'm wondering about the status of that study and whether or not we can expect any changes with respect to the position currently held by the government.
Hon. P. Priddy: This was a review that was undertaken not by us but by the Ministry of Finance, as I'm sure you know. The Ministry of Finance has made a decision that there won't be any changes at this time.
G. Hogg: Is that something that the Ministry of Education is prepared to debate with the Ministry of Finance? Or is that a fait accompli at this stage, and we will hear no further discussion with respect to it?
Hon. P. Priddy: I've already had the debate, but the result is still the same.
G. Hogg: Yesterday in the House the current Minister of Finance -- the Minister of Education prior to the Minister of Education being the Minister of Education -- made reference to some questions with respect to Now Communications and suggested that they should probably be asked in estimates. So taking my lead from the minister, I'd like to ask a couple of questions with respect to Now Communications.
Firstly, with respect to any contracts which the Ministry of Education has with Now Communications, could the minister please advise us of the quantum of those, the numbers and perhaps any terms of reference with respect to roles that they have been asked to play.
Hon. P. Priddy: As the member, I think, knows, Now Communications is the agency of record for this ministry, and for the year we've just completed, '99-2000, the contract or the agreement with Now -- because they are the agency of record -- was $621,000.
G. Hogg: Does the $621,000 equate to a number of contracts? Are those contracts available? And were there some terms of reference in terms of the goals and performance criteria for Now Communications in order to receive that allocation?
[1125]
Hon. P. Priddy: There are not individual contracts; that is the total contract. But there are individual plans for each piece of work that we ask Now Communications to take on. So there is a plan of work with expected outcomes, and then the billable hours are not compensated until that outcome has been met.
G. Hogg: Is it possible to receive copies of those specific task outcomes and the requests that were made and the billing that comes from those, therefore outlining the breakdown of the expenditures?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, it is. We may use the 30 days on this, but of course you can.
G. Hogg: The comment we made reference to yesterday was the journal
vouchering through the Ministry of Finance in an effort to provide a quick
response to
Hon. P. Priddy: It is the only one that I'm aware of, and it is the only one that staff are aware of.
G. Hogg: Moving on, then. We're all aware of the number of teachers
and administrators who are in the process of retirement or are reaching
retirement. Has the minister
Hon. P. Priddy: Or reached.
G. Hogg: Or reached it, in a couple of examples. Can I ask the
minister, with respect to the plans which are in place for recruitment
A Voice: The better ones.
G. Hogg: Some of the better ones, I've been advised. A couple of the very best ones, I understand.
A Voice: At least taller ones.
G. Hogg: And in some cases shorter ones as well.
So I'm very interested in the plans that the ministry has for replacement of those, perhaps even to the extent of whether or not we've approached post-secondary facilities and said: "We need greater emphasis placed on teaching." So I'm just interested in the plan to respond to the needs that we have educationally.
Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you for your patience, member; I haven't answered this one in a while.
There is a consortium of professional groups who have, as a mandate, looking at the future, if you will, and the provision of teachers in the future. Represented on that con-
[ Page 16371 ]
sortium are the College of Teachers, the deans of education, other post-secondary people, BCTF, BCPSEA -- the people you would expect to see at the table in that consortium.
They do have a workplan. Let me talk a little bit about a few of the pieces
to it and then maybe about some of the challenges to it. This is probably
understood, but the deans of education faculties do outreach into other
faculties that would feed into -- you know, where students would leave and then
enter the teaching profession
The consortium is looking at
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes. Right, thank you. Money, just like the doctors. It's kind of an ongoing discussion about rural and remote areas, where there is often a recruitment problem, particularly with specialty teachers or teachers who teach in a specialized area.
One of the things that I think we all have to consider and find ways to address is the fact that there are many people who may have the prerequisite of both education and skills and are choosing a profession other than teaching. We all need to find better ways to encourage people to go into the teaching profession.
[1130]
G. Hogg: The minister made reference to some of the specialty areas that we are having a particular problem in attracting more teachers to. Two of those -- i.e., the French immersion and Cadre programs -- are programs for which we receive a considerable amount of federal funding to participate in. I'm wondering if the minister can advise as to what the numbers are in those programs and what the trends are. I understand that three or four months ago there was an agreement with the federal government with respect to a formal action plan for official language education. I'm wondering if we have an action plan in place to lead us forward with respect to that.
Hon. P. Priddy: A couple of things. If it's not satisfactory, then I'm sure the member will let me know. If we look at the trends in students taking either immersion or Cadre, the trends in enrolment in both of those areas are going up. If the enrolment is up, we are managing to acquire enough teachers to be able to teach in those areas. I don't have the exact numbers of teachers that are currently teaching, but the numbers are going up. If the member wants that, I'm happy to get it for him.
In the last seven or eight years, enrolment in French immersion has actually not been as rapid as we would have seen in the times before that. It's been just over 9 percent -- but it is an increase. It's the same thing -- or, actually, much more so -- in Cadre, which is up by almost 31 percent. Enrolment is up significantly in that program. The trend is still to increase.
In terms of the protocol in official languages, which of course is a national one, one of the things that is in effect and that we know that teachers in B.C. use is the summer bursary program, which allow teachers to acquire another language.
G. Hogg: Has there in fact been a recent formal action developed or an
organization that
[1135]
Hon. P. Priddy: The information I have is that there's not a specific formal action plan for British Columbia, that the formal action plan is the national one, It's negotiated by CMEC and that it is a national action plan, given that it is where significant amounts of the funding come from.
G. Hogg: Moving on to a couple of the issues around accords, as I understand it, the public sector accord on early retirement and teacher career transition, the public sector accord for the health and safety project to address violence in schools and the interim accord on the K-to-12 issues, which becomes final on June 7, are all accords that fall within the Ministry of Education, or at least partially within it. I'm wondering what the estimated cost implications of these accords are for this year and for future years -- what's contained within this budget and what the projected costs of these accords are.
Hon. P. Priddy: Let me start with the early retirement one. On the early retirement one there have been about 1,300 teachers -- well, 1,267, if you look for a full-time equivalent number -- who have retired as of June '99 under this plan. But it's a cost-neutral plan, so there was no money budgeted and no cost incurred by the Ministry of Education.
I need to clarify with the member if the two other accords -- the K-to-12 and the health and safety that you're talking about -- are CUPE accords. Are you talking about the CUPE ones? Okay. That report, the Ready-Holdom report, has not been made public yet. I have not received it. I think CUPE has a copy of it, and I've heard a bit about it. But I think, until all those details are finalized, it's hard to comment.
G. Hogg: With respect to the agreement that the first report has been
received on, is it the ministry's or the government's intent to fully fund the
recommendations that do come out of that? Obviously you'll have to take some
time to cost those, but certainly the concern would be whether or not there
would be
Hon. P. Priddy: I would say, just as an additional point, that knowing that there were negotiations going on -- and this is public -- we did budget 2 percent in our ministry, but without any idea of what the outcome would be.
Secondly, if there are additional dollars required, either I or someone else,
depending on what the responsibility is, will have to go to Treasury Board to do
that. But the agreement was that any issues would be directly
[ Page 16372 ]
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: Right. All issues that are of provincial significance will be cost-funded.
[1140]
G. Hogg: I'm not sure how you determine what becomes of provincial
significance. For instance, if the issue of the four-hour call-out is
The Chair: We'll call a short recess to accommodate division in the chambers.
The committee recessed from 11:42 a.m. to 11:49 a.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. P. Priddy: As it relates to the question that the member just asked, most of the items are indeed provincial, as would the four-hour minimum be a provincial issue; therefore my comment about cost-funding stands. The only local ones would be things like layoff and recall, posting and filling, which are clearly local responsibilities.
G. Hogg: We made reference earlier to the accreditation process, which looks at the performance of schools. I'm going to talk at 78-and-a-quarter for a minute here. We talked about the FSA, which gives the evaluation at the student level. We haven't talked about the components in that. One of the issues that the auditor general talked about was accountability throughout the process. I'm wondering whether the ministry has any expectations with respect to formal evaluations of teachers, of the performance of school boards or performance of the ministry, in terms of putting that within a holistic evaluative component.
Hon. P. Priddy: As it relates to the ministry itself, yes, there are requirements and performance plans that speak to evaluation and accountability. School boards -- I would be loath to enter that particular area of endeavour, but I know that school boards themselves do self-evaluations. There's a number of tools that BCSTA has provided for them to be able to do that, and some boards, I know, do that on a very regular basis. The teachers' evaluation -- while we do provide additional in-service, etc. -- is covered off in the local contract.
[1150]
G. Hogg: Well, as the minister is aware, when we're talking about some of the studies around value-added education, obviously the import and the impact of the teacher is the most significant within that. Our need is to continue to encourage that we look at the performance within that. And when we talk about school boards, performance plans very similar to what the ministry has put in place may well be a reasoned approach to setting out some expectations for school boards and their performances and some evaluative criteria for looking at that.
Consistent with that, a week ago, we looked quite extensively at the performance plan that the ministry has. We talked about some baseline data, baseline measurement, which the ministry is prepared to provide. We talked about the goals, and I was asking that we look at it and ensure that the goals were action-oriented, time-limited and measurable. The minister made reference to the fact that there's a belief that perhaps not all of them could be measured.
I went back and looked at the National Education Goals Panel in the United
States, which has the overall goal of ensuring equitable educational
opportunities and high levels of educational achievement for students. They have
eight goals and 27 objectives within each of those goals. They were able to
provide baseline data, specific goals, measurement criteria and specific
outcomes for each one of them, that made each one of them measurable. And
there's the baseline update and progress that goes through
My concern coming out of this was that there were some issues which the minister did not believe could be measured, yet when we look at the examples of some of the other attempts at setting goals, they in fact are able to provide measurement criteria for every single issue, goal and objective which was laid out. So it would be my hope that the ministry would be able to look at the National Educational Goals Panel -- look at their expectations -- and perhaps we can learn from that. I believe that there will be ways that we can establish baseline data measurement criteria and goals for each one of those and perhaps look annually at the progress achieved by some of those.
So my question, I guess, if there is a question arising out of that, is just the minister's response to that. Also, are there in fact some goals that she finds impossible to set measurement criteria for?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think the agreement we had when we talked about this before was that we did need baseline data, which we don't have, so there's a requirement to gather that. What I think I remember saying -- if I did not, then I'll correct myself -- is: they can be measured, but we wouldn't necessarily be able to say when they would be completed. If you're talking about increasing graduation rates, you can measure how you're doing, but you don't necessarily have a completion time that you can say it will be completed by -- 100 percent of students will complete by, whatever. But they are measurable. We do need a baseline. So I think they are all measurable.
G. Hogg: Well, certainly in terms of the establishment of goals and in goal theory you can say, "It is our expectation with respect to graduation rates" -- that's the reference that was made -- "that we will get to X graduates, X percentage graduating by this period of time." Then it becomes specific and measurable. So my only concern is that I don't believe that there are any goals which we can establish or have established that we cannot put measurable criteria on, so that we cannot go back and say: "Yes, we are making progress on that. We are tying our resources to that, our impact, and we are achieving it."
The minister made a commitment to providing not just the baseline data but the measurement with respect to those.
[ Page 16373 ]
My question now is: can I have assurance that we will in fact have measurement criteria for every one of those objectives that is laid out in the performance plan?
[1155]
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I will provide that to the member, and there will be measurement criteria. The only little codicil I'd put around that is that there are a few things which, while we can provide measurement criteria, may not all be totally under our control, and therefore you're not as able to count on them.
G. Hogg: Cognizant of the time
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.
The Chair: Does vote 24 pass? Member?
G. Hogg: I just want to conclude by saying how much the opposition has
appreciated the assistance and support of the staff. From the briefing meeting,
which I made reference to in my opening comments
We look forward to continuing to receive the information that we have discussed and to working with you in achieving the goal, which we thoroughly support, which is to have, measurably, the best education system in Canada. So my thanks to the minister and to her staff.
Vote 24 approved.
Hon. P. Priddy: I would move that Committee A rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada