1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 19

[ Page 6833 ]

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to announce in the precinct the mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Gordon Campbell, who is with us here today. Mr. Campbell, I understand, is seeking public office in the provincial Legislature, and I'm sure he will make an excellent cabinet minister in a government under my leadership.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I too would like to welcome a constituent of mine who works at 12th and Cambie. He lives on 14th Avenue in the great constituency of Vancouver-Point Grey. I would like to welcome -- not to a cabinet, but to the gallery of the Legislature -- the mayor of Vancouver, Gordon Campbell.

As well, hon. Speaker, it's quite a historic day. This is the anniversary of the first CCF-New Democrat government in this country, in Saskatchewan. I would like to give a very warm welcome to Peggy Brewin, one of the great pioneers of the CCF-New Democratic Party, whose husband, Andy Brewin, was one of the early MPs in Ottawa and whose son John is now an MP in the House of Commons.

F. Garden: In the gallery today I have two constituents from Cariboo North, from Quesnel. One of them is Mr. Les White. He's the general manager of Quesnel River Pulp, but he's also here in his capacity as chairman of the board of G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital. Accompanying him is the administrator of the hospital, Mr. Ken Last. Will you please make them welcome.

N. Lortie: I'm pleased that for the first time since I entered this House I am able to introduce my most trusted adviser and life partner -- and, as usual, she's right behind me -- my wife Janet. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: At times we have visitors from abroad -- at least, visitors who are our good neighbours to the south. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. David Priest, a medical student who is visiting here today for the first time, from the United States.

J. Doyle: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Bob Mackie, from Revelstoke. Bob is the president of the Columbia River-Revelstoke NDP constituency association. I'm very proud to have Bob here today. I'd ask you to make him welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: I have four guests in the gallery today. These are volunteers who work very hard in my riding: Lois Sutherland, Barbara West and Joanne Buck. My executive assistant, Charley Beresford, is accompanying them. I'd like the House to make them most welcome.

J. MacPhail: I know that we have in the gallery the potential father of the new liberalism and the mother of social democracy. It is only my mother who is in the gallery today. I'd like the House to please make my mother, Mary MacPhail, welcome from Hamilton, Ontario.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today is a group of visitors from Japan. I had the pleasure of meeting with them earlier. Members of this group are legislators from a prefecture -- which I can't pronounce -- centred around Yokohama. I would ask this House to please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My partner is here on a rare visit to Victoria. I would like the House to make Susan Zirnhelt welcome.

J. Tyabji: I see in the gallery a concerned resident from the Bamberton area, who is working very hard on a local issue. I'd like the Legislature to welcome Anne Bomford.

Introduction of Bills

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation contains several provisions relating to British Columbia's homeowner grant program. Most of the amendments are to the Home Owner Grant Act; two are consequential amendments to the School Act. In total, the amendments will tighten loopholes, ensure the grant goes only to deserving homeowners and save the taxpayers of this province at least $5 million per year. The amendments represent a major reform of the program, which is so important to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.

Let me be clear, however, that the proposed amendments do not change who is entitled to receive the grant. The purpose of the homeowner grant program is to help homeowners meet school taxes on their principal residence. British Columbia taxpayers cannot afford to subsidize out-of-province property owners and others who do not qualify but who have claimed the grant in the past, particularly when the savings gained help reduce the provincial deficit.

This new legislation will ensure fairness in the way grants are delivered, enhance compliance with the eligibility requirements for the grants and improve the overall efficiency of program administration.

The grants are currently administered independently by 150 local governments, which has impeded the cross-referencing of applications. This bill will establish an office within my ministry to furnish this cross-referencing capacity, provide improved information on the program rules, standardize grant criteria in all jurisdictions and establish an appeal system.

[ Page 6834 ]

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. [Applause.]

G. Wilson: I trust the enthusiasm will be demonstrated on my supplementary question after the first one.

BAMBERTON DEVELOPMENT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs has to do with the ongoing quest of the opposition to try and sort out what constitutes conflict of interest on the government side. Does the minister not feel that there is at least a perception of conflict of interest in the controversial billion-dollar, union-funded Bamberton development, given that the minister is going to have to give final approval to this project and that the lawyer for the South Island Development project is none other than Robert Milne, who was the official agent for the minister in the last election.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no conflict. If it is carried out, the project will be administered and delivered by local government, the Cowichan Valley Regional District. This minister does not drive the project. All dealings are with local government. They control the process and the public hearing. All my dealings as minister are with local government, as they should be.

The Speaker: In recognizing the supplemental, I would urge the hon. member to ensure that the question addresses the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

G. Wilson: Indeed it does, because in a letter to the regional district this Minister of Municipal Affairs said that substantial sums of provincial money may have to go into this project. If there was no perceived conflict of interest with respect to Mr. Milne, does the minister not feel that the involvement of Mr. J.D. Tait -- self-acknowledged fundraiser for this minister in the last campaign -- would at least signify some kind of conflict, given that this minister will have to approve the infrastructure financing?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My dealings are not with Mr. Tait; they are with local government. I will not approve the infrastructure funding. I have already said it's through the Cowichan Valley Regional District. Through consultation with the public, they must approve the land use decision in principle. If they approve that, other ministers will have to go through statutory requirements, in terms of environmental assessment.... I will not drive the agenda of those statutory requirements. If required, those reviews will go ahead to protect the interests of all British Columbians. That is clear. I have said my dealings are with local government, and that is all.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Once again with respect to the conflict of interest, given that this project requires a substantial rezoning and runs counter to the community plan, which is administered under the Municipal Act, can the minister tell us who the citizens in that area should appeal to if they feel aggrieved? Normally they would appeal to the ombudsman, but we find that the ombudsman is in fact the wife of the lawyer for the project developers. So who does the minister feel these people could appeal to?

Hon. R. Blencoe: In this province we have a longstanding tradition of autonomous local government and elected officials. If you feel aggrieved about a land use decision -- unless the Liberals want to change the tradition in our province -- you appeal to the officials who are elected to make the decision. My advice to that member is to counsel those people who want to have their views heard to talk to local government; they are the ones who control the process. That is the tradition in British Columbia, and we uphold that tradition on this side of the House.

CONSIDERATION FOR GRADE 12 STUDENTS AFFECTED BY LABOUR DISRUPTIONS

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Education. Sunday's back-to-work legislation didn't address the effect of the strikes on students' performance in provincial exams. Has the minister finally decided to offer these students some form of special consideration so as to allow them to compete on a fair and equal basis?

Hon. A. Hagen: Students in the province are all back in school diligently preparing for their exams. I know that teachers and students will be working in preparation for the exams and will be as prepared for them as is their need. I have not changed our position on the exam process, which is a fair process; and the post-secondary institution process, which is a fair one, will be in place for those students.

C. Serwa: Despite the minister's unfortunate choice of words, students didn't enjoy a special advantage by being out of school for that period of time. If the affected students show some marked difference in their provincial exam results, will the minister not consider an adjustment process? There is precedent for this in the Ministry of Education; it has been done in the cases of Abbotsford, Princeton and Peace River North. It seems reasonable and fair that an adjustment be made.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, as the hon. member knows, the guidelines of question period do not allow hypothetical questions.

[ Page 6835 ]

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC DISRUPTIONS

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Considering some threats to disrupt traffic at the Okanagan floating bridge, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stated recently that highway blockades by aboriginal groups will not be tolerated, but at the same time he added that a slowdown of traffic might be a legitimate form of protest. Does the Minister of Transportation and Highways condone slowdowns of traffic by leafletting or whatever -- and is this Block B.C.?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All citizens of British Columbia have a right to make their views known on issues, and if they are not causing any disproportionate disturbance to traffic, then I think it ought to be acceptable. These kinds of things happen throughout the province on an ongoing basis. Perhaps the hon. member opposite would like me to stop high schools, for example, from advertising car washes.

COMPENSATION FOR HEMOPHILIACS

L. Reid: My question is to the Premier. The role of good government is to set standards. This did not happen for British Columbians who required safe blood supplies. Other provinces are prepared to compensate their citizens. Your Minister of Health, hon. Premier, regrets that other provinces are moving ahead. Are you prepared to make a decision today?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows full well, the issue of compensation for hemophiliacs who are HIV-positive was reviewed by the conference of provincial health ministers as recently as September 1992. At that point all provinces reached an agreement that the federal compensation that was provided was adequate, and the allowance that had been made by the provinces to not consider it income when other provincial programs are put in place was reaffirmed. Since that time, Nova Scotia and Quebec have changed their opinion. I have now met with the B.C. hemophiliac society and received their submission again, and I have undertaken to reconsider this matter and get back to them as soon as possible.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member?

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I will pose the question to the Minister of Health.

The answer is unacceptable. We have individuals in this province who will not survive the length of your report, quite frankly. During the estimates process we had the Kilshaw report, which looked at diagnostic services. We have people in this province who don't know whether or not they have contracted the AIDS virus. You have been called to action by the federal governments and other provincial governments; are you prepared to take some action?

Hon. E. Cull: I met with the B.C. hemophiliac society just over one month ago. I committed to get back to them as soon as possible. I don't think that four weeks is too long for a thoughtful review of a policy decision which requires that there be some consistency across this country, so that it doesn't matter where you live, you get equitable compensation. The review will be coming forward in due course.

WELFARE FRAUD INVESTIGATION ERROR

V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. Last week, in the aftermath of the concern about fraud in Social Services, one of the persons who was unjustly affected by this was a man by the name of Mr. John Paul Jones, whose identity was used in trying to prove that there was fraudulent use.... Would the Premier, on our behalf, send Mr. John Paul Jones a letter of apology for this unfortunate occurrence which took place in his life?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will take that question on notice, and get back to the member.

CAMPBELL RIVER SCHOOLS LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Given the dithering we've seen over the last two months on the labor relations issue as it relates to education in the province, and the action that this government finally took on Sunday, and then again on Monday as it relates to Surrey, will the Minister of Labour now intervene with Bill 31 in the Campbell River dispute, and get the students in Campbell River back to school before they have to write their exams?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member had done his homework he'd know that the parties have agreed to a process that will see a resolution to the Campbell River dispute.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly the minister once again is showing to us, and to the people in this province, and the students of this province, that he's more concerned with the labour relations process than he is with the students of British Columbia. When will the minister finally stand up for the students of B.C., and get them back into school where they belong, despite the objections of his friends in the labour movement?

Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps the hon. member didn't hear me, or perhaps he didn't want to hear me because he's been rehearsing his questions all afternoon, and didn't want to hear the news out of Campbell River. The fact is, hon. member -- and please listen to me carefully here -- the parties have agreed to a process by which they will go back to work, and schools will reopen in Campbell River.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

[ Page 6836 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The parties in Vancouver agreed to a process, the parties in North Island agreed to a process, the parties in Surrey agreed to a process, and the students still stayed out of school. When will the students in Campbell River be back, and when will the minister take some concrete action on this issue? If he won't, when will the Premier?

Hon. M. Sihota: The schools in North Island are back in operation; the schools in Surrey and Vancouver are in operation; the schools in Campbell River are to be in operation imminently.

FINANCE MINISTER'S ROLE IN DEALING WITH LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The people of the province were intrigued to learn that the Minister of Finance joined the Premier in heading for the hills, rather than attend cabinet meetings to discuss the end of the Vancouver teachers' strike. Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he saw a separate ruling from the conflict-of-interest commissioner on his involvement in cabinet discussions leading to a settlement of this strike?

REQUEST FOR CABINET SHUFFLE

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask a supplemental question of the Premier. I ask this question on behalf of a long-suffering public and government members of this House. When will the Premier undertake a cabinet shuffle?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Yesterday the Chair reminded members that matters to do with cabinet are not appropriate for question period. I ask the Premier, in rising, to keep that in mind when he answers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the issue was about cabinet, and around the issue of conflict. I think British Columbians would want to see the Premier and cabinet ministers exercise an abundance of caution when it comes to matters of conflict. Given the previous government's experience with that Premier and 11 ministers having to resign because of conflicts and other inappropriate behaviour, I would think that the member would say: "Good on you for being cautious about conflict situations." Hon.

Speaker, I would think the member would say that, with the tough new conflict laws we have and with the abundance of caution exercised by myself and other ministers over the last 18 months. Mr. Hughes made it very clear in his written submission, tabled in this Legislature, that if I were to sit on a decision in regard to Vancouver instead of dealing with the broad principle of the public interest in getting students back into the classroom, it could be perceived as a conflict. I would hope the member would be cognizant of that.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act.

VANCOUVER FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

J. Macphail: It gives me great pleasure to bring forth second reading of private member's Bill 402, the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act. If I can have the forbearance of the House, I will explain this technical amendment. It is an amendment to

section 16 of this piece of legislation. The Vancouver Foundation has grown to be, by far, the largest community foundation in Canada. As a community foundation, it is a fund that has been built by individual people. It is not a corporate- or government-funded institution. It is really a matter of small donations through people's wills and estates. The Vancouver Foundation does fund throughout the whole province in areas of youth, education, child welfare, the performing arts, health and welfare, the environment, and medical research.

[2:30]

With the growth of the Vancouver Foundation, it was felt that United Way of the Lower Mainland -- at that time it was called the Vancouver Welfare Federation -- should have a fund that would sustain the operating costs and offset some of the campaign costs of the United Way appeal. So the general fund was established. The general fund was really set up to provide for the United Way and to allow the foundation board to use it for that purpose -- or other purposes. That has become a bit of problem for the United Way because of the uncertainty of the funding of that foundation.

The Vancouver Foundation relies on public donations, and some of the donations carry very specific directions, while others do not. Those that do not carry specific directions are the ones that cause the problem. They go into what the act calls the general fund, and the income from that general fund would, by default, be paid to the United Way. However, the United Way has absolutely no certainty, because the income from that fund may be diverted by the board of Vancouver Foundation to other charities. The Vancouver United Way fund has no guarantee of how much revenue it will receive.

Sometimes those unspecified donations are actually directed to the geographic location from which they came, so the United Way is sometimes competing for those same funds.

This amendment attempts to give the United Way some certainty in its funding. The concept is to crystallize the present fund as it exists, so that the United Way will receive the income from the present fund on a mandatory, not a discretionary, basis. This is how that will occur by amendment. For the next four years, the United Way and the Vancouver Foundation will share any additional donations to the fund that have no specific reference on a basis beginning at 40 percent to the community fund and decreasing to 10 percent four years from now. Once the fund is established, there will be absolutely no question that

[ Page 6837 ]

the United Way is entitled to these proceeds. There will be certainty for both the United Way and the Vancouver Foundation. I might add that the United Way is very supportive of this amendment, because they see an absolute certainty in the proceeds and the fund will be substantial.

Let me just reiterate the way the fund will work. It is a general fund of approximately $10 million. It generates slightly in excess of $1.1. million a year. That fund will be capped or at least solidified at that amount under the name of the United Way of the Lower Mainland endowment fund. People who want to support the United Way fund will make donations specifically to that fund or perhaps even to the general fund, because that's what some people have always known it to be.

Moneys that are directed to the general fund will continue to flow into that fund as well for a period of time, until the fund is well established. Again, I reiterate that the United Way has indicated they are in favour of this treatment.

A. Cowie: The official opposition is pleased to support this bill. Both the United Way and the Vancouver Foundation have done excellent work and continue to do excellent work. I personally have worked through the Vancouver Parks Board on a number of projects that were funded by the foundation. They've always done excellent work. So without going on in great detail, we can only say that we support the intent of this. We think it's an advantage to have the two agencies working well together, so that donations and funding strategies can be coordinated.

C. Serwa: Certainly I rise to speak in support of the philosophy and principles of this particular bill. The Vancouver Foundation has deservedly earned a very special reputation in British Columbia, not only in the Vancouver area but also for the bequests and funding support through all areas of the province. Given the opportunity, both the United Way and the Vancouver Foundation made clear that they had agreed on the amendments.

What I wanted to talk about specifically was the opportunity of the select standing committee to look at a bill, listen to presentations in a different forum than the Legislature and ask a variety of questions that were fundamentally apolitical. It was a very interesting process. It's actually the first time that I was involved in this specific process, and I liked it very much indeed. It might be considered for future bills that pass through this Legislature. The hon. member has canvassed it very well and explained it thoroughly. We are solidly in support of passing the amendments to the Vancouver Foundation Act.

Bill Pr402, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, two things. First, I wish to call Committee of Supply A in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and secondly, I call committee stage of Bill Pr402.

VANCOUVER FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill Pr402; E. Barnes in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the Chair.

Bill Pr402, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm sure we can make as substantial progress in the next bill as well.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. House Leader for the opposition says I may be amazed.

I call second reading of Bill 30.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Secondly, Bill 30 introduces amendments to improve the management and administration of woodlot licences. An amendment will allow sizes and boundaries of woodlot licences to be changed, with the consent of the licence holder, if the changes will improve forest management. Another amendment will increase the maximum area of Crown land permitted in a woodlot licence in the interior of the province from its

[ Page 6838 ]

current 400 hectares to 600 hectares. This will allow for greater equality of harvest volume between coastal and interior woodlot licences. A further amendment will ensure that new woodlot licences are awarded in a fairer manner.

Thirdly, Bill 30 will help the Forest Service protect the financial interests of the Crown in its forest resource. The bill strengthens controls over the scaling of timber. It also improves the ability of the Forest Service to collect moneys owed to the government.

Finally, Bill 30 includes miscellaneous amendments to clarify the intent of several sections of the Forest Act. Hon. Speaker, this government is committed to improving the management of provincial forests and protecting the financial interests of the Crown in its forest resource. I therefore move Bill 30 be read for the second time.

W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 30 which, as the minister has indicated, contains provisions that will allow the ministry to more closely scrutinize the activities on and the performance of tree farm licences in the province. The opposition is also pleased to see the new directions for the provincial woodlot program. As a member of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, I can say that the need to strengthen and enhance the woodlot program was certainly identified to that committee when we toured the province.

Interestingly enough, both the tree farm licence agreements and the woodlot programs are area-based tenures. In the past, the minister and I have discussed the importance of area-based tenure as a vehicle for improving forest management.

When we discuss tree farm licences, it's important to mention that there are still many checks and balances in place in the five-year development plans that licence holders must present to the Minister of Forests, such as the need to provide preharvest silvicultural plans and to conduct wildlife management studies. The ministry has a great deal of control over what happens on tree farm licences. I'm told that, since we're rolling the licences over at a shorter interval, the new provisions will probably add to the paperwork of licensees.

This is not a huge burden and it is one which will theoretically provide the people of the province and the ministry with more scrutiny of these kinds of tenures. The opposition would like to see some substantial legislative initiatives come forward with respect to TFLs, to identify the kind of enhanced forest stewardship opportunities that exist. We would like to have seen some provision made for those types of enhancements in this bill, rather than just the requirement that licensees do more in the way of paperwork for the Ministry of Forests.

The opposition appreciates the housekeeping nature of the bill, and the fact that it tightens up the scaling requirements and enhances revenue collection for the Crown. Having had a chance to review the bill and discuss its contents with other stakeholder groups, the opposition is satisfied that it represents a constructive change to the Forest Act, and therefore we support the intent and the principle of these changes.

[2:45]

R. Neufeld: I also rise to speak to second reading of Bill 30. We have a few reservations about changing the tree farm licences -- the requirement now from ten years to five years. We will probably deal with that a bit further in committee, and the minister will be able to make us aware of why those changes are required.

In general terms our caucus supports Bill 30 as a change to the Forest Act, which in some places needs changing. But in a number of areas, such as in societies, they can no longer get woodlot licences, because -- as we understand it -- they can change their directors fairly quickly. But companies can also change their directors fairly quickly. We wonder why we're going to exclude that part of society from having woodlot licences. I understand there are in the neighbourhood of ten or 15 of them in the province, and I'm sure they serve a good purpose. There may be some issues that I don't understand, and the minister will make us aware of those.

As with the Liberal critic who spoke, I too was a member of the select standing committee. We had quite a few submissions made to us on woodlot licences and the size of woodlots. We can support that; it certainly makes a lot of sense. The tightening up of scaling and collections and being able to apply interest rates are things we can also support. I think we all know how tight things are, and we can appreciate that. Probably the biggest fear in that area is the increase in the paper flow, the increase in the permits required or anything that has to happen within the forests to take care of that.

But I'm sure the minister has researched it clearly and will be able to tell us a bit more in committee about the reasons for those.

A couple of sections and the explanatory notes confused me a little bit, when we went through it.

Section 14 in Bill 30, as we understand it, amends

section 142, and when we get to the end of the bill,

section 23 repeals sections 142 and 142.1. There is a bit of confusion on the part of our caucus as to what we're doing. We're amending one section, and then at the end of the bill we're repealing the whole thing. We wonder what has happened there or if that's just a typographical error.

Other than that, our caucus can support this bill, and we look forward to it going into committee.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to say a few words on second reading of Bill 30, the Forest Amendment Act, 1993. The minister has summed it up very well in his comments, although I note that the minister's comments on second reading of this bill were virtually identical to the comments he made on first reading when the bill was introduced a few days ago in the House. He hasn't really added any information that's useful; he has basically read the same briefing note his staff prepared for him, I suspect.

Hon. D. Miller: I strive for consistency.

D. Mitchell: He's very consistent, if anything, but he hasn't added much value to the principles contained in this bill.

[ Page 6839 ]

If in fact the changes brought in with Bill 30, the amendments to the Forest Act, improve the forest management on woodlot licences, that can certainly be supported. And if in fact the controls over scaling that are referred to in this bill bring about greater security for the financial interests of the Crown, that obviously can be supported as well.

However, I think the changes to tree farm licences and area-based tenure need to be further elaborated on by this minister in terms of what is actually going on. Is there a philosophical change in the form of tenure that our forest industry has been built upon -- tree farm licences and area-based tenure? The security of tree farm licences has always been regarded as the highest security the forest industry could enjoy, in terms of having security of timber supply on which to base capital investment for forest operations, whether they be sawmills, pulp mills, paper mills, what have you.

On the reduction of the period of renewal from ten years to five years, it is important to ask the minister whether or not there is a change -- a philosophical shift going towards less security of tenure in the forest industry. If we are going to see less secure timber tenure, I think the minister might want to elaborate on that. Perhaps when he closes debate on second reading he might want to address that; otherwise we could do that in the committee stage.

I think the issue is that historically the industry has required security of timber supply in order to justify investment that has created jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia -- our most important industry. There seems to be a change here. I wonder if it's the start of a process that will go towards less security over the long run. Are we going to see shorter renewal periods? Are we going to see an end to area-based tenure in the form of tree farm licences? I hope the minister will be able to address some of these concerns.

It appears to be more than an administrative change. As in administrative change, there is going to be a greater paper burden; the member for Surrey-White Rock referred to that. The forest industry is already burdened to some extent by paperwork and red tape. I don't know if this is going to be streamlined, but my reading of the bill tells me that that administrative burden will be increased as a result of these changes and amendments to the Forest Act.

With those few comments I look forward to the minister's closing remarks on this bill and look forward to discussing it further in committee.

P. Ramsey: I wish to say a few words about this bill in second reading, particularly that portion of it which refers to amendments to provisions regarding woodlot licences. I want to applaud the minister and the ministry for bringing these amendments forward. These amendments are a result of a long consultative process with woodlot owners around the province and with their association, the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations. I think these amendments will be welcomed, both by the association and by woodlot licensees in my part of the province -- and in other parts as well.

I want to say a few words about those provisions. One of the members asked why there was provision for the deletion of the provision that a society could hold a woodlot licence. I think we have to go back and look at the principles that underlie the issuing of woodlot licences in the first place, and there are several.

First, we want to bring private land under a forest management regime. Woodlot licences allow a private landowner to combine his land with Crown land in one management unit. We want to involve small landowners in management of land adjacent to their own, and people in communities in management of land adjacent to their communities. We want that done over a long period of time. Therefore it is probably inappropriate to have licences held by societies. The membership in a society and its directorship may change relatively rapidly.

While an individual will have a commitment to the land and to the licence, the directors of a society could change, virtually every year. Therefore the continuity of management for a licence held by a society is of concern to those involved in woodlot associations.

The second provision was to increase the amount of Crown land that could be attached to a woodlot licence to 600 hectares in the interior of the province, outside the Vancouver forest region or the north coast timber supply area. This move has long been sought by woodlot licensees in my part of the province, and will be welcomed by them. It recognizes the difference in rate of growth of timber on Crown lands in the interior and on the coast. The coast growing sites are much more fertile, and the same area of land can produce timber far more rapidly.

Therefore in order to have the same amount of timber produced every year, a larger area is required in the interior than on the coast. These amendments to the act will allow the Ministry of Forests to recognize the difference in various bioclimatic zones of the province in the issuing of woodlot licences.

Finally,

section 43 of the act is an amendment to give district managers in the Forest Service the authority to vary the boundaries of woodlots, with the permission of the licensee. The woodlot licences initially set up have proved at times to have boundaries that are not totally defensible. This provides the flexibility to make sure that what is included in a woodlot really can be managed as a unit, meets the needs of the forest district and meets the needs of the individual woodlot licensee.

In conclusion, hon. Speaker, I wanted to point out that these amendments are going to be welcomed by woodlot licensees throughout the province, and to urge their adoption by the House.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate on second reading.

Hon. D. Miller: Given the substantial -- not absolute, but substantial -- agreement, we may be proceeding further, following second reading. I would hope that would be the case, but nonetheless, I will respond to a couple of the issues that were raised.

I note a number of comments about what the bill doesn't contain. Although I'd be happy to debate that, I

[ Page 6840 ]

fear I might offend the rules if I were to get into all of those things that members feel should be in the bill but are not. Perhaps we can accommodate them by introducing further legislation along the lines that some of the members have raised. But just to touch on some of the points....

First of all, there is certainly no intention to increase the bureaucratic paperwork that is required. With any complex licence document, there clearly is a great deal of paperwork required. On the woodlot side, we have tried to relieve some of that burden. As the Liberal Forests critic pointed out, they are an area-based tenure and, in a sense, a mini-TFL. They obviously have some of the same requirements with respect to filing and plans and the rest, although they are substantially different. We in the ministry try to recognize that and to relieve that burden where possible.

Certainly the intent here is not to increase the paper burden. There is no benefit to either the ministry or the licensees in doing that. We don't realize any benefit, nor do we consciously try to do that.

My colleague the member for Prince George North has spoken eloquently about the changes with respect to the woodlot licence. I note the particular concern of the member for Peace River North with respect to the deletion of societies. That concern was raised by members on this side as well -- and perhaps we can have a broader discussion in committee -- but we do feel that there is a substantial difference between a corporate entity, which may from time to time change management, and a society, which is really quite dependent upon key people being part of that society. There is no way, of course, to bind people.

One of the factors we consider in the awarding of woodlot licences is the capability of people to effectively manage. The capability of the individuals is a very strong consideration in the awarding of woodlot licences. In the past, some of those societies which currently have woodlot licences had very capable people, but there is simply no way to ensure -- as with most societies -- that those people are maintained in the society or on the board of directors. Therefore my staff feel that the deletion is in fact in order.

I didn't count the number of societies, but there are a number. It's interesting to note that among the array of societies that currently hold woodlot licences there is a minor hockey association. That might strike some as odd, but despite that fact, the bill clearly establishes -- and I will confirm -- that we have no intention of acting against societies that currently hold woodlot licences. They are fully protected, but in the future we don't feel that we want to retain that form of management.

[3:00]

Finally -- and I think the most interesting question asked by the independent member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi with respect to security -- there's no intention here to undermine the security offered by a TFL. For those members who are not aware, that licence is for a term of 25 years, but it is essentially an evergreen licence. In other words, if you comply with the provisions that we stipulate in the licence, if you manage the licence properly, you have the security of knowing that you can renew.

The historical reason why the renewal took place on the tenth anniversary was that in the case where any new conditions offered by the Crown -- or indeed, imposed by the Crown on the licence itself -- were unacceptable to the licensee, and the licensee then made the determination that they would not renew, they would then have 15 years' security; they would know that they would have the following 15 years to run the licence out.

Changing the renewal date to the fifth anniversary really does provide that same kind of security, and one could argue -- I'm really not trying to make a point of it -- that you could offer 20 years instead of 15 years. However, I don't want to suggest that changing the term really has anything to do with that. We do change the terms of licences. Throughout the history of tree farm licences, different policies have been adopted by governments and then subsequently put into the licence documents themselves. We are in the process -- in fact, it may be completed by now -- of renewing a number of forest licences.

In doing that, we have put in new conditions. We've gone through some negotiations and some discussion with licencees. I'm not suggesting that they were completely happy with everything that the Crown proposed; nonetheless, as the owners of the resource, we do have that obligation to ensure that we insert conditions in those licence documents that are to the benefit of the public.

Some conditions relate to tying licences to mills -- commonly known as the "appurtenance clause," which was substantially weakened a number of years ago -- while other conditions relate to, for example, compliance with existing guidelines. The members are aware that the fish forestry guidelines -- which, indeed, are very good guidelines, when they work -- were in some cases violated. So putting conditions in that licencees are obligated to follow these kinds of guidelines is the normal kind of business and the normal kinds of things that we take up with the licence holders at renewal time.

But the member is correct in bringing the issue of tenure to the fore. I don't want to get into a long history, but since 1987 there has been renewed debate on the fundamental issue of tenure as it relates to resource policy. There still exists a body of thought with respect to what kind of tenure system we want to maintain in this province.

Although tree farm licences were at one time the dominant licence, members will be aware that the 35 tree farm licences really take up about one-third of the current operable forest land base. The operable forest land base is in the 22 million to 24 million hectare range, and currently those 35 tree farm licences occupy about 6.8 million to 7 million hectares of that total base. So the real dominant form of licence in fact has become the forest licence. That really happened as a result of opening up the interior.

Notwithstanding that there are two dominant forms of tenure -- and one volume-based, the forest licence; and one-area based, the tree farm licence -- there is still an outstanding debate with respect to tenure. What form of tenure do we want? The members are aware of the report from the Forest Resources Commission which made a number of suggestions about reform. I've taken the position with

[ Page 6841 ]

industry and with the public generally that this is unresolved; it's a piece of unfinished business. We currently don't plan to make any changes to tenure. I've said to industry that I want to talk, not just to the tenure holders but to the range of industry that's represented in this province, about the tenure system and about things that flow from it -- for example, our pricing system and other issues like that. We have an obligation as government to continue to look at our systems to ensure that they produce the best result for the public -- that our forest resources are manufactured to their highest degree, and that they produce the most employment we can possibly obtain.

Earlier today members mentioned the fact that those of you who are on the select standing committee looking at the issue of the wood supply to remanufacturers have made a number of observations about who controls how much tenure and what should be done about that. So I've taken the position that this is an unresolved debate. We do not intend to proceed in a hasty manner to look at the issue. We intend to do it carefully and in consultation, first of all, with the industry generally -- not just, I repeat, with the tenure holders -- and ultimately we intend to engage the public in that dialogue once again. This five-year renewal gives us ample opportunity to do that.

There were some complications caused by a freeze imposed by the previous administration. That freeze followed the failure of the major policy enunciated in 1987, which was to expand the TFL system to encompass the remaining lands, to allow forest licence holders the opportunity to roll over their forest licence under

section 27(1) of the Forest Act into tree farm licences. It met with tremendous resistance around the province. It was determined -- and I think quite correctly -- that the policy was not acceptable to the public. As a result of that, the previous administration imposed a freeze on the issuance of any new tree farm licences. Some of those previous actions have impacted on the renewals; the freeze has essentially delayed some of the renewals.

So we think this an appropriate way to provide security to the licence holders. As I indicated earlier, the five-year renewal -- and there's a number of licences up on July 1 of this year -- gives them that kind of security and at the same time allows the basic policy issues to be examined. It allows the government to formulate some new policy finally or maintain existing policy with respect to tenures. We'll be going through that exercise, and we think we've allowed ourselves sufficient time to do that.

At the same time, we have provided the security that the licence holders require to make their capital investment plans: some length of time that they know they can operate with security of supply.

Having provided those brief explanations, I think we can deal at committee stage with the few other issues that were raised with respect to

section 142. I've not been advised by my House Leader that there's agreement.... In fact, there may be.

An Hon. Member: No committee, if that's what you're....

Hon. D. Miller: No? Okay. I'm judging from the various nods and shrugs that I'm receiving here that although there was some suggestion we might seek leave to proceed immediately into committee stage, that doesn't exist. So I would move, hon. Speaker, that Bill....

The Speaker: Actually, hon. minister, if we can vote on second reading first, we will then invite you to move the next motion.

Motion approved.

Bill 30, Forest Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Hagen: I call committee on Bill 20.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 20; F. Garden in the chair.

section 1.

H. De Jong:

Section 1 doesn't seem to worry me much, but I would like to ask a couple of questions on it. I'm just wondering why the

preamble has been changed. There used to be a lot of emphasis on "individual potential...to contribute to a healthy society," but those words have been taken out and replaced by "personally fulfilled and publicly useful." Could the minister explain why this change has taken place?

Hon. A. Hagen: The

preamble to the Independent School Act is in common with the

preamble to the School Act. As we noted in the debate of the amendments to the School Act, there has been an additional "whereas," which outlines a goal of society to support the education of children. There have been some changes to the old

preamble, such as adding a couple of new words to emphasize education for all learners and to emphasize that we're educating children to live in a democratic and pluralistic society. But the concept of individual potential is very strongly emphasized in both of those clauses.

[3:15]

H. De Jong: We all know, of course, that the BCTF does not really appreciate competition. That's kind of the overall attitude of the current government as well: they don't necessarily believe in competition. Is de-emphasizing the words "individual potential" perhaps a subtle attempt -- and I wouldn't think it would be, but I just want to clarify this -- to insert the ideological ideas of the current government, which are going to be imposed on the independent schools, beyond what they have normally been required to comply with. I have a bit of concern with that. I believe

[ Page 6842 ]

that many people who support independent schools do so for a specific reason. I'm somewhat concerned that by making these things the same as in the public school act, there may be that underlying thought of trying to upset the ideological ideas, real meaning and intent of why people want to send their kids to an independent school.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, this is a broad statement of goals. It is not our intent to upset the independent schools but rather to speak of broad goals of education that I believe all people support and would endorse.

H. De Jong: One more question on this section, Mr. Chairman. I suppose, from time to time, that children in British Columbia who have mental problems -- and one worse than another.... I'm just a bit concerned about whether the word "all" -- meaning all students, all learners -- is used so that the schools have no jurisdiction in terms of a person who may be quite severely mentally handicapped. The school would have no right to say that it could not accept the student. Perhaps such students would better fit into another category, perhaps one more closely related to the British Columbia health system.

I just want to have the point clarified that the school, or a school board of an independent school, cannot be pushed into having to accept such a student for which, first of all, they have no qualified teachers to teach and furthermore, it is far beyond their financial capabilities to do so.

Hon. A. Hagen: We should note, hon. Chair, that this is a

preamble statement and a statement of goals.

K. Jones: I'd like to pose some questions to the minister about her thinking in bringing forward this revision of the

preamble. It seems to indicate that there is real need for a change to further clarify the definition, or to change the philosophy from the existing description in the act. Could the minister tell us the specific reason for the change that would require this

preamble in place of the previous one?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, the

preambles for the Independent School Act and the School Act have been the same. We have debated the

preamble for the School Act fairly extensively. We can return to that debate if the member wishes, but we have had a fairly extensive discussion around that

preamble.

I might note too, as we go through this legislation in committee, that this is the first time that there have been some changes in the School Act and the Independent School Act since they were first brought forward in 1989. Many of these amendments are a strengthening of the legislation, which was landmark legislation when it was introduced in 1989.

K. Jones: Yes, I'm sure that it's appropriate to review the legislation from time to time and bring forward modifications to update the legislation that we have.

I was wondering if the minister could explain to us, though, whether it is the intention of the minister to make the

preamble the same as it is in the

preamble to the School Act?

Hon. A. Hagen: They are identical, as they have been since both acts were first introduced.

K. Jones: So the change was based on the fact that because the School Act was changed, this act needed to be changed from what it was to what it is today?

Why, in the case of independent schools, would there not be a different

preamble to the act? Independent schools provide an alternative form of education and a choice for the people of B.C. The arrangements by which they operate are somewhat different from the actual School Act and therefore could probably have a different

preamble. Could you explain why that wouldn't occur?

Hon. A. Hagen: The broad goals for our education system have been and are consonant across the whole K to 12 system. There's nothing in the

preamble that is inconsistent with choice, whether in the public school or the independent school system.

K. Jones: This is a separate act from the public school act for the very purpose of defining the operations of a separate type of school system within the whole milieu of our educational process. It would seem appropriate, therefore, that you would put a defining explanation as to the purposes of this act in the

preamble and that it would be different from that of the public school system because it is, in effect, providing legislation for a school system that is different from the public school system. I think the minister has stated previously that she identifies that the public school system is a different form from that of the independent school system.

Hon. A. Hagen: It may help the member if he thinks of us as having one school system in B.C. in which the public and the independent schools operate. Many schools have a statement of philosophy, mission and goals consistent with their acts that reflect the particular communities they represent. We find that individual schools within both the public and the independent school system develop, with their parent communities and often with their students, those statements of mission and purpose consonant with the broad goals of our school system in the province.

K. Jones: I'm beginning to understand the minister with regard to this. Don't let me put words in your mouth, but are you saying that the public and independent school systems are basically working with the same philosophical approach and with the same intention to provide services on an equal basis to students, no matter which system they're operating in?

Hon. A. Hagen: No. What I'm saying is that we, as a society, have a commitment to the education of our children. Within B.C. we have two systems: a public and

[ Page 6843 ]

an independent school system, each of which serves a different clientele. But the broad purpose of education, to enhance the individual potential of students and to ensure that students grow up to have an opportunity to live and be productive in society, I believe, is shared by both of our school systems.

K. Jones: That means the public school and independent school systems, as you say, have the equal desire to provide a proper educational program. I believe that for that reason you have identified that group 1 and 2 schools are required to have the public school standard curriculum to qualify for those categories. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: I don't believe that the member's question is related to what we are discussing at this time.

The Chair: Member, continue and ask your questions based on the subject before us.

K. Jones: Actually, we are discussing the subject before us. We are trying to determine the reasoning for this specific wording that the minister has put in the bill, versus alternative wording which would be more specifically descriptive about what she plans with regard to the independent schools. If she intends that it shall be the same as with the public school system, I can go along with that. I got the impression as I asked her the questions that she wasn't prepared to say that it was same, but she wants to have the

preamble the same. Therefore I'm having a great deal of difficulty in understanding the minister's intention, because she talks out of one side of her mouth in one direction, and out of the other side in relation to the other acts.

The Chair: Order. The member is coming close to using some very unparliamentary language. I'd ask him to be cognizant of that.

K. Jones: I was just relating to the sides of the mouth. I don't know what that has to do with unparliamentary language.

The Chair: Hon. member, please refrain from this procedure. You know what we mean when we ask you to be cognizant of the kind of language you should be using. Please recognize that.

K. Jones: I guess that was just a figure of speech I was using. There was no intent to make any aspersions about the minister or anybody else in this House, hon. Chair. It was strictly a matter of trying to illustrate the problem that I was having here in trying to understand why, where we have two separate bills and intentions, we have the desire of the minister to put the same philosophy or direction of purpose into the two bills.

Perhaps it would be desirable for all of us to hear from the minister whether it was her intention that they both be identical, that we have a uniform education and opportunity for education. These bills are quite different; they obviously don't show a uniformity. The

preamble should reflect the reasons for them not being uniform. Could the minister explain that difference?

Hon. A. Hagen: The

preamble reflects the broad goals of society for the education of our children.

[3:30]

K. Jones: The desire of society is that the people have choice and the opportunity to choose the educational systems and teaching that their students receive. In order to do that, there is this act, called the Independent School Act, which Bill 20 amends. There is, obviously and very rightly, a separate indication of some special requirements for these independent schools. If this is the intention of the ministry, then the ministry should state that in the

preamble. Why wouldn't the minister be prepared to make a statement of the philosophy or the different approach that is taken that generates this bill? Or why not include within the School Act all of the schools on an equal basis, with the same type of funding?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm having difficulty responding to the persistent view of the member. We have repeatedly noted that these are broad goals of education. I've noted that choice exists within our education system, both within the public and the independent school system. I've noted that individual schools within these broad goals develop their statements of philosophy and purpose on goals and outcomes. I've noted that this is a

preamble which has a very special characteristic in respect to legislation. It deals with a broad interpretive clause. So I think we have explored the issues that the member has been bringing forward. If he is intending to suggest that the

preamble should meet all of the diverse characteristics of our school system within this province, we would need a 300-page bill to deal with that. You're talking about very broad goals here. This is enabling and, indeed, interpretive.

The Chair: The member continues, keeping in mind that the minister has answered the member's question on that issue, I think, three times now.

K. Jones: I have one final question for the minister. Does this

preamble indicate the minister's philosophical view on independent schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: When we deal with the

preamble, we are stating the goals of society, both for individual learners -- as is stated in the

preamble -- and our commitment to support learners in the school system. We are debating the Independent School Act and amendments to it. Therefore, with this

preamble, we are supporting those goals for learners who are in independent schools across the province.

D. Mitchell: The Minister of Education likely didn't anticipate that the

preamble would have caused this much discussion. I've been listening with interest to the description of the

preamble and its purpose, and I think I understand what the minister is saying. The

[ Page 6844 ]

minister has stated that the

preamble describes the broad goals of society with respect to education, and that these broad goals would apply, I presume, to both independent schools and the public school system. The minister also stated in one of her earlier responses to an inquiry on the

preamble that the

preamble is designed to address the particular clientele of independent schools, who are different than the clientele of the public school system. I'm wondering if she might clarify that, because my understanding is that there is a tremendous overlap in the clientele between both the independent school system and the public school system. In particular, statistics that her ministry provides indicate that there is increasing enrolment in independent schools, which suggests that there is some ongoing transfer from the public school system to the independent school system. So if there is a crossover, the clientele aren't clearly distinct; they're similar clientele. In that case, is this

preamble an attempt to harmonize education in the province, with respect to the broad goals of society being descriptive and imposed upon both the independent and the public school systems?

Hon. A. Hagen: I repeat to the member that when we look at the

preamble, which is the same in both the School Act and the Independent School Act, we are in fact stating our aspirations for learners and the commitment of society to support the education of children so that they may grow up to be, as we note, good lifelong learners who, with their potential realized, are contributing to society and finding satisfaction in their learning. I believe that parents and society would want to ensure that those broad and encompassing goals were evidenced in whatever schools our children attended, with all the diversity that exists within both of the systems we are talking about.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Dalton: I have one question with regard to the redefinition of "certificate of group classification." There's reference to an interim certificate. Can the minister advise the committee how long such an interim certificate would last?

Hon. A. Hagen: A very short time. This is a housekeeping amendment to deal with an amendment that we'll be talking about later in the bill. It simply makes reference to a short-term certificate. If the member agrees, I think it would be more useful to discuss it when we come to that section.

W. Hurd: Just a request for clarification. Under

section 2(d), the new definition of an independent school would not include "a school that solely offers religious instruction." Could the minister clarify for the committee the nature of the checks and balances that might exist to identify a school which in the view of the ministry offered a level of religious instruction that rendered it incapable of being designated as an independent school under the act.

Hon. A. Hagen: First, because I know that everybody finds it really difficult when we're debating amendments, perhaps it would be useful for me to note that the only new parts of this particular

section are items (

b) and (e), and they relate to matters that we'll be dealing with substantively later in the bill. Item (

e) comes from the old act. Perhaps the easiest way to define (e)(

i) is that a Sunday school, for example, would not qualify for funding as an independent school because its sole purpose is to offer religious instruction. The four or five categories that the

section says are not to be included as independent schools are from the old act. It simply says that a school that has a very specific purpose, rather than offering the broad educational programs that we normally associate with any K to 12 school system, is not included in our definition of an independent school. There's an abundance of caution that such bodies would not qualify for instruction, but it's part of the 1989 act and is not new.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

H. De Jong: This

section basically deals with educational resource materials. Certainly that's one of the basic criteria as to why we have schools and why we have independent schools.

It would appear on the face of it that this

section gives the minister greater powers -- perhaps I should use the words discretionary powers -- as to the kinds of materials that independent schools will be allowed to access. Further to that, I may as well put two questions into one and ask the minister to comment on whether the independent schools would have access to materials that are normally provided for the public schools and whether they would be available to the independent schools at the same price. It's not clear in the legislation.

Hon. A. Hagen: A good question. This really is a technical amendment to current practices for resources to be available, and we would normally debate those through the budget process. As I said earlier, this is the first look at the legislation since it was introduced. We are advised that in some areas there has not been legislative authority, so this is really to provide legislative authority for what we do. It's also consistent with the School Act and the authority within the School Act.

I hope this helps you to see it in the context in which it is introduced.

H. De Jong: A further question. Proposed

section 8(2) mentions the district in which the school is located. I don't think the Federation of Independent School Associations has any problem with this concept, but I believe they do wonder why the region in which a school is located should or could have a bearing on its access to materials.

[ Page 6845 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: As is often the case when we're developing legislation, we entered into consultations with FISA around these changes, so they have an understanding of their purpose. When we look at the various differentiations that may be there, they are consistent with the School Act. Where a school is located may be a factor in terms of the resources that might be available, and that's again consistent with the discretionary power to be able to deal with these issues with the legislative authority that comes under this section.

J. Dalton: With regard to what I'll call

section 8(1), the amended

section of the Independent School Act coming out of

section 4 of the bill, the minister has the power to determine both the educational resource materials and the services that may be received by an authority. Are these consistent with the services and resources that would be available to public schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: There are various classifications of schools within the act. In some instances resources are available as part of the funding system. Group 4 schools, for example, which are schools that offer programs for non-resident students, would have the option to purchase materials.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister whether curriculum can be controlled by determining the materials and services provided to a school.

[3:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: Although this doesn't come within the ambit of this section, there are a wide range of educational resource materials available, as the member might imagine. In a world that's exploding with knowledge and with technology, resources are books, videos and a whole range of things. In every school, in both the public and the independent school systems, teachers make decisions within the framework of the standard curriculum that is required if schools are to be funded. They make decisions about those resources, and there are quite a wide range of choices available to teachers in order to have the tools that they need to teach the curriculum.

K. Jones: If it were desirable to determine the direction of a program or to determine that a program not be presented at an independent school, would the minister, through this

section of the act, be able to prevent that program from proceeding by eliminating the textbook or other resource material -- such as a computer if it were a computer course -- from being used?

Hon. A. Hagen: No.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain why she says no?

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps the member could be more specific. We have various classifications of independent schools. Some of them teach the curriculum of the B.C. school system; others do not.

K. Jones: In the explanation of the clause, this

section states that the minister may determine the materials and services an authority is entitled to receive. My question was very specific. With this clause, would the minister, by controlling the materials and services provided, be able to determine whether a certain program or course was provided within that school?

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: If the school is offering the B.C. curriculum, then the resources available for that curriculum are available to those schools. If the school is not offering the curriculum, then I have no means of controlling the curriculum, provided that school lives within the general regulations. Those regulations are very broad in terms of the curriculum that may be offered.

K. Jones: The clause appears to be very clear. What is the reasoning behind the minister bringing forward a clause that really does give her the power to determine what materials and services an authority -- and I presume that's an independent school authority -- is entitled to purchase and receive. If the minister can control those very things that determine how a program can be presented -- other than by a verbal presentation of it -- she is basically controlling in every way the choices of programming that schools can offer. Is that the intention of the minister?

Hon. A. Hagen: If we could go back to square one, I said at the start that this simply puts current practice into legislation. It entitles schools to either receive or purchase resources from the ministry. Schools have options to purchase from other sources as well. The estimates process provides us with an opportunity to examine those resources in greater detail. This is simply legislative authority for current practice, with the final budgeting authority coming through the estimates process and review in this Legislature.

K. Jones: The minister states that current practice is that the minister is able to determine what books and course materials are provided by the school system. But the wording here doesn't say that it is made available or provided by the school system; it says that the minister may determine it and may also differentiate between various independent schools with regard to the services and materials made available to them. Surely that gives the minister an overriding power.

Perhaps the minister doesn't realize the intent of the information provided in this legislation or doesn't follow the legislation's potential. Is that what's happening? Or does the minister really know what's there but doesn't want to admit to the fact that she knows for the simple reason that there may be some ulterior motive of controlling the independent schools process because of her own philosophical viewpoint

[ Page 6846 ]

that independent schools really shouldn't exist and only the public school system should have the support that comes from the taxpayers.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me assure the member that there is no ulterior motive. This puts into legislation current practice with regard to resources for the independent schools, and through the budget process, those will be debated at greater length during the estimates process.

K. Jones: With that assurance, I will carry on to the next section.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Dalton: I suspect that this section, if any, is certainly going to cause some controversy, or a definite line of questioning. This

section eliminates the group 3 funding. I would like the minister, if she would care to, to advise the committee as to the rationale behind the elimination of the 10 percent funding.

Hon. A. Hagen: There are different classifications within the Independent School Act. The classifications we know as group 1 and 2 are schools that follow certain criteria around curriculum, certification of their students and evaluation, through our grade 12 examination system to the Dogwood Certificate. The group 3 schools are identical to a classification in this act noted as group 5 schools. They do not follow those criteria. Therefore the policy decision has been made that those schools will not receive public funding because they are not following criteria that relate to the broad curriculum, certification and examination standards set for the public schools and group 1 and 2 schools.

J. Dalton: Just to follow up on this, was there any opportunity accorded to the group 3 classification schools to be held accountable or to in some way have an opportunity to address the elimination of the 10 percent funding? I can understand the minister's rationale for being concerned that they don't follow prescribed criteria around curriculum. But perhaps that particular issue could have been addressed if these group 3 schools had the opportunity, if they so wished, to become accountable.

Hon. A. Hagen: The group 3 schools do have the opportunity, if they wish, to qualify for funding under the criteria set for groups 1 and 2. That opportunity and option, of course, has always existed for them.

H. De Jong: I suppose this is the

section in the bill where we would normally say the rubber hits the road. This is probably the most controversial

section in this bill. Understanding the minister's comments on the previous question, I would like to follow that up. Even though these particular schools have not followed the curriculum laid out by the School Act, has it been proven at the time of exams that these students were not properly taught and therefore should not receive the grant for educational purposes?

Hon. A. Hagen: Two comments to the member: all schools have the opportunity to apply for funding as group 1 or 2 schools, and all of these schools are inspected by our independent schools division in order to ensure that they meet the qualifications for what has consisted of group 3 and group 5 schools. So the broad answer to the question is yes. These schools have been inspected; and if they wish to qualify in terms of the criteria -- the curriculum, the certification of teachers and examinability under our grade 12 examination system -- they certainly are welcome to do that and therefore to qualify for funding in a different category.

H. De Jong: I'm not totally clear -- there was a little noise here, and I couldn't hear -- as to whether the minister has said these schools do not accept being under the program of inspection by the independent schools division of the ministry or whether these students do not in fact meet the requirements at the time of exams. I'll put my question again, Mr. Chairman, since there's a bit of noise here in the chamber.

The Chair: Yes. Would the hon. members keep their voices down, please.

H. De Jong: It's one of these clauses that a person can't really get excited about and holler at the top of his voice. So I would rather do it in a quiet way. I will again ask my question of the minister, as I didn't quite hear what the minister said.

Do these schools not wish to be under the inspection provided by the government for independent schools, or do these students not meet the requirements when they go to the exams, as normal students all do?

Hon. A. Hagen: Group 3 schools do not choose to apply for inspection in relation to their curriculum; in fact, it's not part of the requirements for those schools. If they were to apply to become, let's say, group 1 schools, there would be inspection -- is that the appropriate word? -- or an evaluation of whether they meet the criteria that I have spoken about. But they are classified in a different way because they have not chosen to be evaluated as meeting those criteria.

[4:00]

H. De Jong: Can the minister elaborate on why certain schools would not apply for that particular kind of inspection?

Hon. A. Hagen: It is entirely the choice of the school whether they wish to apply for an evaluation to meet the criteria, let's say to be funded as a group 1 school.

K. Jones: With respect to this section, does the minister believe that there is only one way of educating all students?

[ Page 6847 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: Earlier on we had quite a discussion about our school system and the diversity that exists within that system. I believe I have answered that question quite expansively.

K. Jones: Unfortunately, hon. Chair, I wasn't able to hear the minister. Her voice was very soft and tended to drift off. Could you have her repeat it, please?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I shall use my louder voice. In the earlier debate we spoke about the diversity of our school system within the public and independent school systems, so I think I have clearly indicated to the member that there is a wide range of schools and school choices within the broad school system of the province. I clearly recognize and celebrate that diversity.

K. Jones: In that you do agree that there is a diversity and a need for diversity among the various forms of education for our children, could you tell us why -- if they don't fit the curriculum as defined by one segment of society -- people who pay taxes equally are, in some cases, discriminated against in that they are not able to get any funding for their particular type of schooling separate from the others. Specifically, we are talking about the removal of the group 3 schools from that funding.

They get a very small amount of funding as it is; it is only 10 percent of their entire operating costs, and no capital costs are provided to these people, even though their parents are contributing the full 100 percent of the education tax contribution that every other taxpayer in British Columbia pays. Why is there that discrimination?

Hon. A. Hagen: We have a very significant number of public and independent schools in the province. We set societal standards for education through our curriculum, as well as the standards for teachers and the examinability. The majority of schools follow those societal standards, and funding that flows from that. As I have noted, the choice of meeting that criteria is certainly available to the schools that we are discussing here. It is my understanding that some of them are seeking to meet those criteria and could then well be funded under the group 1 classification.

K. Jones: So the minister is saying that if they jump into line with the group 1 classification, they can get funding. Therefore she is agreeing with the concept that there is only one method by which students can get an education in this province, and that is if they fall in line with the public school curriculum and process. If they don't, they are not going to get any funding. That's the fear of many independent schools, including those presently getting funding of 35 percent under group 2, and 50 percent under group 1.

They are very fearful that the NDP government, as has already been indicated by bringing this bill forward, is refusing to keep the promise that the Premier made at the time of the last election: that no independent school funding would be eliminated. We have a broken promise coming right now in this particular clause of Bill 20. It totally goes to the heart of whether there is a capability to have confidence in the government's election campaign promises, because they continue to break them. How can the people who are in group 2 and group 1 schools feel assured that they won't be the next ones in line?

Is this just the foot in the door? Is this the vehicle for another clause to come forward later on that will eliminate their funding next, until we have what the minister really wants: only one public school system, with all the independents kicked out?

Hon. A. Hagen: Among the 300 or so independent schools, there is a wide diversity of schools in terms of the programs that they offer, philosophies and local programs that are a part of those schools. Yet those schools meet the broad goals of the education system and at the same time are able to meet the particular needs and aspirations of their parent community. That's consistent with the discussion we had at the start of our debate on these amendments.

There are broad goals that we all agree are ones that bind us in our support of teaching our children while recognizing the diversity that is there and providing support in funding and in resources for those schools that meet the criteria that I've spoken about. As I note again, these schools may indeed choose to meet that criteria. In fact, some of them meet the criteria for some of their school programs but not for all of them, and those choices are available to the school community and parents of that school community.

K. Jones: In the election, the Premier didn't make any conditions under which independent schools would get funding; he categorically stated that independent school funding would not be affected by this government. Did you talk to the Premier about his promise to the people of British Columbia before you brought this legislation forward?

Hon. A. Hagen: We are moving more broadly at this time. Through the estimates process and this bill, we have looked at one part of our education system to support the learning of children within criteria where there is an accountability for the curriculum, standards of teachers and the examination of those students. Within that broad framework we continue to provide the support that's consistent with our commitments.

K. Jones: The minister talks about accountability. Who has the accountability to the people of British Columbia -- the Minister of Education or the Premier? Which one is telling the truth?

The Chair: Hon. member, we are on

section 5. If the member can relate the specifics of the question he's asking to this section, it would be most helpful to the Chair.

K. Jones: The relation, hon. Chair, is that this

section specifically eliminates the funding to group 3 schools, and the Premier has stated that there would be no elimination of funding to any independent schools. I'm asking: who's telling the truth?

[ Page 6848 ]

H. De Jong: I know that this

section is worrisome. Certainly in my community I have a number of independent schools that belong to the Federation of Independent School Associations and some that do not. The answers that we have received so far this afternoon have given me some comfort, but at the same time there is a certain amount of fear within me -- as well as, I'm sure, in others who have supported the independent schools -- particularly over statements that have been made in the past by members of what is now the government when the independent schools were considered by some of the members.

I'm referring to a statement here made by the member for Nanaimo, who called the independent schools "bastions of privilege." I believe that that is a totally incorrect statement because the independent schools are no more a privilege for the people wanting that education for their children than the public schools are for those who send their children to the public schools. There are choices, and choices have been made. Some prefer the independent schools and others prefer the public schools.

But the point is that that was such a wrong connotation to put on independent schools, because those people who send their children to independent schools pay the same school taxes within the district on their properties as well as through the general taxation of the province, as any other person.

I'm quite happy that there is a certain amount of criteria put forth to the independent schools, but I'm also happy and I hope -- and I think the minister earlier explained that in previous answers this afternoon -- that the schools will continue to be allowed to have things taught to the children during the school hours in addition to the curriculum that is provided by the government. I believe that that is precisely the reason why we have independent schools. The general curriculum is provided and taught, but it may be taught in some schools from a different perspective.

I believe that that freedom is there, and I would also hope that that freedom, in terms of teaching the curriculum from a different perspective than what may be done in the public schools, will always remain to be done in the independent schools. From the minister's answers that I have had this afternoon, I have no worry about that, but if there should be a different thought about it by the minister, then I would like to hear that.

[4:15]

I can also appreciate, even though the promise was made by the Premier that there would be no cut to independent schools, that these independent schools that we're talking about also have the choice to gather in with the other independent schools that have that freedom that I just talked about and will continue, I hope, to have that freedom. Therefore some of the fears and the anxiety that I did have on this particular

section have been somewhat, if not altogether, eliminated. Would the minister comment that the curriculum would be allowed to be taught in the independent schools from various perspectives?

Hon. A. Hagen: The B.C. curriculum provides that a portion of the curriculum is.... We use the words "locally-developed curriculum," and I think the member understands that term in a broad sense. That provides for independent schools as well as public schools to meet the needs of a community, whether it is a geographic community or a community that has a particular cultural interest; for instance the aboriginal community, or in the case of the independent schools, if there is a homogeneity of parents around certain interests and aspirations.

I come back to the comments I made earlier about the diversity within the broad goals that I believe we all support for our children. Perhaps that may add to the member's comfort.

D. Mitchell: I ask leave to introduce some guests in the galleries.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: We have some very special guests in the public galleries this afternoon. A group of grade 5 students from Signal Hill Elementary School have come all the way from the Pemberton Valley. They are here with their teachers to observe debate in the House today, and I would like to ask all members to make them feel welcome here in the committee.

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 33

Marzari

Edwards

Barlee

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Hammell

Lali

Giesbrecht

Miller

Hagen

Sihota

Clark

Cull

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

MacPhail

B. Jones

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Farnworth

Evans

O'Neill

Doyle

Janssen

Brewin

Kasper

Garden

Randall

Krog

NAYS -- 15

Chisholm

Reid

Gingell

Dalton

Farrell-Collins

Stephens

Hanson

Serwa

Mitchell

DDe Jong

Neufeld

Hurd

Warnke

Jarvis

K. Jones

section 6.

D. Mitchell: My reading of

section 6 is that it deals with B.C. graduation certificates issuable by group 4 schools, if all teachers are certified. I understand that right now the status quo is if 80 percent are certified. I wonder if the minister might comment on whether this might create some potential issues for independent schools in terms of nonacademic teachers and short-term contract positions for this group of independent schools. Would there be some issues here that would be very difficult for independent schools to address in terms of the certification of teachers for their schools?

[ Page 6849 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: These schools may apply through the independent schools branch for certification for other teachers. It's similar to a system that we have with other independent schools, where there may be a need for certain teachers within the group 4 schools who meet some particular needs of that school and who may not be certified under the college. There is a process through the independent schools branch of the ministry for certification to be available to the other 20 percent.

It could be for language reasons or because the group 4 schools provide a B.C. education for students who come from other countries to study our curriculum and write the exams under our grade 12 examination program. They would be eligible. It's quite consistent with the requirements for the group 1 and group 2 schools as far as the qualifying characteristics are concerned.

If the 20 percent of teachers who are not certified by the college wish to seek certification, they may do so through the independent schools branch of the ministry. That's consistent with what may happen with the independent schools, where 80 percent are certified through the college, but other teachers are certified through the independent schools branch.

D. Mitchell: Just so I understand the minister on this,

section 6 of this act provides that permits for an independent school would be issued only if all teachers are certified teachers in independent schools. Is that correct? If the minister would just clarify that.

[4:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: In this amendment, we're talking about giving the group 4 schools the right to issue a certificate, provided a certificate based on grade 12 examination and year-of-study qualifications meet criteria. The criteria includes, of course, the curriculum, successful passing of the exams and certification requirements. If the member were to have a copy of the full act, a certified teacher means a teacher who holds a certificate of qualification under the Teaching Profession Act or a certificate of qualification issued by the inspector under this act or the former act.

That's what I was just referring to -- the inspector of independent schools. There is a letter of permission clause, which always exists as a means by which a person can be certified as well.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister what the minister's purpose was in wanting this very powerful addition to the act. It gives the minister the ability to make special purpose grants. I can understand one purpose: to fund students who have special needs. That would be appropriate, but this amendment is quite broad in its scope and allows the minister to pay a special purpose grant without defining what that is, and also to vary grants to determine how much one school could get over another.

In other words, you could discriminate very easily through this clause with the amount of funding that would go to individual schools. If they happen to be in an NDP riding, they could get a whole lot more money than they would if they were in a Liberal riding. That's within the scope of this particular amendment to the act, and I'd like to have the minister clearly define why she needs these sections 11.1 and 11.2 in the act.

Hon. A. Hagen: It would be helpful if the member recognized that this legislation provides broad legislative authority to government. That is what this act is doing. Let me say that this is exactly the same question that we debated under

section 4. Under both the School Act and the Independent School Act, the minister has the ability to provide special purpose grants. In the case of the Independent School Act, prior to this amendment, we were only able to deal with that through the estimates process. We will, of course, continue to deal with it through the estimates process. Fundamentally, this is a good housekeeping amendment that provides the legislative authority for what has been there in practice. As with any power that the legislation provides, the government is accountable for that funding through its budget.

In practice -- and once this bill is passed, through the authority of this act -- we have provided special purpose grants for special needs children in the independent schools. Perhaps the members will recall this from the estimates debate, which I don't want to go into again. We have targeted those grants to where those special needs children are. It's that kind of good government, good authority and good budgeting that assists us to ensure that we provide those opportunities for the special needs students within the independent schools. I think we had quite a good discussion of that.

Here we are providing a clause in the Independent School Act that is entirely consistent with the School Act. I am accountable on behalf of my government for those grants through the budget and the estimates process, as is anyone else who is administering this act.

K. Jones: We all agree that special needs funding was a proper thing to bring forward. It recognized that there were special needs students in the independent schools, and that up until now they weren't getting funding. Now that has been addressed to some extent.

What we're concerned about is that this amendment, this addition to the present act, is really much wider than just offering funding for special needs students. In fact, it could have been restricted to providing special needs funding, but the minister decided to bring forward a typical, all-controlling piece of NDP legislation. She calls it "broad legislative authority to government." Well, by golly, it sure is. It gives them complete authority to do just about anything they want to, because when you control the purse strings you control everything.

I don't consider this a good housekeeping amendment, as she has indicated. This type of amendment is literally a government grabbing control. The people of B.C. are calling upon their governments at all levels to start giving them more say in what they do in their lives and less government control. In typical fashion as a socialist government, this government feels that the socialist leaders have the best

[ Page 6850 ]

idea of how everything should be handled, that they have the answers for society and that therefore they should impose their way of living upon everybody else. Hon. Chair, I really have to state my view that no government has the answers to society's needs; it's up to the society to decide that. The government should be in the way as little as possible in providing the direction of that society. It should be leaving the greatest opportunity for the public to make their choices, not taking a controlling role like this piece of legislation gives to government or to a minister who....

I can only assume that the reason is that there is a great need for power. Perhaps the minister would like to give us alternative reasons for this legislation, because it looks like it is intended strictly for the purposes of ministerial and government control of the school systems.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would remind the member -- who has waxed far beyond the scope of the particular

section we are debating -- that legislation provides authority and accountability for ministers of government for the expenditures of taxpayers' dollars. We have special purpose grant sections in both the School Act and the Independent School Act. I noted earlier one of the purposes for which those special grants have been provided in this year's budget, something that has ensured that we target funding in the independent schools to special needs children, just as we do in the public school system. There are a number of other areas that I am sure the member would support.

I am accountable -- through this legislation and through the budget process -- for any grants that go to the schools under the Independent School Act and to the public schools. I am happy to exercise that accountability now that we have legislative authority; I now have the same authority under the Independent School Act that I have under the School Act. I have been exercising that authority without there being legislative accountability.

That is why I note that this is a part of improving the legislation and the accountability, and ensuring that that member -- when he wishes to deal with the specifics rather than the broader perspective that he may have politically -- can ask questions of government about the uses to which public dollars are put.

K. Jones: As the minister is well aware, the real concern here is in 11.2, which is "Minister's discretion," not -- as we have already acknowledged --

section 11.1, which calls for the special purpose grants. I think we are both in agreement that that is an appropriate use of this legislation. This

section 11.2(1) gives the minister the power to determine the amount of grants to be paid for an independent school and "determine that the authority is, for the independent school, to be paid grants that differ in amount or in one or more other respects from the grants to be paid to that authority...." It's not a very easy one to follow, mind you. It would have been better if it was put in plain language.

I think the intent is quite clear, as explained in the explanation section. It permits the minister to differentiate between the independent schools and the grants that may be paid to them. Therefore it means that the minister can cut off the funding to a school or can give more money to another school, depending on which are her favourites and which she has dislikes for. That doesn't seem like an appropriate clause in any legislation, and it wasn't necessary in the previous operation of this act. Governments in the past have been able to operate very effectively without this clause in the Independent School Act.

I think it would be appropriate for the minister to withdraw this clause in order to show that she really isn't out for a power grab.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, it gets stranger and stranger. That Liberal member says that he would like the government to be less accountable rather than more accountable. That's exactly what he just said. I have, as have previous administrations, exercised these powers with no accountability, except through the estimates process. Now we have some criteria, and we have legislation which indicates that that authority exists and that accountability is there.

We have extra protection, if you like, in terms of this member or any other member of this Legislature being able to raise questions about the work of government. So we have put into legislation something that has been accountable only through the estimates process up until now. Rather than asking me to withdraw this legislation, I would think that member would say: "Good, we now have legislative authority.

We have the extra check and balance of being able to discuss these issues." I noted that we had that with the grants that went to special needs children, through the budget, the estimates process and the Supply Act. This is an extra accountability clause. I certainly would not think that this member would want us to have less accountability; I'm sure he would be eagerly seeking government to be more accountable. That's exactly what this does. Again, I would note that these powers exist in both the School Act and the Independent School Act.

H. De Jong: Last year I was rather disappointed to hear that the funding for special needs children in independent schools had been cut back. I applaud the minister for having worked toward the goal of providing that again for those special needs children, because whether they're in the independent schools or public schools, they do have special needs. I also applaud the various school boards -- public as well as independent -- that take the initiative in trying to provide as much education as possible for special needs children. This is the week we recognize children and people with special needs and disabilities, and I think it's very appropriate that we have a little discussion on this.

[4:45]

There is, of course, always a bit of a concern when a special fund is created. I doubt that any minister dealing with a special fund as sensitive as this one would abuse or misuse it. There are, of course, two components to providing funding for special needs children, and those are the number of children who may be in an independent school and how many classes they are in. Are they in grade 1 or grade 4, or are they spread throughout the school system? I believe that if

[ Page 6851 ]

you want to look after the education of special needs children in a good way and in the most effective way, there has to be teachers who are able to provide that for a number of grades. I assume that in a school of 300 or 400 children, you might have ten or 15 special needs children, or perhaps even more. But again, there is a greater need for teachers, because you couldn't expect to have as many special needs children in a class as you would in a normal class of children.

My question to the minister: on what basis is the fund going to be made available to schools -- particularly, because we're dealing with the Independent School Act, to the independent schools as well as to the public schools? Is it on the basis of the number of students, the situation they find themselves in -- as I indicated, whether they're spread throughout the school system -- and the number of teachers, or a combination of those?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe the member is back into the estimates debate with these questions. Fundamentally, we are dealing with the legislative authority for those decisions. We take them through policy and then through the funding. I would note, too, just in a general way, that all schools receive funding and then decide how they are going to organize their schools for the delivery of the programs for which the funds are, in a block amount, provided.

K. Jones: I'd like to follow up on where our conversation with the minister was a few minutes ago. She was saying that this program provided accountability and extra protection, and that we in the opposition were asking for less accountability. I must emphasize to her that that is absolute rubbish; it's not the case at all.

In fact, I'd like to ask her to tell us how she proposes that this particular change in the act would make her more accountable. Again, there is only one place where accountability comes in regard to the minister, and that's in her estimates. This doesn't bring to the public the information as to what changes she's making. She can make these variances between independent schools totally without public knowledge. Only the schools would know that they didn't get the same amount they got last year or that they got more than last year. There's no way that this requires you to tell anybody where the spending is. So where is the accountability, minister?

Hon. A. Hagen: As we all know, the accountability is through legislation and then through the estimates process.

K. Jones: The minister gives a glib response -- one without substance. She should be taking the debate on this bill much more seriously. She made a statement of accountability, but she could not substantiate where the accountability was coming from.

Sections 7 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36

Edwards

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Hammell

Lali

Giesbrecht

Miller

Hagen

Sihota

Clark

Cull

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

MacPhail

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Farnworth

Evans

O'Neill

Doyle

Krog

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Brewin

Janssen

Chisholm

Cowie

Dalton

Symons

Hurd

Warnke

NAYS -- 6

K. Jones

Stephens

Hanson

Serwa

De Jong

Neufeld

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

[5:00]

Bill 20, Independent School Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 11.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 11; E. Barnes in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On the title.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just as a matter of courtesy, hon. Chair, I would like to introduce the staff who have worked on these bills -- it's clear there's not going to be any discussion: Rick Dumala, who is the fire commissioner for the province; Nicola Marotz, who works as a policy analyst in my ministry; and of course everybody knows Mr. Ken MacLeod, who is the deputy minister.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

[ Page 6852 ]

Bill 11, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 12.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (NO. 2) AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 12; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 1.

C. Serwa: We seem to see this on an annual basis, and I'm wondering why the Ministry of Municipal Affairs seems to want to ratify acts by municipal councils which are clearly outside the legitimate bounds and parameters within their control. Virtually all municipal councils have the opportunity of legal counsel. They certainly work closely and under the framework of the Municipal Act. Here, for example, with the town of Sidney....

The Chair: A point of order has been raised.

A. Cowie: I just want to point out that we are in third reading and should be sticking to the sections and not debating it in general. We have already done that; we have already heard from the speaker....

The Chair: Hon. member, I hope that you will bear the remarks in mind and stick to the sections of the bill, as we are in committee stage and second reading has had a wide canvass.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Chair -- and it's certainly nice to see a new minister of defence sitting in there in the official opposition. I wasn't able to be present, I suppose.

But specifically on

section 1, the town of Sidney did not meet notice requirements. Here we're validating something that clearly contravenes the Municipal Act, and I'm at a loss to understand why something so straightforward as this requires ratification by the minister, in this process, under the enabling and validating amendment act.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, it's a natural question and it's a good question. I should remind the member, though, that his government.... When I was on that side, I asked the same legitimate question. As you know, since 1958 the province has had this kind of legislation. Going back and validating local governments' actions is not necessarily a process we particularly endorse, conceptually or in terms of philosophy.

But from time to time a particular local government, for whatever reason, may have made a mistake, or not dotted an "i" or crossed a "t,"and therefore has been subjected to a legal challeng or may be subject to a legal challenge. For instance, when I took a look at this issue of the Sidney port development, the town of Sidney brought to my attention that former administration hadn't done their job properly, the taxpayer was exposed considerably and they had to go back and make the arrangement -- the deal, if you will -- so that the development of the port would be legitimate.

It's a difficult position that the government finds itself in, because in a way you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. What we're doing, of course, is correcting something and protecting the taxpayer. But you're right -- we are driven by local government mistakes, if you will.

But we don't do it easily. Many times -- and staff can correct me -- we go back to local government and say: "That's not an appropriate mechanism. Let's not use the Legislature." We have people like the staff here today, who have legal capabilities, and we give them advice on how to do it in a different way.

The validating

part is one part of it. The enabling part, which is a useful tool.... Local government is saying to us every single day that the circumstances are changing at the local level and they have to adjust to the economies or circumstances of the time. They want the abilities and powers to move ahead. Sometimes it requires legislation -- a small change to the act rather than a massive change to the act. I should tell the member that we will be bringing in changes in the enabling section, because my impression is that we shouldn't have to go to the Legislature for every single enabling for local government.

It's a long process -- months -- and the circumstance that arose that gave an opportunity to do something creative or innovative may have passed before we can get it into the Legislature.

The bottom line is that we don't necessarily like to do it, but in many respects we're covering local government and the local taxpayer.

C. Serwa: May I thank the hon. minister for his kind, courteous and expansive response on

section

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I've introduced the other two members of the staff. Before I move the appropriate amendment, I want to mention that I also have Brenda Gibson, who is from municipal financial services, another important part of my ministry.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 12, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 14.

[ Page 6853 ]

RAILWAY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill contains amendments to several sections of the Railway Act. The Railway Act is the responsibility of two ministries, mine and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Since the significant amendments to the Railway Act in this legislation deal with safety provisions, the legislation has been put forward by my ministry. Some of the amendments remove specific technical language and other requirements. This will clear the way for the writing of a safety code to govern railway operation.

Specific requirements, including stands for railway crossings and tunnels, belong in a code that can be updated more quickly and legislation amended. A safety code is also more understandable for all who use it.

As well, the specific nature of a number of sections of the existing act puts ministry staff in the position of approving things that have become, quite frankly, irrelevant or obsolete. For example, the existing requirement for packing material on railway switches rules out the use of modern design and technology. Another example is that the act presently requires every locomotive to be equipped with a 30-pound bell and a steam whistle. As hon. members can tell, this legislation hasn't been revised in many years.

They are requirements that may be romantic to a train enthusiast but which long ago were replaced by technological improvements. To eliminate such anomalies, a number of these amendments will accommodate technological advances in railroading.

Improper use of the word "prescribed" is being removed throughout the Railway Act to modernize the language of the safety sections. In general, these amendments will allow the rules for railway system equipment, construction, maintenance and operation to be made by the enactment of a set of standards comparable to the Building Code. This will permit more flexibility and efficiency when we deal with safety on our railways. The number of incidents that must be reported, such as accidents involving dangerous goods, will be expanded, and the maximum penalty for anyone not complying with the act will be raised to $10,000.

[5:15]

I stress that the code will be developed in consultation with all affected parties, especially the two intraprovincial railway companies and the seven railway unions. A work plan and a

schedule for the code's development will be discussed with the affected parties following enactment of the Railway Amendment Act, 1993. In all, these amendments will make for greater safety in railway operations for both the public and railway employees in British Columbia.

I move second reading of Bill 14.

A. Cowie: From the official opposition's point of view, I would like to say that we have no problem with Bill 14, Railway Amendment Act, 1993. We have one comment that the minister might wish to deal with now or at some future date with regard to

section 175 of the original act. The Liberal caucus feels that it should really be repealed. We believe that the labour markets and the existence of unions, combined with the minimum wage laws that we now have in the province, are sufficient to deal with fair wages, and this

section could, in fact, be repealed. The minister might wish to look at it either now or at a future date. In any event, we will not bring in an amending motion on this, as it's not that full of thunder, but I would like to pass that information on to the minister.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Railway Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, we're slightly ahead of time, but there was an agreement that at 5:30 the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would introduce their report into the House, and that would, I believe, allow some limited comment or debate from members of the committee. So even though the report itself, I understand, has not been distributed, perhaps we could still have the Chair of the committee proceed, and the report subsequently distributed.

Deputy Speaker: Is the Government House Leader requesting a brief recess?

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps a five-minute recess while we get the report would be in order.

Deputy Speaker: I think that's agreeable with the House. A five-minute recess is declared.

The House recessed at 5:17 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:26 p.m.

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

Hon. M. Sihota: It is my understanding that the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is ready to present its report.

Presenting Reports

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: I move that the report be adopted.

[ Page 6854 ]

I would like to first describe the mandate of the committee when we started out. On June 10, 1992, we were asked "to examine, inquire and make recommendations with respect to the availability of lumber to remanufacturers, and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider: (1) the lumber supply requirements of the remanufacturing sector; and (2) barriers or impediments to increasing the supply of lumber to the remanufacturing sector."

The members of the committee were myself, Paul Ramsey, Fred Jackson, Harry Lali, Jan Pullinger, Jim Doyle, Ed Conroy, Wilf Hurd, Lynn Stephens, Ken Jones, Richard Neufeld and, most recently, Helmut Giesbrecht -- thanks for not reminding me that I should refer to them by their constituencies.

The consultant was Mr. Dennis Mawhinney, and committee researchers and the Clerk of Committees assisted us where we went. I would like to say thank you to the Clerks, to Hansard -- who, I think, did the hardest job of all -- and to 137 individuals, companies, groups of companies and groups of individuals who took our committee seriously and wrote and gave verbal reports to us.

During the process we met several times here in Victoria. Then we set out on a tour of British Columbia, which one of the Clerks informed us was the most extensive and the most well-attended by the members that the Clerk had ever experienced. We had about a dozen meetings in Victoria, then we visited Richmond, Ladysmith, Courtenay, New Westminster, Kamloops, Revelstoke, Castlegar, Penticton, Williams Lake, Smithers, Prince George, and then a group of communities in the state of Washington: Ferndale, Everett, Bellingham, Arlington, Everson, Tacoma, McCleary and Centralia.

[5:30]

The first tour was to see, smell and learn how sawmills and remanufacturing plants worked. The second tour was to ask British Columbians in the industry to tell us what they felt were the impediments to the growth of the industry. The third tour was to visit our competitors in the United States.

Following the third tour, we had seven meetings here in Victoria going over six different drafts of our report, leading to a consensus document. I think I'm as proud of the committee for the consensus as I am for the work that they put in.

Many people out on the street in B.C. think that all we do is come here and beat each other up, like in question period. I would like to say that in the last year I had an experience of MLAs from various parties working together to come up with something they agreed upon, an experience which I found incredibly valuable and one that I hope makes the committee process more respected and understood in B.C.

I want to talk a bit about the rationale of why we were given the mandate we were. Why does it matter whether the remanufacturing sector has access to lumber? In the last decade we have experienced massive layoffs in the forest industry, which has employed me for most of my adult life. At the present time we have an annual allowable cut recalculation resulting in a decreasing harvest in various parts of the province. Everywhere we went, we heard predictions of new-tech changes and automation in the industry which will result in a new round of layoffs in the next decade.

Obviously, everybody working in this building or outside, as well as everybody in the industry, knows that the only way to get more out of less is to process it further. Everybody knows that the only way to make technology our friend instead of our enemy is to use it to increase our options in manufacturing.

Basically this is the deal, hon. Speaker. It's an incredibly complicated subject, and I tried to reduce it to an image that we can all grasp. The trees in B.C. belong to the people. People sell, say, a logging truckload of wood -- everybody knows what they look like -- that carries 35 cubic metres of wood. That truckload can be cut into the commodity lumber we are all used to -- 2-by-6s, 2-by-8s or 2-by-12s -- and in the process, it will create 30 person-hours of work. Or you could take the same truckload of wood and turn it into furniture, doors, windows or desks and create 160 person-hours of work.

It seems to me that the mark of our intelligence as leaders and our political will as elected representatives in B.C., in the management of timber at least, is how close we can get to that second numbe