1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 22

[ Page 13363 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. C. Evans: As all members will know, it's the second annual Agriculture Day here at the Legislature, and quite a few members have introductions to make.

I'd just like to introduce a few of the directors that I've had the good fortune to meet with in the last 24 hours: Bruce Bakker, the brand-new chair of the B.C. Ag Council, and Marcus Janzen, the assistant chair; Russell Husch, the outgoing past chair, who organized the first B.C. Ag Day; Margaret Speitelsbach of the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board; and Judy Galey of the Island vegetable producers. Will the House please make them welcome. They're up here, up there -- everywhere above you.

B. Barisoff: I too would like to introduce all the members from the agriculture community that came to Victoria today. On behalf of this side of the House, I'd like to make them all welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today to have in the members' gallery some special visitors from the Russian Federation. Seven senior officials from federal and state taxation agencies in Russia are in Victoria, after visiting Ottawa and Saskatchewan, to learn more about federal, provincial and municipal tax systems. The sponsoring program, called the Yeltsin Democracy Fellowship, is funded by the Canadian International Development Agency. I would very much ask everyone to join with me in welcoming our special guests.

[1410]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Hogg: I've just spoken with the mayor of White Rock and wanted to introduce to this House some of the matters taking place there. Between seven and 11 this morning in Surrey-White Rock, 70 millimetres of rain and over eight centimetres of hail fell. The full GVRD average is some 45 millimetres in the month of June. So we almost doubled that in a four-hour period. At 10:35 a.m., the mayor declared a state of emergency. Homes and businesses in the Marine Drive area -- some of them -- are under five feet of water. The sewage system is backed up.

Surrey and White Rock public works departments are managing things as best they can. The provincial emergency program people are on site and are recommending that it be declared a provincial emergency site. I hope that the House will wish all the citizens of the Surrey-White Rock area the best in this most difficult time for them.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, for bringing that to our attention.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With the agriculture delegation is Harold Starr, who is president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. He's from the Miocene area, east of 150 Mile House. Please welcome him.

I would also like to introduce 27 students and their teacher from the Cariboo Christian School in 100 Mile House, who are in the precincts today. Please welcome them.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Ms. Oye from St. Joseph's School in the Premier's riding. With her are 26 grade 7 students and several adults. I'd ask all members of the House to join me in making them welcome.

M. de Jong: A good number of the people at the B.C. Ag Council call the constituency of Matsqui home: a father-and-son team, Dan and Dion Wiebe, with the B.C. Turkey Association and the B.C. Broiler Hatching Egg Commission; Walter Seimens and Harv Janzen with the B.C. Egg Producers Association; Ray Nickel from the B.C. Turkey Association; and a good friend of mine, Jatinder Sidhu, with the B.C. Horticultural Coalition. I hope the House will make all these people welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: In honour of Agriculture Day, visiting us from Princeton is Mr. Ernie Willis. Ernie is a director of the B.C. Agriculture Council and vice-president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Would the House please make him welcome.

W. Hartley: I join all those who are giving welcome to the people representing the agricultural community -- in particular Jeff Hicks, who's chair of the B.C. Horticultural Coalition and a constituent of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. Please make him welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just noticed, peeking around the corner from the cheap seats in the gallery, my brother Dave Collins and a guest. I see he turned up late and got one of the bad seats. I just want to ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I also have the pleasure today to introduce a number of members from the agricultural community in the Cowichan Valley. Don Gedelman is here from Lake Cowichan. He's president of the Association of Fairs and Exhibitions. Wally Smith from Chemainus is president of the B.C. Milk Producers Association. Dave Wiebe is from Duncan. He's with FARM Community Council and a member of the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia. And Ben Voike of Ladysmith is with the B.C. Egg Producers Association. I ask all members of the House to help make my constituents very welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the gallery today is Mr. Duncan MacRae. Mr. MacRae is president of Skills Canada - British Columbia. He just led a contingent of 61 British Columbia students to the Canadian Skills competition in Ontario, where they competed in fields as diverse as auto services, cabinet-making, computer animation and desktop publishing, to name a few. As Minister of Education, I'm particularly pleased to say that of the 61 contestants, 27 were medal-winners, and two were national winners, who will go on to the international skills competition in Montreal this November.

So would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. MacRae and in congratulating our 61 students, particularly our 27 medal-winners.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to welcome four constituents from the Shuswap here today on Agriculture Day. They represent four different areas in agricultural commodities, and they represent four different areas in the Shuswap. They are John Schut, Jacob Penner, Wally Yonkman and Bruce Cook. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

[ Page 13364 ]

[1415]

Hon. L. Boone: It may come as a surprise, but we actually have agriculture in Prince George as well. I would like the House to please welcome our representative from the FARM Community Council from District C, Mr. Bud Isabelle. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Coell: I'd like to introduce two friends of mine who are here today and who happen to be here for Agriculture Day: Dave Pendray from Pendray Farms and Judy Galey from Galey farms. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to also welcome, on Agriculture Day, Mike Wallis from the Associated Ginseng Growers of B.C., from the Kamloops area. At this time I'd also like to introduce Mr. Gordon Cumming's grades 6 and 7 class from Beattie Elementary School, who were in the precincts earlier today. Would the House please make all these visitors welcome.

E. Gillespie: Members of this House should know that agriculture in the Comox Valley produces among the greatest variety of agricultural products in the province. I had the opportunity to meet with a group of representatives today -- including a constituent, Jeff Hamilton -- with the Cranberry Marketing Board. On Agriculture Day I would also like to introduce in this House Niels Holbek from my constituency -- a director of the B.C. Agriculture Council and also a director of the FARM Community Council. Would all members please make them welcome.

J. Wilson: I too would like to take this opportunity to welcome Harold Starr here. He is not only the president of the BCCA, but he is also a constituent of mine, and on top of that, he's been a longtime good and faithful friend. So I ask the House to make him welcome.

J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce in the House Jennifer Dyson, who is with the B.C. Horticultural Coalition and is the Island Farmers Alliance representative. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

C. Clark: Delphine Charmley, B.C.'s most active foster parent advocate, is with us today. I hope the House will make her welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the gallery today, along with the delegation of individuals with the agriculture industry, is Ms. Sandra Martin. Ms. Martin is a resident of Metchosin in my constituency. She is active in agricultural matters in the riding and also on a provincial basis -- as well as formerly a councillor in the community of Metchosin. Would all members please give her a warm welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'd like to welcome all of the farmers to the Legislature today, but in particular, I want to mention Bob Friesen, who is a farmer from Manitoba. He's the incoming president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

G. Janssen: It gives me great pride today to welcome Lyle Price, a resident of the beautiful Alberni Valley, chair of the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission, supporter and promoter of Lockwood village on Mount Arrowsmith -- the next Whistler Village -- and most importantly, a fellow motorcycle enthusiast.

E. Conroy: Would the House please welcome a cattle cohort of mine that I've dealt with for a number of years, Patrick Heustis.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. The purpose of this bill is to continue the streamlining initiative which was introduced and announced in the 1998 budget. This is the 1999 initiative. This initiative was designed to create ways of increasing government efficiency and responsiveness as well as reducing the regulatory burden on business.

The provisions in this legislation represent a further step towards achieving the objective of streamlining government. The act makes amendments in the following statutes, all of which are within the purview of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations: Community Financial Services Act; Corporation Capital Tax Act; Financial Institutions Act; Hotel Room Tax Act; Insurance Premium Tax Act; Land Title Tax Act; Logging Tax Act; Mining Tax Act; Motor Fuel Tax Act; Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act; Partnership Act; Property Transfer Tax Act; Purchasing Commission Act; Real Estate Act; Social Service Tax Act; Society Act; Taxation (Rural Area) Act; and, finally, Tobacco Tax Act.

I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of the bill. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 71 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.

[1420]

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Water Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[ Page 13365 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: This bill amends the Water Act to allow a more streamlined process for issuing low-volume water licences for domestic and small agricultural purposes. Under the current licensing process, it can take as much as two years to gain approval for a water licence or even to have a licence altered. We want to make that process faster and simpler for the people of British Columbia where there clearly are no environmental concerns or adverse impacts on existing licence holders.

A significant portion of the water licences in British Columbia are for domestic or small agricultural purposes. These uses, however, represent a very small fraction of the total volume of water that is licensed. While water availability and other local conditions can vary throughout the province, domestic and small agricultural water licence applications are generally not controversial or complicated. They tend to have a minimal impact on the province's water resources.

Therefore in these instances applications may not warrant the lengthy technical analysis and review currently required by legislation. A streamlined water licensing process will assist some small businesses needing access to small quantities of water. For example, it should allow a plan to build or expand greenhouses or nurseries. It will encourage the development of private properties, and it will generate economic benefits for local communities. Streamlining the licensing process for low-volume users will also allow us to devote more time to water protection measures such as water use planning. And it will result in faster service to all applicants and licence holders.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members know that ministers have two minutes to make their introductions.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COST OF CANCELLED HEART SURGERY TO CONSTITUENT AND FAMILY

J. Wilson: After waiting nine long months, Frank Annis finally got a call last December to travel from Quesnel to St. Paul's Hospital for open-heart surgery. It cost him almost $700 for airfare and hotel rooms, plus it cost his family hundreds of dollars to drive to Vancouver to take care of him. When Frank Annis got to the hospital, he was told that his surgery had been cancelled, and he had to return home.

Will the Minister of Health tell us why the health care system has failed Frank Annis and his family? They had to spend almost $1,000, only to find out that his surgery was cancelled.

[1425]

Hon. P. Priddy: This is not, I think, the best place for a discussion around the particular circumstances of a patient, but if the member will give us that contact phone number, I will certainly have my ministry staff contact . . . .

Generally, there are travel assistance plans for patients who are travelling in the province -- who need to come down to Vancouver or other places for surgery. Indeed, that's the very reason that we have increased the number of cardiac surgeries: because we know that there are people waiting, and we don't want to see those cancellations.

About that particular patient, if the member gives me that information, I'll check on it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Cariboo North.

J. Wilson: I already notified the minister of this a few days ago.

However, two months went by. Mr. Annis reached critical condition, and he had to be flown by air ambulance again. This time he did not recover from surgery. He died. Now, in addition to the funeral costs, the family has been hit with a $500 bill for the air ambulance service.

Will the Minister of Health tell us how she can justify billing Mr. Annis's family when it is her health care system that has failed him every step of the way?

Hon. P. Priddy: There certainly are circumstances where exceptions are made. If the member has recently contacted the ministry or contacted my office, then I will follow through and see if anything can be done about that.

TRAVEL POINTS PLAN FOR AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

R. Neufeld: Well, after waiting almost a year, you called Mr. Annis from Quesnel to Vancouver. Then you sent him home because the wait-lists were too long.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry -- through the Chair, please.

R. Neufeld: Then he got so sick, hon. Speaker, that he had to be flown by air ambulance back down to Vancouver. But by then, it was too late, and he died. Finally, you victimized the family further . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

R. Neufeld: . . . by -- through the Chair -- sending a $500 ambulance bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

R. Neufeld: Will the Health minister have the decency to cancel the air ambulance bill that was sent to the Annis family?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[ Page 13366 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: As I said to the previous member -- whose question, I think, was almost the same -- my office will look into that. There have been exceptions made. Nobody is trying to victimize a family, nor should we in any way be trying to make it more difficult for family members.

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

R. Neufeld: For six years I have been attempting to get the government of the day to respond to a process that I put forward to Health minister after Health minister after Health minister: to start utilizing travel points when government people fly around the province of British Columbia and donate those points to a charity. This could have saved this family a huge amount of money, but this minister and this government have neglected to even look at it in a serious way. Will this minister stand in this House today and say: "Yes, we will adopt that plan; we will adopt that plan today . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

R. Neufeld: . . . and put it in place to further help other people from rural B.C. that need health care"?

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Minister of Health has been recognized. Member for Peace River North, come to order.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member and, as well, the member for Peace River South have brought this proposal forward -- they're quite right -- for the last number of years. We have not been able to find a way. As a matter of fact, the member wrote to me again recently. I had new staff meet with the Ministry of Finance to see if there was any way at all -- and they're looking again -- to be able to accrue personal points which we don't normally accrue and transfer those back into travel for patients. We have not yet found any legal way to be able to do that, hon. Speaker. If I could, I would do it tomorrow.

We're still working on it. But there's no way at this stage, I've been advised, that we're able to do it legally.

EFFECT OF NEW GOVERNMENT FORM ON PHARMACY BUSINESSES

C. Hansen: The Minister of Finance, in introducing a bill just a few minutes ago, talked about reducing the regulatory burden and streamlining government. Well, the government has recently given less than one month's notice to B.C. pharmacists to go from a one-page agreement, the pharmacy participation agreement, to one that is almost 30 pages. The ministry has given pharmacists until June 15 to sign this document or be cut out of the Pharmacare system. Is the minister's idea of cutting red tape by replacing a one-page document with a 20-some-odd-page document her idea of assisting Pharmacare pharmacists in this province, who are a vital part of our health care delivery system?

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, it's more.

The document has gone from one page, which is what it was in 1973 when it was first written 26 years ago -- you're quite right -- to one that is 20 pages, because there is a lot more to describe in terms of current policy and practice. But in suggesting that there was less than a month's notice . . . .

Our ministry did consult extensively with the B.C. Pharmacy Association, who then published an

article saying: "Overall, the B.C. Pharmacy Association is satisfied with the result of many years of development; the new agreement generally reflects current policies and practices and pharmacists should not experience any significant negative impacts. Work on details in wording has resulted in a more clear agreement that is less open to negative

interpretation." This is their

article from their journal.

It is, after all . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . a half-billion-dollar budget that Pharmacare has, hon. Speaker. Certainly it deserves a contract that is clear for the government . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . for taxpayers and for the pharmacists.

The Speaker: First supplementary . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The Chair will not recognize the next questioner until the chamber comes to order. The Minister for Northern Development will come to order.

C. Hansen: The B.C. Pharmacy Association did participate in discussions leading up to this document. They did see language that they approved of. But the final document that was circulated to pharmacists for agreement has been shoved down their throats.

The ministry did not listen to the constructive inputs that came from pharmacists around this province. This minister has been receiving dozens and dozens of letters from pharmacists around this province; I've been copied on those letters. They are telling her that under this new agreement . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

C. Hansen: . . . that they are being forced to sign, they will be put out of business. Will the minister stand up and

[ Page 13367 ]

save the small businesses that are pharmacists around this province from economic ruin by agreeing to delay the implementation of this agreement until there can be meaningful consultation?

[1435]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I don't know how much it changed. But this document was written close to the end of May, saying that they support the agreement. It did not change between the end of May and a week ago. On the other hand, in terms of an extension, I already agreed with the pharmacists last Friday that if they asked for a extension -- which I expect them to do at their board meeting today -- I would do it.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

C. Hansen: Yesterday I raised this issue in the Small Business estimates. The Minister of Small Business said this: "I'm taking up those concerns now with the Ministry of Health and reminding the Ministry of Health that we're now to look at agreements and regulation through a business lens, which the government has adopted . . . . " We're getting a better sense of what this business lens is all about. It's a telescope, and they're looking at it through the wrong end.

My question to the minister is: why was this agreement not put through the business lens?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We've got to hear the question.

C. Hansen: Secondly, will the minister make a commitment today to the small independent pharmacies from around this province that when she gets that request for an extension, she will grant it and engage in some meaningful discussions with pharmacists?

Hon. P. Priddy: I welcome the participation of my colleague the Minister of Small Business, should he wish to come and participate in the agreement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: I have already stated to members of the pharmacy profession that I would agree to an extension. I did that last Friday. I will do that if that request . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . comes forward. So far, as a matter of interest, there has actually been no . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . request from the B.C. Pharmacy Association for an extension. I would expect that from their board meeting today, and I will grant that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES AND GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICIES

R. Coleman: The number of mortgage foreclosures went up by 17 percent last year. Mortgage foreclosures in the first quarter of 1999 are up by 18 percent from a year ago. That means that 2,500 B.C. families lost their homes. Will the Minister of Finance tell these British Columbians whose mortgages have been foreclosed what they are supposed to do now that her government's economic policies and the NDP-made recession have destroyed their hopes of owning their own home?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would be happy to sit down with the member opposite and analyze the nature of the mortgage foreclosures. There's no question that in certain areas of our province . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . where we've been in a recession, there have been mortgage foreclosures based on the economy. Certainly I would also surmise that in the area I represent and in the lower mainland, some mortgage foreclosures have flowed because of the leaky-condo crisis. There's no question about that. Our government has taken concise, strong action on the leaky-condo crisis, against every wish of the members opposite. We have taken concerted action to put more money in the pockets of British Columbia families each and every day.

The members opposite would stand up here and quote statistics from last year and not in any way recognize the turnaround of the statistics that are occurring in the first quarter of this year. The predictions for housing starts are on the rise here. Our government is working with the housing industry on housing initiatives. We're not resting in the statistical doom and gloom of the opposition. We're getting down into the community, resolving crises of the past and moving forward on policies to stimulate the economy of the future.

[1440]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period, and I recognize the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

F. Randall: I ask leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 13368 ]

Motion approved.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 38 grade 5 students from Armstrong Elementary School in Burnaby-Edmonds. With them is their teacher, Carol Taylor, along with a number of adults. They are here for a tour and some history of government. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Sihota: I have the privilege of tabling the twenty-second annual report of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ended March 31, 1998.

Ministerial Statement

AGRICULTURE DAY

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, Agriculture and food tend to be taken for granted in our modern society. We tend to pay attention only when there is a food scare somewhere in the world where standards are lower, like the mad cow disease in Britain or the present disaster in Belgium. We pay attention if grain growers send a combine or if orchardists send a demonstration to Victoria. Then we see them on the evening news, and we think it's all about money.

Happily, for the second year in a row in this building we can now pay attention on Agriculture Day at the Legislature, when a unified industry comes together to tell its story. On that day -- this day -- I get to rise and talk about farming and how it's the only primary industry in this province that unlike fishing, mining and forestry, which get all the headlines, continues to increase in job creation every single year in this decade.

Much of this record of expansion is due to the climate of cooperation between the commodity groups here today that created and sustain the B.C. Agriculture Council. Under the leadership of Russell Husch, last year they invented Agriculture Day, and they were the first sector ever to approach the Economic Council of Ministers to make a presentation. In the last couple of years they asked for short-term change on a broad number of fronts.

A short list would include a complete revamping of crop insurance -- done except for vegetables; the invention of an income disaster program -- we not only did it but delivered it in 1998, and then all of Canada signed on and doubled the funds in 1999; streamlining labour and environmental regulations and the creation of peer committees -- done or in progress; the return of weed control and increased grazing enhancement and secure sterile insect release funding -- done; the creation of a trust fund to hold crop insurance surpluses in good years -- done in this year's budget.

They asked us to make the right-to-farm legislation work on the urban fringe -- done for mushrooms, in progress for greenhouses. They asked us to expand Buy B.C. -- this year we added $1 million to the Buy B.C. budget. They asked us for tax relief, and we created exemptions for greenhouse equipment. We cut the corporate capital tax and small business tax for something like 3,000 farmers and small processors, and we cut the fuel tax by $3 million.

The list of short-term accomplishments goes on and on, but these truly are just signposts along the way. Is it working? I would submit that it is. In spite of commodity price collapse around the world and what that did to hogs, grain and apples last year, and while Canada's farm export values dropped by 7 percent, B.C.'s diversified industry grew by 21 percent last year. According to StatsCan, we are the only province west of Quebec where farmers did better in 1998 than in 1997, with a 17 percent increase in net farm income -- the best growth record in Canada.

[1445]

Now it's time for the real work. Last year on Agriculture Day the number one request of the B.C. Ag Council leadership surprised me. It wasn't about taxes or regulation or red tape; it wasn't about any single issue at all. What they asked for and what they wanted was for the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to be constituted and charged with a function from this House for the first time in decades.

The Premier and cabinet agreed, and on almost the last day of the sitting of 1998, I brought a motion to this floor to invite the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to meet and develop an agrifood policy that had, up until that time, been the major preoccupation of my time in this portfolio.

What the producers need to know and what the agrifood policy process needs to answer is: what do we really want this industry to look like five, ten, 15 or 20 years from now? They know that we've protected the land base and passed right-to-farm legislation. But what they do not know is this: what is our collective vision about what we want them to do on that land? Will we agree to buy the production of that land in the marketplace?

If it is produced with environmental excellence and fair labour practices, if it's wholesome food, if they do not behave like the Cargill company in grain or Maple Leaf Foods in beef processing, or the Tyson corporation down south in poultry . . . . In other words, if they behave with business excellence, environmental excellence and labour excellence, what price will we the consumers pay for the superior food that they produce?

Do we want the best practices on the land? At the same time, as a society, do we want Chinese prices for apples, Alabama prices for poultry or Mexicali costs for vegetables? Or are we now finally ready as a society to commit that if they grow, process and market what we want to buy, with the standards that we want to expect on the land that we ask them to sustain, then we will pay the premium price that such a product deserves?

Maybe you could call this the post-GATT social contract, or maybe you could call it an agrifood policy. Either way, I submit that it's the prerequisite next step if we're going to expect this industry to continue to invest and prosper in this province for another 100 years.

Sure, making environmental standards work for farming is my job. Labour standards and on-farm marketing, and fixing crop insurance and whole farm, and lowering taxes and helping the industry to diversify and organize -- all of these are my job and our job. I submit that we've made more progress on these issues in the last two years than we did in the previous ten. But we have a way, way bigger and way more exciting job to do now. It belongs to all of us in society and in this House, and that is the work that we've assigned to the select standing committee -- to lay out a blueprint for the future that we can believe in, invest in, vote for, defend and pay for in the marketplace.

By this day next year, I hope that ministers and municipalities and commodity groups and environmentalists and

[ Page 13369 ]

even the press will have participated in this great experiment. I hope that it works and that by this time next year we have a policy to offer the industry that they participated in creating. Anything less constitutes failure. Perhaps it is the fault of successive governments for decades in this place that it hasn't happened before. But if it doesn't happen this year, with all the pieces in place, all of society will have failed the farming community. I, for one, pledge my efforts to the success of this brave venture.

B. Barisoff: Hon. speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the minister's remarks in honour of Agriculture Day. There's no doubt that the second-most-important industry in B.C. should command our attention and our commitment.

[1450]

I would first like to thank the minister for some of his initiatives, as I believe the minister is concerned about agriculture. Unfortunately, his concerns and even his ability to act have been limited by this government's poor fiscal management and policy record.

Even though the overall budget for this year has increased by $890 million, the agriculture budget has been decreased by $6 million. This makes it extremely difficult in some areas to respond to the plight of our farmers. Whether it's the turkey grower, the berry grower in the Fraser Valley, the fruit grower in the Okanagan or the weaner cattle farmers in the north, there are a number of common denominators that affect the agriculture industry.

The minister has initiated an active Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I'm not only happy to serve on that committee, but I thank the minister for taking the step. What's even more important in this process is that we not only listen to those involved in agriculture -- the agriculture industry -- but that we're prepared to make whatever changes are necessary. Every British Columbian should be made aware of the challenges facing farmers and food producers in this province. Consumers also need to share in this responsibility.

The minister has said on many occasions that the solutions to the issues have to come from the producers themselves. In this rapidly changing global market, I agree that a team approach is needed. I believe that the government has a role to play. The role should be to facilitate growth and development, not hinder progress in any way.

There needs to be a long-term strategy. There need to be lower taxes and less regulation and red tape. The industry will only be competitive in a global market if we can establish programs and initiatives that work. For example, we have a financial safety net that needs repairs. There are a few areas that are not working. For the fruit farmers, as an example, crop insurance is going to have to be revisited. It needs to be fair and affordable for the taxpayer, but it also needs to work when the need is there. And it needs to work in a timely and efficient way. But a financial safety net is a critical component if we are going to sustain agriculture in this province.

When the agricultural land reserve was established, the mandate not only included preserving agricultural land but an offer of real support to the farmer in the process. If we are going to tie the farmer to his land, then we need to be sure that the processes are in place to offer support to the farmer through incentives, tax reduction, flexible labour laws, etc. At the end of the day, we won't have a sustainable agricultural land reserve without ultimately supporting agriculture. I don't believe that means we have to reduce standards of excellence, that we have to give handouts or reward poor performance.

I'm confident that we have enough resources and examples in other areas to draw from that we can create a made-in-B.C. agriculture policy that works for us.

The minister has promised to fight back, and I hope he will. I hope that we can take the steps to stop the hemorrhaging of hundreds and hundreds of jobs that are being lost in the agrifood industry. This is largely an issue of supply management, regulations, taxes and labour laws.

In closing my remarks, I would like to say that I am pleased that we have Agriculture Day in B.C. I believe that every one of us needs to be more aware of the value of food production. The idea that we can feed ourselves and produce export food and related products is exciting and worthwhile.

We have some of the cheapest food in the world. When we line up at the supermarkets to buy produce, we don't often think about what the farmer is getting down the line. I'm afraid that some may be paying too great a price on our behalf. I sincerely hope that we will all work together to improve the circumstances for farmers and food producers in this province. I hope that the government will form part of the solution and not the problem. The issues are not going away. I believe that if all of us work together, right from government to consumers, we can find workable solutions, ones that will promote and sustain agriculture in British Columbia.

[1455]

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I think, first of all, that if we're going to have a successful agriculture industry in this province, it's got to be competitive. It's got to be competitive continentally, and it's got to be competitive in a world market. I respect the minister's wish that consumers would pay a premium for British Columbia products because of the way they're produced or because of the input costs that are there for local farmers. The reality is that consumers shop for price in the supermarket. The minister knows it, and every thinking British Columbian knows it.

The challenge for the government is to find a cost structure for agriculture and for all of our other primary industries that allows us to be competitive. That doesn't mean Third World wages. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that there should be substandard environmental practices. What it does mean is that there be an economic environment in the province that allows our agriculture industry to compete.

If, for example, Peace River grain farmers were to hope that British Columbians, out of respect for the way that grain is produced in the Peace, should buy their grain at a premium, it would be a rather pitiful wish. British Columbians consume only a tiny fraction of the grain produced in this province. It's an export product. So is our cattle industry, and so, I suspect, are many of our other agriculture industries.

World transportation is such that products arrive seasonally from around the world. We see strawberries from Mexico, we see strawberries from California, and at the appropriate time we see strawberries from British Columbia. But to

[ Page 13370 ]

expect somehow that British Columbians are not going to buy those other products or that they're going to pay some substantial premium for local products is simply unrealistic.

So I say to the minister -- and I know that he's sincere in wanting to help the industry -- that we've got to find a way to make our agriculture industry more competitive. We've got to find a way to deal with the environmental concerns, with the Workers Compensation concerns and with the taxation concerns. Our farmers are dying a death of a thousand cuts, and many of those cuts are being inflicted by government. I say to the minister, and to the people across the way, that there's a challenge there that is simply more than a patriotic call to British Columbia consumers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. And in this House, I call committee on Bill 63.

WILDLIFE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 63; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

[1500]

section 1 (continued).

J. Wilson: I'd like to recapitulate a bit here. Before we broke, the minister referred to habituated animals. To me, this is a newly coined phrase of some kind. Could the minister explain what habituated actually means?

Hon. C. McGregor: When I was speaking about habituated wildlife, I was speaking about those wildlife that have become habituated, in particular, to garbage; but it can be other food sources in an urban setting.

J. Wilson: So habituated means they like garbage. So it doesn't matter what area they reside in; as long as they like garbage, they are now habituated. But I seem to recall that the reason that these two canine species were added to the list here was because they could become habituated and that makes them a danger to people. The reason they're on the list is because they are habituated. Now, just because they like garbage, to me, doesn't really say that they should be on that list. Maybe the minister can clarify this point, because equating habituated with dangerous is what I hear, but yet I don't think that's what the meaning of this is.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, hon. member, I've tried repeatedly to explain this issue to you, and let me try again. When wildlife are fed -- intentionally fed -- by people, they become habituated. They pose a danger and a public safety issue to the broad public when that habituation occurs. When we have bears habituated into neighbourhoods, then we have a conflict between people who live in that neighbourhood and that bear, which is a wild animal. Those same situations can arise with coyotes and wolves. That is the reason why we have designated them as dangerous wildlife.

J. Wilson: The minister has designated coyotes and wolves as dangerous wildlife, even though at this point in time they are not dangerous to the public. The possibility is there; they could, at one point down the road, maybe . . . . We never know. It could be a year or two years; it could be ten years from now, when we might actually, someday, witness a coyote attack or a wolf attack where someone is injured or killed. But this hasn't happened, and it's very, very unlikely to happen. So why are we dealing with a whole lot of species here as dangerous to the public simply because they are attracted to garbage?

I'm not referring to the deliberate feeding of these things. I am talking about attractants here that could bring animals around. So to add these other species on here . . . . If, as the minister has referred to several times, this bill is only intended to control bear problems in areas where people live, then we should be dealing specifically with bears and not adding some other species that really isn't a danger to people -- and is only going to become a danger to people because the government feels that it would like to promote that idea.

[1505]

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't know how to be any clearer than I have been. We do not want the intentional feeding of wildlife by people. That is what this bill is designed to do. I believe I've answered the member's question. Perhaps we could move on.

J. Wilson: Before we broke this morning, I believe the minister made the statement, which she just made, that they don't want people feeding dangerous wildlife. However, I would like to ask the minister: is there any problem with people feeding wildlife that is not considered to be habituated and a threat to human safety?

Hon. C. McGregor: I have heard of people feeding wildlife other than cougars, bears, wolves and coyotes. In fact, I've seen evidence that people feed mice, birds and other species, both wild and more domesticated types of species. However, that's not what this bill is about. What we're trying to do is identify wildlife that could become dangerous to the public if they are intentionally fed or attracted to sources of food, because it endangers pubic safety.

J. Wilson: I believe that's what "dangerous wildlife" under

section 1(

a) is for: "a species of wildlife that is prescribed as dangerous wildlife." Is that what's happening here? Have you left a window to add in any other species out there that could become habituated?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes -- as I indicated to the member before lunch. He was concerned that badgers, for instance, should be considered dangerous wildlife. I gave him my assurance that if we had a variety of reported events related to badgers, through intentional feeding, we would add them to the bill under regulation.

J. Wilson: It's nice to know that we could become threatened by badgers too, but raccoons and foxes are some more of them. Has the minister ever considered the danger involved, say, with a newborn baby if it were outside and at the mercy of a bald eagle? Has the minister considered the fact that an eagle could be an actual danger to a very small infant? I'm sure that if she had a little granddaughter that was a few months old, she would be very reluctant to allow it to walk around unattended in the presence of an eagle, if there was one there. Has the minister considered anything like this?

[ Page 13371 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: It is true that wildlife from many different species can pose a great danger to young children. Again, I will say to the member that the purpose of this bill is to identify what we consider to be dangerous wildlife through habituation and the deliberate feeding of food in a more or less urban setting -- although it could be in a work camp or some other similar location -- where a dangerous animal is being attracted to that location as a result of that food source not being dealt with adequately.

J. Wilson: I'd like to go down to

section 1(

b) here and get a bit of clarification. Under the act, in the definition section, it defines a conservation officer or a deputy conservation officer as one and the same. I would like to know -- but in this amendment I do not see -- under the

section definition, the term "deputy conservation officer" added in. I'm wondering if "conservation officer" refers to a conservation officer and a deputy conservation officer all in the same thing.

[1510]

Hon. C. McGregor: There has been no change in the Wildlife Act to the definition that says that an officer is either a conservation officer or a deputy conservation officer. That exists in the original act, and it's not being amended in this amendment to the act.

J. Wilson: Then if there is no change, is a deputy conservation officer someone who is specifically appointed by the ministry? Or is it a broad term to include any police officer or any police force within the province?

Hon. C. McGregor:

Section 23 of this bill deals specifically with how deputy conservation officers are appointed. Under the current act, there is reference to how the minister can appoint a deputy conservation officer.

M. Coell: With regard to the definition of resident, in (b)(ii) it says someone who "has resided in British Columbia for the 12 month period immediately before making an application." It strikes me -- and the minister may correct me; I don't know whether this is in tandem with federal legislation -- that you can be on the voters list in six months. Why would it be 12 months for you to get a licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand by staff that this is a parallel provision to what already exists in Alberta and Ontario. In fact, the 12-month provision applies only to non-Canadian citizens. If you are a Canadian citizen, then "resident" is under the second part of the definition, which is seven out of 12 months -- and that's to establish a majority of the year.

J. Wilson: Then if this applies to a non-Canadian citizen, if you are a Canadian citizen and you move into the province of British Columbia, can you apply for a licence after six months, when you can now put your name on the voters list? Or must you wait another month?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, you must wait another month. You have to wait until the seventh month.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Plant: The term "resources" is used in this amendment, which will apparently clarify the intent of subsection 4(4) of the act by providing: "Despite any other enactment, a person may not use land or resources in a wildlife management area without the written permission of the regional manager." I can't find a definition for resources in the act, so I want to ask the minister what she thinks is encompassed within that term. My reading of it is that it could be so broad as to include something like picking berries, which would pretty much mean that a wildlife management area would be off limits to anybody for almost any purpose unless they had the written permission of the regional manager.

[1515]

Hon. C. McGregor: In terms of the definition, it would include things like mineral resources, construction of a trail, the use of the land on a permanent basis, timber values and water values. All of those would be considered resources.

G. Plant: The minister helpfully gave a list of examples. It occurs to me, in trying to find a connecting link in the examples, that we're really talking about a very, very broad range of things.

Hon. C. McGregor: This parallels the existing language in the current Wildlife Act. It is broad in range and is deliberately designed to be that way. That's so that we can manage for a variety of issues once an area has been declared a wildlife management area. The purpose of declaring it a wildlife management area is to manage for wildlife resources. We want to give ourselves as much opportunity as possible to be able to review decisions on how that land is used once the designation has gone forward.

J. Wilson: The wording here is: "Despite any other enactment . . . . " I believe it's not the same language. I think that there is a change here, because in the act as it was, the regional manager, on agreement . . . . There are other uses that have been going on in some of these wildlife management areas for some time, and usually it has been through the cooperation of, say, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Mines. They would look at these things and reach a consensus-type agreement that yes, this use is not going to affect the wildlife values in there.

What I get from this is that "despite any other enactment" means to me that anything that has been agreed to previously now falls under the jurisdiction of the regional manager, and without his written approval, it's not going to happen.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me give the member assurance that under

section 4(3), it makes it clear that the designation of land under

section 4(2) does not affect any rights granted before the designation.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Coell:

Section 3, I hope, is something that is positive. The striking out of "except as authorized" and the substituting of "except as permitted" -- is that going to make it easier or more difficult for people to achieve licences?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's designed to be neutral. It's moving from the term "authorized" to "permitted." It's to reflect the previous amendment made under

section 4(4).

[ Page 13372 ]

J. Wilson: What exactly is the difference between "authorized" and "permitted"?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand that legislative counsel believes that the word "permitted" is more correct, so they would like us to use that word in the act.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Plant: Is there a public policy reason why the exemption that is being amended here is limited to primary residences?

[1520]

Hon. C. McGregor: The purpose of the

section is to exempt people from having to get an application to move firearms if they were moving all of their household effects, so the wording here is to give a clearer definition of that exemption. But if you are moving firearms in any other way -- for instance, in your camper -- you cannot allege that you are moving part of your household effects and therefore claim exemption. It's to clarify its purpose as to permit an exemption when you are moving your household as opposed to simply moving firearms in another way.

G. Plant: It just occurred to me that many people who have firearms for hunting and recreational purposes and who own a second property -- a summer cottage or something like that -- are going to actually find this exemption not terribly helpful. The gun is going to be at the summer cottage, not at the main house in town. I understand the minister's answer, but it still seems to me that it doesn't quite completely answer the question.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I guess you could say that somebody who's moving from one cottage to another cottage will not be captured by this amendment. But I would argue that it doesn't happen very often, and they would have to get a licence in the same way as anyone else when they want to transport their firearms.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister can . . . . This is the area that I think, if anything, you had some rather bad press on with regard to the feeding of animals and the fines associated with them. I wonder if you would like to address that area just briefly and clarify your position.

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, I would argue the opposite. We've had extremely good press on this issue. In fact, it's been covered all over the province -- in the Kootenays, in the central interior and in northern British Columbia. We've had editorials and other things talking about the measures that this is designed to put forward in order to give conservation officers another tool in their repertoire of management strategies to deal with dangerous wildlife and the feeding of dangerous wildlife.

So I would argue that -- despite one editorial that talked about picnic baskets, which clearly would not be covered under the provisions of feeding dangerous wildlife -- we've largely had very good press. It is because we've had a strong experience in British Columbia, particularly around bear management.

This is something that, in fact, has been out in the communities for more than a year, with communities pressing, really, for us to move forward with these amendments to the Wildlife Act in order to bring forward new strategies to deal with, potentially, the creation of problem wildlife.

M. Coell: Just to save some time, I would be interested if the minister could inform me later, through a letter or something, what kind of communication she's going to do. I'm specifically thinking of the tourist industry and those people who are coming to use our provincial parks, and how she is going to get the message out to them without it appearing that they're going to be fined huge amounts of money, which I don't think is the case. The minister can get back to me on that.

[1525]

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that's an important point. Let me assure the member that it has never been our intention to be talking to campers about what they might do that would engage them in being ticketed for feeding dangerous wildlife. The word "intentionally" is clearly in place, and it's there for a reason. That's because many people unintentionally -- it's not a deliberate act on their part at all -- inadequately store food, for instance. They're not aware that bears are interested in birdseed and bird feeders. They didn't know that that would be an attractant.

We want to use this largely as an education tool, but in the eventuality where we have a problem and can't convince the person to take certain measures to protect against the attraction of dangerous wildlife, then we have the ability to issue tickets. Clearly we want to take the education steps first. This is something our parks officers do on a regular basis -- talking with the public generally about the possibility of their interaction with various forms of wildlife and the kinds of safety measures that need to be put in place to protect themselves and their families.

Of course, this is a very important part of making sure we have a well-informed public when they are out using B.C. parks and other Crown lands around the province.

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

G. Plant: The first part of

section 17 re-enacts

section 84, which is the fines and penalties section. We were earlier talking about the offence of feeding dangerous wildlife, which is

section 10 of this bill, but it's going to become

section 33.1 of the act. I just want to be sure that I'm reading the provision we have in front of us now.

Someone who happens to be convicted of the offence of having intentionally attracted dangerous wildlife by leaving some food somewhere is potentially liable on a first conviction to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, plus all of the additional remedies included in or provided for in

section 84.1 as creative sentencing and in

section 84.3 as additional fines. Is that the potential exposure of the person who should be so unfortunate as to have their intentions misconstrued in relation to leaving a couple of loaves of bread somewhere?

[ Page 13373 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: If someone left a couple of loaves of bread somewhere, they would not be subject to any provisions of the act. If a conservation officer was available, they would tell them that that might cause some issue if there were dangerous wildlife around. Others within the parks system might well bring it to their attention even though there isn't dangerous wildlife around, because it's a good practice to store your food safely when you're out in the woods.

The member generally describes what measures are available if a person were unfortunate enough to find themselves in court as a result of a grievous offence -- I think those are the words that I've been given here -- related to intentional feeding of wildlife. The range of fines is between zero and $50,000. Clearly it's the court that makes that determination.

G. Plant: The range of zero to $50,000, the six months and the other items that I referred to are all, according to the law, available to the sentencing judge on a first offence. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that's correct.

[1530]

G. Plant: I am sure that all members of the House regard the commission of offences under the Wildlife Act as being serious matters -- matters that we in this Legislature should take seriously, that the government should take seriously, that the court should take seriously. But I wonder if a regime of fines and penalties in which, the first time out, you are at risk of a fine of up to $50,000 for the range of offences that apply here . . . . The second time out, you may in fact be subject to a fine of $100,000 and will be at least subject to a minimum fine of $1,000 plus the possibility of imprisonment.

I have to wonder whether, when one looks at the way in which the law deals with other categories of offences, this is an example of disproportionate overkill. The minister will no doubt stand up and tell us why it's not disproportionate overkill, and I look forward to that.

But I guess I have this additional problem. If it turns out that the judges have a problem with their sentencing range here, and the sentences, in the fullness of time, are actually a whole lot more reasonable and modest, then I wonder if the effect of all this at the end of the day will be to bring the whole administration of law in this area into disrepute. So it seems to me that there are a couple of problems with the approach taken here, and I'd be interested in the minister's comments on them.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, to begin with, I'll just note the contradictions I hear from different members on that side of the House in terms of whether or not the penalty regime is actually strong enough, because yesterday I heard from my critic that he feels the fines in fact aren't strong enough. He would rather see them higher, and now we hear from the member that he's concerned they are too high.

But let me give him the assurances that I think are necessary. First, 85 percent of the charges that are laid by conservation officers are handled by violation tickets, which range in price from $100 to $500. As I mentioned to the member in my previous response, we're talking about the most grievous matters that would end up before the court. As an example, if someone intentionally fed wildlife and that led to the death of a British Columbian, I think that would be a very serious matter and should be addressed by the courts.

G. Plant: It sounds to me like criminal negligence causing death, a Criminal Code offence, not something to be dealt with by a provision of the Wildlife Act. That's a good example of a situation where I think the criminal law may already be adequate, which raises again my question of whether . . . . It may well be that members of this House have a variety of opinions on this subject.

But when I look at this in the context -- I look at the prospect of a $50,000 fine in the context of the offence of intentionally feeding wildlife -- the words "publicity stunt" come into my mind. That is, the government isn't really interested here in actually creating a law and enforcing it; they're more interested in getting out a good press release.

Particularly, I'm even more alarmed when I hear the minister essentially say that we're not really going to do this except in perhaps the most egregious cases. Most of the time there will be violation tickets used. It will only be in the most serious of cases that we would ever get involved in

section 84.

But it seems to me that what we're being asked to do as legislators is give the power to the government, conservation officers and peace officers to in fact lay these charges with these results. I again have to question whether the minister has thought through the relationship between some of these offences under this act -- the penalties that are available on a first-time offence for committing those offences -- and the way in which the law responds to other matters. I invite the minister again to tell me how she thinks this makes sense.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me assure the member opposite that the amendments to this act are not to achieve press releases or write press releases. I've been lobbied for some considerable time by a variety of wildlife groups. They view wildlife, as do many British Columbians and Canadians, as a very important part of our culture that should be protected. The courts have generally interpreted the level of fines that are currently in place as not treating those offences as seriously, perhaps, as we would like them to do. We've been lobbied.

The general public supports a higher penalty regime, and I do as well, so that we can send clear messages to the courts who, in their due diligence and clearly within their authority, make judgments on the basis of the severity of the cases and the degree and the range of fines that are available to them.

I would not question what a judge would do in a circumstance, but I think that when you send a message about the importance of wildlife and offences against wildlife through the range of fines that are available for the courts to consider, then they will be given that kind of weight when cases are heard by a judge.

[1535]

G. Plant: The issue, of course, is not what the minister would like to have happen or what I would like to have happen when this amendment passes. It's the power that conservation officers are going to have and be given -- or that they already have -- under this act, and they're going to have more of those powers when the amendments to this act go through.

I want to pursue the issue one more time with the minister. I want to pursue it from the perspective of a Provincial

[ Page 13374 ]

Court judge who, in the morning, hears a couple of impaired driving charges, first-time offences. You know, the fine is $500 or $700 in circumstances where it's a first-time offence. But who knows? The person driving the car may have been extraordinarily drunk and in a position to cause serious harm to a whole bunch of lives.

Then, in the afternoon, the judge has a conservation officer standing there saying: "I want a $50,000 fine levied against this person who decided that they wanted a special Kodak moment and held out a couple of taco chips to entice a bear onto the Trans-Canada Highway." I have a feeling that the judge is going to be asking himself or herself whether or not the government has its sense of proportion right in terms of how the law is working.

Hon. C. McGregor: In the case of impaired driving, the maximum fine is actually a penalty of up to five years and an unlimited fine. In the same context, we set the maximum fines, and it is up to the courts to decide what is the appropriate penalty to impose.

G. Plant: I want to move on to what will become 84.1, which has almost . . . . I think it wins the prize -- certainly for this year -- for the most interesting title to an NDP amendment: "Creative sentencing." I gather that the general thrust of these additional provisions is that they are things that could be added to a punishment imposed along the nature of the fines or the potential imprisonment that we've talked about. So they are additional remedies that the court has at its disposal in circumstances where someone is convicted of an offence under this act.

I mean, I want to make it clear that I think there are good public policy reasons to expand the range of sentencing options in appropriate cases. The general thrust of that initiative in this particular context is probably a good one.

But I do have a problem with, among other things, what will become 84.1(1)(f), which gives the court the power to direct the person who has been convicted of the offence "to post a bond or pay into court an amount of money the court considers appropriate for the purpose of insuring compliance with any prohibition, direction or requirement under this section." I have a problem with the potential I see here for what amounts to virtually a perpetual sentence.

[1540]

First of all, the person in question is subject to a fine and imprisonment, and then, as a kind of guarantee for good behaviour forever, the judge is going to have the power to direct that person to post a bond and presumably freeze up a sum of money as a kind of guarantee against future violations.

I'm struggling to find other examples where we do that in the law, but what we usually do in the law is say: "Once you've paid your fine, once you've served your time, once you have made restitution or whatever it is, then it's over, and you're free to live your life." This holds out the spectre for someone convicted of an offence that it will never be over, and I must admit, at least at first glance, that I'm disturbed at that prospect.

Hon. C. McGregor: Just to give the member assurances that creative sentencing is not a unique title, we use it under the Fish Protection Act, the Water Act and the Waste Management Act. We made similar amendments in previous years to add these provisions under those acts. Similar provisions are also under the Canada Fisheries Act and the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

Hon. member, you're a lawyer; you know the law. So I would simply say that I bow to your superior knowledge about the court system. But just to say that it's up to the court to determine what the bond . . . .

J. Wilson: I'd like to explore a little bit here in

section 17 and under 84(1). I see that under

section 28 of the Wildlife Act, it gives me a list of penalties that they can impose. But the way it reads in the

section is: " . . . hunts or traps without reasonable consideration for the . . . safety or property of others . . . . " Now, what would the minister designate as someone going out there to trap without reasonable consideration for the property of others? What do they classify as property?

Hon. C. McGregor:

Section 28 is designed to make reference to a person who hunts or traps and who causes some concern for a person's life. As a result, we're putting that into the tier that's made reference to under 84(1)(a).

J. Wilson: I can understand safety, but my question is property.

Hon. C. McGregor: We were just discussing here, to try and figure out what we thought "property" might include. The example we came up with -- and we're not aware of any convictions under this provision of the act -- is if someone was chasing wildlife, and as a result of their firing and the discharge of their firearm, they ended up destroying or partly destroying someone's home; that would clearly be a significant offence and should be included in that tier.

G. Plant:

Section 84.1(1)(

g) is another one of those "in addition to any punishment imposed" provisions that allows the court in this particular case, to make an order "directing the person to submit to the minister, on application by the minister within 3 years after the date of the conviction, any information respecting the activities of the person that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances."

[1545]

How does the minister foresee this working? Is this something where the Crown will ask the court to be a part of the disposition of the offence at the time of the offence, and then the person in question has to wait and see if the minister later makes an application to court? How exactly is it that subparagraph (1)(

g) will work?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it would be at the time of sentencing that this order would be made. One example of a creative sentence that a judge could order would be environmental remediation, so a provision could be to report on a regular basis how that remediation progressed and whether or not it had been completed.

G. Plant: That's helpful.

What do the words "on application by the minister" mean in this context?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it means that in the eventuality that such a sentence were given and they were required to make certain types of reports -- and we had not heard of that; we couldn't find the information in any way to indicate whether or not the work that had been directed to be done had been done -- we could apply back to the courts to ask for that information to be provided to us.

[ Page 13375 ]

G. Plant: In effect, then, the person -- the convict, in this case -- would have to make sure that the court knew where he or she was on an ongoing basis, just in case the minister were to make that application. I say that because the conventional situation wouldn't require someone who's been convicted of an offence and has paid the fine and done the time to tell anybody where he or she is. I'm just trying to figure out, practically speaking, how this is going to work. If the minister goes off and makes an application, it's not much of an application unless the convicted person receives notice of it.

Hon. C. McGregor: I am told by my staff that in practical terms, this is used in the case of corporate offenders as opposed to individuals. I take that to mean that such an effort would be made only because it was a very significant offence, and we were trying to track a corporate interest in making sure that they engaged in the cleanups they were required to do.

G. Plant: Looking at (

h) for a moment, I gather that this would give the court the power to require someone to write, "I have been a very bad hunter," on a sandwich board and to walk up and down the main street of Williams Lake, or some interesting thing like that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that could be ordered.

G. Plant: Does the minister have any concerns that that's not merely creative sentencing, but it's really perhaps cruel and unusual sentencing?

Hon. C. McGregor: Once again, I would determine that that's up to the courts to decide. But let me say that our ministry publishes on a very regular basis the names of people who break the law and are in fact out of compliance. We find that that's a very strong deterrent measure, and it may be that a court would find the same.

G. Plant: I want to be clear. I may be misunderstanding the purpose of (h). The minister is talking about the list that the ministry publishes. But (

h) is something where the court says to the convicted person: "You pay your fine; you serve your time. By the way, after you're all finished, you have to walk up and down the main street of some town with a sign saying 'I have been a very bad hunter.' " Am I right that the purpose of (

h) is not to give the minister the ability to publicize the identity of an offender or the nature of the offence but rather to give the court the power to order the offender to make that known? Is that right?

[1550]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that is correct. My example was only for illustrative purposes.

G. Plant: The minister said, in response to my first question, that whether such a tool was perhaps cruel or unusual would be a matter for the courts. Oddly enough, the courts are actually going to find some guidance on that from the fact that the government has put it here. The courts are going to at least assume that the government is of the view that it isn't cruel or unusual to require people to publish the fact that they've committed an offence.

So I just want to be clear that it is the minister's and the government's view that this is an appropriate sentencing tool in cases of offences under the Wildlife Act. Let's not pass it off to the courts. I want to make sure that the minister and the government are of the view that this is good sentencing practice.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I said earlier, these provisions are similar to ones that exist in federal legislation as well as provincial, and in this case this provision is available as well. So it's not unusual in that sense. But there have been cases where this has been ordered, and one of the examples that's been given to me is serious trafficking-in-wildlife offences. A court has ordered the publication of newspaper advertisements as part of the sentencing provision, and I would view that to be a very appropriate tool.

G. Plant: Again, to make sure we get the example right, the court has ordered the offender to pay for the publication of the newspaper advertisements, and that additional part of it -- from the minister's perspective -- is something that could conceivably be appropriate in the correct case.

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

G. Plant:

Section 84.3 is "Additional Fine." I think I understand the gist of this. Essentially, if someone has made any money engaging in illegal activity, then the court has the power to order, as an additional remedy, that the offender pay a fine equal to the amount of the monetary benefits. Just for the purpose of clarification, there's no limit potentially available. I mean, the sky's the limit on these awards. If the monetary benefits turn out to be huge, then the potential fine could also be huge.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, obviously the Crown would have to prove that such profits had accrued to the individual. But yes, in that case the courts could then order that that be added as an additional penalty.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

M. de Jong: I'll try to do this as quickly as I can. This

section describes a circumstance in which someone has been convicted of an offence under the Firearm Act or one of the regulations. As the minister has pointed out, that can result in the imposition of a significant fine or a not so significant fine. What I think is new -- and the minister can confirm this -- is the creation of a subsequent offence for a person who thereafter applies for a licence of some sort -- an acquisition licence or a hunting licence or authorization -- but hasn't paid the fine. I don't think the requirement that that be done intentionally exists under the section.

To put it in terms that I and others might be more familiar with, if I get a speeding ticket and show up at the motor vehicle branch, apply for my new licence and discover that I haven't paid that speeding ticket from a year or two ago, I have now committed an offence. Is that what is created here? Is that the new provision that this

section creates?

[1555]

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, it's not a new offence. It was covered previously under the Wildlife Act, under

section 24. What is new is that we've added an automatic cancellation of the licence, as opposed to it being imposed by the director.

[ Page 13376 ]

M. de Jong: Good. That might be the information we require. The offence of applying prior to payment of the fine has existed previously under a different legislative provision. What's added to that is the automatic cancellation of whatever permit or authorization has been granted. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to be technically correct. The offence occurs when you apply after you have been suspended or cancelled. In the past what happened was the director then had to cancel the licence. Now we're saying that it's automatic.

M. de Jong: My colleague correctly points out . . . . My suspicion is that under the old legislative regime, the punishment was the cancellation of whatever permit or authorization. This is somewhat different. It provides for that, but it also provides for an additional conviction.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's always been an additional conviction. Under the previous act, it stated that the director must cancel it. If you applied after that cancellation, you committed an offence. The only difference now is that the cancellation is automatic.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

M. Coell: I've had the added benefit of three lawyers and a veterinarian help with this bill, so I feel as privileged as the minister with her two staff members.

Sections 19 through 22 are where we have a problem with this bill. I don't want to elaborate at great length, but I want to say that it's a philosophical problem. It's one where we see more government regulation, more government control and more government authority in individuals' lives dealing with individual property and property rights. Although this bill has a lot of housekeeping measures in it that are supportable, I think the crux and the main part of the bill is more regulation.

I'm not sure in my mind whether the increase of regulatory authority, especially to conservation officers, gives the solutions that the minister is looking for. I hope it does, but from our first brush with and review of this bill, I don't think it will.

[1600]

I think the main point -- the protection of people against bears -- has been diluted by adding in other animals. As one of our colleagues mentioned, bears sleep six months of the year. Did you need to put in wolves and coyotes so you'd have the same authority 12 months of the year? Those are the sort of questions that come to my mind. I'm not saying that's the case, but it sure appears that way. So that, in a nutshell, is the opposition that we have to this bill. I'd be interested in the minister's comments.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, you know, I find those kinds of comments really offensive. You know, COs don't have so much time on their hands that they would make up opportunities to go and inspect people's homes when they don't need to. Conservation officers are very well respected around the province, and they do very fine work. They enforce a variety of provisions under this act and others. I just think it's inappropriate for the member to suggest that somehow this is a make-work project for conservation officers.

Conservation officers want to have an additional tool where, when they believe there are reasonable grounds that dangerous wildlife may be attracted to a premise and public safety is at risk, they can then enter someone's property to inspect. These are not new powers for conservation officers, and clearly these amendments make clear that these powers apply only through conservation officers. It is not their first choice of a tool to use in dealing with these questions, but it is one of many in their repertoire.

I believe conservation officers are very careful to protect the public interest. I think they're widely respected by the public of British Columbia, and this legislative amendment gives them one other opportunity through which they can protect public safety.

Section 19 approved.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

M. Coell: I just have one question. The conservation officers and the assignment of delegation of duty -- would that go to RCMP officers? Could you now give this duty to RCMP officers?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

Section 23 approved.

Sections 24 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

M. Coell: On 34, one question with regard to once the Water Act is amended. The agricultural, domestic or environmental groups -- how do they fit in when they want to purchase those rights? Is it first come, first served? Or are domestic and farming still number one?

Hon. C. McGregor: The Water Act works on a first come, first served basis, and then the analysis is done on the basis of who applies next and whether there's available water for that group to apply to. It's very similar to provisions we have under the Fish Protection Act.

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

G. Robertson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1605]

G. Robertson: Visiting with us in Victoria today we have approximately 20 students from grades 3 and 4 at Cedar

[ Page 13377 ]

Elementary School in Campbell River. With the students in the class today we have Jerry Horton, their teacher. Accompanying them also are Andy Burgess, Norma Idiens, Michel Leard and Jude Simpson. I would ask that the members of the House please make them very welcome.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Wildlife Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 64.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in Committee on Bill 64; J. Cashore in the chair.

section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm in the unusual situation of having a piece of legislation, and I can't find anybody who doesn't like it. I've looked high and low, since the bill was introduced, to try and find ways of improving the legislation in its form. Most of it's technical. Some of it improves and harmonizes the legislation and provides a greater ability to deal with transgressors. The support for the bill seems -- at this point, anyway -- to be pretty much universal. I have no specific questions on the legislation.

Sections 1 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. 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 64, Securities Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 67.

STRATA PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in Committee on Bill 67; J. Cashore in the chair.

section 1.

[1610]

R. Coleman: Similar to the discussion on the last bill, this one has been waiting nine years to get into the marketplace. It's part of what was supposed to be some of the improvements actually recommended by the Barrett commission, as far as getting a plain-language rewrite to this act in place. We discussed it last year. This is a housekeeping situation to some of the language in this act. I see there is no detailed discussion required on any of the sections, and I think we can move it forward.

Sections 1 to 53 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67, the Strata Property Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Cashore in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 22: ministry operations, $4,348,722,000.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I'm pleased to rise today to introduce spending estimates for the Ministry of Education and report to the Legislature on our government's progress towards establishing British Columbia as the learning province in Canada.

Last year I rose to report that we had launched a number of initiatives that went to the heart of the concerns of British Columbians about education: initiatives to decrease the number of portables on our school grounds and increase quality learning environments for our children; initiatives to decrease class size and increase the number of teachers to instruct those classes; initiatives to decrease conflict between teachers and school boards and the province and to increase the focus on who and what we are all really working for in the first place -- the education of our children.

It has been an exciting year in education in British Columbia. I think we've taken some major steps towards achieving those goals, and we've been doing it in a way that is fair and balanced. I think we have the momentum, we have some commitment, and we are going to achieve those goals and create a quality education system for our children that's unparalleled in our province's history.

We're doing this not only because this is an honourable goal, I guess -- because we all value our children and their education -- but because it is absolutely essential for the future of our province. We're headed into a new millennium, where the currency of individual success and economic success for the province is going to depend increasingly on the knowledge and skills of our citizens. It is incumbent upon us to set a new course to hone in on the opportunities of that new millennium.

It is a great time to be involved in education in British Columbia. The future is limitless for our children, but we've

[ Page 13378 ]

got to plan and provide and invest in that future if those possibilities are going to be realized. And it will call on all of us, in this chamber and outside of it, to act boldly and with vision.

I must say that our vision here in British Columbia differs dramatically from what's happening in other provinces in our country. I read somewhere in the Globe and Mail -- I think it was back in March -- that British Columbia was the only province in Canada not to reduce expenditures in education over the last seven years. In the typical sort of eastern Canadian way, puzzled about events west of the Rockies, they scratched their heads and called us mavericks for this behaviour of increasing education funding every year.

[1615]

If the national picture is one that cuts away at education, that doesn't invest in our children's future and that doesn't prepare our youth for them, then by all means let's be proud to be called mavericks. Here we do believe that investing in education will give our children the knowledge, skills and opportunities they need to thrive and survive in the twenty-first century and that our province needs to thrive and survive in the next millennium. That's why we have led the country in education initiatives.

We're doing everything we can as a government to live up to the commitments we made a year ago to work harder and to protect and improve education. We've committed the dollars and are working with our partners in education to ensure that our long-term goals are met.

This spring this budget incorporates another increase to core funding for education -- this time by $39 million -- bringing the total education budget for public school districts in British Columbia to just over $3.6 billion. In per-pupil terms, it gives a per-pupil lift of around $143 for every child in schools in British Columbia.

We included funding for enrolment pressures -- and there are some districts that are still growing rapidly -- funding to cover the cost of inflation and wages and funding for enhancements to the K-to-12 education system, such as hiring more teachers, reducing kindergarten-to-grade-3 class sizes and making the Internet a reality for children in schools right across our province. It brought the per-student funding in the public school system to $5,992 per child -- nearly $6,000 a child, the highest level in Canada.

As I said, this commitment to education is sadly not reflected across the country. I recently returned from a national -- indeed, international -- conference in Quebec City, where I had an opportunity to share concerns and visions of education with my colleagues, with other ministers and with educators across the country. Some of the things that we're hearing and seeing must greatly concern anybody who cares about education.

The Ontario government just won a second term -- a renewed mandate -- and they are contemplating cuts to their education system in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. That's on top of the cuts they've already made. Just across the Rockies in Alberta, instead of hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes, Alberta is firing 700 teachers and increasing the size of classes that children will be learning in this year. That is simply not the way to prepare for the future and to build our society. I think we in this province must say no to those radical cuts to education.

This year's increase to core funding, which we'll be debating in these estimates, was again another way to confirm our commitment to that world-class education system for all our children, regardless of where they live and regardless of what their parents earn.

This year also sees a very large capital program. Over the last few years, not only has capital spending in British Columbia been the highest for all provinces, but growth in this spending has been the highest of any province every year from 1992-93 to 1997-98. Last week I had the privilege, with the Premier, to announce an additional $50 million in capital commitment to build four more schools and do additions to another 29 to make sure on our commitment to reducing class size and eliminating portables that those goals are met.

[1620]

Over the last 13 months since we committed ourselves to those goals, we have now committed to $923 million worth of capital construction in the K-to-12 education system in British Columbia -- nearly a billion dollars. It's the largest capital construction project in education in the history of our province; it's going to take years. But we are going to succeed in cutting the number of portables in half and reducing class size, providing the classrooms for those smaller classes and hiring the teachers to staff them. This year this budget will result in the hiring of 300 additional teachers to reduce class sizes in those critical early years.

Just a word on class size. Once again I need to report to this chamber that when I met with my colleagues from across the country, we were seen as a bit of a maverick in doing this. While class-size reductions and the benefits of learning for children are widely acknowledged in other jurisdictions in the world and while there are significant initiatives in other jurisdictions to reduce class size, particularly in the United States, here in Canada, regrettably, we are virtually alone. The only other province in Canada that has any plans to reduce class size is New Brunswick. Their goal -- how low they want to get them -- is down to a class size of 25; that's lofty indeed.

Next fall, under this budget, I will be able to say that no matter where your child goes to school in British Columbia -- Victoria, Vancouver, Prince George or Prince Rupert -- if he's in kindergarten, he'll be in a class of no more than 20 students. If he or she is in grade 1 or 2 or 3, he or she will be in a class of no more than 23 students. That's not the end of it; our goal is clear. All kindergarten-to-grade-3 classes will be at 18 students or fewer within five years. We're going to reach that goal.

Now, there are some who cynically say that we're announcing these initiatives for political expediency or made-up photo ops. I think that's sad. We'd indulge in a bit of that in this chamber from time to time. But this initiative is too important for that sort of political cynicism. Take a look at the facts. Listen to the experts. It is critical that we increase writing, reading and computational skills for children, and the absolute best time to do it is in the early years of kindergarten to grade 3. Let's be clear: this initiative is for our children. It's for their future; it's for the future of the province. We are going to make it work.

There are those who have also questioned some of the work we're doing -- frankly, interest groups that often belittle some of the hard work that I see when I visit schools and talk to teachers, people that are really dealing with our children every day. They work in our classrooms in our schools -- educators, principals, trustees, parents. They don't deserve some of the ranking and failing of their efforts by self-serving interest groups such as the Fraser Institute. They deserve to be supported and applauded. They face real concerns and real challenges every day. We will be there to support the work they're doing. But simply ranking and failing adds nothing.

[ Page 13379 ]

I don't want to just pretend -- and I will not say in this chamber -- that there are not real concerns that I hear daily from teachers, administrators, trustees and others who are also committed to the education of our children. For a number of years, districts have had to struggle with how to balance the system's many needs by staying within available resources. Those demands are going to continue. I don't want to underestimate the challenges we're going to face.

[1625]

Some of those, though, I want to put to rest. I hear concerns that our government will not follow through on our commitments to provide funding for smaller classes for our youngest students; to hire more classroom teachers plus non-enrolling specialists like ESL teachers, special needs folks, librarians and counsellors; to fund enrolment fully and recognize the cost of inflation.

Well, we are following through on the commitments. This budget follows through on them for the next school year, the '99-2000 school year. It is making a difference. I've visited literally scores of schools in the last year and talked to hundreds of teachers. They're telling me about the difference that having smaller classes makes to what they're able to provide for our children. Parents have told me that better things are happening for their children now that they have more one-on-one attention and better access to librarians, counsellors and other types of classroom support.

All these initiatives necessarily place some strains on the system. I want to begin these estimates by offering, in a very public forum, my congratulations and thanks to the many administrative personnel and teachers in our school districts who worked hard over the last year -- particularly last summer -- to implement these initiatives as well and as smoothly as possible. There surely are always a few bumps in such a major initiative. But by all reports, implementing them this school year has gone remarkably well.

I want to talk briefly about a couple of other areas of concern in education, just to open up these topics for our Education estimates. One of the things that our complicated world of education requires is that our children have a strong foundation in reading, writing and mathematics. These are the core subject areas, and we test them to give us some idea of just how well our children are doing compared to the rest of the world. They're doing very well indeed, both provincially and internationally.

Our own provincial learning assessment program results confirm that. Maybe I can anticipate some of the questions from my critic by saying that I think the death of PLAP has been greatly exaggerated. We are not backing off from our commitment to provide individual student-level information. It's a responsible effort -- our pause here -- to address what we feel are legitimate concerns so that these results can be properly interpreted and put in a context. We believe in the importance of making those individual results available.

Right now we're working with our key educational partners through the provincial education committee. But ensuring that school and individual results are used appropriately is a complex process that's going to take a little time to implement. I do not want the use of these results to be in the sort of mindless, finger-pointing, blame-assessing way that the Fraser Institute has used -- comparative results between schools. That does nothing for our students, nothing for our teachers.

I've even heard -- and maybe the member opposite has letters to this effect -- that the reason we've decided not to expand the distribution of results at this time is because we're afraid to release the results -- that we're failing. Well, that simply and categorically is not so.

These provincial learning assessment results showed last year that 85 percent of our grades 4, 7 and 10 students met or exceeded the expected standard for their grade in reading and writing. I'd like to see the numbers even higher, but I think those are pretty impressive results. As well, our 13- and 16-year-old students did very well on interprovincial tests of reading, writing, mathematics and science over the last six years.

[1630]

You don't give the students the tools they need to succeed by watering down the curriculum or by not challenging them. We want our children to reach the highest possible standards. We have a curriculum that will do it, but we have to do things with educators, schools and parents -- change what we're doing -- to make sure that success continues to be the goal for all of us.

Now, the fundamentals are part of what we need to do. There are other parts that are equally important. We must ensure that our students are familiar with the new technologies. We must be able to ensure that they are able to relate to and work with their peers, that they can adapt and apply their knowledge to new and changing settings, and that they have the critical thinking and problem-solving skills to prepare them for their lives and for the challenges of the future. We are committed to those values, and we're going to continue to make progress towards them.

I want to flag a couple of other initiatives that I imagine will come up in estimates. This is a year during which we have made some significant progress in some important areas: increasing work to improve the safety of our schools, which is a matter of great concern to parents, teachers and administrators around the province; work to improve our support for first nations students, for far too many of whom the school experience is not one of success; and increase the strength of our initiatives to help students stay in school and get the message to them that their individual success does increasingly depend on their educational attainments.

There's one area we've recently announced that we're looking at hard, and that's special education. It's now been ten years since we introduced children with special needs into the mainstream of everyday school life, and I believe that it is now time to look back, see how well we've done, take note of our strengths and see where we can improve the system for children most in need. So a review of our special education system is now underway, looking for ways to improve delivery for some of our most needy students.

We've also sought, in the last year, to keep in better touch with parents. We've produced a number of new information tools towards that end. For too many years, I think, the school system for too many parents was a bit of a black mystery. Those of us inside the schools and the education system understood it, but frankly, I don't think we did a very good

[ Page 13380 ]

job sometimes in explaining it and how it worked to parents. So we've been seeking to change that this year. Last spring we started with a first run of 600,000 copies of "Better Learning" magazine to take home from schools. We just released the fourth issue of "Better Learning" -- it's going out to schools right now -- and the reviews have been quite positive.

We also sent out -- and this was an amazing success story -- 20,000 complimentary copies of the "Curriculum Handbook for Parents." We advertised this in "Better Learning." We said that if you want to know more about the specific curriculum in grade 4 or grade 7 or grade 10, we have pamphlets that outline in detail what your child will be studying and should be attaining in various subjects at various grade levels. The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils helped us put this together. We thought we'd maybe have a request for a few thousand.

So far we've shipped 20,000, and I expect that we'll be shipping many more in the months to come. So there is a need and a desire to have that sort of information, and I think we need to continue to do a better job of communicating with parents.

Recent issues of the "Better Learning" magazine addressed issues such as school safety, how to tell if your child is performing well enough, tips for helping your child stay in school, how to go about deciding whether to go on to post-secondary training or learning or to a job, and explaining how our schools evaluate the performance of our students.

[1635]

There's much else I could say, and I'm sure I will say during these estimates, about our education system. But I want to conclude by making it clear -- and I hope that the opposition will second this view -- that we have here in British Columbia one of the finest public education systems in the world. And we're moving to strengthen it. We have dedicated, hard-working staff in our schools and districts around our province -- people who are devoted to doing the best they can for the students we serve.

We're committed to providing the educational opportunities that will inspire young people, let them see the relevance of their education and help develop their critical-thinking and problem-solving skills.

The world is going to continue to change economically, socially and environmentally, and it's going to be our children that face the challenging times ahead and will need that creativity to find the solutions to the problems that their generation will face. At the provincial level this government has momentum on the number of educational initiatives -- a long-term commitment to provide more teachers, more classrooms and more individual attention to our students than ever before.

As we approach the new millennium -- and the next school year, I guess, we'll cross the boundary into that -- let me make the challenge of this side of the House. I know the other side will embrace it, but let me make it anyway. This is an important time to make some bold and courageous decisions. Let's be proud to be called mavericks and to create a better tomorrow in our education system for our children.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

G. Hogg: Thank you to the minister for those comments. I'd like to start by thanking the ministry staff for the assistance they provided in the briefings that we've had. Also, my thanks go to the school boards, the parents, the educators and the students who assisted us as we tried to learn and understand what's happening, and also to the nine organizations who formally responded to the questions which we asked them -- BCPSEA, the Business Council of British Columbia, the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, the BCSTA, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the B.C.

School Superintendents Association, the B.C. Teachers Federation, the Federation of Independent School Associations and the B.C. School District Secretary-Treasurers Association, all of whom have assisted us in looking at a number of issues. The issues which seem to be prevalent throughout those are issues of accountability, the facilities, funding, governance, the role of independent schools, labour relations, leadership and educational programs that come out of those. Those are certainly all areas that we hope to be able to canvass in the course of these estimates.

When the Finance minister made her budget speech, she made reference to us having the highest education investment per student in Canada. The minister, in his opening remarks, made reference again to that, saying that they were at the highest level in Canada. The minister made many references in his opening comments to the quality of education within British Columbia and the directions that we want to go in hopes of having an even better educational system.

As we look at and review the budget and the intent of the budget over the next number of hours, I want to have the opportunity to look at what it is that we do, how we do that and how we know it works. I want to look at issues such as the rhetoric that we hear and whether or not there is a balance between rhetoric and reality.

In an effort to do that, I want to look at, firstly, some of the visions that UNESCO has looked at in terms of where they see education going internationally and worldwide -- the vision statements that come into that -- and to look at how Canada does internationally. The minister made some reference to that.

I want to look at how B.C. ranks in terms of those performances within the context of Canada and then move from that into looking at some of the ways that we can look at improving those -- some of the issues that I made reference to earlier from the organizations that talked about issues such as accountability, governance and some of the specific issues we've talked about that have looked at some of the reductions in services, which we've heard through the media and we've heard school boards speaking about.

[1640]

I believe that the minister is currently chair of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, and there are a number of pieces of information that have come out through that organization. As I looked at the role of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada I looked at the responsibilities that they carry and looked at their strategies.

They include assessing the performance of 13- and 16-year-old students in math, reading, writing and science, to which the minister alluded earlier today; collecting statistical information on the performance of our education systems; fostering an exchange of information among provinces and territories on a variety of subjects, including technology, open learning, copyright and education research and development; producing periodic reports on various aspects; fostering the mobility of students; and looking at post-secondary expectations as they move from that.

[ Page 13381 ]

So I would like to be able to develop a context, a framework and an understanding for how our education system is doing within that broad framework, and then the specifics as we look at them within that.

Towards that end, I would like to make reference to the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century and the information that came out of it -- known as the Delors report, "Learning: The Treasure Within." Prior to looking at some of those, I'd like to ask the minister if he could highlight for me and perhaps elucidate a little bit on some of the comments that he made in his opening remarks. Firstly, the learning province in Canada -- we've heard that statement a number of times. It's been referred to in a number of pieces that have been sent out.

I am just wondering if the minister could clarify for me the learning province in Canada. What in fact does he mean by that, where does that lead us, and what is the intent of that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, for the information of the chamber, I'd like to introduce the staff who are with me today. On my right is Rick Connolly. He is acting ADM for governance, policy and finance. On my left is Mr. Paul Pallan, who is ADM for educational support services. Behind me is Mr. Keith Miller, acting co-director for capital planning.

The member asked about our goal of becoming known as the learning province in Canada. We have set out very deliberately, over the last several years, to enhance the opportunities that our children have to succeed in school and to succeed after school in post-secondary education or in their jobs.

As I said in my introductory remarks, some of the measures of that commitment are, of course, financial. Other provinces -- really, all other provinces -- over this decade, over the last seven years, have reduced education funding. The statistics and studies are fairly clear that we are the only province that has sought to continue to increase funding for public education, both at the kindergarten-to-grade-12 level and in post-secondary. So that is one measure.

But more importantly, I think, in a whole range of issues, as we've heard the concerns of parents and worked with school boards and teachers to try to improve education, we said very clearly that there were a number of challenges we needed to meet. One of those was better learning at the very early years. As we look at making sure that as many children as possible -- I'd prefer all children -- succeed in school, we know that their mastery of skills in the early years is crucial to that.

A review of research and, really, international initiatives shows quite clearly that one of the most effective ways -- the most effective way -- of increasing skill enhancement in those very early years is to provide students with more one-to-one attention, and the best way to do that is through smaller classes. Through the provincial collective agreement, which was negotiated a year ago and implemented for the first year this fall, we've taken that on very aggressively.

[1645]

The research is clear: if we can get class sizes down and ensure that our children get more individual attention, their chances of succeeding in school and beyond school go up. I recently had the pleasure, this spring, of attending a seminar put on by Dr. Charles Achilles, who was involved in the largest longitudinal study of the effect of class size in the States, in Tennessee. He was able to quantify it, and I'd be pleased to provide the member with the research; I don't think this chamber is the right place to read academic treatises.

What was surprising from my point of view as an educator was that he was saying that the effect of having smaller class sizes in those early years didn't stop once the child moved on and was in a more typical class size in grade 6 or grade 12 or whatever. There was a clear differential between kids that had been in a large class and those in a small class, which continued right on through the rest of their education. In the late nineties he was even able to start to quantify differences in attainment with these same two cohorts in post-secondary learning.

If we want to have our children succeed, clearly this is one of the crucial ways of doing it, and it's an initiative that we take great pride in.

Other areas -- and I'm sure we'll debate these at length -- are that we have too many of our children studying and learning in facilities that are, frankly, not adequate. There is nothing wrong with spending a year or two studying in a portable or temporary classroom, but too many of our children were spending too large a portion of their learning lives in temporary facilities. Some of our schools were more portables than school. That needed to change.

In the area of education technology, while we've invested and carried through on our commitment to a technology program which would spend $100 million over the last five years to improve access to technology, we also felt it was important to start this year with another major project to connect all 1,700 of our schools to the provincial learning network, a decent Internet service to all schools -- regardless of whether they're here in an urban centre or up in the more remote parts of the province, where I come from.

There is much else I could mention. I think we have an excellent curriculum. I have heard lots of positive things about curriculum revisions that were actually introduced under some of my predecessors in this portfolio. I think we have highly qualified teachers.

There are a number of initiatives, but the goal is clear here. What we're saying is: hold on now. As a province, if we want to succeed, surely we know that one of the ways we succeed as a province is in the skills and abilities of our population. A public education system provides the opportunity for all to access those skills on equitable terms. Let's move forward on it.

I'm sure my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education has talked about some of his initiatives in the tuition freeze program and the expansion of our system, which also add to our commitment as the learning province. When our government took office in 1991, British Columbia was third- or fourth-lowest in participation rate in Canada; I know, because I worked in the system. Our tuition was second-highest among the provinces. Now our tuition is second-lowest -- only Quebec has lower tuition for its citizens -- and our participation rate is second-highest because we keep adding to the system.

It's a distressing fact in Canada -- and as chair of CMEC, we've had some vigorous discussions about this around the table of ministers -- that after . . . . Well, over two decades of continual growth in enrolment in Canada's universities, in the last part of the nineties -- for the first time since the sixties,

[ Page 13382 ]

really -- we actually saw a decline in some provinces in university enrolment. If we as a country are going to compete with other countries that are investing in education, that's a scary and worrisome sign.

[1650]

I say with respect to my fellow ministers, and I say this around the table when I meet with them: we've got to do better. We have to increase the participation rate in the transition from secondary school to university if we're going to make sure that we can succeed in that endeavour. So when we talk about being the education province, we mean it. I mean, we're now probably two-thirds of the way through estimates. We've debated the estimates of many ministries that have seen their budgets reduced. We have put that money quite deliberately into education and health, because we believe that those are the priorities for the success of our province.

M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: Two very good friends of mine from my constituency, Joyce and Jimmy Mahy, are here. But in addition to that, a friend of theirs is visiting us from Ireland -- Carmel Banville. We wish her well in her travels, and I hope the House will make all three of them welcome.

G. Hogg: The minister made reference to Dr. Achilles, and I want to assure him that even Dr. Achilles has a heel. For every PhD there's an equal and opposite PhD, and certainly there are lots of references contrary to those put forward by Dr. Achilles. As the minister said, this is probably not the place to bring out the volumes of piles of PhDs who want to talk one way or another, or talk about the ultimate outcomes that we're searching for.

The minister also said in his opening comments that it's incumbent upon us to set a new course for education for the new millennium. He made reference to smaller class sizes. I wonder whether that constitutes the new direction and what in fact you mean by it being incumbent upon us to set a new course of education for the new millennium. What is that? Do we have that new course designed? Where is it taking us?

I want to reassure the minister, as I've told him before, that the B.C. Liberal Party's number one priority -- the opposition's number one priority -- is education. We too believe that education must be served. It must be developed, and it must be creative. We want people to say: "I'm so proud to live in British Columbia, because my children receive the best education in the world here." We want to work towards that type of end.

You're talking about some changes and new courses in education for the new millennium to address that -- to lead us toward that. I ask the minister if he could highlight what he means with respect to a new course for education and a new direction in the new millennium.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with the member that I don't think we should exchange a whole lot of academic studies about the effect of smaller classes. I would only add this: I have yet to read an academic treatise that touts the benefits of larger classes. I simply haven't heard teachers or parents or academics that are studying this issue saying: "If we only had our kids in bigger classes, they'd learn better." There's a wealth of information, both on the personal level and at the academic level, that says getting our classes as small as we can afford is an important initiative.

We've set a very bold target for ourselves in saying that in five years we want to get down to class sizes of 18, which much of the work suggests is where you really start to get some benefit from this sort of initiative.

[1655]

We expect that a public education system provides equity both in terms of resources allocated to students and boards and the services that they receive and in terms of access to those learning resources. I think we expect and demand teaching quality as high as possible -- professional teachers, administrators and curriculum. Finally, we expect accountability. We expect our public school system to be able to report to us as parents, as communities and as taxpayers that our resources are being used well and are attaining the aims that we set out.

If I look at some of the challenges we face, they are many. I've mentioned some of them. I think our challenge in attainments for our children is at least dual, maybe multiple. I've mentioned the importance of high levels of attainment on the fundamentals of learning -- reading, writing and mathematics. I've mentioned the importance of having our children educated in a well-rounded way.

The one sure thing that they will face is a different world than we face, and it is as important, or more important, that they learn how to learn, how to question critically and how to formulate ideas creatively as it is to master the material of a particular curriculum. That's a challenge, and our curriculum and resources move in that direction. I think it is vital that our students have access to information technology and graduate from the K-to-12 system with -- I hate the term, but I'll use it anyway -- computer literacy. We can debate what that means. That is a challenge for us.

Finally, one last one. I think it is incumbent upon us in the kindergarten-to-grade 12 system to constantly realize that we are preparing our children for a process of learning that's going to continue throughout their life. We know that a high school credential is no longer sufficient for the great majority of folks to get a decent, well-paying, family-supporting job. We know that for the great majo