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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 17, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 3

[ Page 6309 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Fox: I'm extremely privileged this afternoon to have the opportunity to introduce to the House two individuals from the city of Prince George, Vic and Lenore Bowman. Vic was a council member for Prince George and is very active now with the Prince George Construction Association. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House some notable constituents and neighbours: Ms. Anne Marshall, who is also a member of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission in B.C.; her son, Mr. John Bell; Ms. Julia Harrison and Mr. Teddy Harrison; Ms. Alison Perry, my daughter; my wife, Beth Chambers, also known as Beth Perry; my son, Mr. Dustin Perry, and his friend Mr. Hayden Kremer. I wish all members of the House to make them abundantly welcome.

C. Serwa: Joining us in the public galleries today is a very special individual, Master Jamie Wannop. This is Jamie's first trip away from Kelowna. His visit is an expression of an unusually early interest in British Columbia politics. Jamie, who will be five weeks old tomorrow, is accompanied by my constituents and his parents, Peter and Dee Dee Wannop. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Symons: Visiting us today in the gallery are approximately 56 grade 7 students from James Gilmore Elementary School in Richmond. Twenty-five of these students are exchange students from Pierrefonds, Quebec, our twin city. Mr. Ty Binset is accompanying the class to Victoria. Would the House please welcome both the students from Richmond and those from the province of Quebec.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. and Mrs. John Lee, constituents of mine in Chilliwack who have come to the House to observe the festivities. Would you please make them most welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. A. Edwards presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 28, which deals with four items. Under the Utilities Commission Act, it will allow the British Columbia Utilities Commission to provide participant assistance funding to interveners and interested parties as part of regulatory and project review proceedings. Under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the amendments will implement six changes, including: administrative and housekeeping items, fee and refund changes and an allowance for time extensions for those holding petroleum and natural gas tenders during land use studies.

Under the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, the amendments will change that part of the act which governs B.C. Gas Inc.'s corporate structure, to allow B.C. Gas Inc. to form a holding company which will hold its utility and non-utility operations as BCUC requested in its August 5, 1992, decision. Lastly, under the Energy Efficiency Act, it will allow standards to be set for products which control or affect the use of energy, such as thermostats, shower heads and windows and doors.

It will also strengthen reporting requirements from manufacturers on the energy efficiency of products regulated under the act.

Bill 28 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.

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, this bill amends a number of acts that my ministry is responsible for. The bill is the result of discussions with a wide range of groups. These amendments address issues that provide necessary improvements and corrections to ministry legislation.

The bill amends the Waste Management Act to provide for better environmental protection, updates the Land Act to recognize the Crown land registry and provide more effective enforcement for trespass on Crown land, continues the process of decentralization under the Water Act by allowing a licensee to give notice of a licence abandonment to a regional water manager, and clarifies certain sections of the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act to bring them into compliance with administrative practices.

These amendments will also allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to exempt certain rafts or classes of rafts from the application of the act. Finally, the bill will amend the Wildlife Act to address a recent judicial ruling.

Bill 25 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.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

[ Page 6310 ]

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. B. Barlee: This bill -- Bill 24 -- amends two existing statutes: the Animal Disease Control Act and the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act.

[2:15]

Bill 24 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.

AN ACT TO INTRODUCE A MINIMUM ETHANOL COMPONENT FOR GASOLINE

R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled

An Act to Introduce a Minimum Ethanol Component for Gasoline.

R. Chisholm: There is an environmentally friendly alternative to MMT in gasoline. Ethanol-blended fuels would reduce carbon monoxide by 25 percent, carbon dioxide by 5.9 percent, nitrous oxide by 5.7 percent and ground-level ozone by 5.3 percent.

Canada is a net importer of fuels. Our cheapest and most economical conventional crude oil reserves are being depleted. By including grain alcohol up to 10 percent with gasoline, the country's fuel reserves security will be improved. When added to gasoline at a ratio of one part ethanol to nine parts gasoline, it means that it boosts the octane. Up to two barrels of crude oil are saved for each barrel of ethanol used in gasohol. Rural and small-town B.C., too, will gain financially from increased employment in the ethanol plants that would have to be built and operated. In turn, the depopulation in B.C. rural areas would be reduced.

In the United States, where the ethanol fuel ethic is well entrenched and expanding, there are some 60 ethanol plants in operation. Such technology, if developed in British Columbia, could lead to a potentially huge export market for product, by-product and technology. A state-of-the-art ethanol fuel plant in Decatur, Illinois, uses exhaust CO 2 to fertilize plants in adjacent greenhouses. But the process squeezes more than ethanol from grains.

It also produces a by-product -- a high-protein mash that includes original vitamins and minerals which can be used as animal feed or as an additive to low-nutrition human food. This perfectly clean and healthy by-product can be dried and used as flour for cookies, biscuits or bread.

There appears to be no letup in the battle between the U.S. and Europe over world grain markets. British Columbia grain farmers are a major casualty, caught in crossfires. British Columbia government incentives to build a full-blown ethanol fuel industry to keep pace with the subsidized U.S. ethanol industry would give British Columbia farmers a new and badly needed domestic market for their grain.

The Speaker: Order, please. The member still needs to move one motion related to the bill. The Chair was hesitant to interrupt, but the member's time has expired. Members introducing bills need to remember that only the purpose of the bill may be discussed at this time, and debate cannot be entered into. With that reminder, I ask the member to move his motion.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

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

Bill M219 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

LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS

W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. In less than 48 hours 110,000 students in this province will be the victims of strikes. The weekend came and went in Vancouver, and teachers are still on the bricks. The minister's own mediator ended his recommendations by suggesting that while there was no more money for education, somehow we were going to see a wage settlement that would see the loss of 250 teachers in the province. What concrete steps is the government taking today to end these strikes in British Columbia, which are affecting more than 100,000 students in our province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member has summarized very clearly that the taxpayers of British Columbia are saying that there is no money. This government provided more generously than any other province in its Education budget, and we believe that the school board has sufficient funds in its budget to negotiate a reasonable settlement with their employees.

W. Hurd: A question, then, to the Minister of Education about the harm that these strikes are causing our students. Does the Minister of Education accept the idea of her comrade, Elsie McMurphy of the BCTF, that in fact there is no preponderance of truth that students are being affected by strikes? If she doesn't believe that, will she ask the Minister of Labour to order the teachers back to work in this province so we can get the kids back in the classroom where they belong?

Hon. A. Hagen: This afternoon the Minister of Labour will be meeting with the school board in one of the districts affected to seek some further information from them on the reasons the mediation report was not acceptable. We will continue to work with that minister and with the Labour Relations Board to ensure that our children are in school and learning.

WELFARE FRAUD AND MISMANAGEMENT

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The reports of front-line workers in Social Services regarding poor management within the ministry filled 24 single-spaced pages. Sixteen new workers have been appointed to deal with fraud outside the ministry. The recommendations deal mostly with poor management within the ministry. How many new

[ Page 6311 ]

workers have been appointed to deal with the mismanagement within the ministry?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think it's very important that we distinguish between fraud and administrative error. The report dealt primarily....

An Hon. Member: I would hope there's a difference.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would feel a great deal more comforted if people would deal with the facts -- and that is what I am dealing with.

Specific to the member's question, the fraud initiative that I announced a week and a half ago added five specialists and a Crown prosecutor to our 35-member fraud investigation team. The 16 additional people that the member refers to has to do with the complement that we have put in place in our audit team to enhance our ability as a ministry to deal with administrative error. That was directed by the auditor general's report of 1991.

V. Anderson: This infamous report on administrative error and fraud states clearly that there is a crisis management approach in place within the ministry. Key to the failure of this management is the lack of enough front-line workers with the power to meet and deal with the abuses that are there. Will the minister reassign present ministry staff to at least double the number of front-line workers so that they can begin to solve the situation?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm happy to let the member know -- and I understand that we have not yet entered into estimates; that's next week -- that there are additional FTE allotments in this budget to enhance our ability to support front-line workers.

As for the member's request to double our staff, the member must understand that we have almost a thousand staff in the field now. To double that would be a significant extra cost to the system, funds that we do not have. Nor do I believe would that begin to deal with these issues that are of concern to all of us. We are dealing with those concerns in a number of ways; many of them are technical enhancements using computer technologies.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister didn't hear that I asked her to reassign staff, not to appoint new staff.

An Hon. Member: She doesn't listen very well.

V. Anderson: The question is to the Premier. Since we have ample proof of mismanagement within this ministry -- the minister having staff recommendations that she does not even bother to read, much less respond to -- and since we have increasing demands from both staff and taxpayers that there be a major change in the management, will the Premier today undertake to replace this minister so that we will have a minister who can and will make the required management changes?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it's unfortunate that the opposition has said the Minister of Social Services didn't listen to the last question. They haven't been listening to the answers for the last two weeks. If they had been listening to those answers, they would have heard very clearly that this government has acted for a number of months now on the auditor general's recommendations to deal with welfare fraud -- both the organized rings and the individuals who are abusing the goodwill of the people of British Columbia.

They would have heard that on the recommendations of the auditor general, there have been 16 new audit staff added to deal with administrative error and waste. They would have heard that resources have been enhanced to help front-line staff sort out who is genuinely in need and who isn't; and to then help a lot of our citizens get off welfare, get trained and get back into the workforce again.

FOREST RESERVES FOR SPOTTED OWL

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The minister must be aware that those employed in the forestry sector are concerned with the area required for a reserve for the spotted owl. Does the minister agree with the Minister of Forests that 200 hectares, or 480 acres, is sufficient as an old-growth set-aside around each active spotted owl nest?

Hon. J. Cashore: The member is well aware that the Ministries of Environment and Forests are involved in an ongoing process to address the issue of harvesting guidelines relating to the spotted owl. We have the spotted owl recovery team, which has input from various sectors. This is a very....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I'm sure that the minister is just winding up his comments.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, it's been very difficult to make any comments because there's been so much noise in the House. I'm sure the hon. member is aware that this is a very difficult issue. Officials in both ministries, as well as members of the public, are working together on it. We are doing the very best we can to come forward with the appropriate guidelines. I'll conclude with that.

C. Serwa: Again to the Minister of Environment, I think the minister must be aware that his own officials have suggested that an area of approximately 2,100 hectares, or almost eight square miles, be set aside for each spotted owl nest. I understand what he said about a public process that is going on. Nevertheless, is the minister prepared to repudiate his own officials' report at the present time?

[ Page 6312 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Clearly this hon. member is getting way ahead of the very appropriate steps that are taking place. As I said before, there is discussion, consultation and technical work being carried on involving both ministries as well as members of the public. It would simply be inappropriate for me to get ahead of that process and start commenting on what is not yet a final result.

C. Serwa: The ongoing consultative process has to have a finite time limit. There is scientific evidence available to your staff and certainly to the Minister of Forests. What, hon. minister, is the time line for this particular process to conclude and relieve the anxiety that permeates the employees in the forestry sector?

Hon. J. Cashore: For instance, starting on April 29 and proceeding through until June 15 there is some ongoing survey work. So there is a lot of technical work that's still ongoing. A final date at this time is simply not available. I remind the hon. member that there's a great deal of work going into this and that it's being carried out as quickly as is reasonably possible.

OFF-FARM INCOME AND FEE INCREASES

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister confirm that income earned off the farm is a consideration when the government dramatically increases fees and licences?

An Hon. Member: He doesn't know the answer. He doesn't understand.

R. Chisholm: Does the minister agree with his Minister of Finance, who told the B.C. Cattlemen's Association that a whopping 24 percent increase in range fees and 56 percent water licence hikes -- just to name a few -- were justified by income made off the farm?

[2:30]

Hon. B. Barlee: All increases in fees and rates are taken into consideration, regardless of their income, and some of these fees are being reassessed now. They are being examined by a committee of this government, and word will come down to the cattlemen in due time.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: The minister knows that ranch income is down 18 percent. How can the minister justify these exorbitant increases to farmers who have to take other jobs just to survive on the farm?

Hon. B. Barlee: On the contrary, ranch income is not down 18 percent. I don't know where you got those figures. You had better reach into the hat and get a more accurate one. That is incorrect entirely.

LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS

J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Labour Relations Board has refused to release its findings on the request of Vancouver Island North School District that grade 12 be declared an essential service -- the reason being that, helpfully, in that case they settled the dispute. My question to the minister: will she ask the Labour Relations Board to release those findings because there are so many other grade 12 students who are out of school now and will be facing provincial exams very soon?

Hon. A. Hagen: To the Opposition House Leader, I believe there has been a request to the Labour Relations Board from other boards that are involved in labour disputes to consider essential service designations for grade 12 and requests that those rulings be available in the near future. So that matter, from the information I have, is still before the Labour Relations Board at this time.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Dalton: Again to the Minister of Education, while I appreciate that other boards are making the same request, I think it would certainly be very helpful for all of us, both in the House and all through this province, to have a ruling on this so that a precedent can be set, and we can get the school kids back into the classroom.

However, my question to the minister. We not only have a very serious problem with the largest district on strike, but the second-largest district, Surrey, is quite likely to be out on Wednesday. And we still see no action from this government or this minister. Will the minister tell the House today what positive action is going to be taken to get the school situation settled?

Hon. A. Hagen: A great deal of positive action is taking place across the province. There are mediators in a number of districts, including the district of Surrey -- the district that the member just referred to. As I noted to an earlier questioner this afternoon, the Minister of Labour is meeting this afternoon with the Vancouver board to consider the issues that are of concern to that board in the report of the special mediator from the Labour Relations Board.

Most boards in the province that are involved with ongoing negotiations are receiving direct assistance from the Labour Relations Board in mediation, and most of those boards continue to work on arriving at those agreements. Where there is strike action, as there is today in Vancouver, the Minister of Labour is acting to seek a resolution as quickly as possible.

R. Chisholm: I would like to table a letter from the Minister of Finance and documents from the Ministry of Agriculture pertaining to my question.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call Committee of Supply, Sections A and B.

[ Page 6313 ]

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

(continued)

On vote 47: minister's office, $419,400 (continued).

The Chair: Shall the vote pass?

I was too quick. The member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: You're overzealous, hon. Chair. I thank you for the opportunity.

I want to make reference to the merger between Vancouver General Hospital and University Hospital. In that University Hospital is not a stand-alone site, it seems there is some opportunity for us to discuss the process by which that decision was reached. I'd like to have the minister's comments on the decision.

Hon. E. Cull: The process used to reach the decision was consultation with the various parties at University Hospital, UBC site, the teaching faculty in the health professions at the University of British Columbia, the dean of the medical school, the president of the university and the CEO and board of Vancouver General Hospital.

From the earliest days of the Shaughnessy task force's work, it has been an issue to decide what the governance would be for University Hospital, UBC site. When the University Hospital board was replaced with the transition coordinator and public administrator, Mr. Bert Boyd, that removed the board for not only the Shaughnessy site but also UBC, and some decisions had to be made about the future of that particular site. From the beginning, the options have been publicly announced and publicly discussed.

During my meetings with the University Hospital people and the University of British Columbia representatives over the last two weeks, we talked about the two options: a merge with VGH or a stand-alone option with its own board. As a result of extensive consultation with all of the parties affected, a decision was finally made to go to the merged option. It allows for the greatest administrative savings -- approximately $5 million -- and makes sense for a number of other health care considerations in terms of the size and the viability of the UBC site.

The member may recall that this University Hospital was actually merged with Shaughnessy some years ago because of real concerns about its ability to be an effective organization on its own as a teaching hospital, and some concerns about the economic viability of it and its ability to carry out its function. Not to just dwell on the savings and the negative aspects, tremendous opportunities exist with a merged organization.

It has a totally revamped board to reflect a new institution entirely; not VGH with UBC added to it, but something new that looks at what will be the largest teaching hospital in the province, and the ability to really start to align teaching and clinical programs in such a way that we can, as the dean of the school said, become the pre-eminent teaching hospital in Canada.

L. Reid: Is there some documentation available that supports your cost saving of $5 million?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there is.

L. Reid: I would ask the minister to make a reasonable cost accounting available to the opposition. From the minister's presentation, it seems that the merger is somehow going to improve care. I'm not clear about the process. It seems that now we're going to strike another task force. Is that another belated attempt at process, or are you prepared to assure us today that there was a reasonable process in place?

Hon. E. Cull: I'd be happy to make the cost savings information available to the member. There are two processes that were announced along with the merger. One is a review of the clinical programs offered at VGH and the UBC site of University Hospital by Ms. Ruth Robinson, a senior health partner with Peat Marwick. The intent is to have an outside expert lead some of the thinking that has to take place when two organizations are brought together and to determine whether there's any restructuring of programs -- how they're offered, where their specialties are, where their focus is -- that can allow the new institution to do a better job than these two institutions have been doing separately.

That is an important part of the overall consultative process we've been using around this merger, because the message I heard very clearly from some of the people -- certainly not all, but some -- at the UBC site was that they were concerned about being swallowed up.

I want to make absolutely clear that we have restructured the board so that of the 17 board members, five are appointees coming from the University of British Columbia, five are appointees coming from a list of people who represent the community and the remaining seven are representatives appointed by the government, as would normally be appointed to the board of Vancouver General. We have restructured this board so that the concerns of University Hospital are recognized.

One of the things we wanted to ensure in making the announcement was the guarantee that emergency services stay at the UBC site, that UBC remains an acute care hospital with the appropriate facilities to meet the needs of its community. Ms. Robinson's work will be to help the two institutions and their new management do whatever realigning is needed to provide effective care.

The second process that's been put in place is equally important, but as with the work Ms. Robinson is doing, it had to follow a decision about merger or no merger; that decision had to trigger the other things. The second process is a community task force to determine how we can best integrate health services for the west side of Vancouver and make sure there is community involvement in these hospitals. While they are teaching hospitals and tertiary-level facilities providing services to all of British Columbia, they also are community

[ Page 6314 ]

hospitals and have to provide services to people who live in Vancouver. They also, even at the tertiary level, have to integrate with the community support services available in Vancouver. So we are going to put together a task force to look at how best to do that. One of its responsibilities will be to give us advice on how to select five individuals to represent the community on the new, restructured board.

L. Reid: The only other issue I think we need to elaborate on is the disruption to patient service. Certainly any change, planned or otherwise, will cause some disruption of service. How would you characterize the disruption to patient services as a result of this merger?

Hon. E. Cull: The effect on patient service will be minimal, because we are looking at an administrative change and savings here, and a change of governance. I don't think most patients notice when individuals on a board of trustees change. They often don't notice when a CEO or senior management is changed, unless, of course, the individuals who take on those positions do either a much better or much worse job than was being done before. We are dealing here with highly skilled professionals in the administrative area.

I would imagine that any reassignment of duties would not materially impact upon patient services. Unlike the situation at Shaughnessy, where programs are going to be physically moved and there is some real concern on the part of patients, they should see very little immediate impact as a result of the merger.

[2:45]

L. Fox: I want to ask a few questions around Victoria General Hospital. In discussion with some people in the pediatric department there, I found a lot of concern -- and I'm sure the minister is aware of it -- that the administration has decided to move that department from the fourth floor down to the third floor. That would substantially reduce the amount of floor space and the amount of opportunity to treat those patients appropriately. Of course, part of the rationale that the administration is using -- and why it's an appropriate question to the minister -- is budget restraints.

But in the present situation they have a three-bed unit, plus an isolation room. They have two nurses on in each shift. They have four overlap beds which allow for some overnight and some extra treatment. They presently have room for their crash cart because, as I understand it, it's very important in response to emergencies. They also have a grieving room at their disposal, where they can take families to deal with the very traumatic situation that their family member is in. When they are moved down to the third floor, they will have three beds and two rooms. It's an extreme concern to the chief of pediatrics.

In fact, a week ago he suggested that if this move goes forward, he's going to resign his position. If a doctor's prepared to take that kind of step, obviously it has to be quite a concern.

All I have is a very limited, basic knowledge of the circumstances because I only received this information on Friday, and I haven't had a chance to get over to the hospital and review it. Given these kinds of circumstances -- this particular hospital doesn't just deliver to the Victoria region; they service clients from all up and down the Island -- if their three beds are full, obviously people will have to be shipped to Vancouver in order to receive care at additional costs. Is there any kind of process that the minister or the ministry uses to review the operations of specialty units such as this in a large hospital on an ongoing basis?

Hon. E. Cull: I'll answer the direct question: is there a process to review this? The answer is yes. All of the hospitals have to submit their budget to us for approval, and that would indicate quite clearly in it any changes in terms of closing beds, reducing programs, adding programs or what have you. We will be going through that process with GVHS and all the other hospitals very soon when they submit their budgets.

This particular piece of information -- I realize it came to your attention on Friday -- is two or three weeks old in terms of the announcement that was made by the hospital. Unfortunately, I don't recall all of the numbers around the details. What I do recall, though, from receiving the information from the CEO of the hospital, is that the beds being consolidated reflect a very low utilization rate. I wish I could remember the precise percentage rate. I've been told it's 60 percent, which means that 40 percent of the time there was no need for those beds. They're trying to consolidate the amount of space and beds and time to use them more effectively.

The message all hospitals are working with right now, and the objective they're trying to work towards, is that while it would be nice to have that kind of excess capacity available in our system, we simply can't afford it. If the facilities are there but are not being used and there are other needs elsewhere, either in the hospital -- undoubtedly there are some at GVHS -- or in the broader health care system, we really should be making sure that we're not wasting money by not using it to the fullest extent. That goes for staff, equipment, space and all the rest of it.

I know that GVHS is probably one of the best managed hospitals in British Columbia -- it certainly ranks near the top -- and they would not be making decisions that would offload their patients onto Vancouver. GVHS understands full well its role as the regional facility for all of Vancouver Island and even for some places up the coast, and I know that their planning has taken that into consideration.

L. Fox: The message I got out of this, and probably the one that has bothered me throughout the estimates -- the Liberal Health critic has also suggested that it's something that was lacking in the ongoing change in decision -- is that there was no consultation with the staff in the development of these new initiatives. They're not in favour of them. The administration suggests that the medical staff are in favour and that this has been done in cooperation with them, but I understand that this is not in fact the case. Certainly the chief of pediatrics doesn't believe it's the case.

[ Page 6315 ]

An ongoing concern out there is that we see these changes being made to the delivery of health care at all levels and people are feeling like they're not part of the process. I think this is the most important issue that the minister is going to have to deal with over the course of the next year. Obviously the Shaughnessy Hospital issue started it -- I shouldn't say that that decision started it, but from the doctors' perspective it followed on the heels of lack of consultation. Then we saw the Shaughnessy Hospital closure, where it was suggested by virtually everybody, even the workers within the health care field, that there was no consultation in making that decision.

This is yet another issue and a direction taken where the people who deliver the service feel that they haven't been adequately consulted. I reaffirm my view that a major thing for the minister in the next year will be to come up with some process so that everybody feels they've had adequate opportunity to give input into change.

Hon. E. Cull: The member raises a number of good points about consultation in general. I know he's not suggesting that I'm responsible for the consultative processes of hospitals as well as for what happens at the ministry level. I agree that some hospitals do an excellent job of the consultation process with their staff and communities, while others could probably make a lot of improvement and do a better job.

You say that over the next year one of my challenges as the minister will be to ensure that such a process does exist, because people don't feel like they're part of the process. That's exactly what the community health councils are all about: to provide a body in the community that has elected representation directly from the community, that is visible and that has the job of managing not just a part of the health care system but the spectrum of care in their community. I think that that in and of itself is going to go a long way to improve people's feelings of being connected to health care.

I suspect that in most communities people don't know who is on their hospital board. They wouldn't know how to go about getting onto a hospital board if they wanted to do so, or know how to work to have somebody else get onto the board. It's a very confusing process. It's not deliberately secretive, but it is certainly not very visible to people in communities. I think the proposals that we're putting forward in terms of community health councils and regional health boards will go a long way to change that.

L. Fox: I only have a few more questions around the accord. In reviewing the minister's comments over the weekend, on several occasions through the estimates she makes reference to the fact that the accord would save HLRA money because it's less expensive than the old agreement and that the impact of the old agreement next year would be substantial because of the parity with the BCGEU that was in that agreement. That gave rise to a couple of questions.

Firstly, given that this contract was in place prior to the BCGEU settlement of last year, and given that that clause was there when the government negotiated with the BCGEU, was it aware when it gave the settlement to the BCGEU that it would have a negative impact on the HLRA's contract with the health care professionals?

Hon. E. Cull: Let me just provide again to the member the information from the HLRA's document. It indicates that without the accord the estimated increases over the three-year period that the accord will cover are: for BCNU, 14.10 percent; for HEU, 25.2 percent; and for HSA, 13.73 percent. With the accord -- and the 50 percent replacement that the HLRA has indicated would be adequate for the 36-hour work week -- the comparable costs for the three unions in the same order that I just read them are: BCNU, 10.25 percent; HEU, 14.57 percent; and HSA, 9.77 percent. In all cases the cost of the increase in the contracts over the term of the agreement is less with the accord.

The real stickler when it comes to the BCGEU is the hours, because the BCGEU have had a 35-hour work week for a very long time. I can't remember when that came in but it was certainly in the seventies, I believe, when the 35-hour work week was introduced for the BCGEU. The HEU has twice won a 35-hour work week through negotiations and arbitration only to have it reversed by the government of the day. So the big cost for parity with the BCGEU revolves around the hours that are worked.

The fact is that on an hourly basis the BCGEU workers make a lot more because they work fewer hours in the week than the HEU people do. If that historical fact had been addressed the first time -- or even the second time -- that it was arbitrated and the HEU had won their 35-hour work week, the gap between the BCGEU and the HEU for doing comparable work would be much, much less than it is now. We wouldn't be faced with this situation.

For whatever reasons that were considered by the government of the day -- by your government at the time -- this right that was won through arbitration was taken back from them and the problem was passed on to 1993.

L. Fox: I believe, hon. Chair, that the minister is correct. In fact, the BCGEU 35-hour work week did go back to the seventies -- between '72 and '75, when the NDP was in power. Perhaps some of the rationale behind not accepting the recommendations to accept a 35-hour work week was not only philosophical but also based on the ability to pay.

When one looks at the document that was sent out to the Nurses' Union, one has to be a bit suspicious, because on page 7 it reads:

"Negotiation arose in response to an extraordinary circumstance, when it became clear that the provincial government intended to cut back funding to acute care hospitals, resulting in thousands of layoffs. None of the unions had an opportunity to prepare for negotiations with bargaining conferences or other normal procedures."

It clearly indicated to me that they're telling their membership that the Shaughnessy closure was something that was almost God's gift in terms of negotiating. They now had the autonomy to put the government in a very weak position, because the government needed the help of the unions to sell the

[ Page 6316 ]

closure of Shaughnessy. I don't fault them for that. That's great business sense. I certainly don't fault the union leadership for taking advantage of a bargaining chip that was handed to them because of a lack of consultation by the minister. If I were in that position, I would have done the same thing.

[3:00]

Look at the terms of the recommendation. The minister talked a few moments ago about not accepting the 35-hour work week -- whenever that was; years prior, anyway -- and leaving that delay until now. The first thing we see is that this is a signed agreement for three years, and there are many good things about that. It will certainly provide rest in both operations from a management perspective and a union perspective. Even more importantly, it will provide some comfort, especially in our long term care facilities.

There's nothing more disruptive and heartbreaking than a strike, working-to-rule or whatever the particular unions choose to do in a long term care facility. The stress on those patients and on those people is phenomenal. There are some good points. A three-year agreement certainly would provide that kind of comfort.

I have two concerns with a three-year agreement under which you cannot lay off any individuals, where you must find them employment in another government office. One is that while we're going to decrease the number of employees involved in the delivery of our health care, we're not going to reduce the commitment to government. In fact, if we can't do it through attrition -- and the minister and I have talked about that before, and I don't want to get back into that -- we're going to guarantee them employment elsewhere. So it seems to me that there's a shift.

It doesn't matter which pocket the money comes out of, it's still government funds. Perhaps the minister can assure me that we're not just going to be placing 4,000 employees from the health service into one of the other, I believe, 18 ministries and shifting those costs into other ministries.

Hon. E. Cull: I think the member can be quite assured that we're not going to be shifting it to the other 18 ministries. Indeed, many of these people have very specialized skills and training and will want to remain in health care, not be moved to a totally different area of career opportunities.

We are not looking at reducing the overall number of people who are employed in health care or reducing the overall health care services; we're looking at making a shift from acute care to the other parts of the system. So the 10 percent reduction isn't in all the health care employees -- there are about a 100,000 in the province; it is in the acute care sector.

We expect to see increases in the other parts of the health care sector, particularly the continuing care sector, as those people who are now in acute care beds who should be in multilevel, long term care beds make the move into appropriate care. With an aging population, as we are able to expand services to keep people at home -- through home support and home nursing -- we will have to add to the services and therefore the number of people providing those services in those areas.

While we have been in the estimates over the last two weeks, we have canvassed a number of areas members have brought to my attention where they think we need more service, not less service. For those areas in which we agreed -- and there were a number of areas where we agree that there is unmet need that has to be addressed -- we are looking at moving some of these talented people who now provide health care in hospitals to appropriate places outside of the acute care sector where we still need their skills.

L. Fox: I'll just wrap up, and I believe the Liberal Health critic wants to do the same. I'm not sure how many hours we've been at this particular process, but I know that over the course of the last three weeks we've been in and out of the House discussing the Health budget. Over the course of that time, I have always been very appreciative of minister's willingness to give us her points of view. While we haven't always agreed -- and I doubt that we ever would always agree -- I would have to say that she has a great amount of knowledge on the health care and the state of the health care in British Columbia.

The only thing I'm concerned about -- and I have yet to be convinced by the minister, even after these several weeks of discussion -- is that we really have a handle on the change from acute care to community care in all regions of this province. I look forward, over the course of the next year, to seeing some of those evaluations being done into the delivery and into those changes to see whether or not we are meeting the needs in the province to deliver a top-quality level of health care in a very financially efficient way.

Throughout the course of the debates the minister has failed to convince me that she had done sufficient costing or cost-benefit analyses regarding the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. It's very clear that many of those costs are not yet identified, although there are definitely some estimates in some areas. Through the course of the estimates, it is obvious that the minister and the ministry do not have all the answers with respect to the Shaughnessy closure. That bothers me. I'm not sure whether I support the closure, because I cannot get the information and haven't been able to....

The minister hasn't convinced me that she has the information and that she's making the best decision on behalf of all those people, including patients, workers, and the delivery of health care in Vancouver, and in the province as a whole.

While I certainly appreciate the process that we have gone through, and I appreciate the minister being here and being as up-front as she can be with questions I've put forward, I'm still not convinced that the minister has made all the right decisions on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

C. Tanner: Just one quick question. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister. I think her perseverance has borne fruit all the way through these negotiations or explanations, and I admire the way that she has stood up to the grilling she has gotten from this

[ Page 6317 ]

side of the House. I also, like the previous member, appreciate her forthrightness.

Last Friday the minister was talking about the situation in Victoria and said that she would get some more information before discussing it, which is quite proper. But I have another concern that I found out about over the weekend, and it is a situation that's building up in Victoria and, I suppose, in other hospitals -- but I know for a fact that it is in Victoria. We have as many as five ambulances waiting outside the door to deliver their patients to the hospital, to the emergency ward, and some of those ambulances sit there for as long as an hour and a half or two hours.

It concerns me for the patients, but also it's very inefficient. So when the minister is looking at that situation, could she please also take that into consideration?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I will take that into consideration. I would hope that the regional coroner, who is now looking at the particular case at Royal Jubilee, will also be looking at the ambulance situation as it affected the death of that woman -- or as to whether it affected the death of that particular patient. Because the member hasn't been present throughout all of the estimates debate, although I'm sure he has been listening to it attentively, I will also point out that we have indicated the need to have a look at ambulance services and undertake some review to get at some of those concerns that have been raised in different communities.

Sometimes when that kind of comment is made, you dig into it and discover that there are all kinds of circumstances that lead to it happening, some of which could be managed much better in order to have a different result. In some cases it's administrative and management decisions were made that could be improved upon; in other cases it may indeed be the question of how resources have been distributed. I'm quite interested in having a look at how ambulance services are distributed around the province, to make sure that they are fair and equal and effective.

L. Reid: I too rise to make my concluding remarks on the health care estimates and debate over the last number of days.

My comment certainly stems from the fact that I don't believe we've developed any long-range plans for funding. In terms of the ability to seek information from this minister, the questions have been answered, but again the numbers have not been provided. I still have tremendous concern on the factuality of information that's been shared with the caucus, with the opposition and, frankly, with the people of British Columbia. We need to ensure that this becomes a debate where we always have at our disposal the numbers that we need to take a look at.

Certainly we have had many days of rhetorical comment about federal off-loading. That issue has been ongoing in this province for the last ten years. To somehow suggest that it is now a greater problem is simply not to recognize that it's been a huge problem for the last ten years. Certainly it was a huge problem when this government was in opposition. So I don't think you can comment that it's a new situation. It's the political reality in Canada today, and we need to recognize that. We can say it's callous; we can say it's unfair, but at the end of the day we need to recognize and build it into our cost accounting.

You will have heard me ask over the last number of days for a cost-benefit analysis for all the programs that this minister has introduced. That has not been forthcoming. We've had a debate, we've certainly discussed some issues, we've been very philosophical and free-ranging, and I appreciate the information that I received back. I would have appreciated all the more some cost-benefit analysis for the programs. To stand even today and suggest that there's a $5 million saving for a VGH and University Hospital merger and not have provided the documentation in the estimates process is, frankly, alarming to me.

We certainly have other issues on the go. We have issues in terms of a long-range plan to protect the resources. I don't believe there is anything that Canadians value more highly than their health care. I believe they are prepared to pay a reasonable sum of money for that service. They value it; they're prepared to fund it; they have to know if they're getting reasonable value for their dollars. Certainly we have talked a lot about evaluation and about where we wish to go. At the end of the day, the evaluation needs to come to the estimates process.

We need to say: "We achieved success in this area as a result of X -- whatever it happens to be. We've talked a lot about evaluation. I trust, at some point, that that will be in place, but I can't be that trusting with the taxpayers' dollars -- to the tune of $6 billion -- when we're hoping that some of these plans may indeed make a difference. We're talking about urgent medical priority; I believe we have not addressed that overall. We have somehow looked at the shift to community care as the answer to the immediate problems we have today.

There has never been a reasonable cost accounting for the shift to community care. This minister can't tell us what that is going to cost British Columbians. It does not allow for reasonable discussion of the estimates process. We get the response: "Trust us. Somehow this will return a better health product at the end of the day." I have difficulty with that. I would have felt reassured by seeing some kind of breakdown, some kind of cost-benefit analysis.

We had a discussion, over time, about the health care accord. The only comment I'll make is on the process of the HLRA. I believe it sets a precedent. I believe it sets some kind of approval for interventionist government. At the end of the day, if this government can stand, as they did today, and talk about collective bargaining having its place in British Columbia and say that it's absolutely fine for teachers, students and all the other labour groups in this province.... For them to go forward and not follow that same process in health care leaves much dissension in the ranks and much uncertainty.

[3:15]

The HLRA deal, as it stands today, is not a package that can be sold. The only opposition you heard me raise regarding this deal was in terms of the cost. Please

[ Page 6318 ]

tell us what it costs. We've had a free-ranging discussion with a number of different health care providers in the field. We have yet to arrive at two people giving us the same numbers. You have not heard the opposition say to scrap it; you have heard the opposition say: "Tell us what it costs." That information has still not been forthcoming. It was touted as a measure to buy long-term peace in the health care field. Hospital boards have a different view of how that peace can be achieved and maintained.

Has the sense of process from this particular agreement been a positive notion? I would submit that it has not. I believe that in a lot of cases it has created a tremendously poisonous atmosphere in terms of how hospitals and boards interact with the government and with business. When we receive limited value on cooperation -- I believe that's what this minister has done over time -- it's not valued cooperation. We have a whole litany of where this minister has come in the last 18 months.

I believe we have damaged the cooperative enterprises in hospitals, because we have not looked at how best to ensure that any deal that's reached in the delivery of health care meets the needs across the board. We have isolated particular groups and treated them differently than others.

I come back to my point about process. In my estimation, this minister has not considered process to be a high priority. We have process after the fact, consultation after the fact, commissions and task forces -- all kinds of things that take a look once decisions have been reached. In the words of Ken Georgetti -- I know they have been raised in this House -- you don't begin consultation with a decision; you end consultation with a decision. That did not happen around a number of issues in the delivery of health care in this province.

If I may draw your attention to the B.C. Medical Association dispute. There was a lack of process; it was an opportunity for this minister to somehow suggest that they did not deserve the same framework discussion, the same process, as any other group in this province. My remarks this afternoon will centre solely on process. The lack of it has contributed to the problem and has not solved any issues for British Columbia health care providers or the individuals who receive health care in this province.

The minister will stand up in debate and tell us that this issue is about money. The issue is about process. The issue is about individuals in this province believing they can come and expect reasonable dispute resolution mechanisms from this government, not different dispute resolution mechanisms for different groups in society. We have to have some balance, and we have to ensure that everyone believes that they can access the same resources and treatment under the system. It hasn't happened.

I refer back to the money. If indeed the minister is going to make the case that this is only about dollars, the underutilization from last year's budget renders that argument null and void. It's no longer about dollars. It's about whether or not we can reach some kind of reasonable conclusion. I can only assume that the ideology is interfering with some sense of process, because otherwise this dispute would not have dragged on in excess of 12 months.

We are heading into our second year of uncertainty in health care as a result of this minister somehow believing that she can treat individuals in society differently. If you believe in process, if you believe in some kind of cooperative exercise -- which I believe is what government is all about -- then we should be there to facilitate reasonable decisions. We shouldn't be taking decisions for people. That is simply a patronizing view that has not allowed for great success in the past.

If we talk just about a dispute resolution mechanism, there are a number of groups in society that have been fast-tracked to some kind of resolution. Again, we have not seen reasonable access or reasonable process across the board. The thought, by different members of the government benches, that this high-handed approach to government is somehow justifiable hasn't warmed my heart, and I can frankly tell you that it hasn't impressed many people in this province. This is the 1990s; people want to participate in the process, and they want to believe that their comments are heard.

They don't want to be told, after a decision has been made: "Thank you very much for raising that; now we'll strike a committee to look at the decision we've already reached. "That's the BCMA dispute and that's the Shaughnessy decision, both impacting countless thousands of British Columbians who are told that their opinion didn't matter until the decision was already reached and that then you will seek their counsel. It's not acceptable.

Quite honestly, I think it's beginning to touch on issues of credibility for this government. Government can do good work if they have the trust of the electorate. The trust of this electorate has, in my view, been badly damaged by the Minister of Health. I believe the issues around creating change in health care have been mismanaged. I believe we need to be ensuring that people are on board in the decision-making process. I would say this government has done more to lose people through the lack of process than any other government in history. The health care community is divided.

We have tremendous uncertainty in health care providers and in individuals who receive health care. There is no communication in your ministry. Today we know that for a certainty. The individuals who demonstrated on the steps of the Legislature on Friday were here because no one bothered to communicate with them. That's absolutely unacceptable.

We have a lot of mystification surrounding the health care process. This minister spoke of open government, accessible health care and a better understanding of decisions. We have other hospitals that are designed for some type of role change in the coming years. I can only hope that in the discussions surrounding those changes the involvement of the individuals who directly receive and deliver the service will be sought. It hasn't been the case until now. It's been a heavy-handed approach, and it's certainly been unsettling for people who believed that their government put their health care first.

What about honesty? From Shaughnessy Hospital being considered too old and too unsafe to have any

[ Page 6319 ]

program operating in it, we've gone, today, to where we have Children's and Grace moving in to set up business. It's not appropriate, hon. minister, and I can assure you that is going on today. Again, if it's another example of miscommunication in your ministry, there's work to be done.

Much has been made in this debate about the ministry's New Directions program. We're asked to believe that this budget represents a 90-degree turn in health care in this province. But the New Directions program is big on overlay and short on substance. We have talked for many hours about how this change is somehow going to improve health care. Again, I come back to a cost-benefit analysis. There isn't one in place. The minister told us, many moons ago, that this was going to be reasonable health care delivered in a cost-efficient manner. We need to see that backed up. That has not happened. The estimates process does not validate the claim that this is bold, new thinking in health care.

I believe expectations have been created at the community level which simply cannot be met. We have told people to put their urgent health care priorities on hold so that 20 or 30 years from now we'll be a healthier society. It simply doesn't wash. It didn't work with the people here on Friday. It won't work with any of us -- our families or members of our communities and constituencies -- who need some kind of immediate intervention. They will not accept that their health care is not a priority for this government.

I draw the minister's attention particularly to the Seaton royal commission. The Seaton royal commission is a discussion document. It was never a blueprint in terms of being an implementation tool. It needed to be worked and reworked to be massaged into something workable in this province. But it hasn't happened. This ministry has advanced to all the communities that they're going to have decision-making power to bring the kind of health care they want to their communities, but not until 1996.

We can't have that level of health care -- urgent medical priority on every main street in every community in this province. I think we've tended to sow the seeds of chaos without ensuring that urgent medical priorities will be recognized in this province. I frankly believe it's a promise that cannot be delivered upon, and we won't even be evaluating it until the end of 1996. How many other people are going to fall through the cracks before we realize that a cost-benefit analysis was the first order of the day, not the last?

A cursory examination of the new authority structure at the community and regional level makes one thing clear: control is still in Victoria, but direction, vision and credibility are not.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member, for your closing comments. Just to answer a question raised in committee a few minutes ago, our members might like to be advised that we have spent approximately 25 hours on Health estimates, give or take five. Hon. minister to close debate.

Hon. E. Cull: I'll try not to add too many extra minutes to that 25 hours.

I want to begin by thanking the third party critic for his very fair comments at the end of the debate. I don't expect to ever be able to persuade him to take on all of the opinions of the government or to accept our philosophy for health care, but I think that we entered into a very fair discussion that was quite useful and worthwhile.

I'm concerned with the opposition critic questioning the factualness of this debate. I know that she wasn't implying any deliberate attempt on my part to give dishonest figures or to mislead people in this House -- at least I certainly hope not -- because I have worked very hard in this estimates debate to give you the knowledge we have here in the ministry, and where we haven't had the information, to make it available as soon as possible after my staff were able to pull it together.

The member spent a lot of time talking about the fact that we haven't provided the cost or done the cost-benefit analysis. Well, the cost is clear: this year it's $6.2 billion, a 4 percent increase over last year. It's $100 million moved from the medical and hospital services portion of our budget into community-based services, to start to effect that shift to building a full continuum from acute care to community care. That's what it will cost.

In terms of effectiveness, the indications that the programs we're putting in place will be effective are the royal commission that was done here in this province, the six other royal commissions that were done across the country in the last decade and the Foulkes report that was done in British Columbia in the 1970s. Every one of these royal commissions has suggested the same emphasis on health care. The proof will be in the evaluation as we work through each implementation and report back on what we have done. Some of the evaluations will take some time -- for example, the hepatitis B program.

We're not going to be able to tell in one or two years whether the estimated $5 million savings as a result of bringing in a universal program will be realized. We can estimate it now, but the real proof has to be as we work our way through it and report out at each successive estimates on the progress we're making.

The member also talked a lot about consultation, I agree that consultation is important, but it's not what we're here to do. Consultation isn't the end objective. The end objective is to provide better health for people in this province. We'll get there sometimes through consultation and sometimes through other means. But the bottom line of all this has to be: at the end of the day are people in this province any healthier as a result of what we're doing?

Any government that fails to consult, that has no consultation processes at all with the public or with stakeholders, deserves to be tossed out of office, because it would be arbitrary and insensitive. But on the other hand, a government that hides behind consultation and never makes a decision because everything's under review also deserves to be tossed out of office, for lacking the courage to make decisions

[ Page 6320 ]

that have to be made. There has to be a balance, and we have worked very hard to achieve that balance.

When we look at the effectiveness of what we have done in the last year and whether we have met some of the needs in this province, in a very short period of time -- 18 months -- we have guaranteed a woman's right to choose on abortion. We have expanded cancer services through the announcement of the Kelowna and Surrey cancer clinics and the expansion of the Victoria clinic. We've brought in the first universal hepatitis B vaccination program in North America.

We have significantly reduced cardiac waiting lists; we have started to reduce radiation therapy waiting lists; and we have started work on surgical waiting lists. We have announced the legalization of a service that women in this province have been calling for for 13 years, and maybe much longer; it's at least 13 years that the association of midwives has been calling for the legalization of midwifery.

We have produced the first plan for the future of health care that this province has ever produced. It isn't a vague plan, or one put together in a hurry. As the member has pointed out, the royal commission was not a blueprint. This is the work that the blueprint will be built upon. We took the royal commission's recommendation and spent 13 months in extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public, trying to determine how to implement the very good ideas that the royal commission put in front of us. Right now across Canada there is tremendous pressure on health care.

When you see the very difficult and painful decisions that other provinces are making with respect to their doctors, hospital closures and Pharmacare program, you have to look at what we're doing here in B.C.

[3:30]

I think the plan that we've put in place will allow us to avoid some of the dreadful decisions that are having to be made in other provinces because they were unable to plan ahead and got themselves right to the brink of the cliff before they started to turn the health care system around, and you can't turn it that quickly. We are committed to ensuring that medicare keeps pace with the changing needs of our population and that our health care system remains healthy, viable and affordable for future generations. That's the common goal. That's what we're all working towards, and that's what this government is going to achieve.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: ministry operations, $6,082,547,600 -- approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 11.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. R. Blencoe: This proposed legislation will improve the operations of the office of the fire commissioner and is in keeping with the overall initiative to modernize all statutes administered by my ministry, which is an exhaustive challenge as we move ahead to modernize the municipal acts and other statutes.

The mandate of the office of the fire commissioner is to reduce injuries, loss of life and property damage resulting from fire. This legislation clarifies and strengthens the authority of the fire commissioner to appoint local assistants to carry out the commissioner's responsibility in communities throughout the province: for example, inspecting buildings and investigating fires. This step is a key element in the improvement of the fire commission as a system of inspection, investigation and reporting.

It will also make the method of fire reporting far more efficient by, for example, permitting the electronic transmission of reports for greater efficiency and improved communication and response.

British Columbians expect the office of the fire commissioner to ensure that our homes, offices and institutions are as safe as possible from the threat of fire. This legislation will strengthen the ability of the fire commissioner to meet the expectation of our citizens.

A. Cowie: We are supportive of this bill. We're supportive of streamlining the bureaucracy and anything to improve the efficiency of government. We really have no objection to this bill at all.

We would like to make one brief comment, however. We have some concern about taking fees out of the Legislature. There was a minor fee requirement previously for xeroxing documents and things, but it is a minor item. We are in support of this.

The Speaker: The minister, in rising, closes debate on second reading.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 12.

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

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is a pleasure to put forward the Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1993. This proposed legislation contains -- and I sometimes hesitate to use this term -- housekeeping provisions designed to meet some

[ Page 6321 ]

specific needs in the communities of Sidney, the Regional District of Nanaimo, Invermere, the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam and Burnaby. Three of these communities need this legislation because they did not fully meet some of the procedural requirements of the municipal acts. I know that my hon. colleague and critic has indicated some concerns, and I suspect that he will bring those up during committee.

For Sidney this legislation will validate leases, licences and agreements relating to the Sidney port development. Without this legislation, the Sidney port development and the positive impact of that revitalization project could be adversely affected.

For the Regional District of Nanaimo this legislation will validate the agreement transferring Beban Park to the city of Nanaimo, which will ensure that the city of Nanaimo can take over the operation of this public park for the people of that community.

For Invermere this legislation will validate a 1981 industrial development agreement and loan between the province and Invermere. This will clear the way for the district to repay their loan to the province in the prescribed way.

The Regional District of Fraser-Cheam needs this legislation to take on a new challenge. It will allow the regional district to enter into an agreement with the federal government and take ownership of the airport at Hope. Transport Canada now wishes to transfer ownership of the airport to the regional district, which has already been operating it for a number of years. Transport Canada wants the regional district to grant them the option to repurchase the airport. This legislation will permit the granting of such an option, which currently the Municipal Act does not allow for. We can discuss that in committee, if the opposition so wishes.

Finally, this legislation will also enable Burnaby to provide some health and social services outside its boundaries. As you know, hon. Speaker, local governments cannot provide services outside their boundaries, but here is an instance where it makes good sense to allow them to do so. Specifically, they will be allowed to provide services to Jericho Hill students temporarily living in Vancouver. In general, the authority of municipal councils under the Municipal Act is limited to take actions within their boundaries.

This legislation is needed only for a limited purpose and will not represent a precedent. The students receiving the services will be the residents of Burnaby in 1994. The legislation will ensure that all students in the Jericho Hill program have access to appropriate health and counselling services.

This legislation will meet the pressing needs of five local communities in British Columbia. If required, we can go over some of the details in committee.

A. Cowie: Since this bill is dealing with a fait accompli situation, there is really no point in arguing or debating it. We have some concern that things happen, and then we bring the legality of these happenings. I trust that this is just something that occasionally happens in government and isn't a regular practice.

On the issue of Hope, that seems a little unusual. Although it appears straightforward, we can't help but wonder if there isn't something behind the scenes. However, we will wait until third reading before we look at that in more depth.

That's all I really want to say about this bill. I encourage that we go ahead. However, the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands would like to make a short statement.

C. Tanner: I congratulate the government on bringing forward this legislation to correct problems that appeared in the negotiations in the town of Sidney over a number of years, and I want to take this occasion to tell you about the consequences of those mistakes. We now have a development in Sidney which is so successful that virtually everybody in Victoria spends all their time in Sidney because of the quality of the establishment of that new marina. In fact, it's getting better by the week, because it's expanding even further.

I would again thank the government for bringing this legislation forth. I am sure that the town of Sidney will not have occasion to do this again.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll close debate with just a general comment. I will get into some specifics of the bill, as my hon. critic for Vancouver-Quilchena has suggested, but I would just like the members to know that the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act has been in existence since 1958. Sometimes it is required when local government does make a slip, or they don't cross their t's or dot their i's, or there's a court challenge, or something happens that makes the impact on local government dramatic, particularly on taxpayers.

I can assure you, hon. members, that we go through these issues quite carefully in committee, but obviously there are times when local government needs enabling legislation to allow them to make decisions efficiently and quickly. What's before you today does that, all requested by local government.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 12, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 19.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. A. Hagen: Bill 19 makes a number of amendments to the School Act, some of a miscellaneous and housekeeping nature, and others of a more substantive nature. Because of the characteristics of this particular bill, what I propose to do in second reading is to outline briefly the contents of the legislation. However, I believe it is the kind of legislation that lends

[ Page 6322 ]

itself best to discussion in committee, because, as we say, there are no themes throughout this particular bill that allow us to address it as a principles bill, if you like. I think that will mean that with the support of all members of the House, we will be able to address those issues most effectively as we work our way through the various amendments.

[3:45]

However, having said that, let me turn to the first amendments, which are changes to the

preamble to the School Act. This amending bill brings to us a new general

preamble to the School Act, which we believe more fully reflects our education principles and goals. The

preamble includes a new clause which deals with society's goals for education. I think it's a view that all of us hold that the family, the school, the community and society all share in responsibility for the education of our children. The new clause speaks very specifically to our support of education, with self-reliance and democratic citizenship being two of the most fundamental underpinnings of the goals of education.

So we are speaking here about society's goal to ensure that all citizens have an education that enables them to be personally fulfilled and publicly useful, thereby increasing the strength and contributing to the health and stability of that society. We're speaking, then, of society's role in and goals for education.

The second part of the

preamble is one that has been there since the School Act was first introduced in 1989, but it adds two or three significant words that I believe, again, more fully reflect our province's educational principles and goals. First of all, it speaks to the education of all learners. As we know, one of the attributes of our education system is that it is an inclusive system: all learners, regardless of their places of living in the province, their economic circumstances and their physical and intellectual capacities, will have the opportunity to reach their potential.

So the addition of that word "all" is intended to reflect the inclusive nature of our education system. We have also added the words to the clause that speaks about learners acquiring "knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy" -- and the new words -- "democratic and pluralistic society," and then continuing with words that have existed, "a prosperous and a sustainable economy" -- again, the importance of young people acquiring knowledge skills and attitudes for citizenship and a recognition of the diversity of our province.

It's a diversity that has been its characteristic since its earliest days, and which is, even as we speak, changing in its configuration and in the richness of the many people who have chosen to live in our province or, as with our aboriginal peoples, who continue to be an essential part of the nature and makeup of our society.

We have added some new

definitions to these amendments. One of them relate to "guardian," which will now be defined to be in keeping with the term in the Family Relations Act, so that when we speak of guardians in the School Act legislation it will be consistent with B.C. law. Also in the

definitions, "day of instruction" is defined to clarify and set out in law what constitutes a day of instruction for students and to tie it to the provision of an educational program.

One of the amendments deals with policy and now laws that relate to copies of student records. As we have reviewed over the past year the practices of school districts, we have found that there is no uniform policy concerning a parent's or student's entitlement to receive a copy of their student record. Therefore, to create a consistent entitlement across the province, it is proposed to state expressly in the legislation that parents and students are entitled to receive a copy of the student record upon request.

There is an amendment which deals with putting into statute a practice regarding the powers to suspend students. To clarify our legislation respecting suspension of students, and as a result of a recent court ruling, it is proposed to expressly provide administrative officers and superintendents with the authority to suspend students in accordance with board policies. The courts have ruled that such suspensions may only be imposed by the board. However, board meetings may not be scheduled within a time frame that would allow for the prompt action that might be required for the protection of students and school personnel.

An important amendment relates to the school calendar. This amendment comes as a result of recommendations made to me from a policy review process which involved representatives from each of the education partners. Their recommendations and policy decisions of cabinet have led to legislative change in these amendments. They will enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set a standard school calendar for a period of five years in order to bring predictability and stability to an area that has been, without question, marked with confusion and abuse since the legislation was introduced by the last government in 1989.

What the amendments will do is set out the opening and closing days of school, the number of days that schools are to be in session, the minimum number of days and hours of instruction that must be offered to students, the maximum number of available non-instructional days and the holidays and vacation periods in each school year.

These amendments also take into account the desire of some school boards to adjust their school year according to local needs and conditions. So the legislation will provide school boards with the ability to adopt, in accordance with regulations, local school calendars which may vary from the standard school calendar for one or more of the schools in that school district.

At the same time the regulations will ensure that minimum standards of instructional time are maintained and that appropriate parental, board and employee approvals are obtained before a school district calendar, or a local school calendar, is adopted by the board. These amendments also ensure that school boards remain accountable and responsible for determining the length of school days, the minutes of school operations and the number and length of breaks within the school day.

The next amendment that I'm going to refer to is very much a technical amendment. What it does is clarify and put into one statute all the various provisions currently contained in a number of statutes

[ Page 6323 ]

respecting the taxation of school property. It will also include a definition of property that is consistent with the definition in the assessment act.

The next two amendments deal with capital projects. The first one is again technical. In order to be consistent with the government's interest in ensuring school board accountability for capital expenditures, an amendment is included that will clarify the minister's power to issue tendering orders that are binding upon school boards so that a practice now in place will be given legislative authority.

I spoke earlier about the next amendment, which has to do with capital planning. As we look at the growth of many districts, we recognize that planning for schools is an increasingly important part of not only education planning but of community planning as well. I think it's fair to say that in the rapid growth we've experienced in many areas of the province, problems have arisen concerning the coordination of planning for school facilities by school boards and the planning for new land developments by local governments. School boards may be and often are informed of a new housing project or changes to existing plans too late to adequately plan for the required school facilities.

The proposed amendment would create a formal linkage between school boards and local governments requiring consultation during the planning process so that school boards can plan school facilities in advance of new developments and integrate school facilities into the community.

I might note, hon. Speaker, that in the preparations for this amendment, we have enjoyed a close and productive working relationship with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. I think that cooperation will be very helpful as we move ahead with implementing this practice.

The other amendments are largely of a technical and housekeeping nature. They deal with such matters as ensuring that the prescribed school calendar applies to all collective agreements, including those agreed to before this amendment becomes law; changing of the wording of the

section dealing with the disclosure of student records; clarifying that the requirement for parental consent to disclose student record applies only to parents whose children are of school age.

As we move through the specifics of these amendments, I know that hon. members of the Legislature will examine the intent and structure of the amendments in more detail. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for her very good overview of a statute that certainly we in the opposition are not going to oppose in principle. It is, as the minister explained, a statute that I might describe as bits and pieces of things that are appropriately being brought in to bring the School Act up to date.

I will make two or three remarks not on specific provisions in the act -- those, of course, will come at the committee stage -- but on things of a more generic nature that I think should go on record now. When we go clause by clause we can deal with the specifics.

One thing that I think is well documented in the press and in the public is, unfortunately, some adverse reaction to the Year 2000. I would just comment that the

preamble has been changed, as the minister commented, to reflect, perhaps not intentionally but indirectly -- some of the concerns that people have expressed. The point I'm referring to is that there's an emphasis in the new clause in the

preamble which enables students to become personally fulfilled and publicly useful. Those are very laudable goals, and I don't quarrel with those. I'm sure that no one in this House would, but I hope that we never lose track of the fact that our schools must prepare our students academically and otherwise through the educational process.

Social development and becoming good citizens is naturally and almost automatically part of that process. I'm just worried that we are shifting away from what I would still hope is the prime emphasis of schooling and education: to ensure that our students -- at whatever age and whatever process they are going through in the educational stage -- are ensured of a first-rate, quality education, and the side effects of societal and personal development will certainly be important. I fear that we may be placing too much emphasis on things that school has a mandate to do but things that are not its prime mandate. That's just a passing comment on the

preamble.

[4:00]

I am pleased -- as I'm sure that everyone in this House is -- to see some reference and amendments to the standard school calendar. When we go through committee stage we will be able to make some remarks and ask some particular questions on that.

There's no question that the regulation 8 controversy -- things like the length of the school year and the length of the school day -- have caused some sparks to fly. I suppose it's fair comment to say that these days, any time you get into a discussion on education, whether it be in this House or elsewhere, there are going to be sparks. Unfortunately, that's the atmosphere we are in. However, that's not the purpose of this bill. I only say that because any time we look at amendments to the School Act and look at educational philosophy, the direction education is going, there will be critics.

There are going to be people who say: "Wait a minute; that's no good enough. Perhaps we need to take it in this direction."

Coming back to the provisions of amending the regulations dealing with the school calendar, at least people will be happy to see that the sidelines of the playing field have been outlined. To this point, it was very unclear where that playing field was or where you would be stepping out of bounds and had left the field of play. That's certainly a laudable provision.

I had some worry about a reference in the amendment that all existing agreements are going to have to comply with the provisions of the legislation. It is probably appropriate but might also cause some controversy. Some collective agreements may be brought into question because of this provision. At least that will achieve consistency throughout the school calendar for all collective agreements. So we'll have to see whether any controversy will come out of that.

[ Page 6324 ]

The other amendments and the things that the minister commented on are truly -- at least for the most part -- things which are pertaining to other statutes, such as the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act. When we go to committee stage we may wish to raise some questions on that.

I have one final comment dealing with the jurisdiction of the minister. We will probably get to more specific comments on

section 9 in Bill 19, for example, dealing with the non-instructional periods of time. Again, some people have been critical of the non-instructional periods and the length of time that students, in the strict sense, are not in the classroom. So I'm hoping we'll be able to tidy up any uncertainties in that regard. With those few comments, I am going to conclude my remarks and indicate that certainly members of the official opposition will be supportive of this bill, in principle, on second reading.

L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principle of this bill. It's unfortunate that our critic is tied up in estimates in the other room. I don't believe he was aware that this was going to come forward at this point. But I'll do my best to represent the interests of free enterprise in this discussion.

When I look at this bill, it appears that, yes, there are elements of housekeeping in it. But philosophy is also very evident. First, I look at the fact that a parent can now go in and demand a copy of the student's records, provided they have the money to pay the photocopying fee. I look at that and think back to the changes to the Infants Act, which allow an individual as young as twelve years to go to a medical practitioner and undergo surgery without their parent having to be consulted. This particular initiative does just the opposite to what the Infants Act amendment did. I have to wonder: where is this government's consistency?

I've had three children go through the educational system, and I've never had a difficult time going in and asking to see my son's or daughter's record. In fact, there are usually three nights a year in which parents are invited to discuss those records. So I'm not sure why that change was required. Perhaps I'll take the minister at her suggestion of some inconsistency throughout the province. That may in fact be.

I note that the bill understands the value of the number of school days in a year. It understands the value of how much instructional time is given to a student in a year and how important it is to the student that that stays consistent. I wish this government had used the same thought and rationality when they removed education as an essential service.

If in putting this bill forward the minister is suggesting that it's so important to have that many days a year and that many hours a day, why did this government allow education to be removed as an essential service, to the point that we now see many students throughout the province not getting the benefit of those days and hours of instruction? That disturbs me. It concerns me that no consistent message is coming from this government.

This legislation is going to put more controls on the local school boards. There's going to be more control over the tendering process. It requires school boards to make a public resolution endorsing a particular plan before it comes to Victoria. The only thing I can suggest that's going to happen, given that and a couple other items in the bill, is that we're going to see a mechanism, similar to what I discussed with the minister during estimates, that allows the local school boards to extract land on subdivision.

Obviously, if they can discuss a capital project in a public process before it comes to Victoria and gets approval, then there's going to be.... If some process like that is not in place, there's going to be even more speculation by the public than there is today. That's a concern on both sides.

I can see that the ministry is heading into the direction of developing a policy very similar to what's allowed under the Municipal Act -- perhaps that's why we see so many thrusts towards the Municipal Act -- where they can expropriate, on subdivision, a portion of land like the municipalities presently have available to them, which will drive land prices higher.

That wouldn't be as alarming if we weren't taxing for school purposes based on assessments, but as we extract these lands at subdivision time, the cost of the lots created during that subdivision will increase, compared to the 10 percent that will be lost at subdivision to either recreation parks or in the process of developing a bank for education.

I well recognize the need for planning and identifying school sites prior to growth. I also understand the difficulty of identifying school populations in any area in advance of the development of that area. I think part of the rationale of the ministry over the years has been to see the whites of their eyes before we build a school, because it's often very difficult to predict how many children are going to end up in a development area. I recognize the need for a discussion between the respective municipality and the school board, but I am concerned. I look forward to the committee stage to explore those areas of concern.

When we look at how this particular bill reaches in and grabs some of the autonomy from school boards, we have to wonder where this ministry and this government are going with respect to local autonomy for school boards. It's an area that I'm sure there will be much debate over. I guess I'm concerned about that undercurrent and the philosophical approach. Having only the amendments before me, I'm not able to put it into perspective. I'm really concerned that there's more to this bill than we see on its surface, and I look forward to discussing it at the third reading stage.

I firmly believe I'm going to end up voting against this bill at second reading because of the philosophies and principles that I believe are in the bill.

J. Pement: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Pement: It's my pleasure today to introduce to you, from the beautiful community of Hazelton, 14 students from the Hazelton Seventh Day Adventist junior academy and their teacher Cindy Walper. Would you please bid them welcome to the House today.

[ Page 6325 ]

H. De Jong: I'm not going to speak very long on this bill, because I think my colleague here has said most of the things that were on my mind as well. However, I want to talk a little bit about the planning for school grounds and future school sites. I'm not sure whether some communities have neglected in the past to have a good consultative process between the local council and the school boards. Certainly in my own community, where I've been alderman and mayor for quite some time, we would have meetings about twice a year with the local school board to determine the future and the growth of the community.

If possible, and in fact in many instances, land was bought by the municipality for potential school sites long before development ever came to those areas. I recall that one particular property that we as a municipality bought was a whole 40-acre farm. Now there is a nice new high school there, because the community has grown into that area. And that's not the only one.

But I do feel that perhaps some incentives should be given to local communities so that they can purchase land ahead of development. But to have it done, as I fear, as a part of development, and putting up land as a share of the development, you might say -- as a share of the acreages that are to be developed -- will, I think, only drive the price of houses that much higher. After all, there is only so much money to come out of those lands, and if the demands of park allotments, school allotments, road allotments and who knows what all have to come out of that development, then we're on the wrong track in terms of providing affordable housing. There is a lot at stake in that area.

[4:15]

I've also some concerns about the earlier parts of the bill, where I believe that some autonomy is going to be lost for school boards. There are situations -- and we see it happening right now in many communities throughout the province -- where perhaps we may have a set number of hours for schools, but these are going to be lost. I think my colleague here has pointed out that if there was a mechanism to have education declared an essential service -- and I believe it is.... I don't think anyone can argue the point that the education of children isn't essential. It's very essential.

To have these strikes and lockouts drag on and drag on.... We can have all the directions and the stipulations within those bills -- and within this bill in particular -- but it will not happen.

I do have concern about this bill, and I'm not prepared to vote for second reading until.... Perhaps during third reading we will get more clarification from the minister, and we can see more eye to eye. But on the face of it, I cannot support this bill.

The Speaker: The minister, upon rising, closes debate on second reading.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to make just one or two comments in closing debate on second reading. I appreciate the views that have come from hon. members as they have looked at this amending bill.

I think it is very important, in closing second reading, to emphasize three things. First of all, our commitment in the School Act is to have a piece of legislation that provides standards, predictability and stability for the tremendous value that society places on education for our children. So, whether we are dealing with the

preamble to the School Act, the issue of government making clear what our standards are for the school calendar or good planning for schools in the future, I want to emphasize that these amendments have been brought forward with that overarching goal in mind. As communities plan their futures, equally important to the planning that we have for parks and other amenities, surely schools should be at the heart of that planning. Amendments to that effect are a part of this legislation.

Secondly, I think it is important to emphasize as well that in these amendments we are making up for past omissions and, sometimes, commissions. There was, for example, the failure to look at the implications of legislation around the school calendar and to not plan how that could be introduced in ways that would produce a standard, with stability and predictability.

Thirdly, I want to address the issue of autonomy. It is an important issue and it's one that I think requires a balance. We as members of this Legislature have a responsibility to set standards that mean there is predictability for all students, while allowing for local initiative. In the school calendar provisions we have, I believe, achieved that kind of balance between a standard for all students and the option and opportunity for local school communities to set, within those minimum standards, a different calendar or a calendar that adds to the basic standards available to all students.

We have within these amendments some very fundamental principles in support of our students, society's commitments to students, standards for all students, and stability and predictability.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Moving right along, I call second reading of Bill 20.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's my pleasure at this time to introduce second reading of the Independent School Amendment Act, 1993, which, like the previous bill that we have been considering, makes a number of changes to the Independent School Act.

Again, it's my proposal to briefly outline the nature of these amendments with the recognition that we will be debating them in committee. The

preamble for the Independent School Act will be amended to be consonant with the

preamble for the School Act. So the

[ Page 6326 ]

comments that I've made earlier apply to this bill as well. There are some changes in definition and, in particular, I'd like to refer to the definition of "guardian." There is an amendment proposed to provide a clear definition of guardian for funding purposes. We do use the word guardian in the current act, but it is not defined. The proposed definition will be consistent with the meaning of guardian in the Family Relations Act, which establishes that a guardian must be recognized as such by the courts under British Columbia law.

The province presently provides funding to each student whose parent or guardian is resident in British Columbia and lawfully admitted to Canada. Immigration Canada has a broad working definition of guardian which differs from our province's definition of guardian. Certain independent schools believe that based on Immigration Canada's definition and requirements, foreign students should qualify for funding under the act. By defining guardian according to B.C. law, the ministry's current practice is put into law and the province continues to be able to determine who is an eligible student.

A second amendment deals with issuing an interim certificate of group classification. All independent schools in the province, whether they are funded or not, are required to hold a valid certificate of group classification to operate. This certificate requires schools to meet the basic criteria as specified in the act, including enrolment of not less than ten students. In order to enable a new school with no students to begin operations, a new

section of the act is proposed which permits the inspector of independent schools to issue an interim certificate of group 3 and 4 classification in accordance with the requirements set out in the

schedule to the act. I would note that groups 3 and 4 students in this amended bill will be students in schools that come under independent school regulations but are not funded by the province.

Another amendment deals with temporary enrolment drops below ten school-aged students. The act presently requires a minimum enrolment of students for a school to maintain its group classification. This has created two distinct problems for smaller, independent schools, where unexpected drops in enrolment occur because one or two families may move from the area. If it occurs during the school year, legally the school should be closed. Such an event could seriously disrupt the schooling of the remaining students.

Secondly, if the loss of students occurs during the summer months, the school should also legally be closed even though the school has contracted to provide a teacher for the school year. In addition, should this occur to a funded group 1 or group 2 school, the school could lose its funding for at least two years. To address this issue, an amendment to the

schedule to the act is proposed which will permit a certificate of group classification to be issued or renewed for group 1 and group 2 independent schools whose enrolment has temporarily dropped below ten school-aged students. Functionally this amendment will give the school a period of one year to raise its enrolment. This will deal with some issues that have come forward over the last few years.

A further amendment deals with materials and services entitlements for independent school authorities. Previously these entitlements were detailed in the budget documents. A new

section is now proposed which clarifies the authority of the minister to determine the materials and services an independent school authority is entitled to receive and purchase. Also, the minister may differentiate between which independent school group classification will have materials and services made available to them.

An amendment dealing with grants that may be paid to independent school authorities relates to past practice, which provides grants periodically only to group 1 and group 2 independent schools for such purposes as student and teacher exchanges, computer development, Pacific Rim projects and special education. These entitlements were also previously detailed in the budget documents. In this bill, two new sections are proposed so that regulations may determine any factor, including the group classification and geographic location of an independent school, to determine the grants to be paid to different independent schools.

There is an amendment relating to group 4 schools, permitting them to issue the British Columbia graduation certificate, known as the Dogwood certificate. Currently only groups 1 and 2 independent schools may issue their students a provincial graduation certificate. The proposed amendments would permit a group 4 independent school to issue a B.C. graduation certificate, the Dogwood certificate, if all teachers at the school are certified. This would equal the curriculum and teacher certification requirements of group 1 and 2 schools and would permit the inspector to set conditions respecting the issue of graduation certificates by different authorities, based on their group classification.

The final amendment I want to speak to is the elimination of the current group 3 classification. This amendment provides for the elimination of funding for group 3 independent schools. Group 3 independent schools currently receive from the province 10 percent of the per student operating costs of the local public school district in which they are situated. However, they are not subject to any curricula or certification requirements under the act. As there are no provincial standards with respect to curricula and teacher certification for group 3 schools, the expenditure of public funds is inappropriate.

It was therefore concluded that funding of group 3 schools should be discontinued, and under these amendments, the current group 3 schools will be joined with the group 5 schools to form a new unfunded group 3 classification.

As one might note from the nature of these amendments, the substance of them can be more appropriately debated through our committee process, and I look forward to that discussion.

[4:30]

J. Dalton: This is not dissimilar, in some sense, to the last bill we dealt with in second reading. Some items are not contentious. But certainly the official opposition

[ Page 6327 ]

is not going to be able to support this bill in its current form because of the elimination of the group 3 funding.

I would have to say, on behalf of the independent schools federation and all independent schools, that there's a feeling of betrayal out there. When this government ran in the last election, it was certainly on record that it was supportive of the funding of independent schools in place then, and up until 1993-94. As this House is aware, there were three categories of funding, groups 1, 2 and 3. If this legislation passes, that will change. Group 1 will be maintained at 50 percent funding, and group 2 will maintain its 35 percent status. But unfortunately group 3 has been eliminated, and that was at 10 percent funding.

I want to make it quite clear that even though many aspects of this bill.... I've had an opportunity to go through it with officials from the independent schools federation. They have no problem with most of the other housekeeping aspects of this bill, so to speak. But they are certainly troubled -- and this is the criticism I'm directing right now -- about the elimination of that group 3 funding.

For example, they cannot see why, if you were going to bring an amendment forward, it would not have been permitted to introduce accountability into the funding of the group 3 category. But the government has chosen not to do that. Perhaps at the committee stage we can get into some clause by clause discussion as to why that was not so. Of course, I do not have the opportunity to question the minister now as to why some other provision, other than the outright elimination of the funding, was not implemented. That's something we're going to have to leave to another stage.

It's certainly something that has to go on record. It is unfortunate that this funding was eliminated, because where does it end?

If we open the door and eliminate funding in one category, who is to say that the government -- given that budgets are tight and they keep telling us they have no more money for education; and if I may also make reference, as I did in the last bill, the fact that these days we see the evidence of a lack of funding and underfunding -- won't continue to wedge it further and further open and we will see the day when independent school funding may be eliminated altogether through the current government's approach to school funding in general? I think that would be unfortunate.

I want to speak on behalf of the education system in general, but specifically when we're dealing with this bill, of the importance of the independent school movement.

I think everyone recognizes that there are many independent schools of varying categories in this province, all of which have a particular mandate to fill. There are certainly many people in this province who wish the opportunity for choice. I am submitting that the choice should be maintained, and the funding should be maintained to give some assurance to parents and students who wish alternative methods of education -- or at least opportunities to examine alternative methods -- that those methods will remain in place.

Some people may argue: "Well 10 percent, so what?" But that is a significant factor, and I don't think it's the percentage that we're debating here; more importantly, I think it's the concept. The official opposition and I are troubled and will have to speak against this bill from the point of view of the deprivation of the group 3 classification of funding.

There are other aspects of this bill that we will address as we go through committee stage clause by clause, so I will not get into detail on those aspects at this time. I wish to voice the concern of the official opposition on that particular element, because I think that's truly the highlight of this bill; that's the thing that leaps off the page when you go through this provision. But we will wait until committee stage, when we can get into more of the detail that is brought out.

Those are the points that I wish to flag and the criticism that I have to voice on behalf of the independent school movement about the elimination of group 3 funding.

K. Jones: It is a sad day in this House when we have to speak against bills relating to education and when the Ministry of Education brings forward bills that are going to take away the very minimal funding received by the people who send their children to independent schools. I think it's a terrible situation when the Ministry of Education and the thinking of the NDP says that independent schools don't contribute a major part to our society.

The ability of the independent school to offer something different from the public school system, something more in keeping with what the parents and the children desire for their education -- still based on a fundamental curriculum and meeting the needs of the children -- is something that we in British Columbia cherish as a right and as a true choice -- not being stuck with the one position of taking the government-run school system and then saying that that's what we've got to have. We have a history in British Columbia of having some of the finest independent schools in the country.

They have been developed through hard work and the raising of special funds, because they do not get capital funding from the provincial government, even though the parents pay the taxes for the public school system's capital programs and for their operating programs. The parents also pick up the operating costs in the case of the group 3 classification, which up until now has been receiving only 10 percent of the operating costs. Now this minister wants to eliminate even that 10 percent. The parents have been contributing 90 percent of those costs for the education of their children.

That has to amount to double taxation. I think that the parents and the children who wish to have an alternative should also have an alternative for where their tax money is going to go. They should be able to designate, by a voucher system or by some other method, where their education tax dollar is going so that it is fair and equitable to those people who choose to give their children specialized training and a specialized opportunity over and above the basic curriculum.

That has to be what our democracy is about. People have come to this country for the right to have a choice,

[ Page 6328 ]

the right to hear an independent voice, not a collective one stating that everybody has to be the same. That's really what this type of movement is leading to. I know that the direction of this government is to collectivize and to make sure that everybody is equal, regardless of their abilities or skills or desires. It's a matter of trying to make everybody fall into the same little pigeonhole, and it's not what these people are after. It's not what most people in British Columbia are after. They have real needs and concerns and the public school system isn't addressing those needs and concerns.

Therefore they want an opportunity to provide an alternative. They shouldn't have to pay extra for that opportunity. The school system in British Columbia is not capable of handling the students that are already being looked after in the independent school system. If the independent school system were to stop taking students today, our school districts would be in chaos.

They provide a viable alternative to the present operations of the school systems, they are good contributors to our society and I think that's it about time the minister, instead of going directly against the Premier's campaign promise that there would be no cutback in independent school funding.... Once again, another promise broken.

Hon. T. Perry: What?

K. Jones: Yes, what. The minister is so surprised that another promise is broken. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise with the number that have been broken. I think just about every one is broken now, isn't it?

Hon. T. Perry: You sound like a broken record. That's the only thing that's broken around here.

K. Jones: Well, we'll see how you make out with your ministry and whether you survive in your ministry.

We have in this bill something that is a true indication of the direction of this government. It is going, as usual, in the wrong direction. It is out of touch with the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia are asking for choice; the people of British Columbia are asking for an ability to have an individual way of life that allows our children to grow to their greatest potential and not be stuck in a system that rigidly controls and limits them and doesn't recognize some special circumstance or desire of the parent or the child.

It is because of that desire that I stand to oppose this bill, particularly the sections that take away the funding for level 3. Who knows where the next cut will be? Level 2 provides Ministry of Education funding to the tune of only 35 percent of the cost; the parents are still picking up the remainder. Only 50 percent of a level 1 schooling program's operating costs are paid by the government; the other 50 percent, and all of the capital costs, are paid by the parents.

In addition, like everybody else, they pay their full share of the public school system, to which they do not send a child; they just make the contribution. It's double taxation; it's unfair taxation.

I think this government should be ashamed to bring this type of proposal forward. They should be bringing forward an expansion of government's contribution to the independent schools. They have a right to equal education. They shouldn't be treated as unequal in our province and billed more. I think the government must have the concept that people who have children at independent schools are the rich. They are people from all walks of life. A few of them are rich; a large number of them are just ordinary middle-income people like you and me; and there are people who don't have the incomes that you and I have.

They all share the costs to allow their children to have a better type of education than the public school system will provide for them.

[4:45]

I'm particularly concerned with the sections of this bill that.... I'm trying to get an idea of the intent of the ministry with regard to sections that change the requirements for interim certificate for groups 3 and 4 classifications. I think there's something hidden in there, some desire to change the process so that people are not fairly treated. Another roadblock is being placed in the way of people who wish to be outside the public school system because it better serves their needs. This system, this government and this proposal are going in the wrong direction.

They do not represent what the people of B.C. want. The people whose children have been in the public school system, as well as those who presently have children in the public school system and those who may in future have children in the public school system, also recognize that there is inequity in the process and in the operation of independent schools.

Independent schools have to be treated fairly. They need to have the same level of cost for the parents on behalf of their children as for any other citizen in British Columbia. Therefore I have to say this bill is draconian, it is backwards and it should be defeated.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophies and principles of Bill 20. This is something which is actually quite easy to speak to. There is no question that there is a hidden agenda here somewhere. When we look at the removal of funding for class 3 schools, and examine just how many students that involves.... In 1992 there were 37 schools which involved 1,360 students. Collectively, the province contributed $760,000 as 10 percent of the block. In the public system, those same 1,360 students would have cost British Columbia $7,600,000.

If we as a government want to make sure that we give a good solid foundation to our children and that the children achieve an accreditable education which allows them to move on to bigger and better things, perhaps some examination of the programs they are in fact being given and some evaluation as to the level of education they are receiving would be in order.

Why would this government attack an independent system which educates the children for 10 percent of what it costs the province of British Columbia to educate that same number of people? It isn't hard to understand where the government is coming from. You only have to look back at some of the statements made by NDP members over the course of the last five or six

[ Page 6329 ]

years. The member for Nanaimo was quoted in the Times-Colonist on June 25, 1987, calling the private system "bastions of privilege." That is exactly what the NDP government feels that the private system is. They feel