British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (20020507pm-Hansard-v7n7)
20020507pm-Hansard-v7n7
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 7, Number 7
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39)
Hon. M. de Jong
Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41)
Hon. M. de Jong
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
International Youth Week
J. Bray
Lions Gate Bridge
L. Mayencourt
Adult literacy
V. Anderson
Introductions by Members
Oral Questions
Lobbying by Liberal MLA
J. MacPhail
Hon. G. Campbell
Irene Chanin's position with BCBC
J. Kwan
Hon. G. Campbell
Negotiations with physicians and dispute resolution process
K. Johnston
Hon. C. Hansen
Child care funding
V. Anderson
Hon. L. Stephens
Lobbyists' meetings with cabinet members
J. MacPhail
Hon. G. Campbell
Electronic delivery of government services
B. Suffredine
Hon. G. Abbott
Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)
Petitions
P. Nettleton
Committee of the Whole House
School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) (continued)
J. MacPhail
Hon. C. Clark
R. Hawes
J. Kwan
Petitions
J. Kwan
Committee of the Whole House
School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) (continued)
Hon. R. Neufeld
Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)
J. MacPhail
Hon. R. Neufeld
Reporting of Bills
Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
(Bill 36)
Third Reading of Bills
Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)
[ Page 3243 ]
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002
The House
met at 2:03 p.m.
Introductions by Members
J. Bray:
This afternoon it's my pleasure to introduce Colin Plant and Carol Whitehouse
from Leadership Victoria, as well as Janet Barkley, an Esquimalt recreation
programmer, and Sadit Karem, a Saanich recreation programmer, to the House.
These four individuals are all involved in the first annual Victoria Youth Week
taking place May 6 to 10. Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome to
the House today.
Hon. S.
Santori: Over the years the city of Trail has built a great reputation for
its ability to host major and significant events in the community. Today it's my
pleasure to introduce someone who has played a key role in making these events a
success in our community.
He's a
gentleman who has chaired or co-chaired many events like the B.C. Winter Games
in our community, the B.C. Summer Games, the B.C. Seniors Games, and was
chairman of the 1995 Babe Ruth World Series provincial as well as Canadian
Little League championships.
This
gentleman is currently the chief executive officer of Kootenay Savings Credit
Union in Trail, and he's joined today by his lovely wife Kathy, a nurse at the
Trail Regional Hospital. Please give these people, Doug Stanley and Kathy
Stanley from Trail, a warm welcome.
[1405]
Chong: In the gallery today are two very special people: Dr. Sam Macey and
his daughter Elizabeth. Dr. Macey can be seen in Oak Bay village at various
times. He's spotted by his very ebullient smile as he walks through the village
and enjoys the opportunities there to greet and meet with people. Dr. Macey was
a founding member of the Open Learning Institute and is a former dean of
graduate studies at the University of Victoria. I hope the House will make them
very welcome.
R. Lee:
It's a pleasure for me to introduce four special guests to the House today. They
are from the People's Republic of China on a six-month work experience in
Victoria. Ms. Zheng Yong is a principal staff member from the comprehensive
division budget department in the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic
of China. Ms. Li Xiaoqian is a principal staff member from the budget division
in the financial department of the Heilongjiang province.
Mr. Cheng
Danfeng is a staff member in the finance division of the treasury department in
the Ministry of Finance, the People's Republic of China, and Mr. Zhang Rui is
the vice-director of the Chinese government bond issuance and payment division,
treasury payment bureau, Ministry of Finance.
Zheng Yong
and Li Xiaoqian are attached to the office of the comptroller general here, and
Cheng Danfeng and Zhang Rui will be attached to the provincial treasury. I'm
sure they will enjoy working in the Legislature and will take back many valuable
experiences to China. Would the House please make them very welcome.
J. Kwan:
Visiting the House today is the president of the Action Committee of People with
Disabilities, Joanne Neubauer. The ACPD believes that all people deserve to live
a decent life with dignity, and they believe we all have the duty to ensure that
business does not go on as usual while people are being left to die on the
streets. They are calling on the government to abandon Bill 26 and Bill 27 to
ensure that British Columbians are afforded the right to dignity in life. Will
the House please make Joanne welcome.
Visser: Today is a great day. One of this House's great defenders of his
constituency, of all things Welsh and fish, has reached Freedom 55. Would the
House please wish the member for Nanaimo a happy birthday today.
Hon. J.
Murray: I'm happy to introduce Connie Fenyo, who is in the gallery today.
Connie is an executive in the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce and a
businesswoman and business leader who has confidence in the emerging economic
opportunities in New West and in B.C. Would the House please make Connie
welcome.
Hunter: Freedom 55. I would like to thank the member for North Island for
that kind remark.
I stand to
introduce three people today who are some of my most important supporters: my
wife, Joy, who has been here many times before, and her parents, Bryn and Iris
Stephens, both of whom are avid watchers of the parliamentary TV channel. Will
the House please make them very welcome.
S. Orr:
We have two very special people visiting us today. Nouri Najjar is a grade 9
student at Reynolds School, and he is also one of the Pages that take such good
care of us down here on the Legislature floor. With him is his father, Ibrahim
Najjar, who is visiting us from the United Arab Emirates. I must say to Mr.
Najjar: you have a son to be very proud of. Would this House please make them
welcome.
[1410]
Hon. M.
Coell: I would like the House to make welcome 25 grades 4 and 5 students
from Keating Elementary School and their teacher, Ms. Cautrais. Would the House
please make them welcome.
[ Page 3244 ]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
PROTECTED AREAS
FORESTS COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. M. de
Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act.
Hon. M.
de Jong: I move that Bill 39 be read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. M.
de Jong: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 39 today. This bill confirms the
process by which the Crown would compensate forest companies for harvesting
rights or improvements that were lost due to government-sanctioned land use
decisions, largely during the 1990s.
Bill 39
will apply the existing Forest Act compensation provisions to those land use
decisions and ensure that companies are fairly compensated and that there is
certainty and consistency for companies and the public in respect of
compensation decisions.
I am also
bound to say that had the previous administration taken the appropriate steps in
a timely way to confirm the methodology by which compensation would be
calculated, Bill 39 would not have been necessary.
This bill
also reflects a recent court ruling which confirmed that the Forest Act
compensation provisions were the appropriate vehicle to address compensation
issues arising out of these land use decisions, even though the Forest Act
provisions were not invoked at the time.
I move that
the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting
after today.
Bill 39
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.
FOREST (FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
Hon. M. de
Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002.
Hon. M.
de Jong: I move that Bill 41 be read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. M.
de Jong: Bill 41 amends the Forest Act to provide first nations with greater
opportunities to participate in the forest sector. The bill enables the Minister
of Forests to invite a first nation to apply directly for forest tenures in
furtherance of treaty-related or economic measures agreements between the
government and that first nation.
Bill 41
also allows the minister or designate to suspend or cancel that forest tenure if
the first nation does not comply with the treaty-related or economic measures
agreement that led to the award of tenure in the first place.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 41 builds on announcements made earlier this month by the Premier
and the Attorney General and supports this government's new-era commitment to
move ahead with interim measures to ensure greater certainty during treaty
negotiations and also to promote and facilitate the legitimate interests that
first nations have in participating more directly in forestry-related economic
development.
I move that
Bill 41 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of
the House after today.
Bill 41
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.
Statements
(Standing Order 25
b) INTERNATIONAL YOUTH WEEK
J. Bray:
Today I have the pleasure to present to this House information regarding
activities celebrating International Youth Week.
Youth Week
started in 1995 with a handful of events in different cities in Canada. It has
grown to international status and now includes events in countries such as the
United States, Australia, the U.K., Peru, Ghana and other countries. Spearheaded
here by Leadership Victoria, Youth Week includes a variety of events which
showcase the interests, talents and diversity of our youth. A listing of events
has been posted on a website at www.youth.city.victoria.bc.ca.
[1415]
Even though
we've all been youth ourselves, perhaps no age group is so misunderstood. Each
generation of parents struggles to provide their teens with opportunities that
challenge them while keeping them safe, and this is not always an easy thing to
do. Youth Week reminds us all of the energy, vitality and promise that our youth
bring to us. Our youth experiment, create and develop their own language and
subculture and present a refreshing perspective on the world. Our challenge is
to embrace this enthusiasm and continue to provide them with an environment of
support and challenge.
Youth are
an important asset to our community. Not only do they often have the most
disposable income in a family, adding greatly to our local economies, but a
study published by the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria
reports that 32 percent of our youth volunteer their time in our communities.
[ Page 3245 ]
This is an
exciting time to be a youth in Victoria and British Columbia. As confidence in
our economy continues to build, there are more opportunities for youth created
every day by small business owners and community leaders. We must continue to
harness the energy, hopes and dreams of our youth. We must ensure we engage all
of our youth, as their contributions will only strengthen our communities and
our lives. Today's youth are tomorrow's leaders.
Again, I
would like to thank Leadership Victoria, greater Victoria recreation departments
and area youth for organizing such an exciting week of events. I would encourage
all Victorians and British Columbians to join me in acknowledging the value of
youth and the value that they bring to our community by participating in various
events of International Youth Week here in Victoria.
LIONS GATE BRIDGE
Mayencourt: I've admired the Lions Gate Bridge for decades, and thanks to a
recent refit, this beautiful bridge will be here for many more decades. Many
people helped to make this restoration possible, and they all deserve a great
thank-you, but most of all, my hat goes off to the men and women that rebuilt
her.
This bridge
is an economic and social link, but did any city ever have a finer gateway into
the great outdoors? Well, I think not. The Lions Gate Bridge is much, much more.
It's an international icon without equal. Walkers challenge it, cyclists revel
in it, and residents enjoy its graceful symmetry against a mountainous backdrop.
Have you
ever wondered how many photographs of the Lions Gate Bridge might be floating
around — photos of tourists with our bridge looming in the background? It must
run in the millions and perhaps beyond, and its value to tourism is not to be
underestimated.
Throughout
history, bridges have always stood for progress, for bringing people and
communities together. Bridges take us to places previously inaccessible, and
quite literally, bridges move mankind forward river by river and bay by bay.
There's no need for us to wonder where we'd be without them. We'd be stranded on
the other side.
Lions Gate
Bridge will be enjoyed and marvelled over for many generations. Those that are
keenly interested in the engineering aspects will have access to reams of
information about this refit in as much detail as they can handle. They will
think about the men and women that rebuilt her. Even those without an
engineering background, those who take an hour or two some quiet evening to
research the history of this bridge a week from today or a hundred years from
now, will all come face to face with the skill and determination of those
workers. In future years marvellous photographs and news stories of this project
will also serve as a bridge helping to narrow the gap between today and
tomorrow.
I share a
dream with many other Lions Gate lovers to honour these men and women by having
our bridge recognized as a national historic site.
ADULT LITERACY
Anderson: Today I would like to express my adoration and appreciation for
two groups of people. First, I would like to express my admiration for those
adults in our communities who tackle and overcome the literacy gap in their
lives. These are the people who, for whatever reason, did become functional
adults despite not having mastered the knack of being able to read or write.
They are, for the most part, very adaptive people who function very well in
their communities, thank you, in spite of the difficulty and handicaps they have
in not being able to either read or write on their own and often without other
people being aware of their difficulty.
[1420]
Thus it is
a big challenge to tackle, as an adult, the slow process, the patience and the
frustration which one must go through in order to learn to read and write. But
what an achievement as stage by stage they learn and make their lives even
richer by patience, persistence and perseverance.
Also, I
would like to express my appreciation to those women and men of all ages who
take the time and effort, often as volunteers, to encourage and coach these new
learners in reading, writing and often arithmetic. Many of these coaches take
their time to share with others their thrill in reading and writing. Among these
are those who are part of Literacy B.C., Literacy Canada and other similar
groups around the world.
These are
persons who believe that it is never too late for persons to learn to read and
write and to get the thrill and satisfaction of doing those things for
themselves at home, in the family, in pleasure and at work. These, too, are
patient and persistent persons who dedicate themselves. In Literacy B.C. we have
a channel for those who would learn to read and write no matter what their age.
P. Bell:
I seek leave to do an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
P. Bell:
Mr. Speaker, I note that two gentlemen from Prince George North have just joined
us in the gallery today. These two gentlemen are very successful in their own
right and certainly have continued to invest in the province of British
Columbia. I would ask that the House please make both Terry Kuzma and Bill
Kordyban Jr. very welcome.
Manhas: I also seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
[ Page 3246 ]
Manhas: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a group of students from B.C.
Christian Academy visiting Victoria from Port Coquitlam.
Oral Questions
LOBBYING BY LIBERAL MLA
MacPhail: There are a couple of questions that have gone unanswered in the
Premier's absence, so I welcome him back. Last week a B.C. Liberal backbench MLA
was caught mixing private and public business. As the Premier saw it last week,
the member was only doing his job. Of course, this is the same Premier that
promised time and again that Liberal friends would not get special treatment.
Everybody
except the Premier agrees that the member for East Kootenay crossed the line,
including the member in question. Will the Premier finally stand up and add his
voice to condemning the behaviour that was demonstrated, and will he please tell
his restless and bored back bench that pressuring public servants to hire
friends is unacceptable?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I can tell the member opposite that I am proud of the work that
our back bench has done on behalf of all of their constituents across the
province. I am proud of this Legislature. Unlike previous Legislatures that I
was involved in, which the member opposite was at least partially responsible
for, we've had a Health Committee of this Legislature go across the province and
work with people in British Columbia to make a health care system that works for
patients.
I am proud
we have a Legislature that says we want to make sure that we include British
Columbians in improving our education system. I am proud we have a legislative
committee that's working with British Columbians across this province to improve
the quality of life of aboriginal British Columbians. I am proud that we have a
back bench that's willing to stand up for their constituents and always look for
the best value for the tax dollar in British Columbia.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
MacPhail: Well, that's a bit of a surprise statement by the Premier. Even
the member for East Kootenay understood he had stepped over the line and
apologized for lobbying for a friend at the expense of other local business
people. I can't understand why the Premier insists on continuing to defend
behaviour that everybody else understands is wrong.
[1425]
The Premier
said, actually, and has continued to say that he's encouraging that kind of
behaviour. In this case, then, can the Premier table today the guidelines and
instructions that he's provided to his MLAs to ensure that they're not doing
business on behalf of friends or clients?
Hon. G.
Campbell: It is clear that the province of British Columbia and the people
of British Columbia wanted to change the kinds of attitudes that were prevalent
in the last government. We have done that. We are open. We have open
communication. We have open tendering in this province. We have detailed public
regulations that make sure that whenever the public invest dollars, they are
getting the best value possible for their tax dollars.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, we have a Premier that thinks the kind of behaviour
of lobbying on behalf of a friend at the expense of the rest of the local
business community is just fine. That's exactly what the Premier has said. And
not only do they do the lobbying, but…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: …backbench MLAs are responsible for approving funds — funds
from ministry expenses that go to exactly the kind of businesses on behalf of
which this member was lobbying.
The Premier
has a document this thick for guidelines for cabinet members. It's clear that
MLAs are running rampant, lobbying on behalf of their friends and who the heck
knows else-wise.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: What guidelines are in place for the kind of behaviour that this
Premier thinks is just fine?
Hon. G.
Campbell: As the member opposite will know, this government undid a lot of
the damage that they did with their closed tendering processes. We've opened up
tendering. We have included the people of British Columbia in knowing what our
goals and objectives are. We would say to every British Columbian, regardless of
their political background: "You are welcome to bid…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Campbell: …on contracts that this government will let." The public
service, the professional, non-partisan public service, will let them on the
basis of the best value possible to British Columbians.
IRENE CHANIN'S POSITION WITH BCBC
J. Kwan:
Mr. Speaker, today the government is targeting programs for children in
Vancouver. The
[ Page 3247 ]
school immunization program team, the Small Talk program for preschoolers
with speech and language disorders and vision screening programs for children in
day care and preschool — all of these programs have been cut back or
eliminated.
At the same
time, the Premier has created a soft landing at the B.C. Buildings Corporation
for Irene Chanin, the former deputy minister of his public affairs bureau. Can
the Premier please inform this House just what his priorities are? Are they
protecting necessary health programs for children? Or are they secretly creating
six-figure salary jobs for failed deputies at a quiet Crown corporation?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I can report to this member the priorities of this government.
This government is committed to creating a health care system that focuses on
patients, and that's why we've increased the budget by $1.1 billion. This
government is committed to creating a top-notch education system that focuses on
students, which is why we've increased the Education budget in the province of
British Columbia. And this government is dedicated to ensuring that we have the
kind of public services that create value for citizens across this province.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
J. Kwan:
Hospitals are closing. Long-term bed facilities are closing. Educational
programs are being cut. BCBC already has a fully staffed communications
department, and there are no postings — no postings — for senior positions
there. It's on the website — no postings.
But the
Premier had to find Irene Chanin a new job, maybe because she refused to
implement the political agenda the Premier is demanding for his communications
shop. At any rate, the Premier's office ordered BCBC to make room for her big
salary. To the Premier: how much severance would Ms. Chanin be entitled to if
the Premier hadn't found a cosy position for her, and can he advise us what
process was there to find Ms. Chanin her new taxpayer-funded job?
Hon. G.
Campbell: Ms. Chanin was hired by the government under a three-year
contract. She has been seconded to BCBC for the next two years as part of a
transition. There will be major changes in government communication, and those
will be announced in June, as I said during my estimates.
[1430]
NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS
AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS
Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. The B.C.
Medical Association is claiming that it is the lack of an adequate dispute
resolution mechanism that is forcing doctors to begin the withdrawal of health
care services. To the Minister of Health Services: why won't the government
agree to the BCMA's proposal for a dispute resolution system?
Hon. C.
Hansen: I think, first of all, the thing that motivates us in all of our
deliberations and actions around this area is how to put patients first in
British Columbia and meet their needs wherever they are in British Columbia.
That was certainly the motivation of the Premier six weeks ago today when he
signed a memorandum of understanding with the B.C. Medical Association that
actually provided for a framework to resolve the allocation of $392 million of
new money for physician compensation and to resolve it in a way that would
provide for those solutions without compromising patient care in the province.
One of the
issues that was agreed to that would be resolved as a result of that memorandum
of understanding was a dispute settlement mechanism. We put a proposal on the
table early on in those discussions, and the BCMA did not respond to it. They
did not signal that they wanted substantive discussion at the bargaining table
throughout these various weeks of discussion. Then for them to withdraw from
negotiations and say that the lack of success on that particular issue was the
reason, I find very hard to fathom.
When I see
doctors in this province threatening to put patient care in jeopardy because of
their inability to move forward in a meaningful way on negotiations around
dispute settlement mechanisms, I have a real problem with that.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has a supplementary question.
Johnston: Recently the provincial and federal governments agreed on a
dispute resolution mechanism for solving issues between the two levels of
government. Can the Minister of Health Services tell us if the government would
accept a similar dispute resolution mechanism between the province and the BCMA?
Hon. C.
Hansen: I certainly saw the telecast of the president of the BCMA commenting
favourably about the dispute settlement mechanism that is in place between the
federal government and the provincial governments with regard to
interpretation
of the Canada Health Act. We would certainly be willing to explore that as a
model. That could very well be the basis if that is something they're interested
in as a dispute settlement mechanism.
The point
is that we can't resolve these issues if there are not negotiations. The BCMA, I
believe, has an obligation to patients in British Columbia to get back to the
negotiating table today to resolve these outstanding issues.
CHILD CARE FUNDING
Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. As
the end of the school year approaches, many parents are planning for the
[ Page 3248 ]
children's after-school care next fall. This week the minister announced the
$10.1 million of transition funding for out-of-school care programs. To the
Minister of State for Women's Equality: what does this announcement mean for the
parents of children who are planning to be enrolled in these programs next fall?
Hon. L.
Stephens: This is very good news indeed, because our government is committed
to ensuring that school-age child care services are available to parents who
need them. I'm very pleased that this transitional grant of $10.1 million will
be available to 495 currently enrolled child care providers and approximately
17,000 children, beginning in July for the summer care and then in September for
the next school year. This funding will provide the stability and predictability
of quality child care for parents and their children across the province.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara has a supplementary question.
Anderson: The Minister of State for Women's Equality has committed to
increasing child care options for British Columbians and to direct funding to
those who need it most. Can the Minister of State for Women's Equality tell our
constituents how this announcement is going to facilitate a long-term child care
plan?
[1435]
Hon. L.
Stephens: This is a transitional grant, and it gives us the flexibility that
we need to develop a long-term child care plan that will be partnership-driven,
community-focused, fiscally sustainable and targeted to families who need it the
most.
This new
targeted system will reduce the administrative costs for providers. It will make
more efficient use of our limited provincial resources, and it will provide more
choices for parents and their children. In addition, it will deliver on our
new-era commitment and our promise to target families who need it the most and
to encourage the expansion of child care services in British Columbia.
LOBBYISTS' MEETINGS WITH CABINET MEMBERS
MacPhail: So far we've had that it's okay to lobby on behalf of friends,
it's okay to…. No jobs available at BCBC, but put a deputy minister in there.
Let's try another one for the Premier today.
Last week
we asked twice of the Attorney General if organizations represented by Bruce
Clark had been meeting with cabinet members. Two times the Attorney General
ducked the question.
This time
to the Premier: has Bruce Clark, a well-known and well-connected Liberal
insider, been arranging meetings for clients with ministers in this government?
Just a
simple question. Couldn't get it last week. Yes or no?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I have no idea.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. The member for Nelson-Creston
has the floor.
ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Suffredine: My question is for the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and
Women's Services. One of the government's new-era commitments was to make B.C. a
world leader in e-government. In my riding there are many rural communities and
businesses that could benefit from being able to access services from government
on line. Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services tell us
what progress he's made in fulfilling this commitment?
Hon. G.
Abbott: This government did, in the last campaign, make some very ambitious
commitments around leading in e-government and bridging the digital divide. I am
delighted to advise the member and the House today that we've taken a big step
in that direction with the installation of community access terminals in all 58
of the government agent's offices around British Columbia.
What this
will allow us to do in both a cost-effective and, I think, a very effective way
for all British Columbians — whether they're from a rural community or an
urban community — is to, in a very immediate way, access all of the government
services and programs that are available to them. I think this is an important
step on the way to effective leadership in e-government across British Columbia
and around the world.
[End
of question period.]
Point of Order
(Speaker's Ruling)
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, on May 2 the Leader of the Opposition rose on a point
of order relating to privileges of members and reports of committees funded out
of the Legislative Assembly budget. She later specifically stated that she was
raising a point of order, not a point of privilege.
The gist of
the member's question was whether the stipend paid pursuant to
section 8 of the
Legislative Allowances and Pension Act to the chairman of the government caucus
offshore oil and gas committee made the committee subject to parliamentary
privileges insofar as that funding comes out of the vote 1 general budget rather
than the Liberal caucus global budget.
Select
standing and special committees are a subsidiary component of the Legislative
Assembly. They are formed of members from all parties chosen by the Special
Committee of Selection, instructed by order of
[ Page 3249 ]
the House, and report to the House in accordance with those instructions.
Both parliamentary law and the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act apply to
legislative committees.
On the
other hand, caucus committees are formed by a party caucus from its members and
are subject only to its control. They have no official status in the House, do
not report to the House and play a role only within the party caucus.
The payment
of a stipend to the chairman of a caucus committee, pursuant to
section 8 of the
Legislative Allowances and Pension Act, does not transform that committee into a
House committee comparable to a select standing or special committee.
Therefore,
the short answer to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition is in
the negative.
[1440]
Petitions
Nettleton: I wish to present a petition, if I may, from 148 students and
parents from the Gladstone School in Prince George. They're opposed to the
proposed closure of their school there.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M.
de Jong: I call Committee of the Whole. For the information of all members,
we are debating at committee stage Bill 34.
Committee of the Whole House
SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
(continued)
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 34; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 2:44 p.m.
section
32 (continued) .
MacPhail: We're on
section 32, which is the incorporation of parts of the
Company Act into the School Act.
[1445]
colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was pursuing issues around the
engagement of parts of the executive of a school board — with one hat — on
pursuing matters under this section, the Company Act, which may fail, and how
one can guarantee the separation of the risk and potential failure of a matter
pursued under the Company Act so that it doesn't impede or harm program delivery
or assets of the school board.
colleague and I were looking for examples of situations that perhaps required
this kind of legislation in order for us to assess exactly what the intent of
this legislation is. Here's why. There is a range of fundraising and commercial
activities in which school boards engage now — a full range — both within
the province and outside of the province. None have been, as far as I know,
threatened with any legal action or, in any way, where there's been a mixture of
perhaps liability of a failed commercial action imposing on school programs.
We're trying to understand the necessity of this. That's all.
Hon. C.
Clark: As I said before, school districts have asked us for this
legislation. In fact, they asked previous governments and previous, previous,
previous governments for legislation like this that would achieve this purpose.
Clearly, they are concerned about whether or not the activities they're engaging
in would open themselves up to any kind of liability. They asked for this change
in legislation. We agreed with them that we wanted to ensure that taxpayers'
assets are protected and that schools and those assets we've invested so much in
are protected.
At the same
time, we certainly want to encourage school districts to go out and engage in
entrepreneurial activity where it's appropriate. Particularly, we've talked a
lot about school districts going and exporting our intellectual capital in the
Far East. There are certainly some opportunities there to bring some money home
for B.C. kids, and this legislation, I think, not only offers them the ability
to protect themselves but also sends them a very clear message that we want to
encourage them to undertake some of these activities.
MacPhail: How does one distinguish when the secretary-treasurer of a school
board is wearing a hat as a director under the Company Act or as
secretary-treasurer of the school board?
Hon. C.
Clark: Certainly, it depends on where the member is sitting.
MacPhail: What's the legal protection against pursuit of duties with wearing
one hat or the other?
Hon. C.
Clark: Perhaps the member would clarify her question.
MacPhail: As I recall the debate from this morning, the minister pointed out
that the secretary-treasurer would be sitting as a director under the Company
Act. Is that correct?
Hon. C.
Clark: Yeah, if the member takes a moment to have a look at the amendments
we've proposed, in the act it very clearly says that it can be the
secretary-treasurer or it can be a trustee of the board.
[1450]
MacPhail: Yes. What I was saying was that a secretary-treasurer is an
employee of the school board with specific fiduciary responsibilities for the
delivery of programs. At the same time, he or she can, by the legislation, be a
director pursuant to the Company Act if the school board incorporates itself.
The minister has said that this
section is needed to prevent the school board
from assuming liability for any actions — I as-
[ Page 3250 ]
sume fundraising actions — that will now be taken over by an incorporation,
pursuant to the Company Act, where the secretary-treasurer or a trustee can have
a foot in both places.
Where's the
firewall to prevent…? Is there some sort of limited liability that's being
placed upon the individual who sits both as a trustee or secretary-treasurer and
as a director of the company? The whole pursuit of this, I assume, is to not
allow public assets to be used for risk in the pursuit of a commercial venture.
Hon. C.
Clark: The reason I made my last point is because the member, in her
question, indicated that she thought the legislation required a
secretary-treasurer to be a member of the board. I wanted to just draw her
attention to the fact that the legislation doesn't actually say that. It says
that the secretary-treasurer may be a member of the board. I suspect the member
is getting to a point here, and it will help me understand her question if she
just gets to the point and we can have a discussion about the subject she's
obviously trying to pursue here.
MacPhail: I did. What part of the question didn't the minister understand?
We're trying to figure out the necessity of incorporating the Company Act into a
school act that deals with public education. The minister has said it's to
pursue commercial and entrepreneurial activity that is separate and apart from
putting at risk or imposing any liability — those were her words — on the
school board. We're talking about limiting liability, and yet we have a
situation by the legislation that permits a secretary-treasurer — in fact,
names a secretary-treasurer and names a school trustee — to be a director of
the company that I gather will be pursuing commercial or entrepreneurial
activity for which the minister doesn't want to have their risk imposed on the
school board. I'm asking what hat it is that…. Let's say it's either a school
trustee or the secretary-treasurer. One is an employee; the other is an elected
official. How does one distinguish what hat that person is wearing in order to
impose limited liability?
Hon. C.
Clark: They have different powers. When the individual is acting for the
board, they're acting for the board, and when they're acting for the company,
they're acting for the company. It's as simple as that.
[1455]
Hawes: I've been listening to this for quite a while. Just for my own
clarification, if I could ask the minister, perhaps just with an example…. The
district of Mission owns a development corporation. The sole shareholder is the
district of Mission. The board of directors are the mayor and the council and
the administrator. The administrator is the secretary-treasurer. That company
does business in anything from land development work…. It also does some
mortgage lending. It may go into joint venture partnerships. It can do all kinds
of things that are kind of off the balance sheet, if you will, of the
municipality, although it is later incorporated into the balance sheet of the
municipality. Yet it does limit risk to the general taxpayer from the ventures
that the development corporation may be engaged in.
Are we
talking about a similar type of thing here?
Hon. C.
Clark: Indeed, we are. It's a very similar thing. I think, as the member has
illustrated, it's a fairly common thing at the level of local government. The
purpose, of course, is to do what his municipality has done, which is to protect
the public assets from any liability. It's a fairly commonly understood and
commonly engaged-in activity.
I would add
this, of course, as well. This is something that school districts have been
asking for, for a long time. They recognize the need for it. I think they're
delighted that they finally have a government in Victoria that agrees with them
and recognizes that they're right.
Hawes: Over the years the development corporation in Mission has been
tremendously successful, has generated a great deal of profit that has come back
into the municipality as its sole shareholder.
I'm
assuming, then, that the minister is hopeful and all of the school boards that
asked for this are hopeful that the same thing is going to happen here. Would
that be wrong?
Hon. C.
Clark: The purpose of this is to allow school boards, in a way that protects
them and the public assets from liability, to go out and engage in
entrepreneurial activities that will earn money for our kids in our schools.
That means if they go and start a school in China and they're able to earn some
money from tuition for those students, they can bring that home to their local
school district and put it in classrooms here. Or they can recruit students from
overseas to be a part of our classrooms here where they would pay tuition in our
classrooms. It's something that is being done now but certainly something that
school districts want more encouragement for and more protection for when
they're doing it.
There's
nothing wrong with us exporting our intellectual capital. We have invested a
huge amount in our curriculum in British Columbia. We should be maximizing that
value. We should be bringing that value home for students in British Columbia's
schools.
J. Kwan:
In municipalities and having been a city councillor, I have some sense of what
the minister is talking about in terms of the municipality setting up a company
or a corporation. In those instances, the municipalities utilize municipal
staff, the staff that's available to them within the municipality.
In this
instance, is it anticipated that the school board will utilize school board
staff to create these entrepreneurial ventures?
Hon. C.
Clark: If they do, it would be outside the terms of their employment with
the school board.
[ Page 3251 ]
J. Kwan:
Is the minister saying they're not allowed to do that? If they do, what happens?
Hon. C.
Clark: They would certainly be allowed, but again, it would be outside of
their responsibilities to the school board.
J. Kwan:
If the school boards are allowed to utilize resources that ought to be dedicated
to providing educational support to the school system here, if these school
trustees end up utilizing staff to do work in creating revenue for the school
board, does that not take away the resources in the school system?
Hon. C.
Clark: Again, they may use those staff. Again, it would be outside the terms
of their employment with the school district. We fully expect that school
districts will continue to stick to their knitting. They'll focus on the core
business that they have, and that's educating B.C.'s children. To the extent
that they're able to maximize other opportunities and bring those opportunities
home for B.C. kids, we'd like to encourage them to do so.
[1500]
J. Kwan:
If the school board then utilizes staff to do this work, would they have to
engage in a separate contract with those staff? That is to say, if staff are
being asked to develop business ventures to make money as opposed to putting
their time and effort into the educational programs necessary for the students
in B.C., and when that time is diverted away, then one would assume that the
individual is not doing his or her job.
The only
way for the school board to utilize staff to engage in developing business
ventures to make money for the school board would be that they would have to
contract them out under a separate contract. It would not be within the terms of
the employment they'd been hired to do. That's the only way they could actually
engage in those kinds of business venture activities.
Hon. C.
Clark: As I said, they may engage to work for the company. That would be
outside the terms of their agreement with the school board. They may decide to
work for the company, but again, it would be separate.
J. Kwan:
The existing situation is such that schools are already engaging in fundraising
activities. They already sell the B.C. curriculum to other countries. They
already do a lot of the things the minister suggests in the government's press
release in trying to create additional dollars for the school system, without
the incorporation.
With the
incorporation, the minister is saying staff within the school boards must not be
diverted from their jobs in developing and working on the educational issues for
the students in B.C., and when staff are asked to do that work, they must do it
outside of the time and the terms of employment they now have with the school
boards. That means if an existing staff member is to engage in that work, he or
she must engage in some sort of different contract with the school board in
order to do the work.
Who does
the minister think, then, the school board will have working on developing these
entrepreneurial activities if they're not to rely on their staff? Who will be
doing that work, and where will they get the money to hire the staff to do that
work?
Hon. C.
Clark: It could be whole range of people. They could decide on existing
staff, or existing staff could decide they would like to devote part of their
time to doing that. There could be new employees. We've heard from a number of
former superintendents across the province who just have a huge appetite to get
involved in this, so they would certainly be a source of potential support for
the companies the districts would form.
Sort of in
answer to the comments the member prefaced her question with, she said,
"Why are we doing this again?" and has asked that question again. The
answer to that, as I'll reiterate, is because school districts have told us that
yes, they are engaging in some of these activities, but they're nervous about
it.
Frankly, so
is the ministry — and with good reason. We are an increasingly litigious
society, and none of us at the provincial level or at the district level wants
to put taxpayers' assets at risk. That's why school districts have asked us for
this change, and that's why we fulfilled the request.
J. Kwan:
Where would the funding come from for the new employees?
Hon. C.
Clark: I think I know where the member is going here, so perhaps I could
just cut to the chase and answer the question. The company that's formed by a
school district may not use money from the grant that is granted to them by the
province to support their activities. Just to make sure she knows, these
employees we're talking about will be employees of that company, and the money
the company would pay them with cannot be a grant from the provincial
government.
[1505]
J. Kwan:
Existing staff, the minister says, who've been hired by money from the
provincial government cannot be putting their time towards any of the work in
relation to the incorporation of the company or the work that has arisen from
the incorporation of the company?
Hon. C.
Clark: Not time that they're paid for by the school board. It would be
either on their own time, or they would be remunerated for that portion of their
time by the company.
J. Kwan:
The revenues that are generated from these companies — would the minister have
any direc-
[ Page 3252 ]
tion with respect to how those moneys would be spent? Or is it entirely up to
the board?
Hon. C.
Clark: It's up to the board.
J. Kwan:
Earlier, before we broke for lunch, I asked a question about risk — wherein if
these business ventures should fail, who would be responsible or liable for the
failed ventures? The minister said that it would be the company.
What about
a case where the company has representatives as directors who are trustees or
the secretary-treasurer on the board, as is allowed in the act? What if the
venture fails and the company has no ability to absorb the costs of the failed
venture? Who will then be responsible?
Hon. C.
Clark: This is consistent with the laws of British Columbia and with the
Company Act. Any liability would be limited to the company.
J. Kwan:
Could the incorporation of such companies or the work of the school boards
decide to privatize schools in British Columbia? Would they be able to do that?
Hon. C.
Clark: Schools are a public asset, and the answer is no.
Section 32
approved.
section
J. Kwan:
Section 33 speaks to the acquisition and disposal of land. The original act
allows the school boards to dispose of land with the approval of the minister.
The amendment means that now the board can dispose of land without seeking the
approval of the minister.
School
boards are facing unprecedented financial hardship, and the disposal of land and
school buildings may be looked at as a quick way of generating much-needed
funding dollars. What will the minister do to ensure that the disposal of school
assets considers the long-term needs of schools and that boards will not be
forced to dispose of valuable and much-needed assets simply to deal with the
short-term need to balance budgets?
[1510]
Hon. C.
Clark: School districts aren't able to take money from their capital
account, from the sale of their capital assets, and use it for operating. That's
a longstanding rule that the government imposed on school districts, and we
aren't anticipating changing that.
J. Kwan:
Well, then, the disposal of assets. What kind of assets is the minister
anticipating that school boards are entitled to dispose of?
Hon. C.
Clark: It could be a whole host of things. It could be a maintenance yard;
it could be the school board office, if they decide to move. It could be a whole
host of different kinds of assets, but again, the school district is required to
put that back in their capital account. It must be spent on capital; it cannot
be spent supporting the operating costs of the school district.
J. Kwan:
On the issue of capital, the minister is not providing much-needed funding to
upgrade schools for any number of things. I know that in my own community, there
are times when there are issues around window leaks. When it rains, it pours not
only outside but inside. When the capital funding dollars are not forthcoming
from the minister to fix the school buildings, would disposal of these assets
and the dollars be utilized for fixing up repairs and maintenance for schools?
Hon. C.
Clark: As has long been the case, school districts can…. You know, repairs
are considered part of capital spending. Certainly, though, we do provide money
to school districts for maintenance. We hear from school districts fairly
frequently that they think that money is reasonably adequate.
J. Kwan:
Even the minister herself had formerly complained about how the funding is
insufficient, especially for upgrading schools for earthquake preparedness
purposes, as an example. The former government initiated the process in terms of
putting moneys into capital upgrades in that area. Children, teachers and
parents continue to lobby for additional dollars in these areas. Would a school
board be able to divert or sell assets to fix their schools to upgrade for the
purposes of, let's say, earthquake preparedness?
Hon. C.
Clark: As I said, the rules around this haven't changed.
J. Kwan:
It was a first when the minister earlier said that she would answer the question
directly. Unfortunately, that was the first and only time so far in the debate
on Bill 34. Nonetheless, I assume that the answer is yes. Actually, I get that
from the staff sitting behind the minister, who is nodding his head. I seem to
be able to get more information that way rather than from the minister. I
assume, then, that the answer is yes, they're able to do that.
Would the
school boards be able to dispose of their assets in such a way that they would
take that money and invest it in these corporations that we earlier discussed?
Hon. C.
Clark: As I said, it has to go to the capital account.
[1515]
J. Kwan:
So the disposal of the assets cannot be utilized for the purposes of business
ventures of any shape or form. Why is the minister deciding now that the
approval for the disposal of the assets should not come to the minister for
approval?
Hon. C.
Clark: We've said all along that school districts should have autonomy to
make decisions that
[ Page 3253 ]
reflect their local communities' needs and local priorities. This is a
demonstration of that. We trust that school boards will make the right decisions
about disposing of capital assets. They aren't little kids that require approval
from mom and dad every time they turn around. School districts are locally
elected. They are responsible. They are empowered by law to make decisions. We
believe that they are entirely capable of making these decisions.
J. Kwan:
How much asset does the minister think the school boards have in British
Columbia?
Hon. C.
Clark: Well, it's a ballpark, but there's about $8.5 billion of buildings
and land in school districts' asset base.
J. Kwan:
Would the minister have this information broken down on a
school-board-by-school-board basis?
Hon. C.
Clark: Yeah, I could get that for her. I'm not going to go through the list
of 1,750 schools here today, but I could certainly get that for her.
J. Kwan:
Yes, I would appreciate that information: the assets that school boards own,
broken down school board by school board, district by district; what those
assets are and the anticipated value of those assets.
Sections 33
and 34 approved.
section
MacPhail: Could the minister explain the reason for the change here, please?
Hon. C.
Clark: We want to make sure that school districts share in the proceeds of
the sale of an asset proportionate to their original investment. We think that's
only fair.
MacPhail: Yes. I'm asking for what the change is. Can the minister explain
the way it was before and what the change is now, please, for the record?
Hon. C.
Clark: The current School Act, I'm advised, is unclear about the requirement
to share in the proceeds of a sale from capital assets. The amendment to the
legislation clarifies that.
MacPhail: I'm curious to know what change there will be in practice as a
result of this legislation. I'm just trying to figure out what the intent is
here. Is the new amendment merely reflecting current practice, or will there be
a change in practice as a result of this new legislation?
[1520]
Hon. C.
Clark: Yeah, this is a change in practice for school districts. Previously,
if the province had any share in contributing to or supporting the purchase of
an asset, if that asset was disposed of, all of the money — no matter what the
province's share — would go into the capital reserve. Now the portion of the
proceeds that's proportionate to the district's contribution can go into their
local capital reserve, over which they have control.
MacPhail: I assume this matter has been discussed with the school trustees.
Has there been any ballpark value placed on what this would mean for school
boards?
Hon. C.
Clark: No, I can't give the member a ballpark on it, but we have talked to
school districts who have told us they are pleased with this change.
MacPhail: Well, I'm curious as to when those discussions took place. Perhaps
they took place after the annual general meeting of the School Trustees
Association.
There are
two resolutions on record from the annual general meeting of the School Trustees
Association — resolutions 39 and 40 — that were passed. One is that the B.C.
School Trustees Association "request the Minister of Education to allow
school districts to retain for local capital purposes the proceeds from the sale
of district school buildings and/or sites." Perhaps she could address that
one in the context of this legislation.
Hon. C.
Clark: Yeah, that is essentially what we're doing, except that rather than
100 percent of the money going into the local capital reserve, the amount that
is proportionate to the contribution of the district originally in purchasing
the asset will go to a local capital reserve.
MacPhail: That's why I was asking what the ballpark figure would be for
school boards. I had assumed that the annual general meeting would have been
aware of the legislative implications when they passed this resolution. I'm
trying to figure out why there's still a pursuit of this resolution by the
School Trustees Association.
If indeed
in the past there was a shared purchase of an asset and then that asset was sold
and 100 percent went into the provincial coffers, have the school trustees
calculated what, in terms of lost opportunity cost and lost revenue, that's
meant for them? Let me ask that question first.
Hon. C.
Clark: Let me correct the member. The portion that is proportionate to the
provincial investment in the purchase of the property doesn't go into provincial
coffers. It goes into the capital reserve. It stays in the district in their
capital account, but that's controlled by the province. The difference between
the capital reserve and the local capital reserve is that the local capital
reserve is something over which the local school district has control.
Did school
districts calculate how much this would mean in lost opportunity for them? I
don't have an an-
[ Page 3254 ]
swer to that. What were they thinking when they put forward the resolution?
I'll quote my husband and tell the member that I am not psychic, so I don't know
what they were thinking when they did it.
MacPhail: Sorry. I thought the minister, the last time we discussed this
legislation, was on the verge of meeting again with the School Trustees
Association. I had asked that question on several other matters about issues
that arose out of their annual general meeting. I just assumed that that meeting
had taken place and that those matters had been explored.
I'm
curious, then. Let me read the next resolution passed by the AGM and see whether
that's been discussed: "That BCSTA urge the Minister of Education to allow
school boards to use the proceeds from assets originally purchased through local
capital funds for operating or capital purposes, as they see fit."
[1525]
Again, can
the minister suggest what discussions, if any, have taken place? Is it her view
that the legislative changes meet that request?
Hon. C.
Clark: No, it doesn't. We, as I said, will not allow school districts to use
money from their capital account for operating. That's just not something we're
contemplating. If the BCSTA would like to have a discussion about that, I'm
happy to have a discussion with them about it. Although, I can tell the member
now what my answer will be to that request. It will be no.
MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out where it is that the line of autonomy is
drawn. School boards are trying to figure out ways to meet their needs, and the
government seems to be claiming that this is putting more money in the hands of
school boards through sharing of sale of assets. Yet the portion of the sale of
assets that was originally funded by the local school board and is being
returned to them is still having restrictions drawn around it by the Minister of
Education. Is that the understanding?
Hon. C.
Clark: As I said, we have granted school districts an unprecedented amount
of autonomy in their ability to manage their own affairs. They are, I think,
grateful for that ability. But we are not, at this stage, contemplating
extending that autonomy to allow them to spend money from their capital budgets
on operating.
MacPhail: When is the minister meeting with the School Trustees Association
to discuss these issues?
Hon. C.
Clark: We have not set a date, but of course, I'm always delighted to meet
with the BCSTA. It's something I do very frequently. I'm in regular contact with
Gordon Comeau, their president. We're here to help in the ministry, so I'm
always delighted to meet with them.
MacPhail: I'm sorry; I must have misunderstood the minister last time. She
said that she was about to meet with the School Trustees Association to discuss
these resolutions.
In terms of
the flexibility given to boards to do as they see best for meeting the increased
pressures on their budgets, where is the line drawn? Is it simply that they've
got flexibility within the frozen grant to them? Is that what it is? And then
beyond that, it's under the minister's control about what they can do?
Hon. C.
Clark: First, the grants to school districts have not been frozen. Many of
them have actually seen increases in their budget this year. They are able to
look in their operating budget and move money around within that budget. We've
been pretty clear about that. That's a new flexibility that they haven't had
before, and I think they're delighted about it.
MacPhail: Thank you to my colleague. Yes, we were under the impression that
the minister did say last time that she had received the request to meet and was
going to meet as soon as possible. So that's why I was under, I guess, the
misapprehension that she was actually going to meet.
Mr. Chair,
these are matters that I assume the School Trustees Association will be looking
for flexibility around in order to meet the cost pressures that are ever
mounting with a…. Well, I guess we had news today that the Minister of State
for Women's Equality had redone her budget and had transition funding. It would
be nice to have the redone budget in an entire package across the board. We've
got courthouses changing. We've got welfare changes. Gosh, we've got legal aid
changes. We've got physician changes. It would be nice to know exactly what the
budgets are of this government.
[1530]
certainly know, at least to date, that all of the new money for increased MSP
premiums and cost pressures that the boards have had will not continue next
year, so I would assume that next year, the second of a three-year budget that's
been tabled with the school boards, will be frozen. It will be interesting to
know how the school boards will have increased flexibility in order to meet the
ever-mounting cost pressures. I expect school trustees from around the province
will be looking exactly toward those asset sales for increased flexibility.
Section 35
approved.
section
J. Kwan:
This
section deals with the provincial funding for the boards. My colleague and
I have received 679 letters from Kootenay parents. The 679 letters are from
concerned parents of children in the Kootenay region, and they have sent the
letters to the Premier and to the Minister of Education outlining their concerns
for the education system in B.C.
The Beaver
Valley Middle School PAC sent copies of these letters to us so that we, too,
would be aware of
[ Page 3255 ]
the concerns and to ensure that the minister is aware of the concerns. What
I'd like to do, Mr. Chair, is read the letter into the record. The letter reads
as follows:
"Dear Sir or Madam:
am deeply concerned about the devastating and unprecedented budget cuts that
many of British Columbia's schools are facing over the next three years.
Some school districts face drastic service cuts, and others are being forced
to close schools.
"Services,
programs and resources for our children have already been subjected to
successive cuts over the last decade. These new budget cuts will jeopardize
the very future of public education. Our children will lose schools,
teachers, programs and services that are critical to their support and
achievement. All students will suffer, and more will be put at grave risk.
"We're
asking you to honour your government's promise to protect education and make
it a priority and to not cut education funding. We're asking you to fund at
the full amount the teachers' salaries and benefit costs that you
legislated. By requiring school boards to pay for them, you're effectively
making devastating cuts.
"Restore
the millions of dollars that many districts have lost because of your new
funding system. Education is the best investment we can make in our
province's future. If we don't invest in our children today, we'll all pay
more tomorrow. Our children desperately need your help.
"Thank
you."
These are
the letters we have received — 679 of them in total.
First, let
me just ask if I could seek leave to table these letters in the form of a
petition.
Leave
granted.
Petitions
J. Kwan:
Those are the 679 letters from concerned parents from the Kootenay region, and
I've read their letter into the record with respect to where their concerns lie.
Debate Continued
J. Kwan:
Section 106.2 requires the minister to establish and announce the amount of
provincial funding to be paid to boards in the next fiscal year by February 1.
However, there is no mention of what formula will be used to make this
determination. What formula will the minister be using to determine what amounts
are available for provincial funding for education?
[1535]
Hon. C.
Clark: We announced the formula on March 1. We informed boards of that. We
spent a fair amount of time with them doing that. I think we spent a fair amount
of time having a discussion about this in the estimates process in the other
chamber as well. That formula is a three-year formula.
J. Kwan:
Why doesn't
section 106.2 of the bill include a description of the formula that
is to be used to determine provincial funding available for education?
Hon. C.
Clark: The formula, according to this legislation, must be announced by
March 15 every year. We've committed to having this current formula in place for
three years, which is the most stability that districts have had in a long time.
Previous
governments have changed the formula every year, and school districts were
working in a very chaotic and unpredictable atmosphere as a result. This funding
formula is in place for three years, and school districts know that it will be
stable, and they will know what to be able to expect.
J. Kwan:
The minister suggests that in previous years the education system has been in
chaos and operating under a chaotic system.
Here we
have a new government with a new minister with her new funding formula, and
school boards…
An Hon.
Member: More good news.
J. Kwan:
…across British Columbia are finding that educational programs are being cut.
The member for Peace River North is suggesting that this is more good news. It
is stunning. I have never heard from an MLA who would say that educational
program cuts for their constituents and for the students in their own community
is good news.
Closures of
schools are taking place across British Columbia. Students are going to be left
in a situation where classrooms are going to be more crowded with less attention
from the teachers. Special needs assistants, many of them, are going to be
eliminated from the school system. Teacher-librarians are being taken out of the
school system. Speech pathologists, who teach children so that they can break
through the challenge they face and have an opportunity to advance as everybody
else who doesn't face those challenges…. Their funding is being cut.
Multicultural outreach workers, who assist students so that they can stay in the
school system for a longer period of time, are being cut.
All of
those things and much more are under pressure. Those programs are being cut.
Here we have the member for Peace River North saying: "More good
news." That is absolutely stunning. Maybe he hasn't gone out to talk to the
parents to find out what the parents have to say about the cuts in the education
system.
What we
have over the next three years is reductions in the education area because of
the pressures that are there in the education system, which are not being funded
by this government. As a result of that….
I just read
into the record some 697 letters that had been sent from the Kootenay region
from parents who are concerned about these cuts. The funding formula does not
address their concern. It does not address their concern.
[ Page 3256 ]
It is
essential that everyone knows how the amount of funding is established, how it
varies from previous years, what it might be in the future and in what context
it is understood. To leave this out, quite frankly, is contrary to the notion of
predictability and stability and transparency. So far the government has not met
those objectives.
In the act,
section 106.3 is there for determining the final amount given to school boards,
but it is based upon the available amount that the minister determines. Will the
minister amend the preliminary amount allocated for provincial funding in order
to ensure that non-district students are included in the funding allocation
numbers for each district?
Hon. C.
Clark: We've announced the formula. It will be stable for the next three
years. That's certainly an improvement on the way we've done education funding
in the past. The legislation sets out March 15 as the date, and school districts
had more time this year than they have had in many, many previous years to do
their planning.
[1540]
anticipate that this change will mean that school districts have a much more
stable environment in which to work. They have an ability to plan for the
future. That's certainly going to improve the way that our education system
operates.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It's good to join the debate. The member earlier — in a remark I
made about more good news in relationship to a new government, a new era and
stable funding for education — moved that into my inferring that I agreed with
cuts that were happening and all those kinds of things which she lives in that
small world about. It is not uncommon for that member to spread those kinds of
rumours. They are rumours; they are fearmongering; they're all kinds of garbage.
That is not untypical of that member. We've seen her do it time and time again.
I would
like to ask the Minister of Education: could she please confirm that school
funding this year has stayed the same and, in fact, has increased? I think my
school district in Peace River North received a little bit of extra money this
year on top of an increase from last year. I would just like the Minister of
Education to again tell us about some of that good news that's happened in
British Columbia since we finally got rid of those socialists.
Hon. C.
Clark: I would like to thank the member for his question. What a good one it
was. Indeed, as I've said a number of times in debates — perhaps I haven't
said it this afternoon; I appreciate being reminded — not only have we
protected the education budget in British Columbia, but we've increased it by
$20 million. That is in the context of the largest governmentwide restructuring
in British Columbia's history. Every other government in this country has
undertaken a governmentwide restructuring. We're the last people to get onto
this, but we are amongst the first to do a governmentwide restructuring and
protect education funding.
When you
look across the country and you look at those restructurings that other
provinces have done, you will see that they took an equal amount out of
education and an equal amount out of health care to what they did in every other
ministry. We chose not to do that. We chose a different way because we want to
put students first, and education is at the top of our priority list. That's why
we've increased education funding this year. We want to make sure that we have
and continue to have a top-notch education system not just for this year but for
every year to come.
MacPhail: You know, it is very disappointing that this government stands up,
after they've had repeated petitions that they've had to table…. Liberal MLAs
stand up here at the end of question period and table petitions with thousands
of signatures on them. The way they describe it is "people commenting on
education funding." Maybe the fact that they can convince themselves that
that's what the petition is, is good news for this government. They pound their
tables, and we have questions about: "Did you cut funding, or did you
increase the budget?" Literally thousands of parents have put their names
to petitions that have had to be tabled by backbench MLAs and perhaps even some
cabinet ministers — parents signing, saying: "We are deeply concerned
about the cuts resulting from education funding."
Why? Maybe
this is why the deficit is $4.4 billion: because this government doesn't
actually understand that you have funding and you have expenditures, and when
the two don't match, it works out to a deficit. You know what? That's why we've
got the largest deficit, under this government, ever in the history of B.C., and
we have funding cuts in health and education. That's why.
[1545]
Here we
have the largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia after receiving
two balanced budgets and having the largest surplus handed over to this
government. Here we have school boards in every single jurisdiction save one
that are having to make cuts in programs, and the government cabinet member
stands up and says: "Could you tell me whether you increased funding or
not?"
Here's the
real question. Here's the real question that maybe the Minister of Energy simply
hasn't been paying attention to. After you, Minister of Education, imposed a
teachers' settlement worth $300 million, after you imposed MSP premium increases
of over $20 million and after you moved to a funding formula that doesn't
protect schools in rural areas, did you protect funding? That's the real
question.
Of course
the backbenchers never ask that, and in fact, the cabinet ministers never ask
that question either, because the answer to that would be: "No, I didn't
give the money." The Minister of Education would have to say: "No, in
fact, I imposed a teachers' settlement, and I didn't fund it. You're right; my
government did increase MSP premiums, and no, I'm not funding that. No, that's
true. We changed the system so no
[ Page 3257 ]
longer are rural schools protected." That's why about 60 of them are
closing for the very first time — an unprecedented number of them closing in
the history of British Columbia.
If the
trained seals pounding their desks wanted to ask that question, the Minister of
Education would have to stand up and say: "No, I haven't funded those
pressures. In fact, yes, there will be program cuts in every school district
save one." In fact, the Minister of Management Services probably isn't
standing up asking the question that the Minister of Energy and Mines does,
because his school district is actually contemplating — I hope they've stepped
back from this — massive school closures.
The members
from the Kootenays probably should have been tabling this letter from Kootenay
parents that the Minister of Energy and Mines gets up and mocks. It isn't my
colleague suggesting on her own that somehow there were cuts. It's 600 parents
from one district worried sick about the cuts. Was that…?
Interjection.
MacPhail: The Minister of Energy and Mines accuses the parents of telling a
lie.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I'm telling you you're telling a lie.
MacPhail: He says it's untrue.
The
Chair: Order, members.
MacPhail: The Minister of Energy and Mines says to these parents that it's
untrue. Well, then I guess all the government has to do is write back to every
single one of these parents in the Kootenays and say: "You've got it wrong.
There won't be funding cuts. You've got it wrong." That's all that has to
happen. Just stand up…. Instead of self-congratulatory bafflegab about,
"Has funding been increased? Why, yes, it has," why doesn't this
government come clean and say exactly what the funding levels mean for parents,
students and communities in this province?
Maybe the
Minister of Management Services would like to stand up and contribute to what it
says. Maybe the member for Yale-Lillooet would like to stand up and say what it
means. I guess maybe any member who's present here could stand up. The Burnaby
MLAs — let them stand up. The member for Burquitlam could stand up and say
what funding by this government for individual school boards may mean.
[1550]
At least
this government should show respect for the very parents that they seem to want
to be so incorporated into the system, for the over 600 parents from one
district who write in and say: "We are deeply concerned about the
devastating and unprecedented budget cuts that many of British Columbia's
schools are facing over the next three years." You know what? Why don't we
just have the minister stand up here and say, the way she did to the Minister
Energy and Mines, "Don't worry," to these parents, to the Beaver
Valley Middle School PAC? This is a parent advisory committee, the new heart and
soul of this government's target audience. Say exactly why they shouldn't be
concerned and why they're telling something that isn't the truth, as the
Minister of Energy and Mines accuses them.
Hon. C.
Clark: The member is intentionally, I believe, mischaracterizing what the
Minister of Energy and Mines said. Certainly, he did not attack the parents who
wrote letters. That is just an absolute mischaracterization of what he said.
I should
say this too. I want to thank the member for her rant, for her lesson in
mathematics, in budgeting, in good fiscal management. Thanks a lot.
Perhaps she
should have given that rant to some of her colleagues over the last decade as
they were driving British Columbia into the deepest hole we've been in. Perhaps
she should have given that rant to all the investors that have fled this
province and taken their money and those jobs with them.
Perhaps she
should have given that rant to all the families who've been forced to leave, all
the grandchildren who can no longer spend time with their grandparents because
there aren't futures for them in their local communities anymore.
Perhaps she
could have given that rant when she was standing in front of the mirror when she
was Minister of Finance for the worst government in British Columbia's history,
a government that over a decade put British Columbia at the bottom of the list
in this country, the bottom of the list in private sector investment, the bottom
of the list in job growth, the bottom of the list by almost every measure in
this country.
We are
dedicated to turning that around. This last budget is the beginning of that. We
have been in a dark tunnel in British Columbia for a long time. It was this
member and her government that put us there.
We saw with
the last budget a little pinprick of light for the very first time at the end of
that tunnel. We are going to keep rushing toward that light until we are out in
the full light of day finally, so that we have a government in British Columbia
that actually represents the people and that believes in local communities, in
the forest industry, in the mining industry, in the tourism industry, and is
prepared to put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we put British
Columbians finally back to work.
The
Chair: I just want to remind members….
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order, please. Order, please.
I just want
to remind both sides of the House, please, to confine our remarks to
section 36.
J. Kwan:
Section 36 relates to the funding formula and the funding formula that school
boards get over the next three years.
[ Page 3258 ]
We hear
from the minister, ranting about how great a job she's doing in making sure that
school boards cut education programs as a result of the lack of funding from
this government in the area of education. The minister is full of rhetoric. The
rhetoric extends not just from this minister but to every single Liberal MLA,
back bench or front bench.
We heard
from the Minister of Energy and Mines, praising the government on the cuts in
education programs. We heard from the Minister of State for Women's Equality,
praising the government on the cuts in education programs. We heard the same
thing from the Minister of Management Services, praising the cuts. He has
forgotten…. Oh, he's a full minister, but you can't tell the difference. I
mean, God, there's so many of them. You don't know what they actually really do
other than to cut programs for British Columbians who are in greatest need.
You have
the Minister of Management Services. He must not be home very often, because
close to 700 concerned parents from his own community have sent in a petition
calling on the government to fully fund and support the teachers' salaries and
benefits that were legislated by this government, calling on the government to
restore the millions of dollars that many districts have lost because of the new
funding formula, which we're discussing under
section 36 today.
[1555]
That's not
all. That's only from one school district for a short period of time. They have
gathered this many signatures. In my own community in Vancouver there were over
12,000 letters sent to the minister from Save Our Schools. That was a host of
people, and the minister keeps on wanting to minimize and mock that group as
though they're not relevant, as though somehow their voice has no role to play.
It is
absolutely stunning. Let me educate the minister just a little bit about who
Save Our Schools are.
"Save
Our Schools was launched in Vancouver in early April by a diverse group of
parents who were concerned that proposed education cuts would hurt all
children and jeopardize our province's public education system. This
movement began as a grass-roots response to across-the-board education cuts
proposed by the Vancouver school board, which was facing an unprecedented
$25 million budget shortfall for next year.
"Our
ad hoc non-partisan group was founded by concerned parents Maureen Bayless
and Judy Thau and is being led by PAC reps and parents from all areas of the
city and all walks of life. We have also received extensive support from our
DPAC and from our schools and communities."
The
minister likes to claim that she'd like to listen to parents. Here we have
12,000 signatures from parents, some of them involved in PACs, involved in
DPACs, calling on the government to stop their cuts in the educational programs
for students in British Columbia. The minister sits there and mocks the group,
writing them off as though they don't count, as though somehow they're there for
a partisan purpose.
They're
there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is for the educational
opportunities for their students. They are saying that this government has
cheated the students of educational opportunities by imposing such a huge set of
pressures in the funding areas for schools all across British Columbia. That
relates to this
section of the bill around the funding formula we're now
debating.
On the
education cuts, the SOS continues to say:
"Our
provincial government promised to make education a top priority and to
protect education funding. However, the government legislated increases for teachers' pay and other benefits but did not give school boards additional
funding to cover the increases for 2002-03 or for further increases
legislated for 2003-04.
"This
means school boards must make cuts to pay for the extra costs. The new
provincial funding formula has also meant reduced funding for many school
districts, which now have to choose between cutting essential services or
closing schools. SOS parents represent diverse interests, and we agree that
instead of fighting amongst ourselves for shares of an inadequate budget, we
would stand up together to call for properly funded public schools.
"We
are not alone. Many schools and communities across B.C. are organizing their own
campaigns against the education funding shortfall, including Richmond,
Coquitlam, Kitimat and Chilliwack" — just to name a few."
I know that
the parents didn't have very much time to do this work. When I learned of what
they were doing, I was absolutely astounded from the point of view that in a
short period of time, they were able to gather some 12,000 signatures by way of
a petition to the government. They invited the government to come and receive
this petition, and you know what, hon. Chair? The minister couldn't be bothered
to show up to receive the petition.
In less
than 12 days they have gathered over 12,000 signatures, and the minister
couldn't be bothered to pick up the petition from them. You know why? The
minister says these people aren't important. She mocks them; she mocks their
efforts. She discounts these individuals. The Minister of Energy and Mines
pounds his desk as though these cuts are somehow a good thing for the students
in British Columbia, as though some 12,000 parents across the province are wrong
in terms of the impacts of the cuts from this government.
Just for
informing the House, let us go into this matter a little bit on cuts for other
school boards. For all the MLAs who are sitting silent, I wonder where they are.
They're sitting silent, not asking one question of this minister about the
funding formula and the shortfall in the funding that impacts their schools and
their students.
[1600]
Not only
are they silent, they are pounding their desks and barking, saying, "This
is wonderful, wonderful. Make more cuts," and that's somehow a good thing.
Let's look
at the Alberni area. What's the Alberni district faced with? Two million
dollars' worth of shortfall. What are the cuts? They are 15.7 full-time teaching
positions; up to 20 teacher assistants; maintenance workers; even the bus
drivers are at risk; 2½ clerical
[ Page 3259 ]
positions. Non-enrolling teachers will also have their hours reduced,
including librarians.
Burnaby
school district. I'm waiting to hear whether or not the members from Burnaby
will rise up to raise these issues: a $7.5 million shortfall; 80 teaching
positions, including classroom teachers, ESL teachers; librarians; counsellors;
20 janitorial positions; cuts to the supplies, to the bus routes and to career
programs.
I'd like to
hear the members from Burnaby rise in this House and tell parents that a $7.5
million shortfall in the Burnaby school district is a good thing for the
students there, that cutting ESL teachers…. The member for Burnaby North knows
— I know he knows — that in the area of Burnaby there is great need for ESL
teachers and ESL training for the students. They're now faced with cuts in this
area as a result of this government's and this minister's shortsightedness and
lack of priority in the area of education.
Coquitlam.
What happened to the silent member from Coquitlam? There's a $6.9 shortfall.
Curriculum experts, groundskeepers and resource staff are being eliminated —
the groups of people that make the school system work. Those people are now
going to be eliminated. There's $6.9 million worth of shortfall in Coquitlam.
That's the minister's own riding, and she's not coming forward to advocate for
her students. No, she's not. She's saying: "Well, you know, your concerns
are irrelevant. We protected funding." The minister knows, and knows very
well, that what she's done is cut educational funding. How is the minister
justifying the funding formula that results in reduced funding for schools
boards and for the students in British Columbia?
Kootenay
— the Minister of Management Services. In the Kootenay-Columbia school
district eight schools are going to be closing as a result of the budget
shortfall, the budget pressures caused by this government.
Langley
schools — the Minister of State for Women's Equality. There's a $6.5 million
shortfall. Maybe the Minister of State for Women's Equality should go and talk
to the school trustee, Diane Pona. Here's what she had to say: "This
particular government I don't believe has a clue about what education is."
And the minister says: "Been there, done that."
Actually,
maybe she did meet with them; I don't know. But when the women's centres
coalition wanted to meet with the Minister of State for Women's Equality, do you
know what she said to them? "I'll meet with you provided that (
a) you don't
go to the media and (
b) you don't make me angry." That's what happened,
hon. Chair.
The
Chair: Member, on
section 36, please.
J. Kwan:
The Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district. There's a $7 million shortfall. Proposed
cuts: 45 teaching positions, 11 support staff, four administrative workers,
increased class sizes between grades 4 and 12.
New West.
Where is the member from New West? It is the Minister of Water, Land and Air
Protection. I guess she's busy trying to just be a mouthpiece for the minister,
because she has done nothing to protect education.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Member. Member, would you please confine your remarks to
section 36.
J. Kwan:
Section 36….
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, order. Please, your remarks to
section 36.
[1605]
J. Kwan:
Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chair.
In the New
West area there's a $2.3 million shortfall. Where is the funding formula that
justifies a $2.3 million shortfall in the New West area? We have cuts — 24
teaching positions being eliminated; ending the community education night school
program; eliminating some of the crossing guards; even cancelling early French
immersion programs that were meant to start during the upcoming school year.
That is what New West is facing as a result of the funding formula that is being
imposed by this government. This minister says it is somehow better for the
students when we see crossing guards being eliminated, night school programs
being eliminated, French immersion programs not being able to start as a result
of the funding shortfall that this government has created in the area of
education.
North Van
school district. Where are the members from North Van school district? There's a
$6.7 million shortfall; increased class size in grades 4 to 7; increased fees
for band programs, outdoor school and summer school; aging furniture and
equipment that won't be replaced.
Prince
George school district: $9.2 million shortfall; 160 teaching positions this year
and an additional 57 next year will be cut; 12 school closures, including four
rural schools — McLeod Lake, Hixon and Bear Lake Elementary Schools and
Blackburn Junior Secondary School. How is that funding formula helpful for the
students in Prince George? How is it helpful?
Then we
have Quesnel school district, with about a million dollars' worth of shortfall
and two elementary school closures. To help address a budget shortfall of more
than $1 million, the Quesnel school district board of trustees decided to
proceed with plans to close Wells Barkerville and Rich Bar Elementary Schools in
September. Students from the Wells Barkerville Elementary School will be bused
77 kilometres one way from Wells to Barlow Creek Elementary School. Barlow Creek
Elementary is 11 kilometres northeast of Quesnel on the Barkerville Highway.
Twelve teaching positions will be eliminated, and there will also be a reduction
in the school trustees from seven to five.
Saanich.
Where are the members from Saanich? There's a $1.5 million shortfall. Three
special needs
[ Page 3260 ]
education assistants, 22 full-time teaching positions, 20 support staff, four
administrators…. McTavish and Sansbury Elementary Schools will have to share
one principal. That is as a result of the funding formula now before the House
under Bill 34.
Sooke: $3
million shortfall, 26 classroom teachers….
The
Chair: Member, your time has expired.
J. Kwan:
Okay. I am going to ask the minister this question, then. How does this funding
formula assist these schools when they're faced with all these pressures? As a
result of the funding shortfall, they're going to lose the supports they need in
the school system for the children.
Hon. C.
Clark: As I explained to the member a number of times in estimates, the
funding formula has not penalized districts — not the actual funding formula
itself. In fact, I think what she's doing is confusing two things. She's
confusing the structure of the way we distribute the money, which is what we're
discussing in this legislation, versus how much money is distributed.
I want to
make two points about that. On the second, as I've said, we have increased the
amount of money that is allocated to the Education budget this year by $20
million. While she stands up and sort of cavalierly says this means that
districts have their budgets cut and that all of them have their budgets frozen,
it's simply not true. There are many districts that are seeing their budgets
increased. Some of them are seeing their budgets increased by millions of
dollars.
While she
stands up and makes these cavalier statements, just because she makes them in
the Legislature certainly doesn't make them true. They are not; they are
incorrect. The budget for the Ministry of Education has been increased by $20
million this year, despite the fact that there are fewer children to educate
because we have declining enrolments. Many districts have seen increases in
their budgets.
The funding
formula provides districts with a great deal more flexibility to be able to
manage their own budgets internally. This is something, and this is important to
note, that districts asked us for — not just asked this government for but
asked the previous government for again and again and again. They said:
"Look, we're locally elected. We're accountable to the people that we
represent. We know our communities. We know the priorities here. Let us manage
our own budgets and decide how we will allocate the money within that."
[1610]
We've done
that with this funding formula. We've untied most of the strings we used to
attach to this, strings that Victoria attached, frankly, because I don't think
Victoria, at the political level, trusted local school trustees to make the
right decisions.
Well, I do.
I take a different view from the previous government. I think that locally
elected school trustees are capable of making good decisions that reflect the
needs of their local communities. I think that's why they're elected, and that's
why they're empowered to do that by law. I understand that is a different view
from the previous government, but it is a view, frankly, that local school
boards welcome. That is the impact of the funding formula. It's a formula that
allows school districts a whole lot more discretion in allocating money within
their own budget, and they appreciate that ability to be able to make those
decisions. You know what? Unlike the previous government, we trust school
boards. We respect the law that gives them the responsibility to make these
decisions because they are locally elected.
J. Kwan:
You know what? Only this minister and the government-bench MLAs, including
ministers, would justify the cuts in education and say that somehow they're
protecting education. You know what? The minister just praised the school
trustees. She just praised the school trustees and said she trusts them and
trusts their judgment.
Well,
here's what Gordon Comeau had to say, the president of the trustees association.
Here's what he had to say about the province's education budget cut, which is
about $300 million over the next three years: "Protected is not an accurate
reflection; it's just a play on words. Cuts are happening, and they're happening
in the classroom. Schools are going down."
This is the
president of the trustees association — not my words. The minister always
accuses that everybody else is wrong, particularly my colleague and I, on all
these issues. Then she just finished praising the school trustees and how she
trusts their judgment. Well, here's what they had to say about the minister and
this government's cuts.
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
She thinks it's funny. She laughs about it, because she thinks, perhaps, that
they're wrong. But you know what? It's not a laughing matter. Schools and
students are being hurt because of this government's action. They are being
hurt, and the member for Chilliwack-Sumas is saying that this is fearmongering.
You know what? Maybe he hasn't spoken with his parents, because Save Our
Schools, which is a non-partisan group that has been collecting petitions and
raising the matter with members in this House and with the minister, to which
the minister didn't even have the decency to go and receive their petition….
Chilliwack
is collecting petitions on this issue. Where is the member from Chilliwack? Is
he there to support the parents? Is he there to hear the concerns of the
parents? No. He's here thumping the desk, saying: "Hurray for cuts to
education programs for students in British Columbia."
What about
other areas? I just finished advising the House that in the area of Saanich,
people are faced with tremendous cuts: $1.5 million of shortfall.
[ Page 3261 ]
Sooke: $3
million of shortfall, 26 classroom teachers are being cut, four behavioral
specialists are being cut, two teacher librarians are being cut, ten teaching
assistants positions are being cut, a youth and family counsellor is being cut,
closures of two special education offices are taking place, and increased class
sizes between grades 4 and 12 are taking place as a result of the lack of
funding from this government that this government is now legislating in place
through Bill 34.
Surrey
school district. The Surrey–Green Timbers MLA. I heard her barking and
clapping, saying how great it is for the government to cut education funding. A
$17 million shortfall in the school district of Surrey. Special needs education
is being eliminated.
Richmond.
Where are the Richmond MLAs? Where are they? Are they in this House? Are they
raising the matters? A $9.6 million shortfall and 156 teaching positions
including ESL and learning assistance. I know Richmond very well. There are a
lot of multicultural students there who need ESL support. Well, 156 teaching
positions including ESL and learning assistance are going to be eliminated.
[1615]
I already
mentioned the Vancouver school district. Where are the Vancouver MLAs? Are they
in the House? Where's the member for Vancouver-Kingsway? We often hear him bark
and cheer about how great the cuts are for this government. Well, Vancouver is
faced with $25.5 million worth of shortfall, 200 full-time teaching positions
are being eliminated, and 121 other full-time positions and 9.5 multicultural
home school workers are being eliminated. I know how much need there is in
Vancouver-Kingsway for multicultural workers, and 9.5 of those are going to be
gone.
Then
they're going to be increasing fees. Particularly for the low-income parents,
the increased fees are another way for this government to impose taxes, new
taxes for parents. They say they've given parents a tax break. What they've
really done is…. On the one hand they've pretended they've given, but on the
other hand, they have taken a larger share than they've given, particularly for
the low-income parents in British Columbia.
Victoria.
Where are the MLAs for Victoria-Hillside and Victoria–Beacon Hill? Where are
they? There's a $6.4 million shortfall; 58 full-time teaching positions; a
$50,000 cut to the gifted programs.
I was on
the Education Committee, with which I travelled with many of the members to hear
from the public. At the end I resigned from that committee because the report
was not going to reflect what people said and what we heard. You know what? We
heard from parents who were concerned about the gifted program. They were very
concerned about the students' opportunities because there was not enough funding
there, they said.
Now what do
we have? Cuts to the gifted program; 6.4 special needs education teachers are
being cut; elementary and secondary school staff positions are being cut.
There's an increase in class sizes for grades 4 and 8. Management positions are
also being eliminated in the school district of greater Victoria.
These are
just some of the items that I'm putting onto the record here. I don't hear any
of the government-bench MLAs, whether front bench or back bench, raising these
concerns on behalf of their constituents.
The funding
formula that is before us under Bill 34, where the minister is saying,
"It's not the funding formula. We're not cutting education
programs…." Well, everybody else is saying that education programs are
being cut. The funding formula is creating a situation where there's less money
for many of the school districts.
The
minister is suggesting that somehow these numbers are not correct, as though
somehow I've made them up and I'm fearmongering. Well, you know what? These
figures came from the school boards themselves. The minister said she trusts
their judgment. Here's what they've had to say and do, as a result of the lack
of commitment, the broken promise, by this government and this minister. She
said she would protect education, when in reality the end result is that school
boards are faced with unprecedented funding pressures. As a result, they've had
to cut educational programs all throughout British Columbia.
Hon. C.
Clark: I think I've been clear in my previous comments to the member's
latest rant, not dissimilar to the comments I've made to all the member's rants
today.
At this
stage I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 4:18 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[1620]
Committee
of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit
again.
Hon. M.
de Jong: Calling Committee of the Whole. For the information of members, we
will be debating in committee stage Bill 36.
Committee of the Whole House
ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 36; H. Long in the chair.
The
committee met at 4:21 p.m.
On
section
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, the nature of my questions will be to use the answers
to these questions in comparison to debate on matters that will be addressed
later in the Legislature, later this session — perhaps not
[ Page 3262 ]
this sitting but later this session — in terms of changes to other pieces
of legislation concerning land use.
I would ask
the minister to keep that in mind. They are questions for information, but they
will be compared against changes now being addressed either in legislation,
White Papers or community discussions elsewhere.
section
section 12(3), it's amending
section 12(3) of the Coal Act. It appears that
the legislation is designed to eliminate duplication regarding the use of
on-site aggregate materials. Perhaps the minister could explain specifically
what the requirements were before and what that amendment does — the amendment
that he's passing today — to change those requirements.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: All this does is allow coalmines to use aggregate on site for their
on-site roads, something they've never had before. Mineral mines have always had
the ability to do that. This just extends that same right to coalmines.
MacPhail: But it removes a requirement for a licence under the Land Act. Am
I wrong in that, or is that wrong?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: You're correct.
MacPhail: So it removes the requirement for a licence under the Land Act. Is
there a provision for requiring a licence for this type of activity remaining
anywhere?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: You'd have to have an operating mine. This wouldn't just apply to
anybody. You'd have to have a mine that's in operation and that requires this
kind of aggregate.
MacPhail: The question was: is there remaining anywhere, in any legislation,
a provision for requiring a licence for this type of activity? Or by this
amendment, does it remove all requirements for a licence under the Land Act?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: For coalmines.
[1625]
MacPhail: I'm sorry. Is the member saying, in answer to my question of if
there is any provision for requiring a licence for this type of activity
remaining: "With coalmines"? Is that what the answer is?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: For coalmines. It's already in place for mineral mines.
MacPhail: Yes, I understand that, but it's removing a provision for a
licence under the Land Act, so all that remains is a licence for coalmines. Is
that correct?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: I apologize if I'm not understanding her question. If it applies to
anything other than a coalmine once this is in effect — or what is, in effect,
already a mineral mine — there is no requirement.
Section 1
approved.
On
section
MacPhail: Again, I remind the minister that these answers are in preparation
for debate, particularly on changes that are now being discussed in a
consultation forum around the Forest Practices Code that's actually going on
elsewhere. As I understand it,
section 2 removes the requirement of permits for
licensees to be subject to the higher-level plans under the Forest Practices
Code. This is one of several references in
section 2 where the bill gives us a
glance at changes to the Forest Practices Code. On May 1 the Minister of Forests
released a White Paper on the new code, to be followed by legislation next fall.
That period was to allow for consultation with stakeholders before the changes
to the forest practices come down.
However, as
I noted in my second reading comments, this bill is making changes to the Forest
Practices Code and clearly indicates the kind of changes we can expect. For
example,
section 2 says that coal tenure holders wanting to build a road to a
site will no longer be required to comply with the Forest Practices Code
requirements. I'm wondering whether the Minister of Energy and Mines could give
us some clarity around the consultation process for changes to the Forest
Practices Code. The White Paper on those changes is circulating now, with a
promise to consult.
This is the
first example under Bill 36 of imposed changes to the Forest Practices Code that
are exempting the mining industry from major requirements of the code. Is it a
two-part consultation? Was there a first part of consultation for changes to the
Forest Practices Code that occurred that I don't know about, which led to these
exemptions from the Forest Practices Code for the mining industry?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Just as a clarification, the Forest Practices Code and the White
Paper…. I understand where the member is coming from. You can discuss that
with the Minister of Forests. That's not in my ministry to deal with. There are
no applicable higher-level plans at the present time in the province. All we are
doing is saying here that higher-level plans are not applicable to coalmines
anymore. Later on we'll deal with….
[1630]
MacPhail: That's exactly the point: there are higher-level plans being
discussed right now, in fact, where communities have reached higher-level plans,
and this government now has them under review, I assume, for reversal. By
deleting this now, it doesn't even give an opportunity for plans to have to
legally incorporate Forest Practices Code restrictions.
Is it the
minister's view, then, as part of a cabinet, that he can go ahead and amend the
application of the
[ Page 3263 ]
Forest Practices Code separate and apart from what is supposed to be a
wide-ranging public consultation on the Forest Practices Code? Is that what he
meant by saying: "It's not my job, man"?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The responsibilities of the forest are with the Ministry of Forests
and the Minister of Forests. That's what I was referring to.
This is
pretty straightforward. There are no applicable higher-level plans in the
province right now. What we're saying in the purposes of this
section as they
apply to coalmines…. Actually, they will not apply to coalmines. Let me
reverse that. Higher-level plans will not apply to coalmines.
MacPhail: Exactly. It's good that I'm actually putting these on record,
because others who think that they're being consulted on changes to the Forest
Practices Code will stand up at those consultations and say: "Hey, wait a
minute."
This
government has a little silo mentality. The Minister of Energy and Mines is over
there amending the Forest Practices Code, watering it down, removing it from
application, and he says it's not his responsibility to consult. That's the
Minister of Forests' job. Meanwhile, the legislation is being rammed through the
House.
People
going to this Forest Practices Code consultation might say to the Minister of
Forests: "How can we trust you when the person sitting right next to you,
the Minister of Energy and Mines, has already gutted a major part of the Forest
Practices Code?"
The
minister stands up and says: "It's not my responsibility." Then he
also says — by virtue of the actions of this government, this government
specifically — that there are no higher-level plans in place because they've
stalled and stalled on putting them through, with giving them cabinet approval
— that this is really unnecessary.
I'm very
glad that we had this dialogue, or lack thereof, for the record so that people
can approach those theoretically open consultations around the Forest Practices
Code, using exactly the record of the words of the Minister of Energy and Mines.
That's all I wanted to achieve.
The
Chair: Shall sections 2 through 10 pass?
Leader of
the Opposition.
MacPhail: I have a series of questions. Is it okay if I ask them?
Sections 2
and 3 approved.
On
section
MacPhail: I'm sorry. I don't know whether someone else had indicated that we
didn't have a series of questions. We certainly did, and it's for the record, as
I keep reminding the Minister of Energy and Mines.
section
4 we have a
section from the actual Forest Practices Code that is repealed. This
section removes the reference of higher-level plans as an objective for resource
management zones, so the minister can't get away with saying that there are no
higher-level plans in place. This is actually there as an objective for resource
management zones, and the government has removed the reference to that from
sections in the Mineral Tenure Act and the Coal Act.
Could the
minister explain what consultation has taken place to repeal this
section of the
Forest Practices Code?
[1635]
Hon. R.
Neufeld: The consultations that took place were interministry, amongst
ministries that would be affected, on the changes. Again I say, because there
are no applicable higher-level plans in place, that we did talk at length to the
Ministry of Forests about this.
MacPhail: There are higher-level plans being addressed throughout this
province now, which this government has put on hold — several of them.
This
section isn't to do with higher-level plans that are in place; it's an objective
that has to be met as higher-level plans are being designed. This is a major
change to the Forest Practices Code. What consultation took place on this
change, outside of government?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: This is not a huge change. This was done in consultation with the
Ministry of Forests and with their agreement.
You would
almost think, the way the member argues now, that when her government was in
power for ten years, they could have put in place some applicable higher-level
plans. They obviously didn't. They had ten years to do it and didn't do any.
All it is
are impediments to being able to have coalminers and mineral miners go out there
and mine and do it in an environmentally sensitive way. All we're doing is
removing some of this wording that sends the wrong message to the people who we
want to get back in British Columbia to start creating wealth and jobs in this
province again.
MacPhail: Well, in fact, I'm glad we're having this discussion. These words
will shape many, many future discussions. As always, the Minister of Energy and
Mines's words are little nuggets of provocation, for sure.
As far as
that minister suggesting somehow that his land use decisions by his government
will provide a sustainable future for this province, I'll match my record
against his record any day.
You're
right; it does send a signal. The minister's absolutely right; it sends a signal
to say: "Hey, don't worry about sustainability. Come on in and do whatever
you wish with the land." The members from the Liberal back bench think this
is just wonderful. What it absolutely does is say to the province that any
consultation we may promise you British Columbians around
[ Page 3264 ]
changes to the Forest Practices Code are hollow and an absolute sham. At the
same time that the Minister of Forests is suggesting in some way that the public
will have input into the changes to the Forest Practices Code, this minister is
introducing and passing changes without comment from anybody except the
opposition on major repeal of the Forest Practices Code.
[1640]
Well, if
indeed the minister somehow suggests, along with all of his colleagues on the
back bench who say, "Yeah, yeah. Use the land for whatever you wish
regardless of sustainability…." No one else in the world is talking the
way these Liberal backbenchers talk — no one else in the world. It's from a
bygone era. I don't want to say a neanderthal bygone era because that would be
inappropriate parliamentary language, Mr. Chair, but maybe there's some period
between neanderthal and modern day. I'm just trying to think of what it would
be. I'll try and come up with the term. I'll just try and see whether there is
some term. You know why it's hard for me to think of any term? It's because the
rest of the world is so far ahead of this government in terms of land use that
no term comes to mind in modern-day memory to describe this Liberal government
around the issues of land use, Mr. Chair.
Let me ask
this question. What will replace, under
section 4, higher-level plans in this
context?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: Again, I'm not going to get into a debate about the White Paper out
there. I'm not going to get into a debate about the whole Forest Practices Code.
I'm not going to get into a debate about land use that the member seems to want
to go on a rant about. I am going to say again — it's pretty simple; it's
pretty straightforward — that there are no applicable higher-level plans in
the province of British Columbia. These kinds of things were sending a negative
message to the industry to come to British Columbia, and we're just removing
that. That will send a different message.
I shouldn't
really have to remind the member, but when you talk about land in British
Columbia…. The member stands up and talks about, you know, how we just are
inviting the world in to ruin all our land and all those kinds of things. That's
a bit bizarre and a bit ridiculous and not uncommon coming from that side of the
House. The member should know that at the present time, with only 75 percent of
the province that have finished their land use plans, there's already 12.5
percent in parks. Now, that's further ahead than anywhere else.
MacPhail: It's got nothing to do with you. You're trying to undo it.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: No, we're not trying to undo it. The member sits over there and
says we're trying to undo it. No, we are in fact finishing off those land use
plans, and I think in estimates you went through that with the minister
responsible. Whether thanks to me or to this government or whatever, in British
Columbia there is at the present time 12.5 percent in parks set aside. It's a
huge amount of hectares.
I guess
part of the problem with the member is that she doesn't get out and about enough
to see the size of the province and how much beautiful British Columbia we have.
The mining industry only takes up less than 0.03 percent of the total land base
and provides good jobs. It's environmentally sound. It provides good revenue to
the province.
Above all,
each and every one of us in this House — or I don't care where you are —
consumes on a daily basis a huge amount of minerals. Some of those minerals are
still produced in British Columbia — not many, by the way, since 1990. We're
trying to get that turned around. We're trying to get it to a point where we
actually get back into producing lots of mineral and lots of coal in the
province, because there is a need for it. There is a need for it worldwide.
The member
talks about the rest of world being miles ahead of us. Well, in Germany they
have about 2 percent in parks. I think, in fact, it's less than that. On the
graph you can hardly read it. The UK has about the same — all those places
that tell us we should be cleaning up.
Well, we've
got 12.5 percent in parks. I'm not taking credit for it. It happened, but I
think the Liberal opposition at the time voted with the government to set aside
12 percent of the province in parks. They went along with it — complicit, as
you might say. They agreed with you, and we have 12.5 percent. The mining
industry, I remind you again, uses 0.03 percent of the land base and creates
some very good jobs. All we want to do is encourage that. We don't want to
pillage the land base. There is no intent to do that.
[1645]
The mining
industry has a record in British Columbia second to none for environment and
health and safety. We want to maintain that; we will maintain that. The Minister
of Water, Land and Air Protection has consistently said that. I have
consistently said that. We will do it environmentally soundly.
MacPhail: Who asked for this change?
The
Chair: Shall
section 4 pass? Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: I asked the minister who asked for this change to this. Was it the
mining industry?
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It wasn't just the mining industry. It's the investment community,
but it's also within government. Indications have been given to us from our own
ministries, not just mine, that we have to do something — the Ministry of
State for Deregulation is one of them also — to change how we're viewed in
British Columbia by the investment community. We're responding in this way.
MacPhail: It's interesting. I'd be interested to know how the minister
consults with the investment
[ Page 3265 ]
community. I'd like to know how the minister does that. Is there some body
that has sprung up in the last couple of months or something that represents the
investment community? If the mining industry asked for this, did the minister go
to the M