1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 5

[ Page 5365 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

N. Lortie: I'd like to introduce 60 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary School in my constituency of Delta North, led by their teacher, Mr. Stoddart. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's not that often that I have constituents come from my constituency. But today it's my pleasure to introduce to the House two very good friends of mine: Eric and Linda Tompkins. Would the House make them truly welcome.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Cheryl Isaac-Clark, who is here gathering information for her master's thesis on education. Would the House make her most welcome, please.

Hon. T. Perry: I too would like to welcome the guest of the member for Chilliwack. I'm looking forward to meeting her later on in the day.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to welcome and have the House join me in acknowledging Andrea Eaton and 40 representatives from the Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services LINK program.

The Speaker: One last introduction. Since the member who was going to do this on behalf of all Burnaby MLAs is absent, with the indulgence of the House, the Chair will do it. There are two people here who I'd like introduced: Michael Harding, executive director of the Burnaby Arts Centre campaign, accompanied by Allan Berezny from the UVic challenge campaign. They're both involved in the arts. Would the House make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: I was just delivered a note. I was so busy this morning, I haven't had a chance to meet these people yet. They are constituents and very good friends of mine from Fort Nelson: Mr. and Mrs. Oran Monasmith. I can tell you that they are pioneers of Fort Nelson; they've been there for a lot of years. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Introduction of Bills

URANIUM MORATORIUM ACT

D. Symons presented a bill intituled Uranium Moratorium Act.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, the Uranium Moratorium Act, as the name suggests, is

an act to protect the environment and the health of the citizens of this province from the harmful effects of radiation that is released into the environment when uranium is mined. The moratorium would be achieved by amending the Mineral Tenure Act to ensure that mining for uranium is prohibited. The act recognizes and makes allowances for the fact that trace amounts of uranium are found while mining for other minerals. It is not intended to prohibit normal mining operations for other minerals.

Hon. Speaker, this act is not new. I freely admit to plagiarism from the moratorium regulations brought in by the Social Credit government, which were in effect from 1980 through 1987. When those regulations expired in 1987, the New Democrats strongly advocated the reinstatement of the moratorium. This act does precisely that. Because of past support for such

an act, I would hope for all-party support in bringing forward and passing this bill tomorrow to coincide with the Walk for World Survival: Peace, Environment and Social Justice that will take place in Victoria this Saturday, and with Vancouver's annual Walk for Peace -- also considering that today is Earth Day.

Bill M214 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CORE CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO GOVERNMENT MAC-BLO SHARES

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, this morning the commissioner on resources and environment called for a special inquiry by the conflict-of-interest commissioner into the trading of M-B shares by the provincial government pending its decision on Clayoquot Sound. Will the Attorney General agree to support the call by the resources and environment commissioner for a special inquiry into this transaction, which is causing such great concern in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't had a chance to see what Mr. Owen has proposed. But with respect to conflict issues, as alluded to by the member, I think that government is constantly in a potential conflict of interest in its decisions. A good example of that is whenever a government decision affects the allowable cut. If there's a decision to reduce it, there's a conflict, because at the same time we reduce our revenues as a government. So every day the government faces that kind of issue.

W. Hurd: A supplemental question, then, to the Minister of Forests. The indication is that the CORE process may collapse unless this particular motion brought forward in good faith by the Commission on Resources and Environment is endorsed by this government. Has the Forests minister contacted the Commission on Resources and Environment to determine what might happen if the government rejects a legitimate call for a public inquiry into the outrageous handling of M-B stock while a significant environmental decision was ongoing?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I think the member opposite exaggerates greatly.

Hon. Speaker, all of us in this province have a great sense of pride in the wonderful geography and, I hope,

[ Page 5366 ]

support the goal as stated by this government to try to achieve that 12 percent set-aside by the year 2000. We all recognize that these are very difficult issues and that there will be disappointments. We all recognize as well that the CORE process depends on the collective will of the people who are participating in order to make it a success. It is certainly this government's fervent hope that all people will consider the greater good, stay at the process and achieve what all British Columbians really want -- something in which we can take pride.

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. Hon. Speaker, for four days now the minister has failed miserably to live up to his responsibilities to the public of this province. When is he finally going to admit that his ability to perform his duties as Minister of Consumer Services has been terribly compromised and do the honourable thing by stepping aside?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: This harkens back to the days when the minister himself was on this side of the House.

This issue deals with ethics and morality in government and the standard of conduct expected from ministers in government. Will he now follow his advice to the Minister of Consumer Services when he was in opposition and resign?

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer is no, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: The last question had the very words used by this minister on July 18, 1989, when he was sitting in opposition. Why the double standard for this minister? Why the double standard for this government? Why the moral blind spot? When is he finally going to do the honourable thing and resign? And if he won't do it, when will the Deputy Premier finally get a spine and ask him for his resignation?

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND GOVERNMENT'S MAC-BLO SHARES

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister advise the House when Stephen Owen was first apprised of the government's decision on Clayoquot Sound? Can he further tell us whether Mr. Owen expressed any concern at that time about the perceived conflict inherent in the decision with respect to the government's publicly reported share purchase?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Owen was apprised. I don't have the precise times or dates, but it was certainly ahead of the anouncement. As to any of the other details surrounding the member's question, I wasn't present, so I'm not qualified to respond.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF MAC-BLO SHARES

R. Neufeld: To the minister responsible for the MacMillan Bloedel share purchase. Has the minister personally sought the B.C. Securities Commission's advice as to whether or not the Mac-Blo share purchase he authorized constitutes insider trading?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, it may be useful if I draw members' attention to the Financial Administration Act, sections 36.2(11)(

a) and 36.2(11)(b). The Financial Administration Act is really very clear about all of this, and I'll just summarize those two sections. The Minister of Finance's interest in these investments shall not: (

a) invalidate any decision, order or other action by government that relates directly or indirectly to that investment; and (

b) be taken into consideration by any public official. It's clear that the Financial Administration Act recognizes that the Minister of Finance has a variety of responsibilities and obligations, and it very much makes clear that the kind of issue being dealt with by members of the opposition was envisioned in the Financial Administration Act, that the Minister of Finance and his officials have acted entirely properly and that clearly no conflict exists.

FUNDING FOR FIREFIGHTERS' FIRST-RESPONSE TRAINING

K. Jones: My question is to the Deputy Premier. This government has spent $250,000 on budget advertising, and the Premier's visit to Japan is costing over $200,000. With these very outrageous expenses, how can you justify cutting the first-response first aid training needed by B.C.'s firefighters? Why is your government taking this senseless position?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me speak to the first part of the member's question around the responsibility of government to first of all inform the people of British Columbia about matters that are important to them. That is a part of our responsibility in letting people know about the budget that we are debating in this House -- the information about people who are gaining from this budget and about the resources that are being made available to the 28 percent of people who will see a reduction in their taxes as a result of this budget.

With respect to the Premier's visit, I know he will be reporting when he returns. But as the minister with responsibility for business immigration, I certainly am able to say unequivocally that the travels of our Premier and of people of government, as they contact people in all parts of the world about a good place for people to invest and for jobs that then come to the people of British Columbia, will be well justified -- as our business immigration work is well justified for our people.

K. Jones: A supplemental to the Deputy Premier. The people of British Columbia are really fed up with the wastage of taxpayers' money. Do you really believe that saving the lives of children and seniors is a lower

[ Page 5367 ]

priority than protecting the administrative waste and political hacks of this government?

Hon. A. Hagen: As the member who inherited the seat of the Minister of Health who set in place one of the finest paramedic and support systems for saving the lives of people in this province, I find that kind of comment by the member clearly out of place. If he has questions to the minister responsible for those services about the reason for her decision, I'm sure she would be happy to answer them. I would be happy to take that question on notice on her behalf so that he can be fully informed about the policy decision.

The Speaker: Just for clarification of the House, while the term "on notice" has been used -- perhaps informally here -- because the minister has answered the question, it's not formally on notice.

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN CHINA'S THREE GORGES PROJECT

D. Jarvis: When the Premier was questioned last week about Mr. Eliesen's trip to China with him, he said he was proud of Canada and of being a leader in this area and helping modernize countries like China.

To the Minister of Environment. The Three Gorges project will create a 600-kilometre reservoir behind it and submerge two urban centres and 104 towns, and force evacuation of up to 1.2 million people. On this Earth Day, have you been informed of these facts and does your ministry support this project?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would be glad to review the information the hon. member has, and to supply any assistance we can. At the present time, though, I think it would require quite a bit of research.

D. Jarvis: In addition to the one million people being kicked out of their homes, the Three Gorges project will flood thousands of hectares of cultivated land. It is predicted that this will bring an end to China's self-sufficiency for food. On this Earth Day, again I ask: was the Environment minister aware of these consequences when his government decided to support this project?

Hon. J. Cashore: We would be glad to take a look at any information that is available on this. We are not involved in this project as the Ministry of Environment. I think the hon. member is clearly aware of that. I would certainly be glad, as the Minister of Environment, to provide any technical assistance that is reasonable.

D. Jarvis: Then to the minister responsible for Hydro. As well as the human cost that I expressed before, there are several endangered species that are threatened by this project.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Very funny -- ha ha.

To the minister: is it not hypocritical of your government, when you put such stringent standards on our mining and forestry industries and on B.C. Hydro, to go on to plunder other countries?

WELFARE PAYMENTS MANAGEMENT

V. Anderson: To the hon. Minister of Social Services. There is growing concern this week about this minister's management of her ministry with regard to welfare payments. Will the minister confirm that she has complied with the recommendations of the auditor general to make her ministry fully accountable?

Hon. J. Smallwood: While I will welcome the whole discussion around the auditor's recommendations in estimates, let me simply say that I'm very proud of the administration, accountability and management skills in our ministry.

V. Anderson: Inspector Gallagher of the Surrey RCMP is reported as saying that the RCMP has been asked to back off from investigating the loss of welfare money. Is this true?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The comment is absurd and irresponsible. It is absolutely incorrect.

Ministerial Statement

INTERNATIONAL EARTH DAY

Hon. J. Cashore: I take great pleasure in asking all members of the House to join me and their fellow British Columbians in recognizing and celebrating international Earth Day. This special day gives all of us an opportunity to focus on taking personal responsibility for the stewardship of air, land, water, plants and animals in British Columbia and on this planet. The Lieutenant-Governor has issued a proclamation officially recognizing today as Earth Day, during which we owe a special measure of respect for the environment and for this very fragile planet we call our home.

Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970 by a small group committed to raising awareness and taking action on disturbing environmental trends. The past decade has brought a new awareness of the environment. Clear signs of harm to the environment that may not have been obvious to everyone during the seventies are evident all around the world. By the early nineties Earth Day emerged as a major worldwide event. Organizations from around the globe initiate environmental activities to commemorate this day. Some of those activities last just one day, but others span the whole year.

Many British Columbians are involved in Earth Day activities in all corners of this province. These activities include: a students' environmental conference at Montgomery Elementary School in Coquitlam; the pilot launch of environmental documents on the Victoria Free-Net computer network on April 22; a visit from the Green Team and the Ecosaurus to lower mainland media on April 22 as a reminder of Earth Day; Earth Week displays in Sidney, Fort St. John and Kitimat on

[ Page 5368 ]

April 23 and 24; and an Earthfest in Victoria's Inner Harbour on April 24.

It has indeed been a privilege for me, as Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, to see daily examples of B.C. citizens taking personal responsibility for the environment. Each year the ministry presents environmental awards to committed individuals and groups that have made a significant contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment. This year I have received over 200 nominations from across the province, and I am overwhelmed by the dedication and commitment shown by British Columbians to protect our part of the planet.

Last year, for example, environmental award winners ranged from Victoria environmentalist Derrick Mallard to the Save Howe Sound Society of West Vancouver. B.C. youth were represented last year, as an award was also presented to the environmental consciousness class of Williams Lake Junior Secondary School.

We all recognize the need to look carefully at the impact of our actions and lifestyles on the world in which we live. Changing how we travel to work and changes in the products we use in our homes and offices are two examples of personal commitments many of us have made, and there are many others.

[2:30]

In closing, I'd like to urge members of this House to take advantage of the many Earth Day activities going on around the province. I am sure all my colleagues would join me in saying that as far as our government is concerned, every day is Earth Day. As a very final comment, I would like to recognize the interconnectedness of issues relating to the environment, issues relating to poverty and also issues relating to peace.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, on Earth Day I think it's important for us to focus on disturbing environmental trends, as the Minister of Environment has stated. Unfortunately he hasn't paid attention to some of the disturbing environmental trends in our own back yard. As our own critic for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources pointed out, there are numerous disturbing trends around the world that this government has one hand in. But the ones in our own back yard that we must focus on are the control of our water resources and continuing to try to get some control of our waste management.

At a time when we're seeing a grass-roots movement around the province of people upset about things like the diversion of the North Thompson, it's unfortunate that there's a proposal to divert the North Thompson before this very government, this Minister of Environment and this Minister of Economic Development. We are continually flogging the idea of the North American Water and Power Alliance, not just at the federal level through the NAFTA but also on the steps of the Legislature by people still talking about the potential of sending B.C.'s water to the south in pipelines. Yet we don't hear anything about that on Earth Day.

When this minister took over as Minister of Environment, he expressed some concern with regard to our bulkwater resources. To that extent, he put a moratorium on bulkwater exports. That moratorium is going to be up shortly, and we have a proposal for a potential water diversion. If we look at the disturbing trends, we see that the trend is to look at our water resources as a commodity. We're not debating about China's proposed dam, and we're not debating about India's disaster in terms of the environment.

I wonder how long it will be before we start to debate about how we've lost sovereignty over our water resources in British Columbia. With things like the NAFTA and the growing pressure in the United States, we've completely abdicated jurisdiction over our water resources. That's the kind of thing that we have to start talking about.

Earth Day is a day that we have to focus on our own back yard. The way that it's tied to this minister's portfolio with regard to waste management -- other than the structure of waste management -- is when we look at what's going to happen if we allow any diversion of water from our primary outlets, such as the Fraser or the North Thompson, because every community downstream is outletting into those streams. That is going to result in a lack of dilution, and we're going to have problems with water quality and quantity. It's unfortunate that this government -- which is supposed to be committed to Earth Day -- doesn't have the courtesy of listening to the opposition's perspective.

I understand the frustration of the people of the province who have been trying to get the ear of this government with regard to some of the pressing issues -- whether it's the fishermen with the fishermen's alliance, the environmentalists with regard to Clayoquot, or the people who are upset about their taxes increasing. But on Earth Day, I would hope the government would listen to the fact that there are some issues in the environment that need to be addressed beyond activities on Earth Day and beyond rhetoric and platitudes -- things that have to come before this House for debate today.

H. De Jong: I am pleased to rise in response to this ministerial statement. Earth Day is, of course, a very practical term. The minister ended up with his statement that every day is Earth Day. Certainly, if you are representing an agricultural community -- and I can speak for that -- the earth is very close to everyone in the community, because that's where the livelihood of the entire community stems from.

When I walk the streets of Victoria I see the nice ornamental cherry trees blooming. The minister has referred to the youth being involved. Some of these trees were planted 75 years ago with the greatest care in the hope that they would someday bloom along the streets of Victoria. The young people certainly have an important role in that long-term process, because they can enjoy it longer than we can.

At the same time, under the previous administration there was a worthwhile initiative called the Environment Youth Corps. At least 1,000 young people, university students and many others were involved in that particular program, providing a good return for their labours as well as getting hands-on experience as to what it's all about, what we're talking about here today -- and that's Earth Day. These people are involved with the cleaning of spawning creeks for fish habitat,

[ Page 5369 ]

reforestation and many other worthwhile initiatives. I fail to see how the Minister of Environment could allow this program to be chopped for other things which, in my opinion, do not have that high a priority. What used to be a very good program has now deteriorated, from what I can read into the statement, into a conference only, and that's not sufficient. I believe what was done in the past was a good initiative, and it should have been continued. I see nothing more in this statement from the minister than sheer hypocrisy, I'm sorry to say.

G. Wilson: I rise to ask leave to table a document with over 5,000 names, directed to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour, from parents in Powell River who wish their schools to be opened.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I rise today to request leave under standing order 35 to adjourn the House on a matter of pressing and urgent public importance. Hon. Speaker, the opposition has today in a letter expressed concern about the apparent conflict of interest surrounding the decision of the government on Clayoquot Sound, in light of its ownership of shares in MacMillan Bloedel.

This morning the conflict-of-interest commissioner has been asked by the commissioner on resources and environment to conduct a special inquiry under sections 15.1 and 16(1) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Specifically, the commissioner wants to investigate whether any member of the executive council was in a position to influence the government's decision on the purchase of shares in MacMillan Bloedel and its subsequent decision on Clayoquot Sound. The commissioner has said that the special inquiry should also be under sections 16(1) and 15.1 of the act, and has called for the issue to be reviewed by the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

Hon. Speaker, this is clearly a matter of urgent and pressing public importance because of the international outrage generated by the decision of the government about Clayoquot Sound. Of higher urgency is the real possibility that the entire CORE process could collapse in this province, leaving British Columbians without a mechanism to mediate environment and land use disputes. Today the environmental participants in the CORE process have said that they will withdraw from this vital process if such an investigation by Mr. Hughes is not forthcoming.

The opposition further understands that several U.S. judges have made representations to the conflict-of-interest commissioner on the legality of the government's actions and the need for an independent inquiry. These developments have undermined public confidence in the objectivity and integrity of the government's handling of environment and land use issues in B.C., and have moved the commissioner on resources and environment to demand this inquiry, which he feels is crucial to the public interest.

Clearly, public and international concern about the actions of the government and its ownership of M-B shares prior to a decision on Clayoquot Sound constitutes a pressing and urgent matter of public importance, and must be debated in this House.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member now provide the Chair with a copy of the matter to be discussed and submissions on the application under standing order 35.

Hon. M. Sihota: Just a couple of points with regard to the issue. First of all, hon. Speaker, you should be aware, as all members are, that we are in Forests estimates in Committee A, and there's ample opportunity for the hon. member to raise the matter there.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't expect the opposition to agree with my submissions, but I do expect them to be attentive so that I can make them clear to the Speaker.

Second, hon. Speaker, there are opportunities in question period and through other vehicles to raise the issue. Third, there is nothing in the statement put forward by the hon. member that would qualify it as being in the context of urgency of debate, as required in the motion.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The Chair will consider the matter, and get back to the House at a later time.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour today to present several annual reports: the British Columbia Police Commission annual report for 1991-92; the seventy-first annual report of the Liquor Distribution Branch, fiscal year ended March 31, 1992; the Legal Services Society of B.C. annual report for 1991-92; the fifty-second annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission, covering the licence year ended February 29, 1992, pursuant to

section 34 of the Motor Carrier Act; and the twenty-first annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Board of British Columbia from January 1 to December 31, 1992.

I beg leave to present the Office of the Public Trustee Year in Review, 1991-92.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

COST OF MILITARY ASSAULT HELICOPTERS TO CANADIAN TAXPAYER

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 59 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I rise in support of Motion 59 standing on the order paper, of which I've given the appropriate notice. It reads as follows:

[ Page 5370 ]

[2:45]

Both Boeing corporation and Bell Helicopters have indicated that you don't need war-fighting capacity in order to provide an effective search-and-rescue strategy. The Boeing Corporation, for example, has proposed the modernization program for the current Labrador search-and-rescue helicopters, costing in the range of $150 million to $200 million, not $5.8 billion, extending their life by 15 to 20 years. That would be similar to a choice recently made by the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, who have chosen to refurbish 339 of their own helicopters.

The second purpose for the EH-101s is their ability to patrol fisheries and enforce maritime sanctions for Canada. A variety of options may be available to overhaul or replace the existing Sea Kings.

A third so-called purpose is the ability to hunt and destroy enemy submarines. This so-called requirement is a holdover of the cold war. Thirty-five of the 50 EH-101s are intended for this purpose, but we might well ask: where now are the enemy submarines we are urged to protect ourselves against? As one of Canada's two Nobel Prize-winning scientists, Dr. John Polanyi of the University of Toronto, put it, the only thing that's real about this defence is the cost.

As Tariq Rauf, a senior research associate at the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, said, what this country needs is not to be protected from Russian submarines but from loss of faith in government. I believe the Canadian people have clearly given their verdict on the latter issue.

At a time of record federal deficits, when the federal government is cutting valuable programs and offloading costs onto the provinces, when many provinces face crippling deficits, when it is becoming increasingly difficult to serve not only the basic services that Canadians take for granted but our traditional, ethical and moral obligations to developing countries in Africa, and when our federal government proposes to gut development assistance to poor countries like Tanzania, Kenya and southern African countries, at that same time, 68.5 percent of Canadians oppose the waste of money on these useless machines.

A Gallup poll in January showed that 79 percent of British Columbians oppose the waste.

I'm going to share my time with the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, who is going to make a few comments as well on this subject.

G. Brewin: It is a pleasure to join my colleague and others in this House to support the motion that has been put forward under his name, and by the government, as a recommendation to the federal government.

I'm very pleased to speak to this for a number of reasons -- first of all, on behalf of the many people in my constituency of Victoria-Beacon Hill and elsewhere in lower Vancouver Island. The people of this area have been on record for many years as strong supporters of peace issues, and were among the earliest to organize a peace walk in British Columbia. Every year thousands of people march to the Legislature to discuss, to think and to acknowledge to the world, and to ourselves, again reminding us about the need to continue to work on peace issues.

This is also the home of the original group of the Raging Grannies, a group of which I'm very proud. I'm not a member of them, but I have many friends who are. I suppose I could be there, being a granny myself.

There are also in part of Victoria-Beacon Hill many individuals and groups who have provided enormous leadership to the peace movement across this country. As a former mayor of Victoria, I am also particularly proud that our city was one of the first to declare itself a nuclear-weapons-free zone. That was very important to me personally and to our community. I'm personally very proud of the stand the British Columbia government has taken in the last 18 months, and I think the rest of the country should be as well.

The world has changed. The threats, real or perceived, have lessened significantly. While there are serious trouble spots around the world -- in the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, Central and South America, Somalia, Cambodia and other places -- nonetheless, the reason that so many of these weapons were purchased and put into use by our national government has changed enormously.

It is time for us to focus public policy in a way that responds to that changed world situation. What that says to me and many other people is that the decision to purchase EH-101 military helicopters is an absurd one.

[ Page 5371 ]

It is not what we need; it is probably not even what our military needs. We have heard the technical information that if we have a need for a particular kind of vehicle to work in a particular kind of field, then we had better analyze the issue a whole lot better than we have. As I see it, the dollars that are being spent on this are needed much more importantly in a whole lot of other areas, and I would suggest three areas in particular.

The first instance is peacekeeping and search and rescue. As we're doing that, we must analyze what we, as Canadians, are particularly good at in our support for world movement and for keeping peace in the parts of the world where trouble still exists.

The second issue has been mentioned already, but let me mention it again. I think it is very important for us that that international economic support comes from Canada. We have seen some cuts at the federal level. We've seen some support diminish for places like Africa, and it's being shifted to eastern Europe. That may be a good use. In fact, what's happened is that the money that could have gone to eastern Europe has been switched from Africa, while at the same time we are buying unnecessary military helicopters.

Thirdly, I see major social policy areas within our own country that need a lot of financial support: the very important issues of the environment and issues of immigration. How are we going to settle the many immigrants in our communities? A major social policy area is needed there. I think another very important area we haven't spent as much time on is the current health scourge of AIDS. We've had lots of discussion about that in this House, and more will come.

If we had half the dollars that are going into this ridiculous purchase of military helicopters, we could go a long way toward helping our communities solve some of these other problems. So I urge support for the motion that is on the floor, and I urge all of us to attend the peace walks in our own communities.

J. Dalton: I just wish to advise the House -- given the nature and the importance of this topic -- that each of the members of the official opposition will be free to vote as he or she pleases on this important topic.

D. Symons: One of the problems of being later on the speaking list is that many of the things you would like to say have already been said.

I speak as one who has concerns about what has happened -- what's referred to as the peace dividend. For decades the western nations have been told that huge military expenditures were required to counter the Soviet threat. In reality, that threat is no longer there. Unfortunately, however, the world seems no closer to peace. If anything, it seems that the situation is worse, except that the threat of nuclear confrontation is much diminished. Canada continues to spend significant amounts of money on its military, and the peace dividend has not really accrued to either social issues or the taxpayer.

In my opinion, the federal government has not made sound decisions regarding Canada's defence budget. A few years ago they came out with a White Paper on defence -- a hawkish document premised on the Soviet threat, at a time when the Soviet alliances were disintegrating. They embarked on a program of building a nuclear submarine fleet that was, thankfully, scrapped. They are now proposing to purchase very expensive attack and multi-purpose helicopters. I do not profess to know very much about the technical aspects of the EH-101 helicopters.

I do know that they would be the most sophisticated and expensive sub-hunting helicopters in the world. They will also be the most expensive search-and-rescue choppers.

Just before I go to my next statement, there was a Gallup poll done about three months ago in Canada. It turned out that we in B.C. came out first in Canada for being -- peaceniks, I suppose. Of those British Columbians polled, 79 percent were in favour of scrapping the helicopter purchase. The Canadian average was 68.5 percent. Surprisingly, Quebec was closest to us, with 76.6 percent.

It's interesting: they've got it broken down into age, gender, education and household classifications, and the figures across all those various segments of society are fairly constant, which shows that there's a great cross-section of the population of both B.C. and of Canada that feels quite strongly on this issue and that this is basically a waste of money.

I do believe that our military and rescue operations should be supplied with the best and the safest craft needed to perform whatever tasks that may confront them. I am not convinced that the EH-101 helicopter fills the bill, and that is why I think that it is prudent to ask the federal government to reconsider its decision.

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, I have to stand and oppose this motion. There are a few things that need to be straightened out here. One, this helicopter doesn't happen to be an assault helicopter. The Canadian Armed Forces does not believe in offensive; as a matter of fact, its whole role is defensive. That's one of the things we have to realize: we do not start wars.

The second thing we need to realize is that we bought it for defence; we are buying it for fisheries' patrol; we are buying it for search and rescue, law enforcement and drug enforcement. That's a far cry from chasing submarines. By the way, if you don't think there are submarines out there, remember the news report of three weeks ago where a Russian submarine and an American submarine ran into each other. Fancy that.

Another thing I want to get straight here is that Boeing has a vested interest, so obviously they are going to have certain things to say about it if they can make $130 million or whatever in a rebuild program, and it's time for us to realize that.

Another point we want to make is that when we try to tie nuclear weapons to these helicopters.... There's no helicopter in the world that carries nuclear weapons, by the way.

I want to read an

article to you that is in the Times-Colonist today. Hopefully, you will have read it. It gives you some of the specifics of this helicopter; it might open your eyes as to what this helicopter is. It says:

[ Page 5372 ]

"Regrettably, Canada's helicopter modernization program has become so politicized that informed debate may no longer be possible. Much of the problem can be traced to misinformation being spread by opponents of the EH-101. This has created a situation whereby we find a 'mythical-cum-political EH-101' displacing 'the factual EH-101' in the public's mind."

This writer, whose name is Nigel D. Brodeur, is from the Times-Colonist, and the points that he has rebuked start off.... It goes for ten points....

"The 'factual EH-101' is described in the 1992-93 edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft and other authoritative aerospace publications. It has the following qualifications:

"1. Its selection in 1987 was highly publicized. In November 1990, the all-party Commons standing committee on national defence called the EH-101 'the only contender for the Sea King replacement' and recommended the replacement be done as soon as possible to avoid costly stop-gap measures."

I might remind you that the Sea King is 25 to 30 years old and is falling out of the skies.

[3:00]

Second, it's a multi-role helicopter with three variants: naval, commercial heliliner and tactical/logistic transport. It says nothing about assault. It says nothing about being an attack helicopter.

The naval variant is designed for surveillance and control operations against ships, submarines and aircraft, and to provide early warning of anti-ship missiles or attacking aircraft. It also will enable its mother ship to conduct search and rescue operations, medical evacuation, relief airlifts, emergency team transfers and surveillance, interception and boarding of suspicious vessels.

The fourth reason is that the EH-101 has the range, endurance, survivability and all-weather capabilities essential to cope with Canada's extremes of weather and large ocean areas of responsibility and to handle United Nations commitments in foreign seas. In other words, it is operational within the boundaries of Canada, which is rather large and has rather a harsh climate.

Forty-six percent of the $4.4 billion cost will be spent on the helicopters, 35 percent on the 35 ship-borne EH-101s, and 11 percent on the 15 onshore-based search and rescue EH-101s. This translates into a cost of about $43 million and $32 million, respectively, per aircraft. The project remains at $4.4 billion in 1992-93 dollars. It's anticipated the cost will be $5.8 billion in future dollars. There's a big difference there.

Some 10 percent of every EH-101, all three variants, will be made in Canada, and worldwide sales of 800 are anticipated. Industrial benefits to Canada are forecast to be 113 percent, meaning that more money will flow into Canada over the life of the project than the cost of the EH-101 itself. Jane's notes that the naval variant of the EH-101 is designed for fully autonomous, all-weather operation from land bases, large and small vessels -- including merchant ships -- and oil rigs, and specifically from a 3,500-tonne frigate with dimensions tailored to our frigate program.

Minor adjustments to stow and maintain the EH-101 are expected to cost about $40 million to $60 million. The EH-101 has a longer range than the Labrador and can operate under icing conditions more severe that either the Labrador or the Sea King could handle. It could have reached the 1991 Hercules crash in our Arctic and the recent Gold Bond Conveyor disaster off Nova Scotia, which our present equipment cannot do.

Canadian Forces search and rescue experts have measured the EH-101's downwash and found it to be comparable to or less than the Labrador's. In other words, if you're in the water and drowning, the Labrador would drown you but the EH-101 wouldn't. A $160 million modernization of the Labrador would extend its life by five years -- and I emphasize the five years, because it was misquoted earlier. But it could still not operate in icing conditions. A $1.8 billion modernization of the Sea King would extend it to 2010, but it would still lack the range and endurance.

I ask this Legislature to think twice before backing this motion. We ask people to risk their lives to go to sea to save us, and it's high time that we give them the equipment they can do this with. We are not very supportive and not very imaginative if we back this motion. Unfortunately, if we do buy it, this equipment will have to last another 25 to 30 years. If we buy something cheap, it will not last.

H. De Jong: I rise today with mixed emotions on this issue. It's unfortunate that a well-intended peace march is so obliterated by a political manoeuvre by this government, and in particular by the Minister of Advanced Education. It just happens that this march is held each year when the Legislature is in session.

The Terry Fox run, usually held on the Labour Day weekend in September in support of cancer research, a service which deserves and has received a lot of recognition from all British Columbians, and other marches for worthwhile causes, even though they are held at a different time of the year, do not get this same recognition, simply because of the timing of this event versus the others. I'm sure the government of the day would not call the Legislative Assembly together prior to the Terry Fox Run, and I wouldn't expect them to either.

The peace march that is to take place this weekend is a symbolic gesture toward world peace. Peace, of course, also reflects freedom: freedom of speech, of religion, of expression of opinion. It reflects labour peace, economic peace -- and we can go on and on. The march, as I see it, is a reminder to all politicians and world leaders how much peace and freedom are cherished by people of all walks of life and in all aspects of life. I recall that last year a good, well-intended march was blurred by a motion in this House to declare British Columbia a nuclear-free zone.

This year the Minister of Advanced Education has chosen to further obliterate this well-meant activity over the decision by the federal government to purchase helicopters for peacekeeping, search-and-rescue and coast-patrolling duties -- uses completely within the scope of peace and freedom. Who would argue against peacekeeping? Forces should be properly equipped for their own safety. What's wrong with search and rescue? No words can describe the peace of mind of families, parents and children when a loved

[ Page 5373 ]

one is in danger and search and rescue is doing all they can, often putting their own lives in great danger. The same applies to those patrolling the rugged coastlines of our country. I'm sure the people participating in the march will also be extending tribute to those who have given their lives for the lives of others who are now enjoying peace and freedom.

Some ten years ago I had the opportunity to attend a Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention in Halifax. The day after the convention we were asked to go out on the destroyer Ottawa. There were about 100 of us -- mayors right across the continent -- who went on this trip. They took us out four or five miles, perhaps even further, into the ocean. They did all kinds of manoeuvres with the destroyer: mine-sweeping, responding to a supposed air attack and who knows what all. We were very impressed with what the Ottawa could do.

At the conclusion of the trip, the captain wanted to speak to all of us before we left ship. He said: "You were probably very impressed with all you've seen and observed today." Then he started to outline how inadequate the vessel was in terms of technology currently used by other countries. At the conclusion of his speech he asked us the question: "Having told you the actual facts about the destroyer Ottawa, would you have your son or daughter go into warfare on the destroyer Ottawa?" The answer was obvious.

The captain's plea to us was to lobby our federal representatives for better equipment so that we can send our people out on peacekeeping and other defence missions in as safe a manner as possible.

We're not here today to discuss the type of helicopters or their cost; the federal government is in charge of that. The only thing I can say in favor of the federal government on this issue is that they are at least aboveboard regarding the cost of the helicopters, in order that peace may be maintained. They are not hiding the cost in a Crown corporation, as this government would do.

I support the symbolic walk for peace in the broad sense. I do not support this exercise, and the consideration in the House of Commons, brought forth by the Minister of Advanced Education in the resolution that stands on the order paper. I trust that on this day we in this assembly will reflect on the many sacrifices that have been made by our fellow Canadians to secure peace and freedom in this country and also the sacrifices of those representing Canada in peacekeeping forces in Europe and elsewhere.

P. Dueck: Hon. Speaker, I must apologize for trying to correct you when you called on the member for Abbotsford. I heard this echo behind me, and I thought you were addressing me. So I am very sorry.

I will not be very long with my remarks. I feel saddened when issues are brought forward in this House more for political reasons rather than issues that this body should discuss. I sincerely believe that we are faced with many issues in this Legislature, but they are being passed up because we spend our time on issues that are really a concern of the federal government. I can accept the walk for peace, but the price of a helicopter and whether or not it is used for warfare has nothing whatsoever to with this body. Of course we're all against warfare.

I would probably vote against buying those helicopters, but it is not my place or the right time to discuss that here in this Legislature. Therefore I will vote against it for that reason alone. I will not be sucked in to discussing something that's a federal purview and stand up for or against it as though we're for or against war -- putting us on the pin. I object to that, and I totally regret that the member has chosen to discuss issues of that kind in this House. I will be voting against it.

A. Cowie: I will be brief. While I agree with many of the peace connotations of this motion, I feel very strongly that this type of motion should not be put before this House. This is a federal responsibility, and I think it only confuses the issue when it is brought before this House. Accidents take place in the north and in other places. At the present time, the helicopters that our Armed Forces have simply cannot reach the accidents on time. There have been several of these accidents in the past while resulting in deaths because they could not get people out.

Our role in this Legislature does simply not involve deciding on the technology of helicopters. I'd like to go on record as saying that while I believe there is a need for some review, especially at the federal level, the EH-101 appears to be the best helicopter at this time and will be primarily used for rescue, fisheries and other peaceful purposes.

[3:15]

L. Fox: It was my understanding that, by agreement, each caucus was allowed ten minutes to speak on this. There are about two and a half minutes left from the member for Abbotsford, and I'd like to make a couple of observations.

First of all, I have similar feelings to those put forward by the member for Matsqui. I'm extremely disappointed that a minister who could use this valuable time for so many crucial issues within his ministry should decide that we're going to make some inroads into federal political issues on behalf of his political party federally.

I'm absolutely amazed at the Advanced Education minister's suggestion that the federal government should pay attention to the polls in which 79 percent of Canadians were against this purchase. I wish this government would use the same logic on itself and pay attention to the polls provincially that say 86 percent of British Columbians are against this government's taxing policies. If those values are good enough for the federal government, why are they not good enough for his government? That's a very good question, and I hope at some point that minister will answer it.

I don't have any knowledge about whether it's the right decision to purchase those helicopters. I do not have the expertise available to me to make that determination. I certainly respect the contribution from the member for Chilliwack, who has had years of experience in that particular area. But the federal government has made the information available to the Canadian public. It has put it right out front in order for

[ Page 5374 ]

Canadians to make themselves aware. I believe the democratic system will serve the Canadian public well, and I think this House and this minister should respect that system. We should utilize the time in this House to deal with the provincial matters we're charged with.

J. Tyabji: I can respect the opinion of the previous speakers that this is not the forum for this debate, and certainly I respect the opinion of people who feel there's a need for these helicopters. But I think that when we're getting letters, as I know I am, from many British Columbians about how unacceptable they find the purchase of helicopters at a time when tax revenue is down, I think there is some merit to at least expressing in this House how each of us as elected provincial members feels about it. For the record, I am not opposed per se to the purchase of military helicopters for peacekeeping, but I am opposed to this purchase because we don't have the money for it.

To give you an idea of one of the letters, one person says:

"It looks like this country is going to the dogs, and nobody is able to get up and do anything about it effectively. The latest thing nationally is that we now will be paying $5 billion for the defence helicopters, while at the very same time they're cutting back transfer payments to the poorest provinces in Canada. Who do they think is going to pay for it -- the six poorest provinces or the rest of us that are just barely hanging on? The logic of it all boggles the mind."

As provincial representatives, I think it's important for us to realize that people are feeling taxed to their limit, both provincially and federally. If we are to bring this debate forward in this House -- and I think that's debatable -- then for the record I'm also opposed to the helicopter purchase.

G. Wilson: I rise in support of this motion. I do so not wishing to take issue with my friend and colleague, the member for Chilliwack, who has an outstanding career record in the Canadian Armed Forces and, I'm sure, does know far more about the technical features of this helicopter than I do. But I do take issue with the comments from the member for Matsqui, who suggested that this is not a role for provincial politicians. In fact, I would argue it's a role for all politicians, everywhere in Canada, who are looking at the responsible use of Canadian tax dollars.

This week is provincial Emergency Preparedness Week. Down in our cafeteria we have a little notice about how we should be preparing our communities for a natural disaster. I know of many communities in this province that have applied for and have been unable to get funding for simple things such as making schools earthquake-proof and making disaster routes available to people who are likely to be in need if natural disaster occurs.

It's a question of prioritizing the $5.8 billion of expenditures that the federal government is about to make. It isn't a question of whether or not we should have search and rescue; of course we need it. It's a question of how one best commits those dollars in communities such as mine, which is a long, narrow coastal community that is absolutely dependent upon an active, proper and vital search-and-rescue team.

Even they will argue -- those who are involved on voluntary and professional levels -- that what is needed is additional dollars going into the community for community first response and not a centralized system with helicopters that are likely to be posted outside the province and possibly overseas.

This is not a question of war or peace. I believe that all Canadians have in their hearts the desire for all people in this world to live in peace. This is a question of how we best commit Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars at a time when our deficit is rising to levels that are unacceptable to every taxpayer in this country. To spend $5.8 billion at this time is the wrong priority.

We can be spending much more wisely the hard-earned dollars that the government taxes from the Canadian people in order to make sure that those dollars are committed in the communities in British Columbia, where those dollars can do some work for the people of British Columbia and not simply buy very expensive equipment and machines which may be needed by certain sectors of the peacekeeping force in the Canadian armed forces.

Hon. Speaker, I speak in favour of this. I believe that it is not only the right but the obligation of all elected members, whether they are in the Legislature in British Columbia or in Newfoundland, to stand up and speak out on matters of importance to all Canadians. I believe this to be of the greatest importance.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be allowed to close debate on this matter.

J. Tyabji: Aren't you a draft dodger?

C. Evans: I'm incredibly proud of everything I've done.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Hold it! It doesn't defame my character in the slightest, and she doesn't have to take it back. Every step I've taken in my life, in terms of militarism, I'm incredibly proud of.

I did have some procedural comments in mind. I don't agree with the hon. members who believe that it's inappropriate for us to discuss this issue in this House. The hon. members of the third party have motions on the order paper dealing with federal matters which they are waiting to raise in this House. They correctly understand that in order to represent their constituents, they have to raise matters of government here. This is the only forum we've got.

Interjection.

C. Evans: I will honour your motions when they get to the floor, and I think you should honour other people's, simply as a matter of courtesy.

Hon. Speaker, it's correct for this minister to bring this particular motion here. The federal government is asking us as Canadians to spend $5 billion on brand-new helicopters, while cutting this minister's ability to

[ Page 5375 ]

deliver education to the children of all of us in this House. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a college graduate to understand that there's a connection. If you take money from the minister's ability to do his job and put it into guns, then there isn't the money. It is exactly correct.

Interjection.

C. Evans: I'm not going to argue with you, because this is not a partisan debate in which we're going to be seen to be different.

Lastly, it is correct for us to respond in a timely way. If thousands and thousands of people wish to walk down the street on an issue, it is correct for us not to pretend to be aloof to what's on those people's minds. If peace matters on the streets of Vancouver or in the hearts of some members here, it is correct for us to vote on that -- not to divide us but to show the people that to every one of us, no matter how we vote, democracy is still respected in this place. They get a right to a vote; they get a right to have someone stand here and speak, regardless, hon. member from the north Okanagan, of what we did with our life.

[3:30]

The Speaker: I call the House to order. For the information of the members, the Chair will read the motion before you:

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 41

Petter

Perry

Boone

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Lali

Giesbrecht

Conroy

Miller

Smallwood

Hagen

Gabelmann

Sihota

Zirnhelt

Barnes

MacPhail

Copping

Ramsey

Farnworth

Evans

Dosanjh

O'Neill

Hartley

Streifel

Lord

Krog

Randall

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

Janssen

Wilson

Reid

Tyabji

K. Jones

Symons

NAYS -- 9

Chisholm

Cowie

Stephens

Hanson

Dueck

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Tanner

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply. I should also advise members of the House that the Forests estimates are being dealt with in Committee A.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

(continued)

On vote 25: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).

D. Symons: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Symons: We are pleased to have in the House today two people involved with the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group, who were here to listen to the debate we had earlier and who also are going to be organizing and participating in the Victoria peace march this Saturday coming up. I'd like the House to please make welcome Mr. Al Rycroft and Kealey Pringle, who are in the gallery at this time.

L. Fox: Before I start into the question that I really want to ask, I want to just make a brief comment about the minister's discussion this morning at about 11:20, when she talked about the lack of process in Bill 19, compared that to the process in Bill 84, and then went on to talk about how the process was working in the education system. I'll resist the opportunity -- or the challenge, I guess -- to talk about the lack of process in the fixed-wage policy or the lack of process when the Minister of Finance usurped the Minister of Health in making the settlement with the hospital unions.

But I did want to follow up on a couple of items. I was reading through Hansard, and I noticed that the minister suggested to the opposition Education critic, in response to a question about whether school boards should or should not have the ability to have local taxation powers, that further studies were being done on that particular issue. Would the minister like to identify for me the scope of those studies and, perhaps, how many studies there are and who is conducting them?

Hon. A. Hagen: May I just take a moment to introduce one of my officials, who has joined us at the table: Gordon Whitehead from the immigration policy branch.

I'm pleased to clarify the comments I've made so that there's no question about them. We were talking about the issue of the right of local school boards to levy taxes in their own right. I noted that the funding review had found no consensus in their broad-based discussions on this issue last spring through fall, and that as I reviewed those recommendations and reported on them after the review was tabled with the government in December,

[ Page 5376 ]

the issue of taxation at a local level was one that we would be dealing with, with further study. So my intent was to refer back to the matter of local taxation, to indicate the lack of consensus and to note that it would therefore be a matter of further consideration.

I think I've said very clearly in a number of discussions we've had back and forth across the floor that this is a matter requiring careful preparation. It is also something in the purview of the Ministry of Finance in terms of taxation policy. But I don't make any bones about the fact that as Education minister, working with school boards, it's obviously a policy issue in which I'm very interested.

L. Fox: I just want to follow up on that and make sure I understand exactly what the minister said. It seems that as the Minister of Education you're not opposed to the idea of local school boards having taxation powers, but you feel it needs further study. Is that accurate?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just read from the letter that went out with the report of the funding review. I noted in the letter: "The report did not identify a consensus on issues regarding local taxation." It stated: "I will be undertaking further dialogue in 1993 prior to announcing any changes in future years to local taxing provisions in the School Act." I was speaking there as a minister interested in that issue, as I note the Minister of Finance is responsible for taxation.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the UBCM also participated as active members on the advisory committee and on the committee of elected officials, as we worked together on those matters. I have not said and I want to make clear that that discussion involving the Ministries of Education, Finance and Municipal Affairs, the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the UBCM was a very important part of our look at all of these issues, because any decision taken in one area has implications in other areas, whether we are looking at provincial or local taxation. So those ongoing considerations will involve further consultations with the people I've just mentioned.

L. Fox: I think I'm going to have to get a listening piece, because the minister tends to trail off at the end of her presentation and I perhaps lose the conclusion of her statement.

Obviously the citizens of British Columbia are looking for some reforms in school taxation. I don't want to get into the Finance minister's area, but if the Education minister is considering lobbying the Finance minister on behalf of the BCSTA for the right to tax locally, then obviously there's an acceptance that homeowners' property taxes will continue to be the formula for collecting school taxes.

That's why I was trying to understand whether the minister was sincerely looking at this. You said there were further studies. To me, if you didn't support the idea, there wouldn't be a need for further studies. I'm trying to clarify what those studies are going to contain. Or if that is not yet designed, perhaps there are members like myself who might write the minister and suggest some things that should be considered within the study of taxation for school purposes.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. member, when we talk about taxation in any form, it has to be put -- and I think this is what you're suggesting -- in the context of overall tax policy, number one. Secondly, I want to make very clear that I don't intend to lobby for anyone. The BCSTA can lobby government very well for itself, as any organization may do. Thirdly, because we are dealing with overall tax policy, any future policy in this regard needs to involve, at a minimum, the parties that I've talked about. I want to emphasize that point. Taxation policy needs to be discussed by the parties who are affected by it.

The UBCM is clearly interested. We involve them in the whole funding review, because local taxation comes into education revenue, which is distributed back to the province. That taxation level is set by the provincial government according to our current tax law.

[3:45]

A. Cowie: I have a couple of questions regarding the Vancouver School District -- particularly now because, as everyone knows, they've been bargaining for some 84 days. It's a very long bargaining period with the teachers and their local association, and there are some 53,500 students at stake here. I'm just wondering -- especially since they are $27 million apart -- what the minister can do to help out with this situation.

In addition, Vancouver continues to share in funding for a $2 million inner-city schools program. I believe that the Vancouver School Board will be applying, because it does run a number of very fine programs to help children from the inner-city core, and there will be resources available to it.

[ Page 5377 ]

A. Cowie: I want to compliment the minister on some of the strategies she's been taking in stressing the reduction of some of the operating costs for management. I agree with that, and I believe that's a good strategy throughout the province. There have been some excesses in that area. As far as Vancouver goes, I think we have to recognize that the administration side has been reduced. In 1980 it represented 0.77 percent of the total budget. It's now down to 0.57 percent, so that's very respectable. I think that management has done a really good job in cutting costs in Vancouver, and they have very special problems there.

We have a situation at the present time -- as I said, the 84 days of negotiations -- and counter-offers have finally been put on the table to the teachers' association. They've come back, and they are $27 million apart. So it looks very much like there could be a strike, which would be a very unfortunate situation. The teachers' association has voted 51 percent in favour of a strike, which is not very high. Usually one would expect about a 70 percent vote before the teachers would go on strike. So that might be a bit hedgy. However, as they are $27 million apart, it looks like there is not going to be a resolution of that matter.

The board has said that there are bound to be at least 100 people laid off unless the teachers realize that there simply isn't any more money. They don't seem to be realistic about that factor. I'm just wondering what the minister can do to inform the teachers' union in Vancouver that they are not going to get any more money, and there's simply no other place to cut.

Hon. A. Hagen: Sometimes I just tell the parties involved to get real. Almost $316 million goes into the schools in Vancouver, and I've noted to the member additional funding that is available. I have no comment about some variation of the $27 million. I sometimes get letters that say: "You've cut the funding to the Vancouver School District by $27 million" -- or $21 million. What I've shared with you is the fact that Vancouver's funding has increased by almost 27 percent over the last four years, while its enrolment has gone up by 6 percent.

There is additional funding already allocated, and there are resources available to Vancouver throughout the year. Like all boards, though, it's facing a challenge in providing for its students. I want to say that about every board. You commented about the need for boards to look carefully at where they're spending their money. I want to acknowledge that doing that is difficult.

I won't repeat the comments I've made. Last year Vancouver received an increase in its funding; this year it has received an increase throughout the year. There have been additional resources made available. Vancouver has been treated fairly and equitably, like other districts, and 45 of those districts have come to a resolution of their collective agreements. I'm hopeful that Vancouver will do so too. It's obvious that a lot of teachers are concerned. The bargaining will continue, and I hope that they will arrive at an agreement -- as I hope all districts will -- and that they will achieve success.

A. Cowie: I'll just ask one more question. The deficit was some $7 million this year in Vancouver. So the extra amount of money, the $6.6 million, doesn't even cover that, apart from the extra programs that some of the provincial money went into. The real problem appears to be that somebody has to get real, as the minister stated. It would appear that the administration has tried to get real, although there may still be some room for movement there. There always is, it appears. At least we should always be looking at that.

I complimented the minister for taking that approach, because I think the flattening of organizations is especially important today in administering. So I agree with that aspect.

I'm not against teachers at all. But in Vancouver they appear to be not real enough. It's my understanding that the average senior teacher there is making $60,000 a year. They get three months' holidays. We should be so lucky in that aspect. I think that being real is very important, so I would hope that the minister could help with that. I realize that the BCTF is very close to the NDP, although I also recognize that not all teachers belong to any particular party. I think it would be very helpful if the minister would have some very close discussions with them to make sure that they are real in this situation so the students won't suffer with the strike.

Hon. A. Hagen: I respect the collective bargaining process. Vancouver teachers and the Vancouver board are in the midst of that process. We've shared some information about my responsibility to provide to the board, in a fair and equitable way, resources for the children in Vancouver. I'm sure that the teachers and the trustees, both of whom have the well-being of children very much at the fore, will continue with their efforts. There are difficulties at times, I know, but I'm confident that those two parties -- like the boards that have successfully reached agreement -- will eventually get to that agreement, and I wish them well in that work.

A. Cowie: The comments from the minister remind me of one further question that perhaps I could get some clarification on. When you're $27 million apart -- and they've been bargaining in Vancouver for 84 days -- it is a clear case for some overall provincial bargaining, rather than leaving it up to individual school boards. I happen to be in favour of giving as much local autonomy as possible to communities or even neighborhood groups. I believe that it's very important. But there's a certain responsibility that goes along with that.

This is a case where perhaps the minister should be looking at some overall provincial bargaining in order to avoid these sorts of situations. Perhaps the minister would just comment briefly on that as it affects Vancouver.

Hon. A. Hagen: Two comments. First, our Labour Relations Code and Labour Relations Board stand ready to assist the parties in any way that they believe would be helpful. I know that the parties are well aware of those resources and that often they do assist when

[ Page 5378 ]

there seems to be an impasse. I would certainly commend the work of mediators to the board.

Second -- and I won't repeat this, because as many people in the chamber know, we have exhaustively discussed the issue of the Korbin commission's work on public sector bargaining -- I've made it very clear that I don't believe there are instant solutions, but rather, there is a need for a careful look as we make changes in policy. That's the reason that the Minister of Finance asked Ms. Korbin to conduct an inquiry on the part of government to examine bargaining in the public sector. We have certainly committed ourselves to act in a timely way as soon as her recommendations are received.

We will be studying them and moving forward. We know that the report is coming very soon. We can anticipate some further discussion then of the issue, the positions and what's best for the children -- what in fact is going to be best to create the climate and the processes, supported by our excellent Labour Relations Code, to assist bargaining in the public sector.

K. Jones: I'd like to explore a different area with the minister, the area of funding to independent schools. First of all, I'd like to ask the minister to explain her justification for the elimination of the very, very small amount -- 10 percent of funding -- that was previously provided to level 3 independent schools, where the parents paid 90 percent of the operating costs and 100 percent of the capital cost to operate those schools for the students. There was no other cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Could the minister explain her justification for removing that very inadequate 10 percent of funding for these people who have over the years been double-taxed? How can she explain taking even the last little bit of contribution that the province makes to these pupils' and their parents' welfare?

[4:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: We have several classifications of independent schools, some of them funded and some of them unfunded. Originally the schools that were funded at 10 percent were a part of just three classifications, when we didn't have a process to ensure that all schools in fact met some basic standards in terms of educational facilities and meeting municipal codes. The group 3 schools, as they are called in the act, the ones that are funded at 10 percent, are not required to meet any of the standards set by the province regarding certification or curriculum accountability through examinations.

So they fall into a category which doesn't make them eligible, in fact, for the other two areas of funding, the 50 percent and the 35 percent. Those schools are funded by the province because they operate under certain criteria that are based on them following provincial curriculums, meeting provincial standards and meeting certain standards of certification. And as a province, if we are in fact to provide funding for schools, there is an expectation that they will fit within the criteria for funding.

So what we have done is discontinue funding starting in September of 1993. We will in fact be reducing the number of classifications to four. The group 5 schools in the past, which were not funded at all, had exactly the same kinds of qualifications for being in that category. They met some fundamental health and safety standards, and they do not foment dissension or in any way operate outside the laws and fundamental values of our society. So we will be dealing with the group 3 schools and the group 5 schools as one group from now on. There will be legislation introduced within this session to make those changes.

I should let you know that, in that consideration, if any of those schools should choose to qualify under the group 1 or group 2 categories, then funding will be made available to them.

That means that they offer programs consistent with the goals of the British Columbia curriculum; they participate in our assessment and grade 12 exams; they employ certified teachers; they maintain adequate educational facilities; they meet municipal codes; they are evaluated by our independent schools branch; and their fee levels, related to the cost of educating a child in a school in their district, are no more than the cost of educating such a child -- or if they are more, then they receive 35 percent funding rather than 50 percent funding.

So if any of those schools that are presently in the group 3 category should meet those qualifications, those standards, then they would be eligible for funding under probably the group 1 category, or group 2, after operating for a year before applying for a certificate. So there is that opportunity or that option for them to fit within our standards of accountability and programs offered.

K. Jones: The minister has opened up an awful lot of avenues to be explored as a result of this requirement. She talks about making sure that they don't foment dissension. It seems odd to be judging our school systems on whether they will foment dissension or not. I would think all of our schools should encourage free thinking and thoughtful analysis of process. Is that what the minister describes as fomenting dissension? I agree that to get funding equivalent to the funding for the public schools they would have to meet certain curriculum requirements and standards. Judging the certification of teachers versus the success of the pupil seems questionable.

Demanding curriculum standards for minimal funding certainly doesn't seem valid. If, as she described it, we're talking about the group 3 schools, often referred to as the level 3 independent schools, that 10 percent contribution allowed those schools to operate without having the provincial standard curriculum. But this didn't mean that they didn't have good curriculum. It meant that they had a different curriculum, such as the California curriculum or some other suitable curriculum. Sometimes it was much better than the B.C. curriculum, but it was different and therefore didn't meet the requirements of the ministry.

I think the ministry is being too dogmatic in setting down criteria. This seems to be totally contrary to the Year 2000 principle of educating students with more flexibility. When it comes to funding for independent schools, we completely lack the flexibility that we're talking about. We appear to be more in line with the concept of regimentation or discrimination against independent schools for some dogmatic or ideological

[ Page 5379 ]

reason. People are choosing to have their children taught in an independent school, for whatever reason, be it religious or a desire to have a higher standard, and are willing to pay for those higher standards. Maybe it's a lack of confidence in the public school system, which I think is prevalent among a lot of people in the community today. It's certainly not the fault of people in the public school system. I think a lot of them are trying very hard to provide outstanding education, but they're frustrated in their attempts to provide that type of education.

A lot of that frustration comes from the bureaucratic processes required of them through the Ministry of Education. The minister needs to seriously address the problems that are causing people to move away from the public schools to the independent schools. I don't think those problems are really being addressed today.

Getting back to the original question, could the minister explain to us why she made the decision to cut the 10 percent funding to the group 3 independent school?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd like to read a couple of sections from the Independent School Act. I think it's important to know that any funding that goes to schools or the regulation of schools comes within principles that we all support.

For all of the schools, whether they are group 1, 3 or 5, there is a fundamental requirement that the inspector of schools must be satisfied that no program is in existence or is proposed at the independent school that would -- in theory or in practice -- promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority or persecution, religious intolerance or persecution, or social change through violent action or sedition. When we talk about those fundamental values, all the schools have that as a requirement under our Independent School Act.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Interjections.

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, those are characteristics of our public schools, and those are clearly values and characteristics within our public schools as well.

With respect to schools that have alternative programs, I want to just observe that there are many alternative programs within the public and independent school systems. You will find a whole range of models, as the member well knows.

The funding criteria for all our schools -- and certainly for the independent schools that are funded at 50 and 35 percent -- is that the programs offered are consistent with the goals of the British Columbia curriculum. That's spelled out very clearly in

section 3 of the act, as it applies to both group 1 and 2 schools. They have a curriculum and educational programs that comply with the instructional time and program requirements determined by the minister; there is an evaluation program that demonstrates student progress in achieving intellectual development, human and social development and career development; and there is participation in provincial assessment and examination programs. Those are stipulated by the act and are fundamental characteristics within that variety, or those alternatives, if you like, where there is funding that flows to those schools.

Group 3 schools do not meet some or all of those particular criteria. Because there is not that adherence to the fundamental goals of British Columbia schools, I have made the decision that funding will not be continued. We are dealing here with the criteria and accountability from which that funding flows. We believe that if public funds are to be made available, then those public funds must flow to schools where those criteria are clearly set out and met by group 1 and 2 schools.

I might comment that we work very closely with the Federation of Independent School Associations. They are very supportive of the criteria that are the basis for the funding for their schools, and they have worked diligently to ensure that their schools meet or exceed the criteria. Virtually all of the teachers in the group 1 and 2 schools are certified and are members of the broad educators community through the College of Teachers. That requirement is not there for any of the other schools. They have every right to continue to teach. They are regulated, but in a very basic way -- not according to the consistent goals that I've indicated are the requirement for group 1 and 2 schools.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether she believes that independent schools have a place in the school system, per se. Could she also give us an indication of the percentage increase in students attending independent schools versus public schools over the last three years.

Hon. A. Hagen: Clearly we believe that all schools that provide for children should have some regulation by government. As a member in opposition, I supported the new Independent School Act, because there were a number of schools that had no regulation at all, even in terms of health and safety for children. But where public funds are used, we believe there should be accountability consistent with our broad goals for education. We make a very significant contribution to the support of independent schools, and we have continued that contribution. We have made some very constructive changes this year in terms of supporting special-needs children in the independent schools.

[4:15]

The population in independent schools is 7 percent of the total population. If I could track that for you as a percentage of the children in the public school system, it has remained fairly constant. As a percentage of the number of children who are attending the public schools, it has risen about 11/2 percent over the last five years.

K. Jones: The decision to eliminate the group 3 funding has created a great deal of fear in the community among those who wish to have their children attend independent schools -- fear that the next step will be eliminating the 35 and 50 percent funding that goes to the other levels of independent schools. Can

[ Page 5380 ]

you give us an assurance that that funding will not be touched?

Hon. A. Hagen: Since we became government, we have continued our funding for independent schools. As I noted, we work very carefully with the Federation of Independent School Associations, which represents the vast majority of the funded independent schools in the province. That working relation is there, and the independent schools continue to have support for their efforts. As I say, we've looked this year at ways in which we can improve that funding, particularly for the special-needs children in the system. I am pleased with our ongoing commitment to the children who attend those schools and our working relationship with the FISA.

K. Jones: I just want to get a further clarification. I didn't hear a positive response to my question as to whether you are going to assure these parents of continuing funding this year and in the following year.

Hon. A. Hagen: The estimates before us are this year's estimates. I want to assure the member, because he is asking about future policy, that the role of the independent schools is a part of our work in the field of education, and it's been fully supported by this government since it became government. We have continued our funding without changes, except, in consultation with the FISA, to find improved ways of supporting the education of children in the independent schools. I want to note again that these schools play a role in our school system and in our councils.

As part of the overall services to children, we are pleased to support that role with the accountability and consistency of goals that are reflected in the group 1 and 2 schools.

K. Jones: In the election campaign the Premier promised that there would be no cuts to independent schools, and yet already this year you have broken that promise to these people by cutting the 10 percent to level 3 schooling. Does that really give assurances to other people who have children at independent schools that they are going to get a fair break from this government?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe I've answered the question in respect to public funds going to schools where there is public accountability for goals that are consistent with the goals in public education. Those goals are very clearly spelled out. We believe that that's a responsible decision for us to make in the use of public dollars.

K. Jones: In view of the fact that the students who go to independent schools are not costing any more than half the operating cost and are no capital cost to the school districts, and that the parents are picking up the remaining costs to educate their children, is the minister prepared to stop this concept of double taxation for the education of their children and allow a quota system or a special allocation of the taxpayers' money to allow the parents to choose which school they would like to have their funding go to?

Hon. A. Hagen: Every parent has a right to free education for their children. This government provides support for those parents who make different choices.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister if and when -- if she hasn't already -- she would be replying to the letter of March 17 that I addressed to her with regard to the cancellation of funding to independent schools. It has been more than a month now. Is there some problem with replying to a simple letter from a fellow member of this Legislature on behalf of their constituents?

Hon. A. Hagen: Point taken. If you wrote on March 17, that is too long a time, and I apologize for any delay. I'll ensure that you have that response by tomorrow, hon. member, if that's possible, or by the first of the week. I am sorry if there has been some delay in our responding. We usually try to get back to our colleagues very rapidly. I know that I'm signing letters now that have come to me most recently. I will look into that and ensure that you have a response in a timely way.

K. Jones: Thank you. I did take the liberty of following up on this today to find out its status, and I was told that the letter was dated April 15 but that the minister hadn't had time to sign it off. Perhaps that would help. I wouldn't have had to ask these questions if I had gotten an appropriate response. It's particularly of concern to my constituents, whom you also were expected to reply to, since each one of their letters was attached with the letter of concern to the minister. I would like to ask the minister to expeditiously respond to my constituents. A large number of them expressed concern, and I would really like to get those responses back in a timely manner.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege to enter into discussion with the hon. Minister of Education in the areas of human rights, immigration and multiculturalism. I'm aware of the introductory comments she made at the beginning of the introduction of the estimates in this regard. First of all, as we enter into this section, I would ask if there is any particular comment you would like to make, or would you prefer that I simply go ahead with the questioning?

Hon. A. Hagen: I must say, I do appreciate the way in which the members opposite have facilitated the debate. I gave an overview of all aspects of the ministry in my opening comments last Friday, and I just encourage you to ask whatever questions you want during this portion of the debate.

V. Anderson: I would deal first of all with the

section on human rights and then come back later to the immigration and multicultural programs.

When we look at the increase in budget in the area of human rights over the past two years, taking into

[ Page 5381 ]

account the budget last year and the budget this year, the total budget has increased by approximately $600,000 -- projecting from '91 to '92, and then from '92 to '93 and '93 to '94. Although there has not been a significant increase in this current year -- almost $79,000 in the total budget -- it does take into account that there was a much larger increase in the year before of nearly $500,000. So there's been some overall undertakings within the ministry over that period of time, and hopefully we might find out where they are.

Might she first of all indicate the kind of staffing available in this ministry and where that staffing is located -- here in Victoria or in other offices -- so we get a feel for where the staffing work of this program is underway.

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you for the questions. Let me frame them this way. Our human rights operation is based in Victoria. In the past year we have indeed expanded our Vancouver office. That is very convenient for people who may want to get information about their rights under the human rights code to lay complaints. Also there is a small room in the Vancouver office which allows us a place to have hearings, so that's actually been a cost-efficiency, and we've used that. Two of the human rights council of five are based in Vancouver, and the other three are based here. Our total staffing for our human rights branch is 25. It has remained fairly constant; there have been some increases there.

Let me put this in a context, because sometimes we get into numbers rather than purposes. Our purpose has been to ensure that when people call the human rights office, we're able to assist them through the process of whether there should be a complaint lodged, give them information about what their rights are and then carry them through that process. As you know, we work with the human rights advisory council as a quasi-judicial body, so I deal with it not directly in terms of its complaints, its caseload, but administratively, to support it in dealing with the human rights issues that come before it.

We have worked diligently to ensure that there are processes that allow for information, the processing of complaints, mediation at any level so that we can assist a complainant to a resolution whenever that is appropriate and useful, and then finally through to hearings if there is not a resolution.

We've also done a good deal of work, especially with the appointment of our new council on education, in relation to human rights. They are working closely with our multicultural programs and our language and multicultural work in the ministry around education, racism and other aspects of human rights education. As we have looked at the work of the council, we've looked at ways in which it can deal with an expanded mandate. You'll remember that last year we made some important improvements -- amendments -- to the human rights code that extended the protection against discrimination.

We have worked, too, to find ways by which people can have complaints dealt with in an expeditious way. Our caseloads are up, but we are managing them well.

[4:30]

V. Anderson: Since you have mentioned the changes that were made to the Human Rights Act last year, and you indicated that the caseloads are up because of that, could you give some indication of how much the caseloads have increased and in what particular areas, and whether there were particular amendments made last year which have affected the increase of those caseloads? Are there some crucial areas that have been touched by it because of that, and other areas that are not so significant?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's an interesting question, because we might have thought that the one came as a result of the other. But I think that some of the increases are related very much to the parts of the Human Rights Act that have always been there. I know that I have some of those figures here; we'll just be able to deal with them. The amendments last year were the addition of family status and sexual orientation as a basis for protection, class action complaints, employment equity initiatives and removal of the cap of $2,000 for injury to feelings and self-esteem.

The majority of the investigations are within the scope of what have currently been the issues under the Human Rights Act. I believe that there have been no complaints, for instance, under the employment equity provision, and I know that the branch is dealing with setting up some guidelines for that at this time. There have been 68 complaints on family status, most of them relating to housing; ten complaints on the basis of sexual orientation, mostly relating to employment and some to spousal benefits; and four class-action complaints of various categories.

I can give you that general information. I can't give you any more information about the process with those because, as I noted earlier, they may be settled very quickly with an inquiry and preliminary investigation, or they may go further through to mediation or to the possibility of a hearing. Within the branch we try to ensure that where the complainant and the respondent can be assisted in coming to a resolution of the complaint, one of our approaches is to try to provide that kind of assistance.

V. Anderson: There are two questions that come from what you raised. One that I don't think you mentioned was the change in age limit to between 19 and 64 inclusive; the limitation before was 45 to 64. I remember that there was quite a bit of discussion on that at the time, and I wonder if there has been any significant awareness that this has made a difference, or if it has just faded into the picture. There was also discussion about the increase in compensation beyond $2,000. Is there any indication as to what that change has demonstrated?

Also, the board of inquiry was established to be able to take steps to respond to complaints, to the employers particularly. I wonder whether there is anything to report in those three areas in particular.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm going to ask the member to explain the board of inquiry reference, because I'm not clear what the question is.

[ Page 5382 ]

There have been no complaints on the age issue. In the long run, I'm not sure whether that might almost be a technical amendment in terms of its impact, hon. member. With respect to the change in the compensation level, there has been one ruling by the council for an award greater than $2,000.

V. Anderson: Just a

summary of the board of inquiry: established by the council to enable the council to order an offending employer to take specific ameliorative steps or to adapt employment equity or a similar program. That is the one I was referring to in that particular question.

Hon. A. Hagen: I did address -- perhaps not strongly enough -- the issue of employment equity. To date there has been no employment equity program brought before the council for its advice around the implementation of such a program for any employer or organization. The council is preparing some guidelines for how they would advise on that. Fundamentally, they're putting some flesh on the bones of the approach that now makes it possible for them, upon request, to advise an employer or organization about the implementation of an employment equity plan.

V. Anderson: You mentioned that there are offices in Vancouver and Victoria. I wonder about access to the council from across the province and what kind of demand there is outside the two cities. How easy is it for people from other parts of the province to get access to deal with inquiries or to have hearings? How is that process being handled?

Hon. A. Hagen: That's a good question and a good observation. Because the industrial relations officers of the employment standards offices are involved with assisting in the investigation of complaints, any employment standards office in British Columbia is a place where a person may go. Government agents' offices are also a broad source of information on any program of government. The council does travel to the hearing if a complainant and respondent live in another place. Fundamentally, the council goes to them if there isn't a resolution through the investigation and mediation process.

V. Anderson: You mentioned the fact that industrial relations officers and government agencies are involved in the process across the province, and therefore that makes it available to people. Are the costs of using these facilities or offices contained within your budget, or are they strictly in the budget of the agencies that hire them? Or is there a fee for service?

Hon. A. Hagen: They're not contained within the budget that we're debating.

V. Anderson: So if I understand you correctly, the services that they provide in this particular area of human rights are simply included within their jurisdiction, and there isn't any extra cost to this ministry. I think that's a bonus for this particular program. Some of these bonuses need to be noted and commended when they are there, because it makes it that much more available to everyone.

When you mentioned the education process around the whole area of human rights, I understand that in the long run the education program would hopefully be useful in preventing the number of cases that come to the council. I would be curious to know about the extent of those programs in the community and the knowledge that gets out to people in that particular area.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm really very pleased to respond to this question, and I'd like to do it in the context of the additional responsibilities of the ministry, for which I know you're the critic, hon. member.

We've tried to see our human rights work, our work in multiculturalism and race relations, or the work that our immigrant policy and immigrant settlement people do not as atoms -- in whatever atoms make up our ministry -- but as part of our work in education. I must say that Harinder Mahil, the new chair, and all the other council members are strongly supportive of the education work that they can do on behalf of human rights.

Let me just note one new initiative. The Human Rights Council is working in active partnership with other branches within our ministry and the broader community to develop a curriculum and resource packages for students and teachers that deal with anti-racism. That's just the start of bringing the human rights council and their education role into our work in curriculum development resource material. I just need to say that when we do that, we are automatically involved with the teaching profession, because they are very much a part of our curriculum development.

In all areas that we're working in, that kind of working relationship partners we sometimes call leverage, because what we get is just what you were talking about -- using offices around the province. We get a lot more out of that kind of effort than if the Human Rights Council was working by itself with its very small staff and very concentrated workload.

I'm very pleased with the initiatives the council members have taken in this regard. They share your view very strongly that one of the ways in which we deal with human rights is to have people understand its principles and learn that these values are part of the valued and democratic society in which we all live.

V. Anderson: One of the things that I consistently hear from the community more and more with regard to the concern about human rights is whether the human rights stand by themselves or whether they're in a context. I hear people raising the question of whether at this point we need to do a shift in thinking about that, and stress the responsibilities we have out of which the rights come, rather than that the rights are there without any responsibility.

It's that balance that I hear people saying, because those who are jealous of the rights that some people seem to have, or the efforts they put into maintaining their rights, are continually asking where their responsibility is. I know that works both ways, but I think this

[ Page 5383 ]

discussion is becoming more prevalent. The more we stress the rights -- which has its own validity -- the more I'm hearing the question about responsibility. When we're entering into the educational process of children within the school -- and their parents and families within the community -- then that whole concern of the relationship with responsibilities and rights almost seems to come to: do responsibilities come from rights, or do rights come from responsibilities?

I know it's a 51-40 percent undertaking, but that's the kind of discussion I'm hearing raised now.

Hon. A. Hagen: We're getting into some philosophy here. Fundamentally, the reason we have human rights legislation is because we have not learned to take our responsibilities as carefully as we might. So I think that the very fact that we are dealing with human rights... If we look at what I see at the end of a working day in countries other than ours, around the abuse of rights and the absolute abandonment of any responsibility for fellow human beings, it makes us realize how precious those rights are to us. But I don't see it as a dichotomy at all.

I don't see that we don't have as a fundamental principle and value in Canada a recognition of our responsibility for our fellow human beings. It's there in our social programs. Our medicare program is a profound statement that we all share a responsibility to assist those who have a right to medical care if they are sick or in need of that care.

[4:45]

But to come more specifically to your question, because I don't want to leave it that broadly, we can look at our education system and the exciting things happening with our multicultural and immigrant-serving agencies, which are more and more a part of the integral fabric of our Education ministry and education institutions. I don't want to paint an overly optimistic picture here, but we have to start, and we have to build on that as a part of building a respect for the rights of others and a knowledge and understanding of their diversity and -- to pay credit to some of our students -- a zero tolerance for abridging such rights.

I want to speak again, as I often do, of a group of students in North Surrey, who happen to be at a high school where I last taught and left in 1962, and who have established a student policy of zero tolerance around racism. And with that policy, they have exercised their responsibility to ensure the right of every student in that school to be respected and to be given the opportunity to learn. It's something that they all take a responsibility for; it's not one or the other, but something where, as students exercise that responsibility, they fundamentally protect and acknowledge human rights.

But our legislation, of course, is there to ensure that there are vehicles where we can deal with the abridgment of people's rights. And we still need that, although I suppose we might hope that at some time, through education, the need for mechanisms for people to get some kind of fair hearing will diminish.

V. Anderson: A few minutes ago, the minister raised the topic of racism in this context of human rights. I think we're all aware of the concern about racism -- in the negative sense of that term -- developing in the province, the hate telephone lines and the groups which have grown up in a number of places within our province to foster hate, disagreement and misunderstanding between different racial groups. I know this has been a factor in some of the high schools here in the lower mainland. There have been a number of conferences sponsored by the anti-racist groups.

I wonder if the minister sees and has experienced an increase in this concern. Has the minister been able to undertake a larger focus to deal with this concern within the province?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's difficult to measure these activities, hon. member. I think any manifestation that we see of the overt racial hatred that is expressed with hate lines or particular groups that espouse the philosophy of a single race and power relationships is absolute anathema to all of us.

We are working diligently to deal with those issues. We are looking at legislation that will allow us to more effectively deal with complaints of racism and racial hatred events and activities. We are involved with a large number of programs under our multicultural program, and there's an increase in our budget this year for that. We will be looking at ways to deal with race relations and racism by working very actively in the community. This is not a top-down thing; this is something that needs to pervade our organizations, where we can all deal with it.

I noted the secondary school a moment ago as a microcosm of what a group of people have chosen to do in a community where they have influence and where programs can occur.

The focus in our multicultural programs is on building better cross-racial understanding. We're working not only with multicultural organizations but very strongly with municipalities. I've met with a number of municipal multiculturalism organizations that have the goal of positive relationships with the diverse communities living there. We have funded a number of conferences dealing with that.

We're dealing also with access to culturally sensitive programs. The United Way, for example, with support from our ministry, is currently working with many organizations around culturally sensitive services. We're looking at institutional change within our own government. There's a very active committee dealing with these matters and with conflict resolution where impasses occur.

I want to note here that -- because sometimes there's discussion about how we come to our understandings -- that education is broadly based. As people come to live in Canada by choice or because they come from desperate situations as refugees, we need to provide them with an opportunity to understand citizenship responsibilities and rights within our country. There is a learning that occurs as we move to another country, and people have come to this country because it is free.

Again, there are small manifestations of that. When I ride in a taxi with a person who may be an immigrant to Canada, and he asks what I do, I tell him what I do. A comment that I've heard several times is: "Imagine. I can sit with an elected person with a responsibility in

[ Page 5384 ]

government and talk about things that are important to me in the country I came from. I never would have thought that that kind of freedom and openness would be available to me."

I'd be happy to provide you with information. We probably don't have a lot of time, but as we complete our work this year on the focus of our grants and the increases that will be there, you may want to receive a briefing. I know you are an active person in the community, and you're part of the education process. It would be good for you to know a good deal about the work we're doing with our immigrant settlement grants and with our race relations and multicultural grants.

V. Anderson: I'll be coming back to some of those in a moment. I had thought I would put that into the other part of our discussion but it is all interrelated, so I have no problem with this.

I would pick up on two things, though, out of the current discussion. One of the things I'm discovering -- and I wonder how the ministry is dealing with it -- is the lack of clarity in

definitions of terms such as culture, ethnic, nationality and racial. These terms are used in many different ways. I wonder, in the education program and also for our purposes of working together in clarity in the community, if there is some kind of dictionary definition -- a working definition -- of those terms so that people in the community could begin to deal with them in a consistent way. I'm finding that those terms are used interchangeably, and because of their interchangeable nature, we're often talking at cross-purposes with each other.

Hon. A. Hagen: Rather than trying to deal directly with your comment, let me just note that with our multicultural programs, we are dealing with community and race relations between the host community -- that's those of us who have been here and are, if you like, members, through whatever process -- and people who are new to the country and are probably from visible or national minority groups. Our multicultural programs work on the relationships between the host society, if you like, and the newcomers to our society. The funding goes to multicultural groups, so we don't fund individual unicultural or uni-ethnic groups under our multicultural programs.

If you turn to the immigrant settlement part of the programs, which was a new program we brought in as government in January 1992, the funding there is very much targeted to direct services -- a list of areas where we believe we can target dollars through various organizations to assist people in their settlement. I could certainly provide you with the main areas where we are focusing our funding. It's direct-service funding that's going to assist people coming into those programs with their settlement needs.

V.

Anderson: The minister raises a very significant point about the host community and the incoming newcomers to the country, because one of the concerns that I'm having raised in the multicultural or race relations advisory committee that I meet with regularly comes particularly from a Japanese-Canadian woman -- that is, a Canadian woman of Japanese heritage who was born and brought up in Canada, incarcerated in the camps in the forties in British Columbia, and is from a visible "minority." Although she has spent the whole of her life here, she has a very frustrating time because she is a host, and increasingly the hosts are the visible persons.

The language used in discussion, even as we're doing it here, implies that the visible minorities are the newcomers, when many of our visible minorities, including our own daughter, are Canadians by birth, and in many cases their grandparents and their parents before them were all Canadians over a lot of generations.

Somehow, in allowing the agenda to be adopted by the newcomers and the focus to be on the newcomers, we have displaced and overlooked and put into a vacuum those people who have been here for a whole generation or many generations. So it seems to me that in our present circumstance, we're being forced to reconsider the reality that we started out with ten or 15 years ago in multiculturalism -- since we're over into that area at the moment -- is not the reality in which we now live. We're through a stage, and it's another stage we need to be focusing on -- not the one we were at but the one that we're coming into.

[5:00]

Just one more comment on that. We have always had waves of different groups coming into the country from one part of the world or another. And as each wave comes, we have focused on the needs of that particular group. Once they have become a part of the mainstream, then we go on to the next one, but we leave behind that the mainstream is a multiplicity. It's not the newcomers that are bringing the variety, but it's the very fact that others have been here. And the mainstream is not a mainstream; it's a multiple stream. It seems to me we have a new shift here that needs to take place, if you'd like to comment.

Hon. A. Hagen: The member is very astute in commenting about language and perception and how they affect our perspectives. I think all of us know of people who are third-, fourth- and fifth-generation Canadians born here who are members of an ethnic or a national group that came as immigrants a long time ago. We probably have to cast ourselves as an ongoing immigrant society. And you're very right in saying there is at this stage of the game a multiple stream of people involved, and I've had some of the same kinds of discussions that you have had.

I think, for our purposes, this is a part of education. When someone sees a person of colour, for example, the automatic expectation is that this person has just arrived in Canada, because there's a totally false perception that a person of colour is an immigrant -- and that's very wrong. I have a set of statistics for the census of 1871, where by far the largest number of people counted were our first nations people, the aboriginal people. But then you look at the other classifications that were made on the basis of race or colour, there were a very large number of people of Chinese origin -- this even before the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, when many, many more people

[ Page 5385 ]

came here as workers on that railroad -- and many people who were black, many of them from, at that time, the West Indies rather than from Africa, or people who had come on the railway out of the Civil War from the United States. It's a surprising balance there, which really tells us something about the multi-stream that exists.

I think it is a matter of ongoing education and a recognition that we are a society of immigrants. The thing that holds us together in this unique country is our respect for human rights, our welcoming of people from every culture and corner of the world and, although we all know that there are challenges within that living together, the fact that we are, by and large, continuing to learn to live together as a productive society. We have work to do in that regard, and that's why some of these programs continue to be important for government and all legislators to support.

V. Anderson: I wouldn't want to be suggesting that I would correct a teacher in language or in expression, but it seems to me that when I was in school white was a colour, and that when we speak of people of colour we've implied unconsciously that white is not also a colour. Because if we go to many other countries of the world, we would be picked out of their community and street because we are a different colour than them. The colour that we have is white.

It reminded me of a very hostile discussion that I had with a member of the so-called black community within the United States during the time of Martin Luther King. The argument of his was that it was either black or white. We were sitting at coffee one day, and I was saying: "No, it's not black or white." In the midst of this discussion, he said: "Yes, it is." I very quietly said: "No. I beg to differ; I have a daughter who's yellow." He almost threw me out of the restaurant. We have so much emotion, and that's just an illustration of how we are misleading even in our very discussion of colour.

As I visit with young people and talk to them in the schools, and as I have counselled many of them in marriage preparation, it's my projection that very soon that 35.4 percent is going to go to 50 percent and beyond, and that therefore we're in a whole new discussion. It's that the majority of our people are mixed ethnic, mixed cultural, mixed nationality -- whatever terms we're beginning to use. So those terms are no longer adequate.

The minister also commented about citizenship a little while ago. I refer to that briefly because one of the strongest comments of this culture and in other groups I've been to -- and not too long ago when I went to the Taiwanese cultural dinner -- was their expression of their Canadian identity, allegiance and commitment. That's not true of all of the groups I go to, but it was in this particular case. It seems to me that we need to look at a redefining of citizenship within a national, universal....

Canadian citizenship at one point as I was growing up was that thing that put a boundary around Canada and separated us from the rest of the world. The citizenship in our multicultural, multinational, multiethnic community, I would suggest, is a citizenship that has taken on a completely different meaning. It's not taken on the meaning of birth necessarily, but more on the meaning of allegiance and commitment.

Because I'm not sure, I would ask how much citizenship education is being done within our school system and in our community at large as a fundamental base point from which all other ethnic, multicultural understanding comes. It seems to me that the citizenship understanding, and what's involved in that, is fundamental to being able to put all the others in context. You mentioned earlier that people value freedom and the meaning of citizenship. I have attended citizenship court and seen the tears of joy and relief in others as they have come into the Canadian scene and made that commitment. It's very important.

For those who have grown up here, it's a commitment that some of us have never consciously made. I would ask the minister about this aspect of citizenship in relation to the other aspects. It seems to me that citizenship is the context in which all of these other aspects exist, and without it, whatever else we try to do will be self-defeating.

Hon. A. Hagen: I enjoyed listening to the member's comments. I want to express my admiration for the thoughtful approach and your active role in this regard, hon. member.

I'd like to just briefly respond by suggesting that there are two ways in which citizenship lessons are taught. One of them, I believe, is by modelling -- by how we do things as much as what we formally teach. For instance, if we look at some of the work we do in this ministry.... I meant to bring a copy of the Newcomers' Guide, which has just recently been republished. It's full of pictures