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)

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 5

[ Page 6379 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. We're very pleased to have visiting the Legislature today representatives from the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation. Visiting during question period are Peter Copping from Vancouver, Maeve Lydon from Victoria, Alison Gardiner from Victoria, Gulzar Samji from Vancouver and Britta Gundersen-Bryden from Victoria. They will be meeting with Members of the Legislative Assembly through the day, and we're very happy to welcome them to our assembly this afternoon.

J. Pement: It's my pleasure to introduce to you today, from the very beautiful community of Smithers, a grade 6 class from St. Joseph's School. I'm very pleased to see these young children come here to the Legislature today under the guardianship of their teacher, Miss B. Curren. I ask that the House welcome today this class and this group of young people to Victoria, the capital city of their province.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my great pleasure to welcome today to the House four of the five members of the B.C. Treaty Commission who were appointed last month. They are Chuck Connaghan, the chief commissioner, Carole Corcoran, Barbara Fisher and Dr. Lorne Greenaway who, along with Doug Kelly, will be serving this province, the federal government and the First Nations Summit in giving us guidance in the very tricky but no doubt worthwhile treaty negotiation process. I would ask the House to make them incredibly welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's my pleasure to ask the House to welcome today Marcia Braundy, who is a key leader in a nationally respected organization called Women in Trades and Technology. She's also a member of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, and has stood very strongly beside women in this province in opening doors to apprenticeship in non-traditional trades. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to ask the House to welcome some visitors from Montreal who are present in the gallery today. They are family of the chief of staff for the Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Bruce Murdock, his mother and his brother Sean. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: In the gallery today is a group of students from Camosun College who recently took

part in a Fuel Smart challenge event at Tillicum Mall in Victoria. I would very much like the House to recognize them and commend their efforts in promoting all aspects of energy efficiency and environmentally conscious driving habits.

We also have with us representatives of our Fuel Smart partner organization that I would like the House to recognize as well for their invaluable contribution.

From Camosun College are Ken Allen, Andre Ooievaar, Michael Corry, Frank Leversedge and Lynne Hahn; from Ensign Chrysler are Ron Edgar and Tony Green. Would members please help me make these people welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TREATY COMMISSION ACT

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Treaty Commission Act.

Hon. A. Petter: The Treaty Commission Act represents a final step in the process of establishing the British Columbia Treaty Commission. The act fulfils the central recommendation of the B.C. Claims Task Force and honours the commitment made last fall: the signing of the treaty commission agreement. At that time the First Nations Summit agreed to pass a resolution, and provincial and federal governments agreed to introduce legislation making the commission a legal entity.

The act, together with a parallel federal act and the First Nations Summit resolution, will give the commission the permanency and stability it requires to effectively carry out its mandate. Under the act, the commission is charged with the responsibility to oversee and facilitate treaty negotiations in this province. The commission will coordinate the start of treaty negotiations and monitor ongoing negotiations, operating independently of governments and first nations.

The Treaty Commission Act will ensure that at long last we have an enduring, made-in-B.C. process for negotiating just and honourable treaty settlements with first nations in this province.

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

Bill 22 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.

PROVINCE-WIDE SCHOOL BARGAINING ACT

L. Hanson presented a bill intituled Province-wide School Bargaining Act.

L. Hanson: This bill recognizes the reality of public school bargaining in our province today. One organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, represents public school teachers throughout the province. This bill reflects the approach to bargaining being recommended by B.C.'s local school trustees by providing a framework for flexible bargaining while guaranteeing that the province has the right to determine which bargaining issues have such a predominant impact province-wide as to justify central bargaining.

To make that determination annually, it allows for revisions to the bargaining structure following consultation with employee-employer organization reps. Finally, it permits the province to take a role at the bargaining table, but only to the extent it deems essential under the

[ Page 6380 ]

circumstances. This bill provides the mechanism to establish a balance between local authority and the need to protect the provincial taxpaying public's interests at the same time.

I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Bill M220 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

WELFARE FRAUD

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Social Services. Given the revelation in recent weeks about widespread welfare fraud and abuse, the statements of two RCMP officers in Surrey now look quite credible, while the minister's impression that only 1 percent engage in fraud is actually appearing quite incredible. Will the minister now come to grips with the fact that her own 1 percent figure is way off the mark, and offer leadership and support to her staff by giving us a precise target and date by which fraud and abuse will be reduced?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure where the question is there, but I'm more than happy to share information at any time, including during question period. Let me share with the member the definition of fraud. Fraud is when someone has purposely misled either a system or an individual. One percent...

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Are you interested in the answer?

The Speaker: Order please, hon. members. The question was listened to in relative silence, and I am sure the House would like to accord the same courtesy to the minister answering. Please proceed, minister.

Hon. J. Smallwood: ...is detected fraud in the system. I have never said that it is the only fraud in the system. We have set about from day one to develop the types of initiatives necessary to account for and control the system. Any fraud is too much fraud.

[2:15]

A. Warnke: Maybe the hon. minister can quibble with what was said, but she sure implied that that was what was involved.

We also hear that many people are convinced that the report on welfare fraud is accurate. Perhaps the Premier is the only one who says it's nonsense. We also hear that ministry staff are discouraged from reporting cases of suspected fraud and abuse. Therefore my question to the Minister of Social Services is: has the minister issued a written directive that all cases of suspected fraud are to be reported and followed up?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm well aware that the member is not familiar with all of the workings in the ministry, but let me provide you with some information. Our ministry is governed by a piece of legislation both provincially and federally. The provincial legislation is the GAIN Act, and the federal legislation is the Canada Assistance Plan.

We are governed in this ministry by the law, and we carry out that law. That law and the policies that flow from it govern the conduct of both me and the staff within the ministry. The staff is expected to report any concerns that they have. They are governed by strict regulations to do so, and that reporting system is through the investigation staff. There is ongoing feed-back to them by the investigators as well as a monthly reporting to my office.

WELFARE PAYMENTS MANAGEMENT

J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Minister of Social Services. Currently Vancouver is the only area in which unemployment insurance claimants are cross-referenced with welfare applicants or claimants. Can the minister advise us why the ministry restricts these cross-checks to Vancouver and doesn't examine it province-wide to identify the abuse that may exist in other parts of the province?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I will take that question on notice and bring extensive information back to the House.

WELFARE FRAUD

K. Jones: To the Minister of Social Services. A front-line social worker is quoted as saying that welfare money is being used for trips to Mexico. Other workers indicate that they have files on people living in Malta, Hong Kong and Boston. When will the minister provide the information on the number of people outside B.C. who are collecting welfare?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me tell you first of all that I would be very concerned if any employee within the ministry or any person in the public who was aware of such abuse did not act on it. The information that you're quoting is anecdotal. The message in the ministry is very clear that if there are such concerns, there is an expectation that they are reported and thoroughly investigated.

K. Jones: Will the minister admit that providing welfare recipients with picture ID would go a long way toward eliminating a major portion of the fraudulent claims?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have absolutely no intentions of dealing with one-off examples. We in this ministry are engaged in an extensive and comprehensive look at fraud and abuse, and we have been engaged in that process for the last 18 months. I'm interested in systemic change. I'm interested in supporting and developing a system that is accountable and able in the best possible way to deliver the tax dollars to those most in need.

[ Page 6381 ]

WELFARE PAYMENTS TO SINGLE EMPLOYABLE MEN

R. Neufeld: There are currently some 73,000 single employable men who are on welfare -- the fastest-growing category. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that those able-bodied individuals are actively looking for work?

The Speaker: Can the Chair assume that that question is directed to the Minister of Social Services?

R. Neufeld: The Minister of Social Services.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm happy to share that information once again with this member. In this budget year we have accessed and invested $80 million in employment and training. That is a recognition that in many small towns in this province there are not opportunities for young, single people. So we are providing those opportunities. Again, Mr. Member, it is the law that if persons on income assistance do not actively seek work and take advantage of those opportunities, they will be cut off.

R. Neufeld: Well, Mrs. Member, nearly four years ago the former government sent a letter to all single employable welfare recipients that was successful in reducing welfare caseloads. The minister will remember that the letter didn't affect single parents or couples with children. But it did require employable welfare recipients to provide the government with a list of the places they had applied for jobs. Is the minister now prepared to issue a similar letter?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, I'm sorry that my critic isn't aware of the fact that we have in the last number of months initiated a reporting system. Every time a person on income assistance receives a cheque from this ministry, there is a cheque stub. So there is a regular monthly reporting, Mr. Member -- not a one-shot deal, but a regular, monthly reporting -- of additional income and status for that account. As I said, it is expected and it is required by law that people eligible for income assistance who are of employable status look for work, and that is followed up by FAWs.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: It's obvious the minister missed the point of the question, but we'll try again. The minister called Claude Richmond's letter irresponsible and slammed it for being hardhearted. Does the minister think it's a responsible use of tax dollars to pay out welfare without even knowing if able-bodied recipients are looking for work? Does she advocate following Ontario's example, where the government shells out cash for life -- no questions asked?

LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour. We're now in the second week of the strike in Vancouver, with 54,000 students out of classes. The question is whether the minister is willing to let the Vancouver strike continue for six weeks, like he did the North Island dispute, or is he going to step in this week and settle this dispute right away?

Hon. M. Sihota: The political opportunism of the Liberals ceases to amaze me. The hon. member referred to the strike in North Island. It's interesting to note that during the course of the Powell River strike the hon. member never once raised that issue in this House. I at least give credit to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who discussed the issue with me on several occasions.

With regard to the situation in Vancouver, I'm pleased to report to the hon. member that I had the opportunity yesterday to meet with the trustees from the school board in Vancouver, had a lengthy discussion with them with regard to the dispute that is occurring right now in Vancouver and looked at possible solutions to that dispute. As a consequence, Mr. Foley is meeting, as we speak, with the school board to discuss solutions in an expedited way to resolve that dispute so that children can get back to school as soon as possible.

G. Farrell-Collins: Supplemental, hon. Speaker. I remind the minister that this opposition has been bringing up questions on labour disputes in this province, particularly in education, for the last seven weeks, and this minister has refused to do a darned thing to get students back into school.

The Speaker: Order, please. I call the House to order and ask the member to state his question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know how many times we have to bring it up in this House, day after day, to finally get this minister to deal with the problem. How much longer is he willing to let the Vancouver students and other students around this province stay out of school before he finally takes some concrete action to get them back into classes?

Hon. M. Sihota: All of the defensive, theatrical language in the world won't get the hon. member the headline that he's looking for.

The fact of the matter, which the hon. member would never want to confess to, is that this government has taken a series of actions to try to bring this dispute to an end. Those actions commenced, even before the strike occurred, when we met with the BCTF and the BCSTA. Then they occurred the following Monday, when the dispute arose; we met with both parties and asked Mr. Foley to be involved. They continued, with the special mediator being involved, six days ago. Then after that, Mr. Foley made some good recommendations with regard to the dispute.

Eighty-four percent of the teachers who voted in Vancouver voted to accept his recommendations. Four trustees in Vancouver voted against those recommendations, and as a consequence, children are out of school. The hon. member wants to know about the actions that we took. We took

[ Page 6382 ]

additional initiatives to meet yesterday with the school board, to impress upon....

The Speaker: I hope the hon. minister is coming to his final statement.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We took additional action at that point. In addition to that, the hon. member should know that the trustees are meeting with a mediator today, as we speak, and if further action is required tomorrow, we'll take it.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Final supplemental, hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: The people and the students in the province are well aware of this foot-dragging and of the baby steps that this minister is taking in an attempt to not offend the BCTF executive. When will the minister finally realize that he has a higher duty in this province, and that duty is to the students and the parents in this province? When will he finally take some concrete action? How much longer are we going to have to wait?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, had it not been for our recognition of our duty to parents, students and those involved in the education system, we would not have taken the steps that we've taken to date. And if it had not been for the recognition of that duty, we would not continue to plan the steps that we may need to take in the future.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, before I call Committee of Supply, I wish to advise all hon. members that we will have the report from the committee with regard to the Attorney General's ministry. Concurrently, Committee of Supply A will deal with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks estimates. On the conclusion of that, we will have the continuation of the Ministry of Economic Development Committee of Supply.

I call Committee of Supply with regard to the Attorney General's estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, perhaps the minister has misstated himself, and I would like to clarify this. Quite clearly, when Committee A is reporting the resolution of estimates, this House is supposed to be sitting in its entirety, and estimates are not supposed to be taking place in Committee A. That's the whole process behind the time that we have allowed for Committee A to report. So perhaps we won't call those estimates until later.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a fair point, and the Ministry of Environment will not commence until such time as the Ministry of Attorney General is completed here.

The Speaker: The Chair is clarified on that point. I would now call on the representative from the third party on the reporting of Committee A estimates.

[2:30]

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES

C. Serwa: It was a pleasure to participate in the debate on estimates of the Attorney General's ministry. It is the most important ministry to British Columbia, and a very large and complex ministry.

I am also pleased to note several things of historic significance before we go much further. It was with a great deal of pride that I was at the first committee meeting held in the Douglas Fir Room last year, which happened to also be the Attorney General's estimates. That was the first time that debate on estimates was held outside the Legislature in British Columbia. This year it was also significant that the Attorney General had his deputy minister respond to several questions, and that was also an historic first in the province and in the committee system.

Perhaps it was a tentative first step, but a very much desired first step, and of incredibly strong significance to the estimates process in this Legislature.

I was particularly pleased with the response of the Attorney General and his staff with respect to the areas of responsibility of that ministry. The minister was straightforward and truthful in answering difficult questions squarely and head-on. All I can say is that I am quite satisfied that the estimates have been very well canvassed in the Ministry of Attorney General. For those who would like to scrutinize the actual estimates process, I would suggest that they read and follow Hansard. I thank the Attorney General and the ministry staff for the comprehensive package of information in response to the questions that I put forward.

A. Warnke: As the critic for the official opposition, it was a pleasure -- as it was last year -- to review the estimates concerning the Attorney General. The laws and administration of justice are the most critical component and element of government as far as I'm concerned. The laws and administration of justice are extremely important for preserving our freedoms, establishing and enhancing the social order and providing, of course, for public safety. As the member for Okanagan West put forward, we had a unique experience this year, as we did last year.

The Attorney General and I engaged in a first last year when we shifted the estimates into the second room; and we engaged in a little bit of history by having the deputy minister respond to a particular question that I put forward. I want to congratulate and commend Mr. Neal for the response. Perhaps, much like last year, it's still too early to make a full assessment as to the contribution in this area, but like my colleague from Okanagan West, I remain quite optimistic that this a a contribution and a step forward. Let us hope that -- in the spirit of the House -- we can actually move towards a reform here.

We covered a number of areas, but in sharp contrast to last year, when we tried to be exhaustive. There was

[ Page 6383 ]

a reason to be exhaustive, essentially to address a new administration and the restructuring of the ministry. This year we attempted to be a little bit more selective while at the same time appreciating that there are still changes in the structuring of the ministry, which I'm sure the Attorney General will elaborate on in his final remarks.

The purpose of the estimates this year was to explore those changes, but at the same time focus in on just a few areas in some detail. We did cover many subjects, whether it involved AirCare, school trustees, small claims, legal aid, or even the horse racing industry. I must admit I want to commend my colleagues on this side of the House who put forward a variety of questions which made the estimates most interesting. We canvassed a broad range of issues and subjects. On that basis I'm confident and satisfied that we've reviewed a number of aspects affecting the Attorney General.

Lastly, I also want to commend the Attorney General for the frankness and the candour of the remarks and answers that he put forward and the very straight-forward and honest manner in which he provided the answers to the committee as a whole and especially to myself.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I want to express my thanks to the two members for their comments in the House and also for their contributions to the discussion during the estimates which have taken place periodically over the last several weeks in Committee A. I also want to thank other members who participated in the estimates debates. Almost without exception, the questions were good and productive and led to a good exchange of views and opinions.

I want to take this opportunity to thank senior staff members of the Ministry of Attorney General who participated with us in the Douglas Fir Room. As members know, the Attorney General's ministry is large and diverse. As a result, we had quite a contingent of people there in order to make sure that I had the right answers to the many questions that came in all of those areas. I simply want to say to my staff how much I appreciate their help, not only during the estimates process but also each and every day.

Staff who work in all government ministries all too often fail to get the kind of recognition they deserve. People who work for the public, providing the kind of public service they do, often work long hours, far beyond any requirement they have and certainly far beyond the compensation they get for the commitment and hours they put in. I just want to express my thanks certainly to my own staff, but also to all public servants, for the role they play.

I would just note in passing that we took what, I think, can fairly be described as a baby step toward reform in this Legislature by, for the first time, having the Deputy Attorney General actually speak to the committee. We didn't do much of it, but it's a start. We are all taking our time as we move in an evolutionary way to a new way of examining government programs and estimates. I think it's a good initiative, and one that will hopefully be expanded as time goes on.

The member for Richmond-Steveston made reference to restructuring in the Ministry of Attorney General. When we were elected in the fall of 1991, I presided over a merging of the previous Ministries of Solicitor General and Attorney General, with the addition of several other responsibilities, such as gambling and liquor, to the Attorney General's ministry. We spent some time consolidating the operations of the ministry as a result of that merger, and earlier this year we began to make the kinds of internal changes that will hopefully enable the ministry to better provide an effective justice system to British Columbians. During the estimates we discussed some detail of the restructuring.

I'll just say one word about my objectives, and again, we canvassed these at some length. I think it's true to say, as many commentators have said in recent years, that the justice system has not treated all people in our society with the egalitarianism that is required. Women and native people, in particular, have not had a fair shake in our system. For me, it's a priority to do whatever we can through our ministry to ensure that every citizen in our society gets fair and equal treatment. In order to do that, we have to develop programs to deal with the inequities that have been with us historically. As I said, that's particularly true about aboriginal and women's issues.

The member for Langley raised questions during committee relating to family justice -- custody, access and other family law matters -- and inquired as to our initiatives with respect to moving away from an adversarial to a more non-adversarial, non-court system for resolving family matters in particular, such as custody and access. I indicated to the member that that's one of the many initiatives we're looking at in an effort to try to make the system work more effectively for women and families in our society.

There are a great many challenges facing our ministry, as there are facing every ministry in government. I recognize how significant they are. Within the justice system, working together, we can begin the process of trying to make sure that the system is responsive and handles issues in an appropriate way.

Finally, may I say that on a number of occasions during the estimates, members raised questions which I felt needed further exploration and discussion. I invited members there, and I do so here again, to discuss issues of public policy with senior ministry staff in whichever area the members have an interest so that we can get better policies in place where they are warranted. I encourage all members to do that with senior staff in the Ministry of Attorney General, and when it gets to a certain stage that it requires my intervention, I would be very delighted to meet with any member who wants to pursue any of those issues.

I think that probably should conclude the Attorney General estimates for this year.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply. I should advise hon. members that Committee A will be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

[ Page 6384 ]

The House in Committee of Supply B; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS AND TRADE

(continued)

On vote 23: minister's office, $347,800 (continued).

L. Fox: Just prior to the lunch break, the minister and the Liberal critic were canvassing the British Columbia Investment Office. I listened with considerable interest to the questions and the answers.

The minister talked about the process of evaluation that was given to any particular initiative, particularly from outside the province, and the process that his office used in order to determine what role government should play -- whether government should be considering this as an investment opportunity and whether government should be playing an advocacy role or uniting an investor with a particular initiative. He came to a particular initiative that interested me, and I would like to hear more about the process used to do this.

He spoke about the location of a steel mill in the Kootenays which was designed by the proponent for more of a coastal location where they could access the seaport -- I think I'm saying that correctly. A couple of issues and a couple of questions came to mind as the minister spoke on that. How did his ministry determine that the Kootenays was the more appropriate location versus other rural locations in the province, and what was the determining factor?

The second question that came to mind during this discussion was whether or not there had been any kind of comprehensive detail as to what was limiting development of this nature in all regions of the province versus the highly populated areas of the province. I'll give the minister a chance to answer those questions.

[2:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If it wasn't particularly clear, we were talking about a couple of projects, and I think there might be room for confusion. The steel mill in the Kootenays is not an accurate description. There is talk about a project to provide feedstock for steel mills, and it's likely to locate either in the interior or on the coast. That's the more accurate statement.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's the coast, the north and the interior.

The point is, certain things attract certain kinds of industries. Availability of power and of ore and supplies are the factors, and they are highly specific to the projects. When you talk about evaluation of the project, you have to understand that we make basic information available to the investment advisory board, and it's a general feeling by them, a general guidance; it's the general understanding of knowledgeable private sector and government people about the appropriateness of a certain site. The actual due diligence on the costs of operating in any location is something that happens down the line somewhere.

L. Fox: It seems to me that it's very easy to play politics with economic development and promote particular locations or ridings through government policy. My question, which I have to come back to because the minister didn't answer it, is: why was this particular initiative seen as something that could be accommodated in the Kootenay region versus the north, for instance, which has power available out of Hudson's Hope or Williston Lake dam? Excess power is also presently available from Kemano, although it has been sold to B.C. Hydro. So obviously power wasn't a determining factor with respect to the Kootenays.

My question is whether there is some way of identifying limiting as well as positive factors in all regions of the province. I expect the minister to come back to me and say: "Yes, we have these regional development committees that were structured by the previous administration, and they have done economic development strategies in their respective areas." But I don't know that that's good enough. I would really like to know on what basis this particular project was seen as desirable for the Kootenays over other areas.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I corrected myself. I said that we had confused a couple of projects. In fact, the project I was thinking about was one that could be located in a number of areas. In the case of the project I was talking about, there's a certain amount of basic material available only in one location, one region. So it's availability of the raw material. You're right that power is available under different circumstances in different regions. Generally, it's available because B.C. Hydro has a surplus. But it's not always the case that a transmission line is available to a particular location. Those are factors.

You talk about playing politics with the location of projects. You know that in my riding, in one case your government offered a loan guarantee up front, even though there wasn't a private sector investment, and that project hasn't yet come to fruition. We hope it will, but provision of a loan guarantee doesn't always mean there's a project. Another project for which there was no loan guarantee and which the government is not participating in directly -- facilitating, but not participating financially -- is coming to fruition.

So the provision of government dollars is not always a guarantee that a project is going to come on. In fact, our approach in all of these is to see projects up and running for the minimum amount of taxpayers' dollars. We don't run to the table with a pile of money or major concessions when you can get the project without the concessions.

L. Fox: What I enjoy about these estimates is that there are always assumptions by the ministers as to where I'm going. In fact, I never talked about loan guarantees or government financing, because personally I have a lot of problems.... I'm not sure that government money has a role to play in investment. Certainly there may be a role to play in terms of

[ Page 6385 ]

building the necessary infrastructure to accommodate and facilitate economic development, but I have a real problem when it comes to investing government money directly into corporations that, in many cases, may compete with corporations not working on government or loan-guarantee dollars. In fact, they're going out and financing their investments through the financial institutions. So the minister isn't going to upset me when he talks about the fact that we shouldn't be giving loan guarantees, because I happen to concur with that particular train of thought.

But I'm wondering what mechanism is in place to evaluate -- when provincial dollars are involved, whether it is grants or loan guarantees -- whether it is in the best interests of the industry as a whole, the competing industries within the province, for the government to be involved in a new initiative that puts that new company at a competitive advantage because of the lower cost of money through government investment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You're asking, as I understand it, what mechanism is available to evaluate projects. Clearly, there is the general cost-benefit: do the costs of the project show net benefits when the project is evaluated? Treasury Board staff analyze it and the investment people analyze it, using a number of criteria associated with how you determine what the costs and benefits of the project are. In some areas we're using social cost accounting, where we try to take into account a broader range of costs -- we have talked about this in and around independent power projects.

We are bringing into account a wider range of costs and benefits when we evaluate projects. So there is a regime, and we are currently examining whether or not it's adequate to safeguard the public investments when they are made.

I'd like to make a comment about what you said about loan guarantees. My reference was with respect to whether you're playing politics with the location of facilities, and I'm saying that you can play politics by giving incentives to certain locations. But clearly, when we talk about regional development and the provision of infrastructure, we are in effect providing some kind of a playing field for a company that otherwise wasn't there -- and there's a public cost, nevertheless.

So I'm not sure it matters whether you invest in infrastructure or have some kind of financial participation -- it depends on the nature of the financial need of the project. It's not a philosophical matter; it's a business matter. What does a project need to succeed? Does it need money? Does it need loan guarantees? Does it need infrastructure? Does it need a training program? Just what does it need? And I say there's a wide variety, so you have to take these on a project-by-project basis.

L. Fox: I'm a bit disappointed in the minister's answer because I think there's a whole host of reasons why there's a considerable difference between investing in infrastructure throughout the province versus investing directly into a corporation. It's through the investments in infrastructure that we can diversify the economy of all regions of the province; but if we're specifically dealing with investing in corporations and helping them get started, then it becomes more and more difficult to encourage them into regions of the province that don't have the infrastructure to accommodate those kinds of developments. So I think there's a significant difference with respect to that.

My question was, in fact, more pointed than what you accepted. That question was whether, when your ministry is investing in or looking at investing in the private sector through low-interest loans or some other rationale, it looks at how this particular initiative is going to be competing within that sector; and whether or not they are going to be at an advantage over those individuals who do not have that kind of financial support from the province. For instance, is there communication between your ministry and the pulp industry?

If there's a pulp mill that wants to locate somewhere in British Columbia but is looking directly for provincial financial help, do you seek the advice of the industry as to whether or not that's a good investment for the industry and therefore for the province, or do you do this through a consultant who basically looks at the stats?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to the question is yes. We do take into account the impact of potential financial arrangements on other players in the sector. There are different reasons why there's a competitive advantage in every particular project. To use the example of the pulp industry, there are a number of consultants in the industry who evaluate market, profitability and so on. To get an independent view we often have to go to an independent source of information. We take advice from a number of sources. In the case of a project before the B.C.

Investment Office -- if I can bring it back to that -- the investment advisory council would take a general view of the industry and make suggestions as to whether or not it was advisable for the government to be involved in that. They will know, for example, whether there's a gap in the capital market that puts a certain project at a disadvantage.

D. Jarvis: Earlier the member for Prince George-Omineca brought up the subject of economic development pertaining to the mining industry in this province. I believe I heard you say that you thought it was a write-off. According to Hansard you said that. In any event, I was wondering if you could tell me what your economic development department is doing for mining in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said nothing of the kind -- that mining was a write-off. I said that certain business expenses can be written off. That's what I said.

D. Jarvis: My question to you was whether the economic development department was doing anything for the mining industry in B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministry responsible is primarily the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry. If there is a value-added product, we get involved in the industrial development as opposed to

[ Page 6386 ]

the mineral development. We will actively look for industries that work closely with the mining industry.

I think I explained in other places that if we took all the taxes and costs off the mining industry, it would make between 3 percent and 5 percent difference on the bottom line. This wouldn't be enough, according to the Mining Association, to start up another mine. The problems are deeper. We are cooperating, where necessary, with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on the development of a mineral strategy. Quite frankly, in that area they don't need a lot of help; they have all the expertise.

We do have a primary industries branch with some people who are knowledgeable about the industry. If there's a particular regional project that needs some assistance in the analysis, we're happy to provide our economists to go in there and evaluate it.

[3:00]

Of course we encourage the mining industry. We would like to see mines develop. There's a serious problem with the value of ore, however, and more lax rules in some other countries. We are not prepared to lower our environmental standards to get mines going here. We think our standards are fair; we think they can live with them. We think that the other countries will raise those standards. If the playing field isn't exactly level right now, it probably soon will be. As to what our ministry is doing, through the Job Protection Commission we have assisted a number of mining ventures.

If they are in trouble and need some assistance and restructuring, we can provide some assistance to try to get the parties that deal with that industry to make an economic plan that will allow that industry to survive.

D. Jarvis: You mentioned earlier that you were assisting some businesses in the Elk Valley. What type of businesses are those?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The businesses that were having trouble because of a prolonged labour problem and other shutdowns in the Elk Valley were mostly suppliers. There were industrial suppliers, restaurants, stores and other businesses. I could provide you with a complete list. There was the full variety of types of businesses you'd find in a small town. They were all evaluated as to their long-term viability. We put a retired banker in there to assess the business plans, and when we received recommendations we processed the loan guarantees very quickly.

D. Jarvis: Unfortunately, if the coal industry doesn't pick up in that area, that's just good money thrown after bad.

Would your department be involved in looking into interprovincial tariffs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we have the lead on interprovincial trade barriers.

D. Jarvis: Could you explain further, Mr. Minister, how involved you are?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we are working with other provinces and the federal government to examine where we can remove real barriers to trade -- not just nuisances and perceived problems, but real problems that we can deal with. On the other hand, we are not prepared to say, carte blanche, that every barrier is to be gone and that we are a completely wide-open economic union, because there are legitimate reasons, province by province, why we want to retain some powers to direct and stimulate development.

D. Jarvis: You mentioned earlier that you were working with Golden Bear. Is there a problem there now that has to be addressed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are some concerns about that mine. The Tahltan Tribal Council, who are major contractors up there, are concerned about its future. So we're asking the job protection commissioner to have a look and see if there is something that can be done.

D. Jarvis: As far as major projects go, are you prepared to divulge any major foreign investors in the resource industries that are contemplating coming into this province at this time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member wants to pursue that, we'd be happy to provide a detailed briefing, partly because of the delicacy of some of the information. Yes, we have had about 81 inquiries through the B.C. Investment Office. A number of people are prepared to invest, but in some cases they are brokers and traders, and the direct investment.... It's different in every case. In most cases they look for a private sector partner in the province here, and in a lot of cases we look for that. They then become the financier for a local entrepreneur.

We're prepared to have the Investment Office provide a briefing for you on that if you like. The list of major projects that are trying to get up and running in the province is published by the Minister of Finance. But there are some additional projects that remain confidential for the moment, and we're prepared to provide you with a briefing.

D. Jarvis: In your address this morning you mentioned that you were planning some type of a project in the Nechako area. Can you explain what you were aiming at there?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will try to find the exact reference, but the projects we are aware of in the Nechako are Vanderhoof Pulp and Paper, where there was a commitment made by Alcan to an offsetting project.... This has been mentioned again in the Kemano review. As a result, there should be projects in there to mitigate the effects in that region of the depressed water flows that would result.

There has been some suggestion that somewhere in that valley or up in that area there is room for a steel mill, but the location of that project has not been set. Until it is set, we're not sure whether there will be provincial government involvement. The Kitwanga mill has been shut down for some time, and we are working

[ Page 6387 ]

with the aboriginal people in an attempt to find a way to either restart that mill, if it's viable, or find alternative employment for people in the area.

D. Jarvis: Along with some of these projects that you were talking about going out and giving assistance to, are there any through your department that are giving out loan guarantees?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the present time we're not in the loan guarantee business in terms of saying: "Here is a loan guarantee program -- come and apply." We are always prepared to consider assistance if it's vital to a strategic industry in the province or in a strategic location, but we are very cautious about putting money on the table in advance to attract speculative investment. If there is any bargaining, we do that quietly and with a hard position that we are trying to minimize any expenditure of public funds on projects. As you know, any bad-debt provision that we have to provide goes right on the bottom line of the deficit. We've brought that discipline into the financing.

But there is a loan guarantee program through the Job Protection Commission. When the previous government ended the loan guarantees they did provide for the Job Protection Commission to continue, because we were in the recession. One might argue we're still in the recession. Even if we're not and are climbing out, there will be ongoing structural change in the economy. When we discussed the Job Protection Act changes, we argued that there was a need for an economic mediator, facilitator and financier at arm's length to the government to look at restructuring. So there is a loan guarantee program that exists for the Job Protection Commission.

D. Jarvis: I have one last question. Are there any economic development projects planned by you by using your share of the Build B.C. plan?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish! But I don't have a share of the Build B.C. program. Build B.C. has a number of components, as you know. Where it refers to infrastructure, we expect that where there is a necessity to finance infrastructure as a capital investment, these tend to be large regional projects in all likelihood, although we could do smaller ones. The easy answer is that we don't have any control over those at this point. In the future there may be programs administered by my department that are under that particular rubric, but not at the present time.

F. Gingell: You mentioned that you had sent a retired bank manager up to the Elk Valley. I was wondering if any loan guarantees were given at that time and how much they amount to.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I think the number.... I'd have to check to say exactly, because these are in process. We issued a press release on the first 11. I think that another six have been approved since then. They're all $50,000 or under, some of them as small as $12,000. I have a total of 11 here. There are a number of contracting; a number of holdings, like building supplies, for example, or ready-mix; a rewind company; a photography business; and a dry-cleaning business -- those are the types of things. I'd be happy to provide you with the information; it's all there.

They total $415,000 on this list and there would probably be another $200,000, but we won't know the exact amount until they're drawn down. There are now 22 as of April 30; we have funded 22 in the Elk Valley.

That was a specific program that we designed with bank guarantees so we could move in quickly and process them very quickly, but the banks were not prepared to back them up. It's for operating capital, but only for those projects that looked like they had a viable future, given what we knew about the mines that were starting up again and the levels they were starting up at.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, do you have at hand the information for the total of other guarantees which your ministry has presently made -- a rough breakdown?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Under the industrial incentive fund there were 12 approvals worth $12.630 million and under the small business incentive program there were $2.363 million, for a total loan assistance of $14.993 million -- those were loans. Under guarantees we had a total of.... I gave you the $415,000 figure for the Elk Valley small business initiative. Also under the guarantees was $5,958,250 for other guarantees. They would include Cassiar Mining Corp., Mather's Restaurants Enterprises, Country Feed and Pet Supply, Lytton Lumber, etc. I can give you the whole list.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, can you advise us if, during the past 12 months, the government has had to pay out on any guarantees that it has previously made?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If your question was whether anybody has defaulted and therefore whether we have had to pay out, the answer is no.... I'm just going to double-check that for you.

[3:15]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I presume that "no" would apply for both the year that has just started -- the couple of months that have gone by -- and the year just ended.

Mr. Minister, this isn't so much a question as a response to a remark that you made to my friend the critic for Mining. Recognizing the importance of your role in representing economic development, I would put it to you that the reason we have a lack of mining exploration and development in this province is not to do with the value of ore or with our environmental laws; rather, it's to do with the length of time that it takes for applications to get dealt with.

It is to do with the lack of certainty that mining companies have that once they start on the process, they will be allowed, should they meet all the requirements and all the standards that are set, to move forward and develop their property.

[ Page 6388 ]

Also, Mr. Minister, I would suggest to you that proposed legislation such as the natural resources expropriation act and the subsequent Schwindt report on the way compensation would -- or, in most cases, would not -- be paid are really greater concerns to economic development. I know that within any government's program and policies there are all these pulling matters.

But I really would like to put forward my view to the Minister of Economic Development that it is these three issues: the time that it takes to get applications through; the uncertainty on whether or not they will be allowed to proceed once they have met all the conditions; and the fear of expropriation without fair compensation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If there is an uncertain environment, we inherited it in part and we are working on trying to streamline the environmental approval process. Since we've been in we've issued two mine development permits. That doesn't necessarily mean the mines proceed, because they have other problems, which in some cases are financing issues.

With respect to expropriation, any government needs clear guidelines which will give certainty to the people who are entering into some kind of development process. Some of the ideas that were suggested in the Schwindt report were common to other jurisdictions, so we were in fact behind the times -- there was no clear guidance there. We do have legitimate competing interests for our land use, and if we are going to designate some land uses that exclude mining, then there has to be a basis for the compensation.

There's going to be a period of time when the uncertainty is not resolved. But I think you have to admit that by introducing such a process as the CORE process, we are trying to establish the zones in which people can operate with certainty. I think we are moving very rapidly towards introducing certainty. I think the length of time has been a problem, because there's been the federal process and our process. We're hoping that there will be legislation that we can pass that will show that there's a streamlined process where we can evaluate the environmental impacts and the economic impacts at the same time, and produce that certainty.

But a lot of the process on difficult projects necessarily takes a long time. It takes years and years. But that's usually because there's an uncertainty before we begin. The mining industry knows that. So I say that we have a province here with a wonderful landscape and a wonderful variety of economic opportunities, and we have to balance those carefully. By putting the mining industry at the table where we've had local land use planning processes, we've found that they have come out with more certainty and they've had their interests represented.

As far as my role in economic development is concerned, of course I take the position that we ought to be driving development, and that where there is a regulator that appears to be leaning one way or the other, we say to them: "Lighten up." This tension is within any government or any process.

I think what's happening right now in the mining industry is that we need some more certainty in the world economic picture as well. Otherwise those investments aren't there. So I can't accept that it's the quality of the ore. I think it's very real that there are other jurisdictions that are prepared to reduce revenues and have an easier regulatory regime. It's some of all of those, but we're acting to create that stability, and I think we're on the road to doing that. We haven't solved all the problems, but we're on the way there.

The Chair: The Chair was having some discomfort at how close we were getting to issues that should properly be canvassed under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. However, with that caution, I recognize the member for Langley.

L. Stephens: I just want to follow up a little on the regulatory aspect of it, and I want to get back to the B.C. Investment Office again. One of the press releases says: "The B.C. Investment Office has no independent funding or regulatory responsibilities and works within existing programs in the provincial, federal and local governments." We talked about this briefly. What does this office do that can't be done by your ministry, particularly the industry and investment portions of the ministry, or B.C. Trade for that matter? I know that B.C.

Trade has undergone some reorganization, and they are focused on some different directions in attracting investment as well. What I've heard so far hasn't really convinced me that there is a need for this other office. It goes on to say: "One of the services is access to the decision-making apparatus of government." Is this to assist industries coming in to deal with a bureaucratic maze of regulations, permits and that kind of thing? If so, it seems to be a stand-alone organization; it doesn't seem to warrant that. Perhaps the minister could let us know what real need there is for this particular organization.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To start with, I would go back to the Premier's summit, where knowledgable investors and people who operate here all the time in the business community identified that there should be one office that particularly foreign investors can come to, which has a connection with everything else. Now, you can say that any government organization has a connection with everybody else. On a selective basis, this unit works on projects that look like they have a high probability of success, for which there are real impediments and the normal processes are not going to work effectively.

When we say normal processes, you can't fast-track everything through every department; you would have chaos, and everything would slow down. It's a way of separating out particular projects for which a particular problem has been identified, and some kind of facilitation can be done within government for those projects.

To answer your question about B.C. Trade, it still works at export promotion. You could give them the investment function, but they're not set up to do that; they're set up to be export promoters. The B.C. Investment Office is there to facilitate investment, along

[ Page 6389 ]

with the rest of the ministries. So if in the normal course of promoting exports B.C. Trade happens to find an investor, then they can bring them to the Investment Office. If it's a routine matter, they can take it to the industry and investment branch of the ministry.

In many cases the B.C. Investment Office, because it's called that, is marketed as the door into B.C. for foreign investors. They don't have to worry about where they go to in B.C. Trade or in the government; they go to the Investment Office. That's the point of steering people to the appropriate place.

They do work within existing rules and guidelines. They're not there to crash down or bypass regulations that are there for legitimate reasons. We have reasons to protect the environment, consumers and so on. They will work through them but try to facilitate it. If they identify a place where the policies or regulations are up against one another and are really a filter against the project, then they'll try to open it up or get the problem resolved in some other way.

L. Stephens: I have no further questions on the B.C. Investment Office. However, the Social Credit caucus may have.

We'll continue on with the policy and planning division. I see that this division prepares provincial economic development policy options, design, negotiation and evaluation of federal-provincial, joint government-industry and economic initiatives. I believe there is a joint federal-provincial conference on interprovincial trade barriers in May or June this summer. I wonder if interprovincial trade barriers are on the agenda; I'm sure they are. But I'd also like to ask what the minister will be talking about in that conference. I'd like to know if he'll be asking about a specific timetable for removal of these interprovincial trade barriers on a reciprocal basis.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The time frame for the removal of barriers or the negotiation of an agreement on the removal of barriers -- as many as possible -- is the end of June, 1994. It's a fast track. I'm hosting here in British Columbia the meeting in the second week of June, at which we'll be trying to deal with a timetable and an agenda for those items. There are some 14 items that have been identified as potential barriers. The problem here is that there have been estimates made on a notional basis without any thorough research about the cost. Somebody set the cost as high as $6 billion;

whereas, in reality, we think it could be as low as $575 million.

The barriers to internal trade are more or less serious, depending on what your perception is there. But the barriers that exist are often there to protect. For example, regulations on our highways are there to protect the winding highways through the mountains -- protection which you don't need under regulation on prairie roads. So is that a barrier to trade? Well, it might be if trucks from the prairies can run on different roads and under different regulations. But it's there to protect the people of B.C. We wouldn't want to give that up. But if it was an unnecessary rule or regulation, then we might find ways to knock those barriers down.

L. Stephens: One of the areas that I would like to see talked about is professional licensing and the recognition of common standards for bodies in the different provinces and territories that would enter into reciprocal agreements.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We haven't finalized our position on exactly which ones and what standards, but that's on the agenda and presumably we will work on those. The whole idea of having a comprehensive list on the agenda is that there are going to be some trade-offs. Some provinces are going to want to protect their professional people and may not want to give as much as somebody might on freight regulation. So the idea is to try to remove as many barriers and make it as much of a win-win situation for all provinces as possible.

L. Stephens: Would the minister be able to give me a sense of how he feels this should proceed? What are your views on interprovincial trade barriers, and what would you like to see changed?

[3:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are some broad principles that we have set forth which I can reiterate for you. If there's any harmonizing of standards, we are interested in harmonizing upwards; in other words, we raise the standards to a common standard so that we don't drag them down. That principle of levelling up is accepted by the federal government and most of the provinces. We are also concerned that there will be a principle embodied in there that what we do for one province, it will reciprocate -- treat us the same way, in other words.

That's what we did with respect to beer and wine; we tried to make sure that we were treated in the same way. The basic problem is that if there are some barriers there, trade may be easier with another country, like the United States, than it is with other provinces. Of course, we want to make sure that we remove those. We take the approach that there are some limits with respect to environmental standards and labour standards. We don't want those to be negotiated downwards. We've taken a similar approach with respect to international treaties.

M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure for me to introduce 55 students and their teacher, Ms. White, from Cedar Drive Elementary in Port Coquitlam. I've just spent 20 minutes answering questions. One of the questions they asked me was whether it ever gets boring in here. I said that's why we heckle. I'd like the House to really make them welcome.

L. Stephens: On the same subject of interprovincial trade, I'm sure the environment will be a consideration in the discussions, and labour as well. Are there areas that you feel are most important? Do you have a priority list in which you want to talk about

[ Page 6390 ]

things that take preference over some others? Are there important areas that you want to address first?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In addition to the two that I mentioned, labour standards and environmental standards, there are two more that are particularly important to us. One is worker adjustment. Where there is dislocation from changes due to either international or interprovincial trade law changes, there must be some adjustment. It's absolutely essential. In most cases people aren't afraid of the changes; they just want to be able to deal with them. What we found under the free trade agreement was that there was a promise of specific sector-by-sector adjustments. We've been arguing for that.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

We have also looked at the processing of raw materials. To say that we wouldn't require the processing of raw materials in the province would mean we're open for log exports out of the province. That creates the same problems we have if there are log exports out of this country. We would like to retain the ability to control the processing of materials within and around the regions of the province of B.C.

L. Stephens: I would like to follow up a little bit on worker adjustment. That was something that was discussed in the NAFTA -- there needed to be some provisions made for this consideration. I wonder if the minister would be looking for some kind of joint program with the federal government for training or retraining and worker adjustment, on a cost-shared basis -- with both levels of government, or perhaps three levels of government, industry and academia.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have said that that's one of the preconditions. That is a high priority we need to come out of the negotiations. We are very wary because the federal government has, as you know, refused to do that in the case of the NAFTA as well. They're arguing that the most generic programs are suitable. We're saying that there should be targeted ones where you know there's going to be a particular program. We would pursue joint programs that are industry- and-government-driven. Both levels of government should be there. I'm not sure of the role for municipal government. I'm interested in that idea.

I think there's a community interest, and community people are generally involved if there's an adjustment committee. In principle we are supportive of targeted adjustment programs.

L. Stephens: Sector by sector -- okay.

On the processing of raw materials, during the constitutional debate there was consideration for the federal government to pass on to the provincial level more control over the natural resources in the provinces. Is there a conference to discuss more control over natural resources coming back to the provinces, or is this something that's going to be discussed under raw materials in upcoming provincial-federal conferences?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not aware of anything in May that's dealing with the processing of raw materials. You're right that the agreements under the constitutional accord have gone by the way, although they're still there as a reference. The meeting of Canadian ministers of internal trade in June is responding to the agenda that was set by the first ministers, which had an agreement that they took into the constitutional accord. I think there's a high degree of interest by all provinces in maintaining the power to control raw materials. That's one area where they feel they can ensure regional development, because the materials come from the regions of any given province.

L. Stephens: When you talk about the processing of raw materials, I just want to be clear that we're talking about the same thing. I mentioned that there was a move on the federal part to move more control of natural resources -- forestry, mining and so on -- to the provinces. Is that a separate topic of discussion at another date, or is it part of the discussions that are coming up in June?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When we talk as internal trade ministers we are dealing with regulations and so on that interfere with trade. If there's a constitutional barrier, then of course it's a little more difficult, because it can only be dealt with through the constitutional process. What you're speaking about is the returning of power or the vacating of the natural resource field by the federal government. It really does leave us scope. But we haven't seen any indication that they're prepared to abandon the field, although from time to time they talk about it.

Were they to do that, it would give us more constitutional control; and that wouldn't be on the table, although as ministers of internal trade we could identify it as a problem. But the two are separate. You might see the internal trade barriers as a subset of the constitutional strictures in the country.

L. Stephens: I understand that they are separate, in that they're separate sets of negotiations with a different focus. They're about the same thing -- raw materials and natural resources -- but two different entities. I just wanted to know whether or not the federal government had made overtures to the provincial level to begin that devolution. I did see some discussion that they were moving in that direction and wondered if perhaps they had already begun that process. Are any other proposed or new federal or provincial joint arrangements being developed through the ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Are you still talking about internal trade, or are you talking about joint provincial agreements? Okay, just a minute.

We're not aware of any. There are, of course, problems associated with the federal government vacating the field in the future, as they have served notice they will, with respect to some of the economic development agreements -- in particular, the forest resource development agreement. We are concerned that there's a vacuum there, but at this point in time and

[ Page 6391 ]

until the federal election is over, there are not likely to be any serious federal-provincial negotiations.

We are continuing to look for opportunities, but usually the federal government has to be prepared to announce a new program and to be asking us to take

part in it. There weren't any new ones in the last budget.

L. Stephens: Just back one quick question to the meeting that's coming up in June. Will NAFTA and some of the international trade agreements be discussed at that time or simply the interprovincial?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The North American free trade agreement will not be on the agenda. This is internal trade. There is another trade ministers' forum that discusses NAFTA. They're not always the same ministers, so this one won't have it on the agenda.

L. Stephens: I'd like to ask a few questions about the major project review process and what projects were brought forward this past year.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The two programs that have been under the process since I've been minister are the Orenda pulp and paper mill and the Celgar Pulp mill. The first one, Orenda, has received approval in principle, and the Celgar one has its approvals in place and is under construction. There are a total of eight in the last year that have entered the process. If you like, I can get the list for you, but we don't have it with us today.

L. Stephens: So they're in the process. There have been no decisions made on any of these that have come forward?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On the ones that are in process, no; but we do have approvals on Orenda and Celgar. Then there are the mines, which are in the different process that I spoke of. Two were approved there, and I believe six are in the process. But that's a different one, which is co-managed by the Ministers of Mines and Environment. We're involved in the industrial projects.

L. Stephens: Environment and economy -- was that the study that impacts on this major review process? What are some of the criteria for determining what does or does not receive approval?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Among the criteria for the major project review are environmental impact issues. But if you're referring to a paper on the environment and the economy, I suspect that is the round table's paper. Is that correct? I wasn't sure what your specific question was about that paper.

L. Stephens: What effect does the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy have on this major project review process and the criteria for approving or disallowing initiatives that are put forward?

[3:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're still in the process of examining those papers to see if there are policy implications. They were charged with looking far into the future to ensure that there are criteria for assessing whether projects can be sustainable without environmental damage. The short answer to your question is that the contents of that paper don't directly bear on the environmental review process. The criteria used to assess projects were in existence and are in existence, and that particular paper doesn't have any direct relationship to it.

But if it raises a policy issue, or some kind of impact question, then we might have to look at it. But for now, my view is that it's a paper out there looking to the future. Some of their ideas are pretty far-reaching, and I think they're out there for discussion.

L. Stephens: Are there socioeconomic impact studies done, analyses done, for this process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. I was just checking. On occasion we do special socioeconomic impact reviews, but as a rule, socioeconomic impact as well as environmental impact are done under the major project review. Every one -- more or less -- has a socio-economic impact. It's always a question of degree. If in the process you identify a particular problem that needs more work, you'll often get an approval subject to another process or another study, as was the case in the Celgar approval.

They wanted a chip transportation study, because there were some costs that the company wasn't prepared to pick up and it transferred some costs and some dangers to communities where the trucking routes maybe weren't up to standard.

But as a rule, we try within the limits of the finances to ensure that a socioeconomic impact study is done. Where we require an inordinate amount of impact assessment to be done, we might participate in that, as we did in the case of the Orenda mill. There were some particular problems in an area with unresolved land claims, and we wanted to make sure that the project was acceptable and wasn't going to be stopped by some legal process. We wanted to be sure the impact was done very carefully, but that was over and above the normal requirements.

L. Stephens: What other areas does the ministry conduct policy and planning in? Do you do analysis of projects for other ministries? And if so, what have some of those been?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We work with all the sectors, depending a bit on whether or not they have the capacity, the history or the ability to deal with it. We work with Mines. We work very closely with Forests; we have a long history involving industrial policy in that sector. We work with Agriculture. We work with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. We try to work very carefully with the Social Services ministry, and where we can, when it's appropriate, with the Health ministry, just to make sure that the different efforts are being channelled correctly. In a lot of cases we find that there are equity considerations. In other words, we'd like to

[ Page 6392 ]

see disadvantaged people employed. If we can add a training program and employ people from the local area, then we will encourage that to be done. But we work very cooperatively with all the ministries.

With respect to actual project review, we very often -- if a project comes through the door somewhere and somebody brings it to our attention -- we will have somebody look at it and do a very quick assessment of some of the impacts. If it's large, it'll have to go into a large process. But as a rule, we deal with a lot of little projects and a few big ones.

The other policy supports that we provide are on the procurement side, on government purchasing. We work there with Government Services and Crown corporations. We provide policy support on water policy, because there's an export dimension to that, a trade policy dimension. I mentioned the environmental assessment legislation; we're working actively on that. We also work on labour market development policy and we work on the Employment Standards Act. Being the Small Business ministry and the Economic Development ministry, we always try to look at the wealth creation aspect of projects and programs and the impact they might have on competitiveness.

So we are there providing the information from that particular point of view. While we don't call ourselves an advocate -- and the member understands that ministries don't get out there.... It's a longstanding argument, but we're there to ensure fairness, to ensure that all sides are provided for in the debate. As a result, we do in effect advocate for some of the constituent groups. But any member of cabinet has to look at the bigger picture. We are there to do the business analysis and to talk about the impact of these projects on the economy.

In most cases there are positive impacts; in some cases there are negative impacts. We document the findings of our analysis and make them available to decision-makers.

L. Stephens: I'd like to ask a couple of questions in that area. The Social Services ministry: what kinds of analyses would the ministry make in that regard? Are these training programs or employment programs to assist ministry clients? What kind of services would the ministry provide the Social Services ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll give you an example of something that happens. If you establish a mining operation or a large pulp mill and you come into a small community, there may be a real hit in the amount of money that's flowing, and you've got opportunities for social problems to happen. So there's often a need for a backup. We will inform the Ministry of Social Services that if this project goes ahead there are likely to be X numbers of people -- workers in the area from outside -- and they'll be looking for housing and different things.

Occasionally there are some serious, negative problems as well as the obviously positive aspects to the development, and we would be involved in helping to assess a specific community impact. This is something you can do very little of or you can do in incredible depth.

We also see, in working with the Social Services ministry, for example, whether there's a need for business training for welfare recipients. This is not an area in which we say: "Here is a program." Some programs exist. Because of our general interest in community economic development and in trying to keep as many people employable as possible, we work wherever we have an opportunity.

But because we are the business ministry looking at entrepreneurship skills and training for business, we will take some of our packages of services and make them available in partnership with other programs that are taking place within that ministry. Usually it's under the direction of a community umbrella, where we work together with the ministry. It's not something that government has done a lot of, but should do more of and will do more of.

It's particularly important where there's serious community adjustment going on, so that people can have the hope that, if they've lost their job, they can cope with the future by getting new skills, and so on. So we work in a variety of ways. I think some of the community development projects that we have underway are experimental. We're working in Merritt and in roughly 30 other communities where we've got one type of project or another. I would say Social Services is involved in probably a third of them; that would be my guess.

L. Stephens: It was interesting you should mention Merritt, because I think the unemployment rate there is something around 30 percent -- it's quite high. You mentioned the employment standards as well, in relation to small business. Will you be doing critical analysis of the impact of the changes to the Employment Standards Act? What kind of service or analysis would you provide in that regard?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let's put it this way: we engage in creative dialogue with other ministries about the impact of some of the proposals that come forth. We ensure, for example, that there is adequate representation on the panels. In this case, in the panel that's reviewing that, small business is well represented and will represent themselves. We have maintained an open-door policy.

I've had discussions in months gone by with Kathy Sanderson, who's involved, saying that we want to hear their input, because I am pipelining to cabinet on behalf of small business; and that I'm there to raise those issues and make sure they're dealt with in a fair manner. We will look at all aspects and try to advise government generally on the impact before they do it.

L. Fox: I thank the Liberal critic for allowing me to stand in here. I'm sure she and the minister both understand, from my opening discussion this morning, that this issue is very dear to my heart: who is representing small business in cabinet? It almost seems that maybe the minister looked at my criticisms this morning and is making some promises that in the future he is going to be an advocate in cabinet for small business. The minister talked earlier about the fact that he didn't believe he should play an advocacy role, that it isn't one of his responsibilities as the minister

[ Page 6393 ]

responsible for small business. Could the minister expand on why he believes that he doesn't have an advocacy role to play, given that he's the minister responsible for small business in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it's very difficult to explain the delicacy that there is around whether you're an advocate for somebody. Then you raise the question of who you're advocating for -- which particular part of the industry. There's no question that we make sure the views of the industry are made known. We bring the knowledge of that industry to the table. If you were to ask whether the Minister of Forests is the advocate for the forest industry, yes, in general terms he is. But is he the advocate for the multinationals, the independent contractors or the forests? It's a matter of degree there. Often we're a mixture of regulator and advocate. It's not a clear-cut role.

If the member is suggesting that I don't represent the interests of small business and make their points known, I can just point to the fact that we have a very thorough review process of fees and licences, and we're looking at the cumulative impact. Our ministry played a major role in getting that review process established and in developing the methodology. Interestingly enough, the methodology wasn't there to assess impacts. We're developing that capacity and assisting other ministries in looking at the businesses that their ministries have an effect on.

Small businesses cover a whole range of sectors and ministries. There's no question but that we're there, and where there's a small business viewpoint, that viewpoint is made known. I think we would be splitting hairs to say whether that's an advocacy role or not.

L. Fox: The minister says it's splitting hairs, but when we look at the negative impact that two successive budgets have had on small business, I would suggest that if the minister perceives that he is playing the role of representing small business, then he hasn't done his job. With all due respect, half of the full-time employees in this province are in companies that have 20 or fewer employees. That's a tremendous amount of income for the province. It should give this minister tremendous clout at the cabinet table. He should be able to represent the interests of those half-million employees.

My concern is that to this point he has not. He says that from time to time he plays an advocacy role. I don't know whether that's good enough. I don't think he comforts small business very much when he speaks like that.

[4:00]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Just a few moments ago the minister, in answer to a question from the Liberal critic about how they involve themselves with the Ministry of Social Services, and suggesting that they enter into a dialogue as to how to make entrepreneurs out of individuals on welfare.... There again this minister has obviously failed, because we've seen an increase in social services and welfare. There were 55,000 more British Columbians on welfare in 1992 than there were in 1991. So there are some major areas where this minister has failed to deliver in terms of programs, whether it's to create opportunities or to represent small business at the cabinet table.

I'll allow the minister to respond.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is putting qualifications on some of the things that I've said. The last budget put in the exemptions from the corporation capital tax for 2,000 businesses and reduced it for another 1,500. That's something for small business. We are also implementing the recommendations of the joint business-government committee established to review the corporation capital tax. There are some benefits there. In response to the tourism industry, we are reducing certain health inspection fees. Small business is helped there.

We are also eliminating the notice-of-work fee and exempting mining access roads on Crown lands from property taxation. In response to suggestions from the business community, we are exempting international air freighters from the jet fuel tax. So there are a number of initiatives that we have taken.

Our position is that taxation generally be considered fair and that everybody share the burden. Unfortunately, if we are to get the deficit under control, we're going to have to raise some revenues, and they should be fair.

I don't think that there has been a general case that small business is unhealthy in British Columbia. In fact, we have provided more jobs. More jobs have been created in this province than in any other province. So how can the member say it's a negative situation? There are fewer bankruptcies and more business start-ups. So as a rule, small business is healthy and it's going to grow. We remain competitive as far as our taxes are concerned. We checked the total tax burden with Washington and Oregon, and B.C. is in a competitive position to do business. It's more favourable to do business here.

We've got any number of small programs that assist people in developing their skills. I articulated how many thousands of people are helped through the skill-enhancing programs that we offer in the regions, and they are well received by small businesses.

If you're saying that some sectors should get everything they want, we can't all have everything we want. We're in tough times. We are trying to get out of it, and we're getting on a road to eliminate the deficit. We're headed in the right direction, and by doing that we will be putting all businesses in a better position.

L. Fox: I'm absolutely amazed at that answer from the minister. They have decreased some fees distributed through the Health ministry on the business sector. That's in this year's budget, but it was this government that put those horrendous fees on that industry in the previous budget. They've increased the ceiling for the corporation capital tax, but up until the first budget of this government we never had a corporation capital tax.

Then we look at the initiative in this particular budget, where we now have tax on labour to repair shoes and tax on labour to repair vehicles. We've got tax, tax, tax, and all of this affecting small business. This

[ Page 6394 ]

particular initiative alone will drive more economy underground this year than any other initiative this government has taken over the last two years.

In my view, this minister is not representing the interests of British Columbians, never mind the interests of small business. If we cannot have a good, solid climate for investment, half of the employees in British Columbia -- most of them in good, solid-paying jobs and obviously in all regions of the province -- are going to be negatively affected.

This morning, when I suggested that the minister was irresponsible in his statements with respect to automobile employees, he shouted across the floor of the House: "Well, they're aggressive people; they can find jobs elsewhere." That's the kind of attitude we do not need on the part of this government. Those jobs are valuable, and we should be working hard to protect high-paying jobs in British Columbia if we are going to turn around this economy and develop opportunities for the unemployed to find work.

We certainly don't have to send out negative messages, such as that we do not think those particular jobs are important.

I want to ask a question with respect to the minister's earlier statement about how his ministry is working with the Ministry of Social Services to change those particular individuals into entrepreneurs. How much money have you spent on that particular program, and what is the number of individuals you've been able to encourage off welfare into the small business segment of the province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that we don't have a program or spend money; we help other ministries do policy and program development in that area. I'd be happy to get back with some details of what has been done in that area. As I said, they are existing programs. If you're expecting the Economic Development ministry to turn everybody into an entrepreneur, it isn't going to work. We know that a lot of people will remain employees, and not everybody is going to be self-employed. We have to put some realistic expectations in there.

I have to remind the member that B.C. does remain the fastest-growing area in the country and probably in North America. He has to recognize that, instead of getting on his negative tread and not admitting that B.C. is competitive. In order to get the truth out, we published the small business taxes, comparing B.C. and Washington.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You laugh, but the facts are there.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not selective facts; all the facts are there, and it does assess taxes. If you want to talk about facts, the facts are there; we have put them out. In fact, people from Washington admit that it's probably advantageous to set up in B.C., all things considered, all taxes considered. So we check this; we provide information.

During the last estimates the then-leader of the Liberal Party, or the leader of the Liberal Party, made some comments about it, saying that there were selective facts in there and that it wouldn't stand up under any scrutiny. And it was the same thing with our electronic manufacturing, advanced manufacturing and competitive advantage piece. There were some initial corrections suggested by an industry. We went back to them, and it still stands. That's why we verify these by using outside consulting firms.

The fact remains that the business climate for small business is good. We will retain that in British Columbia; it would be foolish to do otherwise. B.C. is going to exceed other provinces and grow, at 35,000 new jobs, all the while having a lot of in-migration to deal with, because we don't have borders in British Columbia. It's still a better place to work, do business and live.

L. Fox: I really am pleased and I guess appreciative that British Columbia is in fact a resource-rich province, that we have some of the highest quality workforce in Canada and that we have extremely attractive climatic conditions that make people move here. Without those three factors, we wouldn't enjoy the growth we are presently enjoying. The policies of this government would have a more negative effect if there weren't so many positives out there, which come naturally to us, to offset the negative aspects of this government's taxing policies.

I really like it every time the minister stands up and suggests that B.C. is in fact the fastest-growing province in Canada and that we're enjoying an investment climate that's beyond any other jurisdiction within Canada. It leads me to ask where we would be compared to the other jurisdictions if we still enjoyed the tax advantages that we enjoyed prior to this government. Let's look at how this government has closed that loophole, that incentive to business.

Perhaps the minister would like to tell us what the change has been from 1990 to 1993 in the amount of taxation the province has collected through small business. I understand it's a difficult question, but let's look at how much extra taxation has been extracted from the small business community in B.C. in 1993, over even 1991.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to get that information if it's in a form that we can readily collect for you. I don't have it with me. I'd just remind the member that B.C. has the second-lowest taxes in Canada. That's part of the reason why it's an attractive place to move to and invest in.

Looking at the hour and understanding the agreement, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Streifel in the chair.

[ Page 6395 ]

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

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

(continued)

A. Warnke: The reason I feel compelled to speak on Bill 20 is that I have some concerns, some of which have been very well expressed by the Opposition House Leader, my colleague for West Vancouver-Capilano. He initially pointed out that there are features of this bill that one can perhaps support. But while there may be the odd item that lends itself to support, there are other aspects that demand some attention. While some items are not contentious, the one item that appears to be contentious is the elimination of the funding of group 3 schools, which is objectionable. I note, hon.

Speaker, that others have pointed out a very similar kind of argument. The member for Prince George-Omineca put it very well, in terms of concrete dollars, exactly what the problem is with regard to this particular bill. Hence I feel quite compelled to make a few remarks on this as well.

[4:15]

I think part of the problem operates from the premise that we do not need to be concerned about group 3 funding. The government can extricate itself from funding group 3 schools because this is a move in the direction of not supporting certain kinds of independent schools. I cannot help but think that the premise the government is operating from.... Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe through questioning and cross-examination at the committee stage, we will find the premise that I thought the government was operating from is somewhat different.

But I suspect the premise is that the government members are operating from a notion that the private educational system lends itself to the evolution of classes and is one that exalts privilege in our society. If that is the premise, I suggest that they re-examine it. The notion that all that independent or private schools do is contribute to the development of privilege may not be the case.

I say that quite confidently, because in my own riding of Richmond I know a number of people who have made such representations on the kind of independent schools that are going to be refused funding under this particular bill. As a matter of fact, even outside my riding but still within the community of Richmond, I was most impressed with an institution that will be affected by this particular legislation, because this particular college wanted to address a fundamental need that is developing in our society -- that we, somewhere along the line. have to address.

The premise by which funding will be eliminated for group 3 schools bothers me a little bit, because I see another premise that ought to be addressed in our society, and that is the fact that we're not becoming the old archetypal kind of capitalist society where there are two classes -- one based on privilege and one not -- and that's what stimulates a private system. Quite the contrary. What I see is the evolution of a very complex society. When we stop to think about it, we are seeing such a complex society that there are new demands being enforced on our society. New challenges are forced upon our society to which we have to develop appropriate responses.

Let me put it this way. A notion that has been around for some time is that as a society grows and becomes more complex, and indeed we want to promote a society that does grow... That's one thing we do in order to hook properly into the twenty-first century. We acknowledge at the outset that we are living in a global economy. I believe I've heard from members on the government side that we are becoming more of a complex society. So that's the premise from which we begin, and it is an acceptance of a complex society.

That may mean that the normal way to proceed in establishing institutions of higher learning may be altogether different than in the past. That means that the premises by which we have taken a look at institutions, schooling and the acquisition of knowledge are much different than in the past. It's more complex.

Indeed there is an increased division of labour that is ever-present in a modern industrial and advanced technological society, and the division of labour increases. That means the society becomes more complex, and therefore the responses to that are such that we may have to develop, encourage, foster and promote institutions that respond accordingly. That actually contributes to a vibrant society and economy, which I note is in the

preamble of the proposed legislative changes. Based on my perceptions and experiences within my own community of Richmond, I know one institution that will be affected. It is an institution that is responding to the challenges of a very complex society, a vibrant economy and so forth, and I want to promote that. So I have some reservations about the legislation that's before us.

I agree with my colleague, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, that perhaps some items may not be contentious. But I want to reserve my assessment of the bill, considering that the changes affecting independent schools have perhaps not taken into account just how complex the whole question of independent schools has become. It may be crass, but I'll be quite candid. It doesn't mean that I condone the setting up of some wild notion of a school for fanatics. I understand that is a problem that any society must address. We do not want any sort of Waco, Texas scenario up here in British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, this province, especially, has had some history with regard to questionable conduct in setting up schools and so forth. So we're especially sensitive to that here in British Columbia, and we know that. But while some examples can come to mind, either realistically or hypothetically, underneath it all we have to acknowledge that we are facing a very complex society to which we have to develop appropriate responses.

[ Page 6396 ]

Incidentally, our province is not the only one to face this. My own experience of a few years ago, when I lived in Ontario around the Toronto area....

An Hon. Member: Shame, shame.

A. Warnke: That is a sin to which I confess. One member seems to believe it is a sin, and I certainly understand why some people might consider anything coming from central Ontario as that. I have come back to my roots, but it doesn't mean I'm going to ignore that experience.

One of the experiences I had of living in that area was that there, too, the public schools faced some very serious, chronic problems in transmitting knowledge to young students and preparing them for the world outside the classroom. Indeed, the problems were extremely severe -- as we might expect in any large city, though Toronto is usually viewed in a North American context as very civilized. Yet there were very severe problems even there -- and what was the result? The result was that some people felt there had to be an alternative to the way we've developed our public schools and public institutions.

Maybe it's wrong, but people recognize when there is a problem, and they respond accordingly. I vividly recall people who felt that one way out of this dilemma facing their children and young people was to enrol them in private, independent schools. As a matter of fact, I was even an applicant at one stage to an independent school there, and I was very impressed. I guess I was offered a job teaching law there, but I turned them down. I wanted to come to British Columbia.

It does mean that certain kinds of independent schools are very responsive to a new, changing environment and that parents and people generally recognize the need for certain kinds of independent schools. It's very clear that not all of it is being funded by the provincial government. In B.C. only 10 percent is funded by the provincial government, which means that parents and the community as a whole are responsible for 90 percent of the financing of such schools.

When people are searching for an alternative, to a certain extent it's not a question of seeking privilege or something extra for their kids so that they can join the elite class. If any parent really wants their kids to join the elite, then some of the independent schools would not be the way to go. I would recommend that they attend an exclusive private institution such as Groton in Connecticut or someplace like that so that they can go to Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and so forth. It's clearly not just a question of a quest for privilege. It's a response to an environment.

Frankly, I think ministries of education across Canada and maybe North America have got to be a little more dynamic and thoroughly assess what kind of problems they face with regard to education. In a strange sort of way, parents and other people are actually taking the lead on this. They're looking for an alternative to the public system. They are also responding to the dynamic evolution of a society that is becoming more complex.

Some of the items in this bill are not contentious, but in some ways the bill does not come to grips with the realities of what independent schools are all about or with the nature of education and what we are really facing in this country. I suppose we might interpret this as an attack on independent schools. If it is, it's certainly not warranted, but the implications may be that it is.

Incidentally, specific features of the bill also bother me a little bit. We'll take those up at the committee stage. I sure would like to have some explanations of why certain terms are being used. I'll give one example, I suppose to put the minister on a bit of a notice, because we will be exploring these at the committee stage. In a way, we all know what the term "the goal of a democratic society" means, but I cannot help but draw something from my own professional experience. Some of my political science colleagues were not pleased with the term democratic society. What do you mean by a democratic society?

Democratic refers to the form of government. It refers to the political processes. Society refers to something like social structure. By democratic society, are we maybe talking about social relations in the context of the principles of democracy as espoused by the French revolution? If what is meant by the essence of a democratic society is the equality, liberty and fraternity as it affects social relations and how that is to be demonstrated in a social structure, fair enough. But I do want to also suggest that that is a high-minded aspiration that also has plenty of contradictions within it.

For example, one does not balance equality and liberty all that easily. As a matter of fact, there is a strong case in political philosophy that there is almost an inverse relationship between equality and liberty. Throw fraternity in there and I'm not sure what we've got.

[4:30]

An Hon. Member: An NDP government.

A. Warnke: Throw it in there, and you might have an NDP government, says one of my colleagues.

We understand the aspirations. We know what certain people from that side of the House, the government side, would like to pursue or aspire to. But the terms are not very clear; the terms are even filled with contradiction. While the

preamble may sound very nice, because there is an additional feature in that

preamble now that talks about the goal of a democratic society and how we aspire to have people personally fulfilled and publicly useful, when you look at it on closer examination it just doesn't really make any sense. As a matter of fact, that one phrase "publicly useful" is perhaps even a touch repugnant. How can we make individuals publicly useful? One of my colleagues talked about the premise in this bill being one of a collective approach rather than an individual approach.

I think that member is quite correct, because if one has true, profound respect for individuals, then yes, the individual is seeking not only just what is in the self-interest. We're not talking about that kind of person as a possessive individualist but an individual who was at the same time a citizen. How do we make that individual publicly useful? There is a premise

[ Page 6397 ]

underlying this too. Who defines what is publicly useful? Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, it is sort of an elite that defines how individuals may be publicly useful. We will see how they become publicly useful. There is a premise there that is just a touch obnoxious and terribly condescending, in my view, and I think we have to watch it. Maybe with a little bit of luck, the addition in the

preamble that's being proposed here will be defeated or perhaps withdrawn. We'll see as we approach it at committee stage.

But this exemplifies, I think, some of the problems that we see in this bill. To be quite honest with you, hon. Speaker, little examples like that, and precisely the one that eliminates group 3 funding, make me think that perhaps the implications of this bill have not been well thought out. Perhaps what was really needed in this particular bill was a little bit more time to think through some of the implications of the terms that are being thrown around and so forth.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: One hon. member across says: "Oh, it's negative, negative." Hon. Speaker, with all due respect to that member, I have tried to be very positive by pointing out that there are problems with this particular bill. I've given the reasons why. I don't know why the hon. member has closed her ears, perhaps maybe not thinking that there are reasons that create a few problems here. But I have tried to point out some very solid reasons as to why there are problems with this bill. If I truly wanted to oppose this bill and be negative for the sake of being negative, I'd have an entirely different approach.

I think some hon. members on this side know that, and some hon. members on that side know just how negative I can be if I really get warmed up.

An Hon. Member: Oh, the milk-and-cookie approach.

A. Warnke: Yes, the milk-and-cookie approach.

What I'm trying to do is focus in on some particular problems and note how they apply, with implications in concrete examples. I know of one institution in Richmond that will be adversely affected by this. I know that there are applications and that there are people interested in independent schools, people who are very well-minded indeed, who respond to a changing environment and who understand the nature of a complex society. I know that this kind of approach is going to adversely affect our schools.

These are the reasons why I'm really slowing down and trying to get the point across to the government that perhaps there is something here that needs re-examination. If I pick out a few phrases and words and a few problems here and there, it's to drive home the point that perhaps there are elements of this bill that have not been well thought out and distilled the way they should be.

I begin with the

preamble. The purpose of the debate right now is not to go through the entire bill clause by clause. But believe me, you can do that. I'm just pointing out that even when you start off with the

preamble, there is a problem. The

preamble proposed in this bill illustrates some confusion. That's where it begins; it ends with the elimination of group 3 funding.

I'm not exactly sure where all members of the House stand on this bill. But I'm putting forth the argument that all members should perhaps go back and re-examine the bill. If they pass it at this stage, fine. But be very aware of the task that will be before us in committee stage when we proceed through this bill clause by clause. It needs a lot of improvement. On that basis, I have some very severe reservations with this bill.

F. Gingell: This bill deals with issues that many may see as dealing with educational choice and religious freedom. Many believe that parents have the inalienable right to determine their children's style and form of education. One can't but have sympathy for parents who are put at a substantial financial disadvantage because the government fails to provide for or financially support schools that meet their philosophical tenets.

I wish to state that the Liberal caucus may not be unified on this bill, and all members of caucus are free to vote according to their choice. My own concerns are that this may be the thin edge of the wedge for schools presently classified under groups 1 and 2. A group 1 school in my own community is in the process of building a very attractive brand-new elementary school that will cost them some $2.4 million.

You can appreciate that these schools operate on very tight budgets, and they are concerned that there should be no change in the funding they have been receiving for many years -- now at 50 percent of the per-head cost within their district -- which would place their whole project at financial risk. These are not wealthy parents. These parents are paying substantial school fees, but they are willing to make a very substantial financial sacrifice to enable their children to receive the type of education they desire.

If the Minister of Education gives me the reassurance that I seek during the course of this debate -- that this is not the thin end of the wedge -- I will personally be supporting Bill 20.

V. Anderson: One of the realities I discover in listening to people who have seen a particular show or have read a particular book is whether or not they come out of that picture show or out of the reading of that book with a common understanding of what they have seen or heard. When they come together with a common understanding, then I begin to see that there is a common thread within that particular production or presentation.

One of the realities that I'm discovering from the people who read this particular bill is that at the very least they are coming to different understandings of its purpose and its reality. Because of that, I am uneasy. Perhaps they bring to it different understandings. If so, it seems to me the purpose of legislation is to make clear what the legislation is about. When we come to different understandings, we must go back and

[ Page 6398 ]

re-examine the presentation itself; in this case, the Independent School Amendment Act.

As has been shown, the

preamble has been increased to include the words "democratic" and "pluralistic," which in one sense both describe the society in which we live. But within the bill, they do not illustrate the connection between these inserts into the whereases and the purpose of the bill and the bill itself.

When we come to the

definitions over the page, from this presentation we're not clear why you would have an independent school. We have a public school system, and we have traditionally had an independent school system, but the reasons for that may have changed. It may mean that there should be more independent schools or the changes over time may have led to the opposite conclusion: that the independent schools should be phased out in consideration of a broader public school facility.

The act itself does not clarify the reason one would move in one direction or another. So it leaves it up to various

interpretations as to why there are independent schools in the first place, or, providing that there are independent schools, why they would be taxed out of the public purse in whole or in part and what percentage of funding you would give to one kind of independent school and what percentage you would give to another kind of independent school. There seems to be a lack of rationale by which somebody new and strange to our whole way of education could read this act and understand the process that is being put before us.

[4:45]

I would say that the definition of an independent school is inadequate, particularly in relation to the

preamble about the purposes of education in this province.

It goes on to say what an independent school is not, defining it in the negative. I'm sure that besides the four specific designations given of what an independent school is not, one could very easily add a whole host of others. Are we to imply that if it does not fall into those four categories, an independent school can be almost anything else? There is one strange word which we'll have defined more clearly as we move along. An independent school is not one that is designated by an inspector. But the understanding of what designated means fails to be presented within this particular portion of the act. It leaves us again uncertain as to the particular implications of this bill.

One of the other sections which again leads to some concern is the minister's discretion. We find here two sections giving very strong authority solely to the minister not only to indicate the kind of resources that may be available to a school, which is somewhat understandable with the limited resources, but also to indicate the classifications of schools and the conditions that go with those schools. There does not seem to be a clear indication of how those are to be arrived at by the minister, nor is there a way of appeal.

As we look at this act and see the powers that are herein contained, we raise the question of appeal. Where is a person to go if they do not agree with what the minister has designated or decided? So we have different classes of classifications, regulations within those classifications, different directions and different decisions that may all be made at the whim of the minister without an opportunity for appeal.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

So, hon. Chair, some

definitions are missing. Some values are implied but not stated behind the

definitions and distinctions that the minister would make in these classifications. I trust these will be clarified as we proceed further in the committee stage of this bill.

W. Hurd: I rise today to oppose Bill 20, which I think reflects a view of independent schools in the province by this government that is simply not borne out by how they've been performing in B.C.

I think it's ironic that at this time in our province, when 110,000 students are behind picket lines in our public education system and when parents are seriously asking themselves what kind of public education they're paying for, that we should have a bill before this House which allows the minister certain intrusions into the School Act and into public schools in our province. It is out of step, I believe, with what is clearly needed in B.C.

Public schools have their place -- we all know that -- but so do private schools. Quite frankly, I cannot see -- and in reading the Hansard Blues I have not seen -- a rational justification from this government for its decision to bring forth Bill 20 to this Legislative Assembly.

I have not heard a rational explanation from the minister as to why the elimination of funding for group 3 schools has been deemed necessary. The minister will be aware of letters that she has received and letters that the opposition has received from people who are involved with group 3 schools. They are choice learning centres for students in B.C. They challenge gifted students to achieve higher levels of academic performance and excellence than they might be able to acquire in the public school system.

In my opinion, it's important for this Legislature and the people of the province to be aware that this bill seeks to reduce education excellence, not to enhance it. When funding for group 3 schools amounts to only 10 percent -- other members of this assembly have alluded to this -- with the parents themselves picking up 90 percent, you would think the Ministry of Education would have made a better effort to assess what was happening and whether it was worthwhile for the province to continue with that 10 percent support.

The Minister of Education needs to be aware of the growing public concern about the kind of instruction, activities and climate for learning in the public school sector. She needs to listen to the concerns of parents. The reason the demand for independent schools is growing is that the people of the province are concerned about the kind of instruction and direction their children are receiving in public school education. In speaking against this bill, I cannot understand why the minister is bringing forth what are in my opinion significant changes to the relationship between the

[ Page 6399 ]

province and independent schools. Clearly these changes are not being demanded by anyone associated with group 3 schools or by any of the people who are currently involved in private schools in B.C.

Given the absence of a compelling demand from people in the province and the relative lack of dissatisfaction with the way private schools are performing, it's troubling that this bill would come before the assembly at this time, particularly given the real structural problems in the public school realm. When was the last time a private school ended up behind a picket line? When was the last time the private schools of this province had the kind of youth violence that seems to be an all-too-routine occurrence in some of the public schools?

Why is a portion of this bill dedicated to fixing a school year, when clearly it should be up to the private schools to determine whether they want their children to learn during an extra two weeks in the summertime? This is the kind of approach to academic excellence that private schools foster and that the government seeks, in my view, to eliminate, given the ability of this bill to intrude into the materials and curricula that are provided in private schools.

This represents a philosophy of the government. I believe it is a philosophy that private schools, because they seek to provide a different type of educational experience and a different approach to academic excellence, are therefore to be discouraged when it comes to an approach by the public for public funding.

The level of confidence in our public school system in this province, because of the year 2000 program and other types of endeavours that seek to eliminate competition among our students and reduce educational competition to its lowest common denominator, is the reason that parents are taking their children to private schools. It is why the government, in addressing the needs of private school students, has chosen to bring in

an act that allows more intrusion into private school curricula and funding.

If we weren't seeing this widespread public concern about the role of the big stakeholders in public education -- the BCTF, B.C. School Trustees' Association, the people who these days seem to put money ahead of any other consideration -- I don't believe we would be seeing these changes coming forward to private school funding in this province. I am opposed to this bill, and I certainly intend to canvass the minister in committee to determine the exact intent of some of the individual changes to the bill. I suspect that during the course of