1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th 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)

FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1991

Morning Sitting

[ Page

12593 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Adoption Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 12593

B.C. Salmon, Herring and Other Fish Species Landing, Counting and

Processing Requirement (Magnuson Formula) Act (Bill M206). Mr. G. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 12593

Private Members' Statements

Public involvement in determining wildlife management objectives.

Mr. Crandall –– 12594

Ms. Edwards

Development of a land use strategy. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 12595

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Transportation and fiscal responsibility. Mr. Long –– 12597

Ms. Pullinger

Women and the courts: a search for fairness. Ms. Marzari –– 12599

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12601

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Mr. Reid

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Vant

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Strachan

FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1991

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BRUCE: Last night I had the honour to present the

first provincial medal for bravery of firefighters to Mr. Michael

Cornell of the Delta fire department.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: No, it's not. I would think that you would want to listen to this in all seriousness.

Mr. Cornell was honoured last night for his outstanding example of

one who assumes, as both a pledge and a duty, the safety and well-being

of their fellow citizens. Mr. Cornell was nominated for this award

after performing a rescue in a fire that happened in Burns Bog last

September. Driving a small all-terrain vehicle, Mr. Cornell made two

trips down a long road of burning sawdust through heavy, choking smoke.

The forest on both sides of the road was in flames, the trapped

firefighters had been forced to abandon their burning fire truck, and

their breathing equipment was running out of air.

He truly exemplifies the firefighters of the province of British

Columbia who, in many instances, put their lives in danger. I would

like this House to extend heartfelt congratulations for a fine example

of bravery to Mr. Michael Cornell.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the Minister

of Municipal Affairs in offering the congratulations of this House to

Mr. Mike Cornell. I think we all know of the consistent and loyal

service that our firefighters give in the province, putting their lives

on the line when the call of duty arises. We in this House recognize

the great contributions those firefighters give to the people in

British Columbia.

I hope that that minister would also take under advisement the

dramatic shortfall for the Fire Academy in terms of training those

firefighters. There is great concern that the Fire Academy, which takes

responsibility for the training of firefighters, doesn't have adequate

resources. If we don't train properly, the people in the province will

receive poorer service from the firefighters.

I offer thanks to Mr. Cornell and all those in our fire services who serve the people of British Columbia.

HON. J. JANSEN: In the precincts today are some grade 7 students from

Tyson Elementary School, which is just down the road from where I live. They're

with their teacher Mr. Watkinson. Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Adoption Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The Adoption Amendment Act, 1991, provides

for an active adoption reunion registry and expands the current passive

registry. For many years adoptees and birth parents have been

advocating strongly for this change. The majority of other provinces

have active registries. This legislation will allow adult adoptees and

birth parents to request an active search for each other. In some cases

birth siblings may be sought.

This legislation balances the right of personal information with the

need for privacy. Privacy will be protected by a provision for adoptees

and birth relatives to register a veto prohibiting contact except for

medical emergencies. In no case will a reunion occur without both

parties' consent.

Bill 11 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.

B.C. SALMON, HERRING AND OTHER FISH SPECIES LANDING, COUNTING

AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENT

(MAGNUSON FORMULA) ACT

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled B.C. Salmon, Herring and

Other Fish Species Landing, Counting and Processing Requirement

(Magnuson Formula) Act.

MR. G. HANSON: This bill asserts that the salmon, herring and

other species of fish resources of the province shall be managed and

developed on sound resource management principles, with conservation of

the fish resource being paramount — which is the Magnuson formula.

It ensures that fish products produced with British Columbian fish

shall continue to be of a high, consistent quality, and it requires

that no fish taken in British Columbia waters in Canada's exclusive

economic zone shall be exported unprocessed while a British Columbia

fish processor has the capacity to process the fish.

Bill M206 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.

[ Page 12594 ]

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DETERMINING

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

MR. CRANDALL: I'd like to talk this morning about a subject

that is very important to us in the interior parts of this province and

especially important to us in the southeastern part of the province,

the great southeast where we have such an abundance of wildlife, which

makes the quality of life more interesting and beneficial. Wildlife is

one of the most important things to the people who live in that part of

the province.

I'd like to talk this morning about how we determine wildlife

management objectives. It's important that we lay out objectives in

terms of wildlife management. Many of us who have lived in the interior

of the province have been familiar with wildlife all our lives, and

we've seen the hunting programs and wildlife viewing programs going on

for many years. But it's appropriate to ask how government determines

the objectives for wildlife policy.

British Columbia is one of the greatest wildlife areas in the world.

I talk about the southeast in relation to the entire province, but when

we look around the world, we think of the whole province of British

Columbia. From around the world people come to share the benefits of

our wildlife. They come here from America and Europe to see and hunt

wildlife.

[10:15]

One of the reasons why many people live in this province and to a

certain extent why people live in the interior of our province is the

benefit of being able to live in wildlife areas.

Wildlife issues come in many forms, and I've mentioned some of them

already. First of all there is just an appreciation of wildlife — an

awareness of wildlife. To some people as well — and we have some

historical roots in this particular aspect — wildlife is a food supply.

The natives who inhabited this province before many of our ancestors

came depended on wildlife for their food supply. In addition, British

Columbia wildlife has graced printed matter around the world. So we

have photography interests. We have wildlife-viewing interests, which I

mentioned earlier. Also, we have another interest in wildlife —

recreation in the form of hunting.

Again, the question is this: how does the government set the

objectives for wildlife policy? To my mind there are a few

possibilities. Government can set those objectives itself. We can set

those objectives through elected people making decisions. We can also

set those objectives through our civil servants making recommendations

and, to some extent, making decisions.

There's another option, and it's the one I want to dwell on this

morning. That's the option of a strong public process. Of the choices

for setting wildlife objectives, I want to strongly contend that the

only appropriate alternative is an effective public process.

How do we do it in B.C.? I don't want to be too categorical, but I

believe strongly that we do not have enough public involvement. Over

the last 12 months we've seen some very effective public processes in

terms of managing British Columbia's resources. We've had the Parks

Plan '90 program, where parks staff went around this province and asked

for public input on how we should manage our parks and the rest of the

land base in the province in relation to parks. Hundreds of people in

small and large towns packed community halls to provide public input on

how we should manage our parks. We also had a public process on

back-country opportunities. I believe that we have not done that as

effectively as we should have to determine wildlife management

objectives.

I'd like to talk about the hunting side of this issue for a few

minutes. There is concern around this province as to how we have set

the objectives on the recreation side of wildlife. How have we

determined the objectives in terms of our hunting regulations? We have

an issue in the East Kootenays having to do with the regulations on the

hunting of moose. In doing some research on that over the last few

weeks, I've taken the opportunity to talk to wildlife officials in

other provinces and in some American states. I was impressed with what

I found there. I was impressed, for example, that in the province of

Ontario, in setting objectives for the management of moose, the

Ministry of Natural Resources held public meetings in 70 communities

asking for public input. I salute that process.

I was also impressed with the state of Wyoming, where in putting

together their moose management plan, they also went around the state

of Idaho asking the public what they felt the objective should be in

putting together a moose management program.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, time has expired under standing orders.

MS. EDWARDS: My colleague from Columbia River is talking

about an issue that is certainly important to those of us in the East

Kootenay. I want to deal very specifically with the public process,

which is what the member said he was going to deal with — and that's

where the issue is, I believe, for those of us who are public

representatives. I have been involved with a number of the people in

the East Kootenay who have been saying for the last four years that the

amount of public process that has gone into game management and

allocation of game has not been adequate.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is.... We're not talking about Parks Plan

'90, which went through, and then we're expecting a decision and that

will be the end of it. It did raise a lot of response in the East

Kootenay. And we're not talking about the whole back-country issue,

which I could go into, because I don't think it was that good a public

process; but again, it was a single-time public process.

When we're talking about public process for deciding about hunting

I'm sure this is true all across the province, but in the East Kootenay

it's very true that this is an ongoing process and that it has happened

over the years that there has been public process. But the important

thing is that in recent years a number of groups have been saying it

isn't good enough; there-

[ Page

12595 ]

fore we should respond. What has happened, Mr.

Speaker, is that the government did respond; Mr. Crandall is well aware

that it did. There was the Kootenay hunting opportunities task force

that was struck, and that task force didn't work as fast as Mr.

Crandall thought it should.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you please refrain from referring to the hon. member on the opposite side of the House by his name.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sorry. The member for Columbia River.

The member for Columbia River didn't think it worked fast enough. I

don't think any of us who are interested in public process thought it

worked as fast as we would have liked. But I do believe that the

process needs to have its chance, and I believe that what we're dealing

with today is that that process get put in place and that there be

broad participation. It may not come out with the recommendations that

everybody likes the best. But it did come out with a recommendation; it

does represent a lot of people and was based on a lot of input and a

lot of answers to questionnaires and so on. I believe that the process

needs to be addressed; I believe that that is what's being asked.

One of the most vocal opponents of the issue that the member for

Columbia River just referred to — the bull moose limited-entry hunting

issue — presented it to the Round Table on the Environment just two

nights ago. He asked for clear rules and regulations to require public

participation in allocation and suchlike decisions; not that the public

be the managers, but that they be there to establish the goals and to

work there. In fact, the question was put to that person about whether

there was adequate habitat for some species of game, and he said he

didn't have the definitive knowledge to say. That's true; that's

reasonable. That is the position being put forward.

I have great hope that the advisory committee that is going to come

out of the task force that was established will work to the advantage

of the people: hunters, recreationists, photographers,

wildlife-viewers, tourism people and all those people who want to use

the wildlife resource, so that they have a way of getting input to the

advisory committee.

I checked this morning to find that the committee should be struck

by summer. If they see an emergency coming up by fall, they have every

right to make recommendations to the minister for emergency decisions,

as happened with the hunting season a year ago. But basically they will

be doing most of their work after this hunting season, looking forward

to the next hunting season. I know that there will be all sorts of

people alert to whether we have limited-entry hunting and what the

goals are for game allocations in the East Kootenay.

I believe that we have to look to this committee and see that it continues

the best traditions, if you like, of public input into decisions and that we

give it a chance to work. I have been working with this group for quite some

time, I've been talking to ministry people, to the minister and so on. The

member for Columbia River has recently been involved, and I hope that he will

join me in hoping that the committee will work to the best advantage of all

of us.

MR. CRANDALL: In concluding, I just want to suggest again

that we need to improve the public process of establishing our wildlife

management objectives. I agree with the member for Kootenay that the

Kootenay hunter opportunity committee should get into operation soon.

What I'm concerned about is that it should have been in place many

months ago. I'm concerned that it's not already in place. By now it

should be making recommendations to us.

I'm also concerned that the public process and the public

involvement in establishing wildlife management objectives should be

continued. I hope that committee, when it is formed, will be

continuous. But in addition to that, there needs to be continuous

public involvement not only in the East Kootenays, but around this

great province.

Mr. Speaker, it's also important not only that we have public

process involved in formulating those wildlife management objectives,

but that we have as much public process involved in administration. I'm

concerned here about the smaller issues like allocation meetings where

there are discussions in local areas among the ministry, the public

hunting fraternity and the guides' and outfitters' organizations. We've

seen some meetings happen in this province that were not conducted in

the most democratic way, where it was not possible for the public to

attend. And if the public did attend, they couldn't take notes, and

they were not allowed to record the proceedings. I think that's an

abuse of the public process. I would ask that at all levels of

government we involve the public as much as possible and as

continuously as possible, in order to best serve the wildlife and the

people of this province.

DEVELOPMENT OF A LAND USE STRATEGY

MR. ZIRNHELT: I feel like I'm continuing a little on the same

theme that was debated by the members from the Kootenays. I'm rising to

raise this topic today because of the vast public support for the idea

of developing a land use strategy in the province of British Columbia.

But I have some concerns with the progress to date. I think we've

made rapid advancements, because we have come to a critical juncture in

the development of the province, where we're seeing

watershed-by-watershed battles. But I also see an awful lot of ad

hockery and a lack of consistency. I don't see enough effort being made

to involve the first nations people — the native people — in the

process.

For example, I note that in the Forest Resources Commission, there

is a noticeable lack of integration of the processes they suggest with

those that will be forthcoming from the task force on native land

claims, which is due to report in June. I think we've lost valuable

time, and in the interests of the future of this great province I hope

that we will not lose any more time and immediately begin to open up

the land use

[ Page 12596 ]

strategic planning process at the local level to involve all groups with interest in the land.

We know from recent court decisions that there is a responsibility

on the part of the province, according to Justice McEachern, to involve

native people so as to protect their interests in the land as well. I

say this because I feel that if we don't develop trust at the local

level with native people in coming to grips with some of the land

resource issues, we are going to end up with further unnecessary

confrontation.

[10:30]

One of the reasons this situation persists is that we continue to

make the rules. We know from land use planning processes that do not

operate successfully that it is because in the initial stages the rules

of the game have not been cooperatively developed. Rather, the rules

have been laid on by a senior authority and given to the community of

interests, and then they struggle with rules not of their own making.

So those processes fail.

I'd like to quote from comments made at public meetings by people appearing before the Forest Resources Commission:

"If we continue into ad hoc decisions, one drainage

after another without an overall provincial land use strategy, then I

think we're going to be in a lose-lose situation rather than a win-win.

If we continue to compromise rather than collaborate, then we will have

no one really satisfied and will be losing opportunities that we should

be able to address in a cooperative manner."

I think that indicates the kind of spirit that people want. They

want to initiate cooperative actions rather than be forced into

compromises later on. Eventually compromises are necessary, but in the

initial stages, when we're dealing with broad goals and so on, the

provincial land use strategy can serve that purpose as it becomes an

overarching guidance. We needn't wait for the development of an overall

provincial land use strategy to begin at the local level. The Forest

Resources Commission is fairly clear in that respect on page 21 of

their report. They say:

"But there is no need to delay government action. The

basic plan can be implemented through legislative action and through

the establishment of the various planning programs outlined. A

combination of existing inventory information and local knowledge

should be sufficient to develop plans if the goals and guidelines have

been determined. The land use plan is an integral part of the Forest

Resource Commission's vision for the protection [of the future of the

forest]."

The critical issue here is the development of trust. We all know we

are operating in an environment where the public chooses not to trust

their politicians, because of the way we have been carrying out our

public duty. If this pertains to the general population, then I suggest

it also pertains to native people in particular. In order to overcome

that, we need a longer time-frame than has been suggested by a number

of commissions operating in this field of land use. We have to sit down

and develop a cooperative approach, if only for the short term. This

may beg the question of the long-term settlement of the land question,

but we have to find areas to operate where we can build up trust;

because if we don't have trust, we will then be in the fearful

situation where people will end up in confrontation.

The road to self-sufficiency for native communities — it will be a

net economic saving to us, but it will also eliminate the tremendous

human cost that we have — can be developed only when those people are

involved in developing the terms of reference. We have a land claims

task force operating, but it's operating at a high level. Something is

lost in the involvement, where Indian people participate if they choose

with this provincial task force. It's a long way; it's very expensive

for leaders to come. In the meantime, there are no processes at the

local level that are comprehensive, that deal with the total

involvement of all of those interests.

I believe that the bottom-up process is the one, in the long run,

that we must concentrate on, because that's where the practice of

developing a land use strategy is going to be effective. It cannot be

practised fully on a provincial basis. We've made strides in dealing

with the provincial strategy, and we've developed an awful lot of

consensus. It gets a little harder when we try to create a reality at

the local level.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thank the member for his comments.

They're much appreciated, and I know they're well thought out and

sincerely felt. I do want to clarify some of the issues, because the

impression is left — perhaps not intentionally, but sometimes

intentionally by some people — that no land use planning goes on

vis-à-vis the forest industry. I just want to read into the record some

of the things that we do in forests. Then I want to touch on the native

Indian issue, which the member feels so strongly about.

We are undertaking planning at a number of levels, ranging from

provincial overviews to very specific operational plans, and all of

these plans have a land use aspect. At the provincial level work is

going on under Provincial Parks and Wilderness for the '90s, in

cooperation with the Ministry of Lands and Parks. The old-growth

strategy involves a number of ministries, with the Ministry of Forests

coordinating it.

In our forest regions and districts literally hundreds of planning

projects are completed or underway. Plans exist or are being updated

for 33 tree-farm licences in 35 timber supply areas. Local watershed

scale plans are prepared throughout the province to deal with land and

resource uses — for example, committees dealing with the Carmanah,

Tahsish-Kwois, Nahmint, Tsitika, Western Strathcona, Penticton Creek,

Rocky Mountain Trench, Robson Valley and the Babine River. Finely

detailed operational plans are prepared for timber-harvesting and range

use — for example, five-year development plans for forest licences and

TFLs.

All of these plans involve consultation with public interests and

resource users, and they're done at the community and/or regional

level. We have a well-established and very comprehensive planning

system which includes public involvement at all levels. Much of the key

planning is done at local levels where the land and resource-use issues

can be dealt with in a meaningful way.

There is some truth to the comment that we deal with watershed by watershed, but I think that would

[ Page

12597 ]

happen whether or not there was an integrated land

use plan. The Tsitika Valley is a good example. That has been studied

and restudied for about 15 years, and when the Tsitika follow-up

committee made the decision to preserve roughly 40 percent through

various means, such as ecological preserves or wilderness areas, and to

harvest 60 percent, the result still did not satisfy a lot of people,

as we saw. So no matter where you put your land use plan and even after

studying it for 15 years, there will be those who will object to what

you're going to do. No matter what land use plan we have in place, we

are always going to be faced with those who are those going to use that

for their new starting position to object to what we're going to do. I

only point that out to drive home the point that an overall land use

strategy — which we are working very diligently towards — is not a

panacea and will not solve all the problems.

I don't think anyone — and I say this in all humility — has gone

further than I have and has gone that extra mile to make sure that

native Indian bands and tribal councils are involved in the economic

side of forestry We have several ongoing negotiations at the moment,

and we have three or four success cases where we have signed agreements

with native Indian bands and/or tribal councils. We are making a lot of

progress in that regard, recognizing that in the past we haven't gone

as far as we should have, so now we're going that extra mile. In one

instance we have even clawed back some timber from some major licensees

to make sure that a native Indian band had an economic base from which

to work so they could employ their people. I feel very strongly about

that too. I'm pleased that the member raised it, because I know his

feelings on the same subject.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I appreciate the minister reiterating that

those processes are taking place. I think we agree on the fact that the

public does have an opportunity to participate and, therefore, involve

themselves. But I would submit that while the opportunity is there, the

public does not always feel comfortable that their input will make a

sufficient difference. That's because some of the public consultation

is done in a walkthrough type meeting where two or three forest

professionals, for example, talk to individuals one on one. They go

away feeling: well, maybe they're right, or "I disagree with them, but

I don't know what I can do."

I think the point is that the public needs an opportunity to grow

and to contribute their knowledge about local resource use, and they do

that through a process where they continue at the table. A number of

the ad hoc processes going on around the province will result in a

process in which there is considerable consensus. I reiterate that it

is a difficult task to bring people in who are not used to

participating and aren't familiar with technical language so they can

develop a common language that goes with some trust. They need to know

that they can make a difference.

In order to make a difference, they do have to be listened. I admit that we

will be changing the goalposts for a long time until as a society we're

more comfortable that our rates of resource extraction are sustainable. There's

going to be a lot of nervousness around that. I would remind the people of the

province that we have a long road ahead of us, and the sooner we get on that

road the better off we are. I speak to local people engaging local native communities

in dialogue about a common future.

That must be facilitated by the government, and I commend the

Minister of Forests where he has taken initiatives to tie down economic

opportunities. Those are modern, industrial, economic opportunities,

but there remains the whole question of sustenance — hunting and

fishing — which is integral to the preservation of native culture.

Those must be preserved, and I say that we are very crude in our

mechanisms for protecting this. That's the challenge. That challenge

needs to be put to people locally.

By way of

summary, we did have an environment and land use

secretariat that was dissolved in September 1980. We did have regional

resource management committees that were abolished in 1983. There have

been costs of this downsizing of the integrated resource management, so

that we have to go the "extra mile" more often — to use the minister's

words. It's that extra mile that's going to tax all our political will.

We're up to it. The local people, including the native people, are

prepared to provide it.

TRANSPORTATION AND

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to speak about

transportation and fiscal responsibility within British Columbia, and

specifically within my riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. It's

something that has been bothering me since March, and for the record

I'd like to mention the positive things that are happening in the

Sunshine Coast area.

Recently the Minister of Transportation and Highways announced that

the proper funding for the Gibsons bypass would be forthcoming this

summer and in full swing by July, as well as the upgrading of Highway

101, the realignment of Rat Portage Hill on the peninsula and also the

arterial highway right through the centre of Sechelt — for safety

reasons. It's all a positive thing for the Sunshine Coast and for

Powell River.

As well we have a brand-new 85-car ferry which will be brought into

service on the Earls Cove–Saltery Bay run for the people of Powell

River on June 28. So the transportation system on the Sunshine Coast is

positive. We have accomplished a lot. Contrary to the opposition

leader's comments in a meeting in Powell River in March, saying that

these are the things they would do, I've got news for him: we've

already done them, so he does not need to.

I have to go back to a pet issue of mine. I've taken a lot of time

to write a lot of notes, and I'm not using one of them, it seems. But I

go back to a time when the Social Credit government decided that it

would be good, proper and just for Powell River to receive the ferry

that was taken away from them many years ago. At that meeting on March

16 the Hon. Rita Johnston —

[ Page 12598 ]

she was the minister at the time.... We made an announcement.

It just so happened that on the same day a gentleman showed up in

town — I think he went by the name of the hon. Leader of the

Opposition. But after the announcement Powell River was happy about it.

On that same day, the Leader of the Opposition asked for a meeting with

that transportation committee, who said they would receive him and

listen to what he had to say. He came there talking about all kinds of

different ways to get around the problem without moving the ferry,

bending to the pressure group of 60 people on the opposite side and

forgetting the wishes of 15,000 people in the Powell River area.

The transportation committee asked the Leader of the Opposition:

"Will you commit to relocating the ferry in its just home, Powell

River?" I'll quote exactly what he said on the same day, March 16: "1

think the principle of the ferry being relocated to where it was taken

away from, on the basis of it being in the community it is supposed to

serve, should take place." In other words, the ferry should be

restored. Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

[10:45]

Now let me go to March 20. This is his comment to the people of

Courtenay: "Let it be clear: the ferry based in Courtenay must stay in

Courtenay." We're talking about the same ferry, the Queen of Sidney . There was no trick to this; there's only one ferry. It sails back and forth. He tells us one thing and Courtenay another

To get off the fence he had impaled himself on, he then comes up

with the brainwave that he is going to put two ferries on. Well, let me

fill you in on just what two ferries mean. At this time on that run

there's an annual loss of $4 million. If you put two ferries on, not

only do you have another ferry worth $60 million — amortized over 20

years it's $3 million a year — but you have an additional $4 million

loss, because the other one loses $4 million. You've taken off half the

traffic, so more than likely you're going to lose your operating

expenses. You're looking at an annual loss of $13 million.

This is the kind of fiscal responsibility the NDP want in this

province. This is the fiscal responsibility they talk about. This is

the man who's going to balance the budget with debt. All they have is

debt. I don't know how they figure on doing this, or whether every time

the hon. opposition leader stands up...

AN HON. MEMBER: Easy on the honourable.

MR. LONG: Easy on the honourable!

...and makes mistakes or misleads the people of Powell River or

Courtenay he can buy his way out of it.... I don't think that's going

to work. He should do what is honourable and admit that the people of

Powell River deserve their ferry and quit bending to the pressure

groups on the other side.

Some may ask: "Why in Powell River?" The hard-working mill workers,

loggers and others who work there deserve their ferry. They paid for it, and

they deserve it.

MS. PULLINGER: The member for Mackenzie seems to have

suggested that our leader's suggestion of two ferries is somehow

irresponsible. I would like to offer to the member — who seems to have

suddenly become an expert in transportation — that the comments were

checked out by at least two people who know what they're talking about

in transportation and ferries, and whose suggestions are economically

feasible. What's irresponsible is a member who serves on the B.C. Ferry

Corporation's board of directors stabbing one community in the back for

his own political agenda. That's what's irresponsible.

I wish the speech that this member just put forward had been

entitled "Transportation and Political Responsibility," because the

transportation policy of this government is apparently based on a

partisan political agenda. Let me give you some examples of that. First

of all, a subject the member alluded to is moving the ferry terminal

from the Vancouver Island site to the Powell River site — to save

somebody's political backside, I might add. There has been no

discussion with the workers, no discussion with the communities

affected and no studies to show that this is in any way beneficial.

This is simply a political — and irresponsible — move.

Secondly, let's talk for a minute about the Vancouver Island

Highway. Finally, after 22 years of this government promising it, we

have a

schedule for the Island Highway. But this

schedule as originally

promised bears almost no resemblance to what's actually happening out

there in the Island Highway construction. For instance, Ladysmith in my

constituency was first on the list. It was first on the list of areas

that need to be dealt with because there are very unsafe areas on both

sides of the town. Still nothing has been done in Ladysmith, yet there

are other things on the list that come after Ladysmith that have been

done. That's not any kind of responsibility in transportation.

Thirdly, let's talk a little bit about a BCTV news story a very

short time ago about highways and this government's record on highways.

The capital spending: they made it very clear that the money the

taxpayers pay to this government in good faith goes into Social Credit

ridings. It seems to me that's the Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale

member's school of politics: if you want a road built in your

constituency, vote Socred. That seems to me to be perilously close to

blackmailing the taxpayers with their own money.

That TV program showed that 98 contracts went to Socred ridings, 33

to other ridings, and three of those were the Cassiar connector. But

the real disparity is in the dollar amounts. There has been something

like an average of $170 million into Socred ridings, and an average of

$20 million into New Democrat ridings. That's no kind of fiscal

responsibility.

I wish the member had spoken about transportation and political

responsibility, but you know, this government's right to talk about

transportation and fiscal responsibility is also in question. This

government has been in power for almost 37 of the past 40 years. Most

of the roads built here have been under their stewardship, but the fact

is that this province's transportation infrastructure is in crisis.

Their own study — the Lea

[ Page

12599 ]

study — says British Columbia's $12 billion highway system of 45,000 kilometres of road and 2,500 bridges is deteriorating.

It goes on to say that action is required now. Poor roads are

jeopardizing our economic health and quality of life. It says that

costs and timing are critical. "Ten kilometres of road in poor

condition can be restored to almost a new state for $1 million. If

allowed to continue, deterioration sets in rapidly and a very poor road

costs $3 million." These people haven't done the work. They've let a

$12 billion asset deteriorate, and if we allow these people to carry on

with this fiscal irresponsibility, I would suggest that they'll

ultimately bankrupt this province with their kind of political

decision-making. Politics has been the basis of this government's

decision-making for highways. This study is called Freedom to Move, but

it's not about building new highways; it's about rehabilitation and

putting back — at great expense — what this government has let fall

apart. They simply haven't done the work.

One last point. I invite any fair-minded person to read the last two

auditor-general reports. Nobody who is at all fair-minded would argue

that the Minister of Transportation and Highways has been given a

passing grade for fiscal responsibility.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I can get that

much talking in that fast. I think what the second member for Nanaimo

is doing is trying to deflect the flak from the leader of her party by

trying to draw it off. It's the old grouse with the broken wing, you

know; they go flapping off into the bush.

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct her again. Probably in this House

there is no one with more experience in transportation than myself.

This member for Nanaimo talks about buying votes. If she had her way, I

guess the Nanaimo ferry which is docked there would be docked in

Horseshoe Bay forever — and you know you wouldn't want that, Mrs.

Member.

So let's get on with this again. You talk about buying votes. We're

talking about bringing a ferry to Powell River and saving money for the

taxpayers — it's fiscally responsible. The opposition leader is talking

about spending $13 million a year in perpetuity for 80 people — 80

votes. Add that one up and see what you're buying votes for. Just add

that one up, and you can go on to it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go over it once more. Let's go back to what

the opposition leader said on March 16: "1 think the principle of the

ferry being relocated to where it was taken from, on the basis of it

being in the community it is supposed to serve, should take place." In

other words, the ferry should be restored. He agrees with us.

Interjection.

MR. LONG: He said it in front of 16 people; he agrees. Don't defend

him. And in Courtenay he said: "Let's be clear. The ferry now based

in Courtenay must stay in Courtenay." Again the big fence comes up. Well,

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I was very upset with this, and I would

like the record to show that the people of Powell River have been very unjustly

dealt with by this opposition leader — 15,000 people held to ransom for 80.

Powell River is a great place to live, and they have enjoyed being there. You

know, it happens all over.

I came here today with the intention of actually calling the

opposition leader a liar, but because of the House rules I will not

call him a liar. I'll let the people of Powell River decide that one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you've already done it. You

can't not say it by saying you weren't going to say it. I'll have to

ask you to retract that statement.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I'm not here today to call the opposition leader a liar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you'll have to withdraw that. I must insist on it.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw calling him a liar. I will let the people of Powell River decide that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. LONG: I said, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comment that I called him a liar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unconditionally.

MR. LONG: Unconditionally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, there are 50 grade 7 students in the

gallery from Green Timbers Elementary School in Surrey. On behalf of

the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, I ask the House to join me in

making them welcome.

WOMEN AND THE COURTS:

A SEARCH FOR FAIRNESS

MS. MARZARI: Over the last few years public attention has

been drawn repeatedly to judgments from our courts related to rape and

assault of women by men. These judgments have said, for various

reasons, that the male offender has seriously not been at fault. These

judges have left women in British Columbia angry.

Nothing is particularly new here. These judgments have not appeared

out of a vacuum. Women have never been treated all that fairly by the

courts, either in access to the courts or in adjudication of their

issues in the realm of sexual assault. Until 1983, as a matter of fact,

there was no such thing in law as rape inside a marriage, and a woman's

word had to be backed up

[ Page 12600 ]

with corroboration. Indeed, until 1983 she could be cross-examined on her previous sexual experience.

[11:00]

What is remarkable is that the new cases have been brought to light

by a media which increasingly understands that women are articulate and

powerful about their sense of injustice. It is this coming to light of

judges' decisions in the press which forces this as an issue onto the

floor of this House. Attention must be paid to the judgments, the

reasons given for judgment and the legitimate anger that women feel.

In October '89 Justice van der Hoop gave a suspended sentence to a

subject who was drunk when he assaulted what the judge called a

"sexually aggressive" three-year-old. The male's drunkenness in the

case became one of the factors which led to his release. Responsibility

for drunkenness in that case was obviously not the male offender's

problem.

In a rape case in Quesnel in June '86, where a native woman was

raped while she was drunk, the four rapists received two conditional

discharges, one one-year sentence and a suspended sentence. She had

been drinking. Here the responsibility was on the woman not to be drunk

— and possibly not to be native — if an aggressor had intentions to

rape her.

This was reminiscent, of course, of Judge Bourassa's comments, who

later stated that in the north rape is slightly different: when a man

sees a pair of hips, he helps himself.

So there's a legal twist here revolving around the responsibility of the drinker.

It's the female who becomes victim.

Three months ago in Prince George, Mr. Justice McMorran excused Dr.

Clark, who had been accused of sexual molestation and assault of 12

patients who brought the case. The justice said that the testimony of

12 women was not enough to warrant a conviction of the doctor.

The Letendre rape case tried a few months ago in Vancouver ended

with Judge Sherman Hood suggesting that "no" can mean "maybe," and the

woman did not express herself strongly enough when she said no. The

invitation to the victim here is to be aggressive when they say no. So

how aggressive should women be? To the point of violence? It's

important to point out the catch-22 here, as the law enforcers have for

years told women not to fight a rapist for fear of even more violent

retaliation.

A case came to light through media attention just this week. Supreme

Court Justice Kenneth Lysyk found a man not guilty of rape because the

victim was deaf and mute and could not convince her attacker that she

did not want his sexual advances. Her attacker honestly believed she

consented, although the judge was clear to point out that he, the

judge, believed that she had not consented.

One would have to do a study of alcohol-related cases to see

whether, on a consistent basis, alcohol has a gender implication in a

rape case. The cases I've referred to suggest it might.

But when we come to the grounds for judgment that a man "honestly

believed" that a woman consented, or when we insist that Crown counsel

prove that the woman tried hard enough to convince her attacker that

her "No!" was serious, we can start to understand how the system seems

rigged sympathetically for the male case. "Honest belief," in anybody's

books, is a dishonest defence in a rape case.

If a woman is attacked by somebody who doesn't speak her language,

or if she is handicapped and not capable of articulating "No!" to the

attacker's satisfaction, we are establishing in law, by precedent, a

set of situations which will remain safe for rapists. We will

perpetrate the double victimization of women and we will continue to

send the double message to women and girls that it's completely up to

them to take care of themselves, while men are somehow exempt from

responsibility for their actions.

There is a virtual menu of reasons to find men innocent of assault:

the man was drunk; the woman was drunk; the woman didn't yell loud

enough; there weren't enough women around to testify — 12 isn't enough;

the man didn't believe the woman said no; and finally, the woman

couldn't communicate her response in a way the man could understand.

Government has a role to play here. The institutions we legislate

and regulate have to relearn behaviour they have taken for granted for

years, ranging from early childhood education through to colleges and

universities, through to the workplace and through to the courts.

Former Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson said two weeks ago: "We must

begin to devise systemic remedies for what is undoubtedly a systemic

problem and be open to the possibility that some traditions would

better be deposited on the scrap heap of history."

In the courts, women must learn that they can find fairness. That

learning can only occur if we make the institutions fair. I don't

believe politicians should denounce judges. I do not believe that

politicians can call for the firing of judges. But it is fair to

comment that judges do judge behaviour, that behaviour has consequences

which judges judge upon. There are consequences of the behaviour of

judges themselves — in the community and to the people being judged.

Judges need to be trained.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I wish to make a few comments about the

points made by the member opposite. I think they are excellent points

and well made, and I'm very pleased she has made them in this House. I

sincerely wish that the Minister of Women's Programs and the

Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General were here this morning, but

unfortunately they're not. So I will keep my remarks in a general

nature, and they're probably more personal than anything else.

I happen to agree with most of what the member said. I for one

believe that judges should not be above criticism, and that it's up to

the leaders in society, which we are supposed to be, to voice opinions.

I too am puzzled by some of the judgments that come down from our

courts — not only as they pertain to women but as they pertain to

children. I remember that when I was Minister of Social Services and

Housing I used to be offended by some of the senten-

[ Page

12601 ]

ces handed out to child molesters — and I mean that

sincerely. I took it to the Attorney of the day and said: "We must

appeal some of these sentences and ask for stronger judgments when

children are molested." I am sure that the member feels the same about

women.

I'm not going to get into specific cases, as she did, because I'm

not familiar with them; but I too am puzzled by some of the statements

made by judges when they bring down their decisions. I'm not

questioning the decisions, but I do question some of the statements and

some of the lack of severity of penalties. I really feel that way when

it involves children, because children are more vulnerable — vulnerable

in the extreme — than anyone else in our society.

Last night I happened to be watching one of the channels, and I saw

a story of a young woman who had been shot twice by a person — shot in

the head and, I suppose, left for dead. The young woman survived and is

badly crippled because of it. It was a very poignant story, and I felt

very deeply for that young person, because her life has been tragically

altered, if not ruined, by that incident. Yet when the documentary-type

story gave the sentence that the person got, it was not nearly severe

enough, in my opinion.

I think that the media is serving a purpose by bringing these cases

forward and putting them in front of us so that we can ask ourselves:

"Do we need to change the laws?" We are the lawmakers of the land, as

is the federal government. I think they do a good service when they

bring these judgments — these cases — in front of us, so that we can

ask ourselves: "Do we need to change the laws to reflect what society

feels the punishment should be in these cases?"

I thank the member for her comments. I am sure that they're shared by most members in this House, if not by all of us.

MS. MARZARI: I appreciate the House Leader's comments.

However, I have to ask: where is this government on this issue? Where

is this government vis-à-vis rape and assault perpetrated by men on

women? Where is the announcement that there is going to be a mandatory

training program for judges which this government is prepared to pay

for or to negotiate on with the federal government to ensure that it is

properly conducted? Where is this government in stating that it's not

going to be a half-afternoon of a training program on rape and assault

but a decent, comprehensive, thorough review of the implications for

women, who are equally as vulnerable as children before the courts when

they have been raped?

It is women who are doubly tried. Even though our courts have

attempted to make it easier, in fact, if you review the cases, you'll

see that by the time a woman goes through the eight months to a year

that it takes to get to court, with all that trauma, and then is

treated in this way, she has been doubly victimized. We are very

sensitive to not victimizing children twice.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Okay, where are we, then, on the mandatory

training of judges? Where are we on the selection of judges? Very often

it's the government that puts forward names for lists for federal court

judges or otherwise. Judges have to take into account the norms we have

assumed for ourselves as a civilized society. We, as Canadian society,

have put women's equality into our own constitution in sections 15 and

28. In 1982 Canada signed an international convention on elimination of

all forms of discrimination against women. This is the law of the land.

It's quite apparent to me that we as legislators and judges in the

courts must be aware of that law of the land. If we do not carry that

law of the land into whatever role we enter, as judge or as legislator,

we are not properly doing our jobs. We will be perpetuating systems of

discrimination which keep women vulnerable and scared and are now

making women in British Columbia very angry indeed. They will not take

it anymore. I believe it's up to us, the New Democrats, when we get

into office, to start taking strong stances on mandatory training of

judges and on selection of judges in order to start to encourage the

traditions of the courts in the way that former Justice Bertha Wilson

talked about, to break them down and make them more responsive.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 21: minister's office, $316,667 (continued).

HON. S. HAGEN: Today we have a member retiring from this

House. Today is the last day for the member for North Peace River. I

want to pay a personal tribute to this member, who has served the

public for a better part of his life, and certainly has served the

public as an excellent public servant of the people since 1979.

1 would just like to go over the past history of this member. He was

born in Mendham, Saskatchewan on March 31, 1931. He is married and has

three children and six grandchildren. He's been a resident of British

Columbia since 1941 and a resident of Fort St. John, which is in his

constituency, since 1965. His elementary and secondary education was

completed in Rutland, now Kelowna, British Columbia. In 1951 he

received a teaching certificate from the Victoria Normal School. In

1965 he received a bachelor of education degree from the University of

British Columbia.

Here are some of his career highlights. He taught school in the

North Okanagan area, Kimberley, Port Moody and, of course, Fort St.

John. He taught many subjects, including physical education, at the

elementary and secondary levels. From 1959 to 1979 he held various

administrative positions in public schools. He's also had a wide range

of employment experience in the fruit industry, farming, the lumber

industry, construction, truck-driving, mining and other areas of the

economy.

[ Page 12602 ]

In 1979 this member was elected for the first time as the MLA for

North Peace River. He was then the principal of Bert Bowes Junior

Secondary School in Fort St. John. He left that position to become an

MLA. In August of 1982 he was appointed Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. In 1983 he was re-elected to the Legislative Assembly. In 1983

he was appointed to the double portfolio of Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing and Minister of Environment. I first met the member from

North Peace when he visited my community of Courtenay as the minister

with those responsibilities.

In February 1985 he was reappointed Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. In February 1986 he was appointed Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources. In August 1986 he was appointed Minister of

Education, and in the fall of 1986 he was re-elected to the Legislative

Assembly. In November 1986 he was reappointed Minister of Education. In

July 1988 he was reappointed Minister of Education. In October 1990 he

was elected chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education for

Canada, and in fact, he was one of the drivers behind the school

achievement indicators program, which he believes in very strongly..,

In December 1991 he retired from cabinet after announcing his

decision not to seek re-election. This member has served with

distinction in the House, in his community and in his riding. Prior to

his election as an MLA, he was extremely active in community groups as

president or chairperson of numerous organizations: for example, the

chamber of commerce, the centennial committee and planning commissions.

He was very active in sports, and he took

part in organized competition

— baseball, softball and many other sports.

I can tell you that as a member I've worked with over these last

four and a half or five years, his community came first, and he fought

for that community. I think of the Rendezvous '92 issue and other

issues that had strong regional importance; he was always front and

centre. I remember when we were discussing Highways estimates in

Treasury Board and that sort of thing; boy, he was fighting for those

estimates and for the money for his riding.

But I think what the member will be remembered for, first of all, is

that he is the Minister of Education who asked for the Royal Commission

on Education to be held in the province of British Columbia. As a

result of that royal commission conducted by Barry Sullivan and a group

of people, the Year 2000 program evolved. Education reform is very

important; it's probably the number one thing we deal with in

government. The children of British Columbia today and in future

generations will, I think, be very thankful for what this member has

accomplished.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, when a member of this Legislature leaves,

it is an opportunity to reflect on his contributions. I want to make a few brief

remarks. The member for North Peace River was not an easy person to know in

a personal sense, but I, as someone who worked with him — and sometimes, in

the partisanship of this House, in quite vigorous discussions — knew what his

passion was. I genuinely believe that in the history of Education ministers

in the Social Credit galaxy, this member will be most remembered. I think he

will be remembered because he had an overwhelming commitment to a task which

he initiated, as the Minister of Education said, which he knew was a great challenge

and to which he devoted a great deal of time and energy. I want to convey our

respect for that, not only in the abstract sense but in the very practical sense

of the work he did in pursuit of his vision.

I am very sorry that I, for personal reasons, was not able to be in

the House yesterday when he made some comments, but I have taken the

opportunity this morning to read them. As is so often the case, I think

people do write or say something through their lives and through the

work they do that is representative of what's important to them.

I'm going to conclude by using the words of the member for North

Peace River. But before I do, I also want to say that I believe that

people in his ministry believed that they shared a vision with the

minister, and that was very important. It's something that's not always

easy to achieve, and I believe that the sense that people working on

the Year 2000 and the implementation of the royal commission had of the

minister's commitment to the task was very important to them, because

the political will, the political commitment, is the framework from

which people get on with their task. The member's words yesterday were:

"I guess I'm concerned" — meaning that he was

concerned about the future of his vision — "and I would hope that the

professional educators and others in this province will take hold of

the vision that Barry Sullivan and his group of people gave us to

develop all students to their maximum potential, to make the system

serve those kids instead of making the kids fit the system. If we can

accomplish that, as Barry Sullivan said, we will leave a great legacy

for our children and for the future in our province."

Amen to that member and to the work he did in that respect. It is a

vision and a commitment that we honour and respect today as he leaves

this House.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I just want to take a couple of minutes

to pay tribute to my friend and colleague from North Peace River. He

was an outstanding minister of the Crown, and during the short time —

two and a half years — that I spent in cabinet with him, I grew to know

and respect him even more than I had previously. But, most importantly,

he was a dedicated and committed MLA, and I think it should have been a

lesson to anyone who questioned that.

In the 1986 election it was halfway through the campaign before the

NDP could find anyone to run against him. It was 14 days into the

28-day campaign, and they still hadn't found a candidate. In fact, they

had to go outside of North Peace to find a candidate, because there

wasn't anyone in the entire constituency who was willing to tackle or

challenge Tony for the seat that he had. I think if there's a statement

you can make about someone and the way he served his constituents, that

probably sums it up as well as anything.

[ Page

12603 ]

Tony has really been a vigorous defender of his constituency, the

North Peace area and the Peace River region. He has been so in caucus

and in cabinet, and certainly Hansard

records very well his efforts on behalf of his constituents in this

Legislature. Unfortunately the words won't always have quite the same

resounding boom that Tony's voice did when he was incensed about an

issue. Only those of us who had the privilege to sit here in the

Legislature can ever fully appreciate just how vocal and aggressive

Tony was on issues that involved the Peace region and education

generally.

Tony has been a friend and mentor to me, someone who gave me

direction in the early times after my election. I really will miss him

in this Legislature, in these buildings and in his constituency. I want

to close by saying again what an outstanding member Tony Brummet has

been in this Legislature, and I hope and believe that the people of

North Peace will continue to be as well served as they were by him.

MS. MARZARI: I hate to break the spell of congratulations,

although I have great respect for... I guess I can call him Tony

Brummet now that he's retired.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is having some difficulty with that, because I don't know if it's effective yet.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Midnight tonight.

MS. MARZARI: At midnight tonight we can call him Tony in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there was one more who was going to speak on Tony, and then maybe the Chair could recognize you.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, might I follow up with comments made

by the former member in recognition of the member for North Peace

River, inasmuch as I have served with that member for eight years and

fully recognize the dedication that he had not only to his role in his

constituency but on behalf of the education community of the province.

In working with that member, knowing full well that each student in

British Columbia was served so well by his dedication and leadership in

trying to make certain that the quality of education and the student

was foremost in the minds of the whole industry called education....

As the previous member said, I also will miss the member for North Peace River

— Mr. Brummet — and I know that our colleagues on this side of the House would

wish him the very best in whatever endeavour he undertakes. I know, as a member

sitting in this House for eight years and working in the House, in the corridors

and in the constituency, to which he was so dedicated, I call myself a fortunate

member of this Legislature to have had the opportunity to work with the member

for North Peace River.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair may take the liberty.... The present

member in the chair was a seatmate of the member for North Peace River

and a classmate of the class of '79. He represents at the moment 25

percent of the class of '79. It will be smaller after today, and I'm

sure the class of '79 is sorry for it. He will be missed.

[11:30]

MS. MARZARI: Coming back to the estimates, while some people

dry their tears, I want to go to that point in the Education budget

where the minister might want to comment on a $400,000 budgetary item

and a $600,000 budgetary item which I believe are allocated for gender

equality programs and sexual abuse programs. In light of the statement

I just made a few minutes ago about the vulnerability of women and

children in our community to violence, one of the traditions we have to

get rid of is this notion that girls in school shouldn't be studying

maths and sciences, and that girls in school should be passive,

obedient and submissive — the word is "nice." We have read enough

studies to suggest that even in the most gender-conscious curriculum

and in the best of all school boards, where this is taken very

seriously, there are still aspects of the traditional classroom

situation and even the traditional relationship between teacher and

students which seem to encourage a more curious, aggressive response

from the male students and a tendency to be shy, submissive and nice in

the female students.

Of course, this takes us to the point where female students are not

encouraged to enter the maths and sciences, because they become the

tough "boy" subjects. By the time they get to university, very often

young women really don't have much of a chance — or they don't perceive

that they have much of a chance — to enter faculties such as

engineering, for example. At UBC in my constituency only 11 percent of

the first year engineering students this year were female. In fact,

last year it was 14 percent, so there's actually a slight decline.

I'm assuming the minister is bringing forth $1 million worth of

programs around sexual abuse and gender equity, and I'd like to spend a

few minutes discussing these programs and affirmative action throughout

the school board system in British Columbia — that is, the promotion of

female teachers into administrative positions, to act as role models

and decision-makers. Would the minister please outline the money

allocated to the gender equity program?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to address that question. The

gender equity program is fully outlined in working plan No. 3 in the

"Enabling Learners" booklet. It's being developed over a ten-year

period; in other words, it started in '89-90. There is a specific

program and plan for each of the subsequent years until 1998-99 when it

is anticipated the program will be complete.

For the 1991-92 year the goals are to establish non-sexist language

policy for all education programs, documents and communications; to

develop guidelines for implementing gender equity in classroom practice,

[ Page 12604 ]

hiring and promotional practices in the school

system; to provide vocational counselling in the schools; to support

educational organizations in implementing gender equity; to support

teacher education initiatives that address gender equity; and to

develop guidelines for monitoring changes relating to the

implementation of gender equity.

In that document, which you may have — and if not, I know your

colleague from New Westminster has, and I'd be pleased to provide you

with a copy — there is quite an exhaustive description for the ministry

tasks for the years 1990-91 to 1993-94, and then for subsequent years.

MS. MARZARI: Could the minister outline how this program is

going to be implemented? Is the ministry itself going to be hiring

senior consultants to develop draft policies inside the ministry which

will then go out for consultation through school boards? Or is the

money to be applied for by school boards throughout the province so

that they can bring in their own expertise and do their own

consultation in regions or inside their own school board jurisdictions?

HON. S. HAGEN: We have a coordinator of women's programs on

staff, with whom I've met, who organizes and has responsibility for

this program. Secondly, we have a $250,000 grant program that districts

can apply for to help them implement some of these programs.

MS. MARZARI: One of the surest ways that I think we can

guarantee that young girls and young women are going to be given a fair

shake in the educational system is if women teachers are given a fair

shake in our educational system. That has to do with hiring and

promotion — certainly hiring on the maths and sciences side of the

equation at the high-school level and promotion into the administrative

levels of the education system throughout the school boards.

Has the minister initiated an affirmative action program — which is

generally the term that should be used here? Has that now been started

by this ministry as a program for the whole province? Have discussions

started? Is the minister taking a personal interest?

I know that in Vancouver and Burnaby there has been a remarkable

levelling-out of administrative positions, in the sense that over the

last few years the numbers of women who have been promoted to

administrative levels have been unprecedented. I'm not sure whether 50

percent of the administrators in those jurisdictions are now women or

whether the last few years have seen a 50 percent increase in

promotions Nonetheless, both have done quite well.

Is the minister taking a stand, announcing a program or taking a

personal interest in affirmative action throughout this province, or is

he relegating that to this particular activity in this ten-year program?

HON. S. HAGEN: Certainly I have always been supportive of

gender equity, whether it's in education or any other system. But I

think it's important to understand that these are policy guidelines. We

are not the employer; the employers are the school districts. The

school districts, through these guidelines, take the initiatives. You

mentioned two — I think the Burnaby and Vancouver School Districts —

that are already doing this, and we are encouraging it. As a matter of

fact, when I speak to school boards around the province, it's one of

the topics that I usually discuss. We have the policy in place, and we

have the coordinator who deals with it. But the school boards are the

employers, and they are the ones who make decisions about hiring.

MS. MARZARI: I think it's absolutely imperative that school

boards have autonomy and be the ones who make the actual decisions

about hiring. But, Mr. Minister, you must know that by providing 100

percent of the funding, as you do through your block funding program,

you have a considerable amount of clout when it comes to actually

laying down some very specific guidelines under which you will be

delivering funding to school boards. I'm wondering if the minister

would be more forthcoming with the idea that perhaps this should not be

just a guideline but that there be carrots and sticks applied to this

guideline in terms of funding.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm wondering if the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey would also include in her request, then, that we

take over line-by-line budgeting and hiring practices for school boards

throughout the province.

MS. MARZARI: Heavens no! That would be a ridiculous use of ministry

time and a duplication of service. It would be resented profoundly at the ground

level. But in the building and development of affirmative action programs, it

is perfectly legitimate for a government or a funding agency to say that they

would like school boards, for example, or agencies or institutions to develop

goals and timetables so that they can proceed and develop hiring practices which

will meet certain goals. For example, if the goal is to ensure that there are

50 percent women in senior administrative positions ten years down the line,

that's a legitimate goal. It's a very legitimate thing for a government

to say to a school board: "We want you to meet these goals. Are they realistic?

Are there any reasons why you can't meet them? Let's discuss them. Basically,

we want our funding to be subject to you meeting certain goals that we can agree

on." Is the minister prepared to go that far towards an affirmative action

program?

HON. S. HAGEN: I can say to the member that I would be very

reluctant to limit the participation of women in the administration

field to 50 percent. I happen to think that in many cases women are

better administrators than men. To set any limit to that is not

correct. But I agree with you that the opportunity must be there.

Let me just reiterate what this program that we have provides in

very strong suggestions to boards. As I said, we provide grants to

support exemplary policies and practices in the school system, for

women in

[ Page

12605 ]

leadership roles; to help develop guidelines for

school districts on unbiased hiring and promotional practices; and to

participate in the College of Teachers' discussions re certification.

At the same time, as the chairperson of the Council of Ministers of

Education for Canada I want to point out to the member that we are

promoting the participation of ministers across the country who are in

charge of the status of women — to participate in this program as well,

and also to review and revise bursary initiative programs in light of

the results. This is an initiative that is across Canada.

I want to reiterate that I don't want to interfere with the hiring

practices of school boards. I think that's a job that they have to do.

What we can do is provide initiatives like this to assist them and — I

guess I could use the phrase — to educate them.

MS. MARZARI: I find it fascinating, Mr. Minister, because

it's not really a budget item. I can see you interfering with the

Vancouver School Board's attempts to provide adequate funding for

school boards' ability to carry out mandated programs. I can see you

interfering, with Bill 82, in how much a teacher makes or might not

make, or whether there is going to be retroactive payment if you cancel

Bill 82. You're interfering in those bread-and-butter issues in the

lives of the school system in this province, yet here, where money is

not at stake — except for the fact that it might be money earned by

women — you don't want to interfere.

You said that women might do very well and that you wouldn't want to

impose a ceiling on their ability to be involved with senior

administrative tasks. Would you be prepared to draw a line as a floor

below which female participation in administrative positions will not

fall?

HON. S. HAGEN: I find it interesting that the opposition is

again on the pin. They can't decide whether to interfere or take

control in one issue, in ten issues, in all issues, or to let the

system work. I believe that all women should be encouraged to strive

for administrative positions or for whatever position they wish to

achieve. That is the purpose of the policy and the program.

The member made the statement that this is not a budget item. Of

course it's a budget item; I read this budget item out to the member

for New Westminster yesterday. It's part of the Royal Commission on

Education reform, and it is a budget item of $405,000.

MS. MARZARI: It's a budget item because our society wants to take

a good, long, hard look before it actually decides that it wants to promote

women. It's a budget item because the systems are very threatened by the

fact that women are coming up the pike and asking for senior positions. It's

a budget item because school boards actually need guidelines for hiring and

promoting women. They haven't needed those guidelines for promoting and

hiring men, nor do they need special funding for them, largely because our system

has been laid on the foundations of male enterprise for a very long time. There's

a whole new population coming forward who are trained, educated and ready to

go. What we're doing is holding them off and drawing up guidelines for them.

Am I correct?

My question to the minister — and I wish he would not diffuse the

issue into one of autonomy or non-autonomy of school boards — is this:

is he prepared to draw a floor of female participation in the

administration of school boards throughout this province, to be

discussed and consulted with every school board in the province? Is he

prepared to think in terms of an affirmative action goal, a floor, of

50 percent women in senior administrative positions in schools across

this province so that young girls and women might see that yes, there

may be a role for them there that is a possibility for me; they do have

a choice; they do not have to end up in a dead-end ghetto earning

60-cent dollars? Is the minister prepared to draw that line at 50

percent over the long haul?

[11:45]

HON. S. HAGEN: This minister is not prepared to interfere with the jurisdiction of boards in their hiring practices.

MS. MARZARI: There are forms of coercion this minister uses on a daily basis as to who school boards can or cannot hire.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education on a point of order.

HON. S. HAGEN: Could I ask the member to clarify that last statement, because I'm not sure what it means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. Hon. minister, you could rise at your proper place in debate and ask that.

MS. MARZARI: It's not a point of order, but I am pleased to

answer it. I answered it already in my opening remarks. By virtue of

what moneys are available and what programs the minister prioritizes

over any given period of time, the minister very much determines who is

and who is not hired. The only thing you don't have jurisdiction over,

or seemingly don't want jurisdiction over, is the gender of those hired.

There seems to be some difficulty in communication here. The

minister seems to think that because the School Act says one thing and

the budget is allocated in such-and-such a way, that provides autonomy

for school boards. Yet if the minister was to begin to suggest that a

gender-based affirmative action program is not in the School Act, he

would be intruding on school boards by even suggesting that they begin

to hire and promote females into senior levels.

One area the minister does have full jurisdiction over, of course,

is his own staff. I would like to ask the minister at this point: of

your senior staff, would you please give me a breakdown as to gender

for your deputy minister, your assistant deputy ministers and your

executive directors. Would you be good enough

[ Page 12606 ]

to tell me how many males and females you have in your senior ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm told that we have two female executive

directors. We have no female assistant deputy ministers, and my deputy

minister is not a female.

MS. MARZARI: It's very nice to know that you have two female

executive directors. But what I'm really interested in getting at

here.... This is how affirmative action programs are developed and put

into action. You have to give me the total numbers, you see. I'd like

the total numbers to be on the record for the public. Obviously you

have one deputy minister. Okay? So would you be good enough to say: one

deputy minister — male; assistant deputy ministers — male...? Then

would you give the total number of executive directors and tell me how

many executive directors are male as opposed to your two female

executive directors?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I have one deputy minister who

is a male. I have four assistant deputy ministers who are males. I have

nine executive directors — seven of whom are males and two of whom are

females.

MS. MARZARI: If you're keeping score here, Mr. Minister, I

see one plus four plus seven male senior executives in your own

ministry, over which you have pretty clear jurisdiction. You don't have

to question the autonomy; you're not going under the School Act; you're

not interfering with a school board's right to hire or to fire. You

have within your own ministry a capacity to develop an affirmative

action program. If you have two females at executive director level and

12 males, I would suggest that you're nowhere near gender parity or

gender equality. Mr. Minister, if you really believe women have

superior administrative skills, I'd suggest you're selling yourself a

bit short.

I'm sure that the senior males in your ministry are excellent. In

fact, I know some of them, and I know they are excellent. But I am

asking you, Mr. Minister: even in your own ministry, would you be

prepared to think of an affirmative action program which would actively

recruit and hire females in senior levels of your administration?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sure, as the member opposite knows — if

she doesn't know, she should know — that all positions at the ADM level

are filled by the Public Service Commission on a competitive basis. By

law, it's based on merit. Okay? I don't do that hiring. I believe that

the best person should get the job.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI: A few minutes ago, Mr. Minister, you said that

you thought women had superior administrative skills. In saying that,

you said that you thought that women would be the best people for such

jobs. Are you prepared to think through the consequences of your own

statement, in the sense that an affirmative action program — which does

not threaten, and never has threatened, to promote a person of unequal

qualifications into a position where they would do a good job...? In

fact, an affirmative action program has always said that all things

being equal, equal merit....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Okanagan South rises on a point of order.

MR. SERWA: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The focus of this

debate is the estimates of the Ministry of Education. While I have a

great deal of sympathy for what the hon. member is saying, it is not

relevant to the estimates of the Ministry of Education. That is further

emphasized by the charade that is played by the members opposite.

Notice that when the hon. Leader of the Opposition is here, he is

entirely surrounded by men. The women are not sitting close to that

member; he is surrounded by a group of men. So I am saying that they're

just playing a charade, and it's not relevant to this debate.

MR. BLENCOE: I realize that this may be a thorny issue for

the minister, but I think that what my colleague is raising in terms of

staffing levels for that ministry and the people involved in the

ministry is all part of the estimates of the Ministry of Education. We

have a right to ask about staffing levels, and I think my colleague is

quite correct to cover this important issue. I hope you take that into

consideration, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I feel that we do allow

a certain amount of leeway in our debates. However, I would also ask

all members who wish to speak on these estimates that they recognize

that they're dealing with the Ministry of Education, vote 21.

MS. MARZARI: In my statement half an hour ago, I stated there

was a virtual menu of reasons that people could pick to let men off the

hook when it comes to dealing with issues that pertain to women; this

seems to be another one. When we raise affirmative action in this House

with the Ministry of Education, which has everything to do with how

young girls and young women formulate their ideas about how they live

and what they want to do with their lives, and I find out from the

minister that he has two women and 12 men in senior administrative

positions, it has everything to do with this debate. Not only that, Mr.

Chairman — I have to speak to you — but this is very much a part of the

Sullivan commission, which was put forward by the Education ministry

itself. Affirmative action and the rapid promotion, training and hiring

of women into senior administrative positions were major

recommendations of the Sullivan commission.

I want the minister to start thinking this through right at this

time, because he doesn't have the answers. He's given me conflicting

information across the floor of this House about how good women are but

about how he really believes in merit. He doesn't understand the nature

of that recommendation from Sullivan. It's that all things being equal,

women should be put forward, because women represent 52 percent of the

[ Page

12607 ]

population. Young girls need to know that there's

someplace to go to when they graduate — that there's some hope for them

to be curious, alive and dynamic, not submissive and nice all their

lives. It's time for women and young girls to know that they don't have

to be victims in their lives. The education system is the way to do

that; it is the first step on the way to doing that. So I want the

minister to take this seriously, and to reflect upon the numbers he's

given me today, and to start reading a bit more about the nature of

affirmative action and how essential it is for the unfolding of a

decent and civilized education plan for this province.

MR. VANT: Further to the discussions yesterday, I wanted to

thank the minister for making that very positive, definite announcement

about the new Pinecrest school to serve the area just north of Quesnel.

I appreciate that very much. I too will miss our hon. colleague, the

member for North Peace River. As MLA for Cariboo during his time as

Minister of Education, I'm very grateful he was generous to us in our

legitimate need for a new 150 Mile House Elementary School, a new

Narcosli Creek school, a new school at Big Lake and a major rebuilding

of the school at Likely.

Under capital spending I join the member for Cariboo in mentioning

the old Williams Lake Junior Secondary School. Both my daughter and son

attended that school, and yes, the roof leaks. It's on the east bank

facing west, so it does get uncomfortably hot in the summer, and it is

hard for the students and teachers to concentrate on their work when

the temperature is in excess of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. I hope the

minister will approve planning funding to replace that junior secondary

school. It's a fine school. They have excellent programs there. They

deserve better facilities. I hope that the planning funding is made

available to School District 27, and shortly thereafter, the necessary

capital funding for a new school.

I studied with great interest the comments by the minister yesterday

regarding the block funding. He did mention that there was — to use his

terms — "a ratcheting up and a ratcheting down," depending on whether a

school district was fairly rich and a big spender, or a low spender or

poorer. It appears to me that for some strange reason.... I know that

the dispersion factor and the weighting factor is a very complex

procedure in determining the block funding. I'm still wrestling with

why School District 27 was ratcheted down in that process. They only

got 12.7 percent over that two-year period, which is quite a contrast

to other school districts that got in excess of 30 percent.

[12:00]

On the other hand, the minister explained to me that they got the one-time

special purpose grant. You said that this was for the lower-spending districts,

the poorer-spending districts. With all due respect to the four superintendents

and to the four secretary-treasurers whom I understand assisted in this process

— and you said that some were winners and some were losers in this process —

my question to the minister is: why does it appear that School District 27 is

a loser in this process? They did get the special purpose grant which seems

to signal to me that they were a poorer, lower-spending district. On the other

hand, they were ratcheted down in the complex process of figuring out the block

funding.

The minister may not be able to give me an answer immediately. I

understand he's committed to meeting with School District 27 board.

With all due respect, it might be wise for him to bring along those

four superintendents and four secretary-treasurers to fully explain why

School District 27 definitely appears to be a loser in this process.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure the member for Cariboo that it is

not a loser. In fact, because of low supplemental spending in previous

years, they received a special purpose grant of $492,000 this year.

They have also had a declining enrolment, which has an effect on the

funding. However, the discussion that the member for Cariboo is asking

me to respond to is a very technical one, and I think it might be

better left for the meeting with the board of school trustees.

MR. VANT: When does the minister contemplate being able to meet with this board of School District 27?

HON. S. HAGEN: Just as soon as I can work it into my schedule, Mr. Chairman.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just for the record and for the two members for

Cariboo, the district that we're talking about has a 1.6 percent lift

this year. I can well imagine the difficulties that school district is

having. I believe, in fact, that that's the school district that has a

member of the Premier's family on the board. It must be really

difficult for her to be looking at the challenge of providing a quality

of education in that widely dispersed riding. Given the nature of the

riding, it has a very modest average per pupil cost. My son actually

worked in Alexis Creek for four months — between January and April —

and I had an opportunity through his eyes to know something about that

community as he travelled in his employ through the Cariboo-Chilcotin

plateau.

Let me just look at some other instances of funding that I believe

will give the public some sense of why districts are having the kind of

difficulties they are in maintaining the level of quality of services.

I want to preface my references to specific boards with, again, a

comment about ratcheting down.

Block funding has rapidly tried to change levels of funding in

districts. Boards quite justifiably believe that that rapid change has

put them in difficult situations. It also demonstrates that the whole

nature of this change has been calculated to bring everybody into the

average rather than to look at the real needs of districts. In other

words, it's a mechanistic process. As the minister keeps saying, it's

done by formula and it doesn't take into consideration the real lives

of children and their needs in the mandated programs of the minister.

Let me just look at a few districts. Cariboo-Chilcotin, which I just spoke of, had a 1.6 percent increase

[ Page 12608 ]

in block and a 0.2 percent decline in students — it

must be just a few students fewer than last year; Vernon, a 3.9 percent

increase but a 1.4 percent increase in pupils; New Westminster, a 2.9

percent increase. I know, because I know my district a little more

thoroughly, that that translates into 1.9 in terms of operating

dollars, because a percentage of that is specifically for what they

call allocated tasks on which those dollars must be spent. So there's

really only 1.9 percent for operating, and a 1.5 percent increase in

pupils. Burnaby and Maple Ridge have larger increases — 6.8 percent,

with 3.8 percent increases in pupils. In both of those districts what

second language, and we know the challenge of providing for those

students. Sunshine Coast has another fairly reasonable- sounding

increase of 9.9 percent, but a 5.7 percent increase in students;

Victoria, a 5.9 percent increase, but a significant pupil increase of

2.7; Gulf Islands, a 0.4 percent increase, with a 2.7 percent increase

in the number of students; Creston, a 2.4 percent increase, with a

slight decline in the number of students.

All those districts have been ratcheted down. It's a very graphic

phrase: you can just see the money being grabbed away. We call it, in

federal terms, the clawback. All these districts have had money, which

at some point they decided they needed, clawed back to bring everybody

into the average. That, with the speed and lack of sensitivity with

which it's been done, has created some of the problems in the system.

The minister has protested vigorously, vehemently, that he has

nothing to do with this. He is the minister. What we on this side of

the House are telling him — along with the member for Cariboo, one of

his own members, and I'm sure others on his side of the House who have

to represent their constituencies — is that these are real problems.

You can't leave it to some kind of technical working of a formula. You

have to look at the real needs of districts and you have to find ways

and means of providing for those.

Let's remember that through all of the changes of the last few

years, there have been significant increases in the tasks that schools

are required to do. The minister has been silent on those. He's been

silent on the fact that we are bringing into our regular classes

students who are mainstreamed, integrated. He's been silent on the fact

that educating those children within the public school system means

that there are increased costs to districts. There are any number of

different costs that are having an impact on districts' ability to

provide even the same level of service.

Our point throughout these estimates, Mr. Chairman, has been to bring these

points to the attention of the minister, not to have him then consistently say

that there are no problems. There are problems. There are difficulties. They

are real and challenging, and they're not simple of solution. I agree with

the minister's statement of a moment ago that these matters are complex.

I'd be much more satisfied, however, about the intent and the concern of

the minister if he were prepared to acknowledge that some of the funding policies

of this administration — the ratcheting down, the clawing back — are making

differences in communities and are affecting decisions that have been taken

by local communities.

You know, we talk a lot about quality of education. What's happening

here is that programs that have been developed with teachers and

resources, at a considerable investment of human capital as well as of

dollars, are being threatened.

I want to conclude my comments about this aspect of the minister's

estimates by just referring again to the community of Creston. That

community has a very modest increase, 2.4 percent. I imagine, knowing

that some of those dollars must go to specific tasks, that for

operating it's probably closer to 1.5 percent. That district is going

to lose some fairly valuable and specific programs that it has

developed. It's a fine rural district, as many of our districts are;

they have unique and very useful programs for their children.

Just yesterday — again referring to the members for Cariboo; one

member from the government side of the House, one member from our side

of the House — we were discussing with a teacher some of the unique

programs that have been developed in that riding to meet the needs of a

rural riding. We should not be putting those programs in jeopardy. We

should not be putting programs that inspire and encourage students to

stay in school in jeopardy. We often have a greater challenge in our

rural districts than in the urban communities, because schools are

small; we have fewer teachers. It's very important for special programs

to be maintained.

In the case of Creston, one of the programs that is very much

threatened has been developed over the years in the creative field, and

it is under threat. Five hundred thousand dollars is going out of that

small school district over the next couple of years because of some

changes that have taken place. Those rapid changes are leaving schools

and programs vulnerable.

I would be really happy if the minister would simply acknowledge

that yes, some of those difficulties are there; and yes, the system is

in fact creating those difficulties; and yes, there is still

significant, important work that needs to be done so that small rural

districts and urban districts that are meeting the needs of urban

communities can continue to provide the same level of service they've

provided in the past; and that special programs that have been

developed over time will not be lost — inevitably for a long time,

because they've taken a considerable time to build. Could we have some

assurance, some acknowledgment, some recognition from the minister that

these difficulties exist and that he is prepared to spend time and

energy to try to correct them?

[12:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: I find very interesting the comments that there must be more money added to the system. I want to remind....

Interjections.

HON. S. HAGEN: Just listen to me, okay? Don't interrupt. It's rude to interrupt.

[ Page

12609 ]

Mr. Chairman, if I may: the request has been for more money. If it's not

a request for more money into the system, then I don't understand what the

request is. If the member for New Westminster is saying that we have to put

more money into this district, then which district does she suggest that the

money come out of? If that's not her suggestion, then it's for more

money. I'd like to remind the member for New Westminster that this government

has increased funding to education over the last four years by 39.6 percent

on a per pupil basis. There isn't another province in the country that has

made that kind of commitment. I'd like to remind the member that this province

commits to education the largest percentage of its total budget of any province

in Canada.

On one hand, the opposition is saying: "We've now learned this new

term called 'fiscal management'." On the other hand, they're saying:

"But you've got to spend more money." Mr. Chairman, that's what's

happened in Ontario. The government there has said: "We're going to

spend more money on social welfare than education. We're going to

increase a bunch of programs." They've got a deficit of almost $10

billion in one year. That province will probably never, in the next

decade....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster rises on a point of order.

MS. A. HAGEN: I believe we're discussing the minister's estimates. I would ask the minister to be relevant.

HON. S. HAGEN: We were discussing the request from the

opposition for more money. What I'm saying is that this province has

made incredible commitments to and investments in the education system

in British Columbia. The statement by the member for New Westminster is

that educational programs are in jeopardy. If that is true, why are

they in jeopardy? There's only one reason: boards signed contractual

agreements with their unions that they could not afford. That is the

only reason they are in jeopardy.

I want to remind the member for New Westminster that the financial

review committee is ongoing and meets constantly through the year.

Every year they look at areas where questions come in from boards as to

their block amount, and they will continue to look at that calculation.

The recommendation from the committee was that we bring the people down

to the line in one year, and I refused to do that. We've done it over a

period of time, and I think that's fairer than the recommendation.

Our objective is to give students the same equal opportunity wherever they

live in this province. So students who live in that great Peace River country,

on the coast, on Vancouver Island, in the Okanagan, in the Kootenays or across

that great central part of British Columbia will have an equal opportunity for

the best quality education this country has to offer, and that's right here

in British Columbia.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister's words give small comfort to

specific boards that, without question, are having difficulty

maintaining an educational standard consistent with what their

communities desire and what they believe is necessary for their

children. I believe the member from Cariboo-Chilcotin on the government

side was making that point today as well. That's the issue we're

talking about, and all the rhetoric in the world doesn't change that

reality.

I want to turn to another aspect of funding announcements for just a

moment. Four weeks ago the minister and this government announced its

capital funding. The day after that announcement, the interim Premier

went into her riding in Surrey-Newton and announced to the Surrey

School Board the dollars that would be available in that capital

funding for her district. Yesterday I believe the minister said that he

would complete the announcements on capital funding by the end of June.

We on this side of the House find it very offensive that these

decisions appear to be politicized and that they appear to be

announcements that must be made by the minister or by the member in

each of the ridings of the province as each district is waiting to know

what dollars will be available to it for high-priority building and

repair needs.

I want to read into the record an editorial from the Omineca Express Bugle of June 5, called "Living in No-MLA Land":

"The effects of living in a riding without a Member of

the Legislative Assembly are apparent as other ridings in the province

have projects announced. The best case in point for Prince

George–Omineca is the silence coming out of Victoria concerning the

capital projects allotment School District 56 requested."

That's Nechako, and the member for Omineca is the member on the other side.

"With ants running free" — it's a description of the

school — "in Evelyn Dickson School, a roof that provides a shower for

students in class and more students crammed into tiny classrooms than a

telephone booth on a university campus, students, school

administrators, teachers and taxpayers wait and wait and wait.

"Without an MLA representing us in the Legislature or

the budget rooms, the question may take some time to answer, whether or

not School District 56 gets anything for Sowchea Elementary School in

the Fort, Evelyn Dickson in Vanderhoof, or even a new school bus.

Anyone expecting highways to be paved should move to Houston, the

Hazeltons or Prince George, because those are places with an MLA.

Dillying around with the date of the next provincial election and

politics in B.C. are costing us time, quality of education for children

and lives on our roads."

The member for Omineca's — his name is in the editorial —

"concentration on being elected in his new riding is hard to justify to

children in need. Welcome to no-MLA land."

Now the relevance of that editorial is twofold. I'll leave it to the

public to deal with the question of whether that riding is being

represented well by its member. But this minister has decided that he,

in the fullness of time and at his own pace, will make announcements

about capital projects when he can go to a riding and when he chooses.

[ Page 12610 ]

The interim Premier went into Surrey the day after the capital

budgets were announced, and she told the Surrey School District about

the grants that....

HON. S. HAGEN: On a point of order, the member for New

Westminster used the term "interim Premier." There's no such term. The

person she's talking about is the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't really believe that's a point of order. However, the proper term would be "Premier."

MS. A. HAGEN: On the minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman, this

minister clearly was supportive of the interim leader of the Social

Credit Party going into her riding and making an announcement about the

funding that would be available for that district. He is now saying,

four weeks later, that we're going to have to wait for another four

weeks before the folks in this land — with schools that have leaking

roofs and no space and children living and learning in very undesirable

conditions — will know whether they're going to have funding for their

schools. That story is repeated over and over again. It is totally

unacceptable for school districts, which have to plan and I understand

are already beginning to look to their capital budgets for next year

with deadlines of August 1, that this minister is not prepared to fully

disclose to all the districts of the province what their capital

projects are.

Yesterday I made reference to some of the skulduggery that went on

around the granting of funds for a very important and necessary school

in Abbotsford, where this government delayed a full year, taking money

out of last year's capital budget at the end of the year, rather than

the beginning of the year, to fund that very important secondary school

in Abbotsford. The minister chose in his response to suggest that I had

disparaging things to say about that school. I only had concern that

the school should have been built at the earliest opportunity, and that

the failure of this minister to provide funding at the start of a

capital budget year, rather than at the end, had cost the taxpayers $3

million in unnecessary extra costs. That applies to a district which

has the second- or third-lowest per-pupil funding in the province,

which is not ratcheting up very fast. It is having a great challenge in

providing educational opportunity for its students.

Is the minister now prepared to inform all the districts that have

capital funds coming out of the dollars announced on May 11 or 12 what

their funding is so that they can get on with the very important tasks

of going to tender and getting those schools on line so that the kids —

the people he professes so often to be concerned about — may be housed

well and soon in conditions that are not, in any way, comparable to

ants running free, a roof that provides a shower, and more students

crammed into tiny classrooms than a telephone booth...? Will the

minister be concerned about kids and get that information out to the

districts now?

HON. S. HAGEN: Let me just make a few quick comments about

those undeserved comments. I'm very pleased that the member from New

Westminster has referred to — although she referred to her incorrectly

— the Premier going into Surrey to make those announcements. Yesterday

the comment was made in this House by your colleague the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam that the announcement had been made by a

candidate. I'm glad you've got the facts right, because the member

didn't have the facts right. I congratulate you for being correct on

that.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I can assure the House that the announcements for capital

construction for schools this year are being made earlier than they

have in other years. They will be made very quickly over the next few

weeks. What I said yesterday was that certainly by the end of June all

districts in the province will know what their capital budgets are,

which is earlier than they have known in previous years.

I would say again that it's a privilege to be a minister of a

government that has made a commitment of $650 million to capital

construction of schools in this province. It's unheard of — the largest

commitment ever.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to raise a couple of issues and to add to

some of the debates about the issue that my colleague the member for

New Westminster, our official critic, brought up: the $650 million

announced by the minister some weeks ago. Mr. Chairman, one would

expect a minister who supposedly espouses a good educational system and

who talks about wanting to take the high ground with education would

give the impression of being a reasonable minister in how he deals with

school districts and our children. But the only conclusion we can come

to in terms of how this minister and this government are using that

$650 million is that it is being used in quite a cynical way: for the

political agenda of a government that has clearly been discredited in

the eyes of the people.

[12:30]

If this minister were serious about being fair in allocating that

$650 million, he would have announced weeks ago where it was going to

go. School boards are trying to ascertain and work on their budgets for

next year, trying to figure out their class allocations, staffing

requirements and physical plant requirements; yet this minister is

holding back on telling them where the money is going to be applied.

It's quite obvious that this minister is playing a bit of a partisan

fair, having a little game for his own ends. Otherwise he would have

announced those fund allocations some time ago.

Even in my own constituency the minister or his staff phoned up my

school board and virtually demanded that the school board offices and

the boardroom be made available for this minister's press conference —

to turn the school board offices, which are there to serve the children

of Victoria, into a political and partisan fair. He was only going to

invite the two members for Saanich and the Islands for some grand

announcement of his own political agenda. Supposedly funds that serve

children.... He wanted to

[ Page

12611 ]

turn our school district into his political fair.

Our school board had the temerity to say no. They were not about to

allow this minister to use the children of this school district for his

political agenda.

I suspect that it's this minister's own cynical political agenda,

using public tax money — $650 million — to stretch out...making

announcements after he announced his leadership intentions, so that he

can go around the province using the children and the education system.

In my school district he tried it. He wanted to have big flourish about

the millions of dollars I hope he wishes to allocate to Victoria. He

wanted to invite just the Social Credit members to make all sorts of

political mileage.

People in my riding have cottoned on to this government a long time

ago. They know what it's up to. They think it's time for change in this

riding, and they won't accept all the cynical manipulation by this

government and this minister in using funds for children. I'd like to

ask the minister on this issue: why didn't he announce weeks ago what

the allocations would be? Why has he allowed the children of this

province to wait to know what kind of improvements they will have for

next year. School boards that work diligently on behalf of all the

children in British Columbia.... Why stretch it out into June or July?

What's the agenda? What's the rationale? Why can't you send a

statesmanlike memo, Mr. Minister, to those districts on how those funds

will be allocated to each district? Why do you have to call my school

district to organize a political fair — a partisan show — on behalf of

your political agenda in terms of an election? I think the people in

the province of British Columbia are entitled to that, and the children

and the parents are entitled to some answers.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm most pleased to answer the questions of the interim member for Victoria — interim until the next election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members are referred to by their proper title.

HON. S. HAGEN: Member for Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second member for Victoria.

HON. S. HAGEN: Second member for Victoria. Second interim member for Victoria. Second member for Victoria.

I find it very interesting that this member would rise in the House

at this particular time to ask me a question about the capital

allocations to his school district. Mr. Chairman, this member has never

spoken to me about the capital requests of the Greater Victoria School

District — not once since I have been the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: How long is that?

HON. S. HAGEN: Not once this year. I have been the Minister of Education

since November of 1990, which is six months ago. Knowing full well that we were

then in the process of this, that member has never once raised the issue of

capital for his school district. Now he attempts to say that this is some sort

of plan on my part to use for political purposes, when he knows full well that

the chairperson of the Greater Victoria School Board, which he represents —

it's stated in the media this morning — is probably going to be a candidate

for his seatmate's nomination. Now who's playing politics here?

Let's forget about playing politics. Schools are built to house

students. That's why schools are built, and that's the priority this

government has set — $650 million in capital for one year. The

announcement will be made on Tuesday in the city of Victoria, and

certainly the member is more than welcome to be there. I would expect

that he would be there, if he is indeed interested.

The announcements will be made over the next few weeks, as I said,

Mr. Chairman, They will be made properly and in the correct fashion;

the boards will know exactly which projects have been approved. I can

tell you that the $650 million total is good news for all of the

children in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm delighted to take

part in this debate.

I'm doing so for a specific reason. Along with other members, I would

be remiss if I didn't comment on the leaving from the Legislative

Assembly of our colleague for North Peace River.

Earlier the Minister of Education discussed our colleague's

portfolios and remarkable contributions he made to the people of

British Columbia. I'd like to agree with that, but say a few other

personal things about his record as a Member of the Legislative

Assembly.

First of all, it's interesting that 12 years ago yesterday — June 6,

1979 — we sat for the first time and heard the throne speech of that

thirty-fourth parliamentary session delivered by the Hon. Henry

Bell-Irving. So it was 12 years ago almost to the day that the class of

'79 entered this assembly, of which class you, sir, are one and I am

another, and of course, our colleague for North Peace River.

He maintained many portfolios, as was indicated by the Minister of

Education, and he served them all with distinction. One thing that I've

always considered is that during that time his beloved wife Audrey —

his first wife — contracted cancer and passed away. Our colleague

worked hard at both those portfolios and worked hard at being a

diligent member, which is difficult when you come from a riding as far

away as that. The telephone system in those days wasn't as good as it

is now; we didn't have fax machines; airplane connections were

difficult. That member toiled diligently and did a first-class job in

everything that he handled — and as I said, under some personal duress.

With that said, I do want to take my place. I wanted to put on the

record that the member for North Peace River will be sincerely missed

by me personally, and by this Legislative Assembly for his remarkable

contribution over the last 12 years, and I'm sure he'll be sorely

missed by the good people of North Peace River.

[ Page 12612 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to carry on with the issue I have

raised and the minister's response. It is not we that have turned the

$650 million into a political football. When you announced it, we fully

expected the subsequent information to flow to the school districts in

a normal, informative way. What you did, though, was dangle that $650

million in front of all the school districts, and now, for whatever

purposes — some of which I am very suspicious of in terms of the

political agenda of the government — you are playing quite cynical

politics with a lot of money. Which ridings will get what? Which school

boards will get what?

Quite frankly, when I find that the minister has been trying to call

school boards and use their spaces for grand announcements and

political hoopla, I think that's unfortunate. That money should be

allocated; the schools boards should be told what's going to happen. It

should have happened weeks and weeks ago, not this kind of political

game that is being played.

Maybe the minister could tell us which school boards or ridings have

already been told what they're going to get out of the $650 million.

Where have the announcements been made thus far? What announcements

have you made? And perhaps you could give us a

schedule of what you're

going to do in the next few weeks.

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't have that

schedule here, but I can

tell the member that announcements are being made regularly and will

continue to be regularly made over the next several weeks.

MR. BLENCOE: I find it somewhat surprising that this

minister, who announced $650 million some weeks ago — months ago, in my

understanding — has no schedule, no information and no plan for how

it's going to be done. That makes us even more suspicious that there

are some political objectives being played out here. We're going to see

what happens — where the interim Premier is available for

announcements, perhaps; where this minister is available for

announcements about his leadership intentions. Is that the intent? Can

the minister shed some light on what the strategy is? What are some of

the items to be considered in how you will make the announcements?

What's holding you back from making these announcements and in a

statesmanlike way informing school boards what they can expect as soon

as possible? It should have been done weeks ago. What considerations

are holding you back?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to correct a statement. It's hard

when you have to continuously correct statements made on the other side

of the House, which I've been having to do all week. The announcement

on the capital was made on May 9, a month ago. The second member for

Victoria referred to "months ago." Incorrect. Over the period of a few

weeks, we will have all the announcements made. Those announcements are

being well received when we make them.

I want to remind the member that just because he has never spoken to

me on behalf of the board about any capital projects in his school

district doesn't mean that other MLAs haven't raised that with me. If

an MLA, as part of his or her duty, has raised a particular project

they've been working on with the board to have accomplished, I think

the MLA should have an opportunity to be part of the announcement.

That's probably news to the second member for Victoria. Maybe he didn't

even realize he could do that. I'm not sure how long he's been an MLA;

maybe it's a short period of time.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Class of '83? Well, that's about eight years.

Mr. Chairman, I think you would agree that you've got to pick up a few

things in eight years. Now that he knows that he can represent his

board with the Minister of Education, I'm sure he will do that next

year and the year after. If he's successful this fall, I'm sure he will

come to my office and say: "This project is very important to the

students in my community, and I want to make sure that it's going to

happen."

[12:45]

The announcements are being made regularly. The interesting thing

is.... I know the insinuation is that we're making them in certain

ridings. I can assure the member that I'm going to be in an

opposition-held riding on Monday making an announcement, and later on

that day I'll be in a government riding. So there's no preference here;

it's as soon as the arrangements can be made.

It doesn't help, for instance, when my staff phones the board office

in Victoria.... We make all these announcements in board offices. Where

else would you make an announcement about schools? When I meet with the

board, I meet with them in the board office. But the Greater Victoria

School Board says: "When the minister comes, we don't think we should

meet in the board office; we think we should meet somewhere else." Now

where in the world would you expect the Minister of Education to meet

with the board? I ask you: what is the logical answer to that? The

logical answer is that we'll meet in the board office.

It's interesting. The North Vancouver School District wanted to meet

in the board office. They said: "This is education, we're anxious to

hear the capital announcement, and we're pleased you're coming. We want

it to be in the board office." The MLA who has fought so hard for those

projects is going to be there to annou