[ Page 7479 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Loan Privatization Act (Bill 43).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 7479

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act (Bill 42). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 7479

Oral Questions

Sumac Ventures environmental emergency. Mr. Cashore –– 7479

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7480

Low-level military flights. Mr. Guno –– 7481

False credentials. Mr. Rogers –– 7481

Low-level military flights. Mr. Guno –– 7481

Mr. Rose

Sulphur dioxide emissions. Hon. Mr. Dueck replies to question –– 7482

Accreditation of private colleges. Hon. S. Hagen replies to question –– 7482

Tabling Documents –– 7482

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 16: minister's office –– 7483

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Guno

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Sihota

Tabling Documents –– 7507

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: I take pleasure in introducing today a longtime friend of mine and a very dedicated British Columbian, Mr. Wally Rhead.

MRS. BOONE: It gives me great pleasure to have two sets of guests in the gallery today I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Alan and Jan Timberlake and their lovely little daughter Sara, who is four and a half months old, and Mrs. Mary Bacon and her guest from England, Miss Janet Stead. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, from the great little riding of Yale-Lillooet, I have two friends from that little hub city visiting Victoria — actually they are working for our constituents. With us in your gallery is the mayor of the city of Merritt, Bob Baird, who's a former president of the United Steelworkers local there. We used to be rivals in the past, but I can assure you we are good friends and allies today. With him is my second guest, an alderman for the city of Merritt, an entrepreneur and also a good friend, Bob Brown. I wish the House to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the members' gallery today are three hard-working members of the Interior Logging Association: from Barriere, Mr. Derek Starner; from Kelowna, Mr. Bob Lind; and from Merritt, Mr. Bill Johnston. I'd like the House to bid them a warm welcome.

MR. ROSE: In the House today are 60 grade 7 students accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. A. McDougall, from Ranch Park Elementary School in my riding. While I am on my feet, I met in the hall — and I assume they are in the gallery — Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Jackman from Port McNeill and their three children. Bruce is a former student of mine. I would like both groups to be welcomed by the House.

HON. L. HANSON: It's my pleasure today to introduce two gentlemen from my constituency. They are Mr. Bob Whitehead, who is plant manager of Hiram Walker and Sons Ltd. in Winfield, and Mr. John Madsen, who is the industrial relations manager for that same plant. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BRUCE: As you know, I have many friends in Cowichan-Malahat, but perhaps you don't know that I also have friends from across this nation — all the way from Newfoundland, actually. Having had some municipal experience, many of you in this chamber are aware that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had its annual general meeting in the beautiful city of Vancouver in British Columbia. Today with us in the House in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a good friend of mine, His Worship Paul Hennessey and his wife Liz, all the way from Grand Falls, Newfoundland. I would ask the House to make them welcome, please.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA ENTERPRISE
CORPORATION LOAN PRIVATIZATION ACT

HON. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Loan Privatization Act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this bill is administrative in nature and is required to effect the privatization of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation's loan portfolio. In addition to amending the B.C. Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act and the LILA Revolving Fund Act, this bill also provides a vesting with the purchasers of all lending assets sold.

Bill 43 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.

CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cemetery and Funeral Services Act.

HON. L. HANSON: This bill will update about five or six acts dealing with the funeral and cemeteries industry, some of which date back to the early 1900s. There is one issue that has been of high priority and a topic of much discussion lately, and this bill will in fact ban direct solicitation by telephone or door to door.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SUMAC VENTURES
ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister of Environment. On June 10, the minister, as a damage control measure, declared an environmental emergency at Sumac Ventures, a gold tailings heat leaching operation north of Grand Forks. Can the minister now explain to this House why he ignored warnings of local residents concerning the danger of spills and permitted this company to begin operating in 1986?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't accept the member's premise that we ignored warnings. The ministry

[ Page 7480 ]

officials were well aware of that concern — and other mining ventures that deal with toxic chemicals. But as for when we were aware of that concern, I'll take that part of the question on notice.

[2:15]

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. The Grand Forks Watershed Coalition made extensive representations to the regional waste manager, and in 1986 to the Environmental Appeal Board. The board ordered that company's spill prevention and emergency response plans to be circulated to this citizen group and other environmental agencies. Can the minister confirm that he personally overruled the Environmental Appeal Board and ordered that these plans not be circulated or made public?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the first place, I took that issue on notice. Secondly, it's highly unlikely I would have overturned an Environmental Appeal Board hearing in 1986, because I was not Minister of Environment in 1986.

MR. CASHORE: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. An investigation by the ombudsman failed to locate any written legal opinion to back up the minister's failure to make these plans public. Can the minister tell this House why he failed to obtain a written opinion to back up his position?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the second question in terms of this issue. I'll take it on notice, too.

MR. CASHORE: New question. Can the minister explain why he considered spill prevention and emergency response plans, which ought to be fully available in the event of an emergency, to be private, secret documents?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Plans submitted to the waste management branch or the Ministry of Environment are kept in confidence if that's the wish of the people submitting the plans. That way we are able to extract more information from the company.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why he should not take full blame for the environmental emergency he created when his ministry refused to listen to a citizen group that three years ago sent photos and warned his ministry that this cyanide leaching operation was in a floodplain and that they were concerned there would be cyanide leaching into the water table? He ignored a citizen group that spent months studying the issue and making extensive representations to the regional waste manager and the Environmental Appeal Board, and ignored the decision of the Environmental Appeal Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Has the member got a question?

MR. CASHORE: Yes. The question is: why should the minister not take full responsibility when this was his participation in this issue? There seems to be some kind of a cover-up here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps at the outset we could ask for a withdrawal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member was asked to withdraw the word "cover-up." Would he please withdraw it.

MR. CASHORE: I'll withdraw the word "coverup."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, I've taken the issue the member has presented on notice, and I will respond to him when I have all the details. However, I really question his evidence. Normally he's wrong, as he was in the cases of the museum plaque and the Western Pulp Partnership. We'll examine what he said and respond at a later date.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Labour. Has he yet had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Doney with respect to the matter of political interference?

HON. L. HANSON: For the information of the member, I talk with my staff quite often. But again, I took that question on notice and will respond in due time.

MR. SIHOTA: The former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay, has already indicated that he became aware of the call of political interference and immediately ordered an investigation; in other words, he understood that there were some ramifications with respect to influence-peddling. Could the Minister of Labour advise the House who from his ministry contacted the Attorney-General and advised him about the political interference call?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, that issue has been canvassed many times. I'm not sure who contacted the Attorney-General; it might have been me. I can take that on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: It's peculiar that the minister can't remember if he himself talked to the Attorney-General.

I want to ask a question of the Premier. Given that the Minister of Labour has been unable to contact Mr. Doney and provide this House with an answer, and given that all deputy ministers report to the Premier's office, will the Premier ask Mr. Rhodes, his assistant, to contact Mr. Doney so that the Premier can provide this House with an answer as to the circumstances of that political interference?

[ Page 7481 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied that the information already available — we're aware that it's not all available, but much of it is — has been openly considered in a variety of ways. We've had the Attorney-General's department, we've had the ombudsman and we've had the RCMP. If there's further information, then it will soon be available, and I'm sure that will satisfy all the members.

LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. On April 25 of this year the Premier responded to a question from the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) by saying there would only be reconnaissance flights in B.C. Today the Minister of National Defence announced that he has decided to allow low-level strategic bomber flights over northwestern B.C. Can the Premier explain how he reconciles his answer of April 25 with the raw facts announced today by the Minister of Defence?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statement which was made by the Minister of Defence, but it sounds, from what I've heard so far, that there's no inconsistency between what was said today by the Minister of Defence and what I said. But I'll look at the statement made by the Minister of Defence. If the member has it available, perhaps it would help if he gave me a copy of it — that always makes it easier.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the Premier. Given the fact that this announcement was made prior to any kind of extensive public consultation with the people affected, given the fact that there has been very little environmental impact study of these kinds of flights, can the Premier stand up for the people of B.C. and protest these flights?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, maybe I'm not reading something into the question that the members of the NDP obviously have read into it. I didn't understand it quite that way, but it seems from the response I guess the question is: would we oppose our commitment to NATO and exercise flights, agreed upon between the two governments — the United States and Canada — and would I protest? Frankly, I'm not about to protest on behalf of myself or the government without knowing what it is we're protesting, to protest for the sake of protesting.

FALSE CREDENTIALS

MR. ROGERS: I have a question for the Premier. Your counterpart in Ontario, Premier Peterson, has had his share of problems recently, some of which have been of a high-profile nature, but one of which was of a particularly technical nature in that a senior official of his government — that is to say, someone in a very high position — was found to have fibbed somewhat on his credentials in securing his job, and in fact indicated in applying for his position that he had academic credentials which in fact he did not have. Have you decided what action would be taken by your government in the event a similar situation were to occur in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not. I guess the question is somewhat hypothetical, and I'm not familiar with the situation in Ontario that is being referred to. I'll certainly look to get further information on that as well.

LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS

MR. GUNO: This is a supplementary to my earlier questions to the Premier. I'd like to inform the Premier that the majority of northern people do not want these flights to be flown over northwestern B.C. Will the Premier make a commitment that he will inform himself as to the impact of these flights as soon as possible and make his concerns known to the Canadian government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I recently had the pleasure of welcoming to British Columbia the secretary-general for NATO. The secretary-general made a speech to the group gathered, and frankly, I was quite impressed with the statistics he provided, Obviously the existence of NATO and everyone's participation in it has brought about a situation today where we find Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Bush and others negotiating towards peace. Probably this world is closer to lasting peace today than it's ever been.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps the member — and understandably, because that's generally the way the NDP operate — wishes to reinforce the position of the federal NDP, that they pull out of NATO and risk that great opportunity which we've seen over the past while of bringing lasting peace to the world. I say that we on this side of the House are prepared to work with the federal government towards all and any measures that might ensure greater peace. While in the House, we wish to address the problems as they affect British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Despite what the Premier says about trying to turn this into a NATO issue, into a question of whether we should be in NATO or out of it, that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether the Premier would approve of strategic NATO flights over the lower mainland, or whether he is content to have the war machine just fly over the native communities.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Atlin opened up his first question with the remark that I had responded to a question from the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). I said

[ Page 7482 ]

then, in response to the question when it was posed The question, incidentally, was with respect to flights to Comox on a regular basis. The indications were that there would be low-flying flights and landings of these reconnaissance planes in Comox, and he asked if I would investigate it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I then said that I had no knowledge of it and hadn't heard of it, but that I would...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this House will not work if we don't have free speech.

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... investigate it further. The following day I called the minister responsible in Ottawa and spoke to her. She advised me in the return call, after checking it out further as well, that in fact there was no such proposal, there were no such plans and certainly that was not the case.

She did say there were flights from Seattle to the Northwest Territories and that these did go across British Columbia, and that one community — and I mentioned this in the House, I believe, in response — they would come within 20 miles of, or thereabouts, was Vanderhoof. This was the advice given me and this is what I reported to the House.

Now the question, as I understand it, is: will we protest these flights? This, incidentally, I was advised, would be four flights per year. I believe that was the number; it was a relatively minor number; I'll get the exact figures.

I took it from the question, in the way it was posed and in the response from the other members of the NDP, that this was another attempt to come out against our commitment to NATO — where we do have certain obligations — and it's in keeping with the whole attempt of the NDP to pull us out of NATO.

As I said, NATO has done an effective job in many areas, and frankly much of what we enjoy today and the relative peace that exists, which we hope will grow and which we hope can be furthered still, is because of nations working together through NATO.

SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

HON. MR. DUECK: In my absence a question was asked by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) and taken on notice by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I would like to reply to that question today.

The question was whether increased hospital admissions could be directly related to high levels of sulphur dioxide emissions from oil refineries and cement plants in the lower mainland. We're well aware that Dr. David Bates is in fact doing a study on this and writing a report. We are taking steps to obtain a copy of this report for study and analysis. I don't believe it has been published yet. We will be extending an invitation to Dr. Bates to discuss his findings with us and with Ministry of Health staff.

It is my intention that once this review is completed, staff from my ministry will be meeting with the involved Vancouver and area health departments to consider the appropriate action.

Hon. Mr. Davis presented the 1988 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

ACCREDITATION OF PRIVATE COLLEGES

HON. S. HAGEN: The member for Burnaby North last week asked me a question with regard to the accreditation of private training institutions in general, and more specifically the Western Media Institute. I took that question on notice, and I'd like to reply to it at this time.

I would first of all like to respond to the question of accreditation. There are over 400 private training institutions in the province from which about 50,000 students graduate each year. These institutions are registered by my ministry under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act.

Institutions applying for a certification of registration are required to furnish a surety bond. The amount of the bond is determined by my ministry and is based upon the number of students attending that institution, the number of courses that it offers and the tuition fees that it charges. This bond is used to protect the students from financial loss in the event that the institution is unable to fulfil the terms of its contract with the students. This practice should be considered a form of consumer protection only; it is not accreditation and has never been presented as such.

As I have previously informed the House, my ministry is currently reviewing alternative methods to enhance the system of registration of private training institutions. We want to ensure that the people of British Columbia have access to a stronger, more cohesive training and education system, in which private training institutions will play an integral role.

Accreditation of private training institutions is one of the options my ministry is currently reviewing. My staff is involved in ongoing discussions with both institutional representatives and students about the feasibility and benefits of accreditation, and I am awaiting their report. Since this would become a much broader issue and may in fact require legislative amendments, I will be discussing the report with my cabinet colleagues later this year.

Secondly, I would like to respond to the question on the Western Media Institute. As the hon. member is aware, my ministry received a complaint in April of this year from four students of this institution, As soon as that complaint was received, my staff initiated an investigation into the allegation of the students.

[ Page 7483 ]

These students, along with four students from last year's program, then initiated court action against the owner of the institution before our investigation was completed. Subsequent to the students' action, the owner launched a countersuit. We viewed the students' legal action as replacing their complaint lodged with the ministry. My staff therefore suspended their investigation, pending the outcome of both suits. However, following consultation with our legal counsel and in recognition of the needs of other students, we have now reconvened our investigation, and I am awaiting a report on my staff's findings.

At this point, I would like to respond to comments made by the hon. member for Burnaby North about the actual number of staff in my ministry to oversee the registration and investigation of private training institutions. There are two dedicated staff to register private training institutions. However, there is a network of employment training counsellors throughout the province who are available to assist in the investigation of complaints about these institutions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, I would ask leave for them to sit tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 16: minister's office, $224,490 (continued)

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister a few questions that have to do with the implementation of some measures that the minister has promised, but which, of course, are not yet in legislation: that is, the implementation of what the minister calls "ungraded primary," which will be coming — we'll say it is coming. We may debate ungraded primary and the philosophy of it later, but right now I want to talk about the implementation, which the minister has proposed, as far as I can make out.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, out of courtesy to the member on her feet, could we have some order and quiet in the room, please.

MS. EDWARDS: The proposal that the first three grades — 1 to 3 — be put into an ungraded process that simply follows for three years or so.... I presume it would be three years; I guess the amount of time becomes the cutoff instead of grades. In order to implement that, the ministry had a conference at the end of May — very recently — at the New Beginnings conference. At that conference the minister said, as I understand it, that the goal of the conference was to involve as many people as possible, to get them out to start talking about the opportunities that exist, the new changes and the chances to do continuous progress work within the primary education system. My question to the minister is: I understand that the ministry paid for the cost of the conference itself but not for travel or accommodation for anyone who attended. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Go ahead and finish your questions. We'll make a note of them and answer them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member continue, please.

MS. EDWARDS: As I understand it, the expenses for most of the people who attended had to be paid for by the local school districts. If that is indeed the answer, Mr. Chairman, it leads to further questions about the implementation of this particular program. There is concern among many of the people throughout the province that the implementation needs to be very serious; it needs to be funded by the provincial government. It is a provincial government move to change how these things are going on, and as the system changes and the minister and ministry prefer to change the system, it is thus the responsibility of the system to implement the change and pay for it.

The first part, as I say, is the involvement in a central conference, the costs for which, I believe, went to local school boards and taxpayers. If you move on to that, how is the ministry going to pay for the implementation by involving all the teachers who are going to have to upgrade skills and probably change their outlook on how they handle their grades because they have been working within a graded system? If they are now to go to continuous progress in an ungraded system, how does the minister propose to do that without imposing on...? Perhaps he had intended...I hope not, because the teachers certainly don't want him to, and there are a number of others who don't want an imposition on the five non-instructional days which teachers currently have. Those days have been planned; some of them, in fact, in some districts are teacher-directed. If the ministry plans to implement this system across the province in some fairly equitable way, how does it intend to do that and work around the number of days currently legislated for classroom or instructional days without using the five non-instructional days, which would be inequitable? Has the minister any cost figures on that? Has he made a decision on how he will do it and what the cost would be within his budget?

[ Page 7484 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Once again, it would appear that the member is either misinformed or trying to promote and foster the notion that this is a central minister-imposed change on the education system. Nothing is further from the truth. The Sullivan commission went around this province and found out that primary teachers believed in opening up from that compartmentalized grade structure, and they said it in various ways. The people of this province were concerned about students being labelled as failures because they work at different rates, or being constrained from making progress at their ability rate. From that comes the idea of the ungraded primary: recommendation No. 2, very strongly stated, in the royal commission report. To have that member say this is a centrally imposed system that's got nothing to do with the districts or the teachers has to be bordering on ludicrous.

As far as the funding is concerned, the ministry paid $100,000 towards that conference, and school boards throughout this province have been allotted $10 million in their budgets this year for expenditures to implement the recommendations of the royal commission report. Not all of that $10 million went to this conference, but the $10 million is available on an apportioned basis to school districts in order to provide for sending people to conferences as necessary, for sending them information, for the spending of money on the required input that has to come back into the proposed implementation plan and curriculum changes, the proposed in-servicing of teachers There is more money from the Sullivan commission implementation strategy fund in order to provide more in-servicing and all of that. Money is set aside for that.

[2:45]

To nitpick — did you put this dollar in this pocket at this time for this particular travel — is fairly difficult. The travel requires substitutes, so boards have money to hire substitutes. Those conferences require travel, so there is money in the budget for travel, put in there through the fiscal framework. The other allotment out of the $1.4 billion over the ten years: there's more money allotted in rough estimates for each department — curriculum changes and all of that sort of thing. I guess it's easy enough, if it's your total objective, to say: "Well, I've got one number here, and I don't have the other number." I guess my vain hope for the critics and the opposition is that somebody will see the forest instead of trying to find one blemished tree in the system. Somewhere in there is the ungraded primary.

Let me explain the ungraded primary; maybe that will help. In the system that we have now, students are put into compartments called grades. The system — not the teachers necessarily, and I'll get into that later — says: "Here is a predetermined set of things that you have to know. If you only master the first five then you're a failure, and at the end of the year — after ten months — you've got to go back and start with item No. 1. If you happen to be capable of mastering the ten items in six months, you must mark time until June; we can't put you into the next compartment where you can learn hoop No. 11, No. 12, No. 13."

We all accept the diversity of abilities of children, and yet we try to compress them into predetermined compartments stamped grades. Educators don't believe that's a sensible thing to do. Neither does the public. Neither do parents. Neither did the Sullivan commission report. They're saying you shouldn't have to force a student who only got halfway through a predetermined program to go back with a younger age group; that may be where he fits academically, but physically, socially, emotionally and psychologically, the student probably does not fit as well there as he or she does with their own age group. Neither should you say to a student: "You must mark time until the kids of lesser ability catch up to you, because we don't have a compartment to put you in." You have to accelerate in the present system. You have to move them into an older age group where you may solve their academic problems and create emotional, social and psychological problems.

Thank goodness that, despite what I'm hearing here, the teachers and the schools in this province have made many modifications to "the system" in order to accommodate the best interests of the students. What the ungraded primary does, in effect, is to remove those artificially determined compartments and cater to the diversity among students. We're going to let them learn, and we're not going to force them into thinking they're failures because they're different. Anybody will accept that students are shorter, taller, and you still have an average height. Everything in the academic world is geared to the average student. Sure, we have grouping, we have many modifications, but by and large the system is confining them in predetermined compartments. The ungrading says: "Let's let them learn. Let's help them learn. Let's encourage students to move along at a better rate. Let's not say to them that they're a failure because they only run eight-tenths as fast as another student."

That's the philosophy behind the ungraded primary, which is widely supported in the educational and public community. What the critics are trying to say is that the ungraded primary means there will be no grading of progress, no monitoring, no evaluation structure. That is ridiculous.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Implicitly you're saying that. How are you going to determine how kids are making progress if you're not keeping any grades? Grades can mean progress according to certain predetermined objectives or they can mean compartments with a number stamped on it. We're trying to get away from the number.

We have general agreement philosophically from the education community. I don't think anybody in this House will stand up and say that you should make them feel like failures or hold them back until they're ready. So philosophically you agree with me, and then you try to nitpick and say: "Why are you

[ Page 7485 ]

imposing this on the system?" All along we have said that this will take time, and the time will be needed for the teachers to become aware of it, for the teachers to recognize the system — many teachers don't need to; they're already doing it — and for the parents to understand fully what ungrading means so that we can get on with the program.

I have some critics saying: "Don't start; let's study it for another two or three years." Well, you start, and what we've set up is that the 750 primary teachers in this province are called together to discuss how the proposal might work. "What are your opinions; what is your feedback?" We've put that all together, and that goes out to every primary teacher in the province, and every primary teacher in the province will feed back into that curriculum before it's finalized and as it's finalized. And before it's in place, the parents will be fully informed and will have their opportunity for feedback and that sort of thing. So that's why I get so exercised when I hear: "Why are you centrally imposing this when the people don't want it?" I think it would be a dereliction of my duty to say that I'm going to preserve the old system because that will get me less criticism.

We're putting the money up, we're putting the philosophy and the backing up in order to make the ungraded primary work. Surely to goodness we are going to try to help students to learn to their optimum potential rather than because some people say: "Well, we don't have the in-service." Of course you don't have the in-service, because the primary teachers haven't put the program together yet. They have gone a long way towards it, and that will all flow together. It will happen, it will serve the students in this province a lot better, and it will implement the intent of the Sullivan report, "A Legacy for Learners," a more relevant education for the times in which they find themselves.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, since I began by saying I wasn't arguing with the principle, I guess I might suggest that you stop nitpicking about what I say about the principle of ungraded primary. Why do you nitpick at me all the time? Will you please stop nitpicking?

Mr. Minister, my question was: how do you intend to fund, since you are, if you choose, a centrally — I don't believe I ever used the word "imposed" — administered system? How do you intend to implement it? How do you intend to pay for those implementation costs? Is it simply through the $10 million that you say you put to the various boards, and $100,000 for the conference; then by preparing the in-service program which then goes back to the boards, to the districts to administer? How are you going to arrange that the teachers get this in-service training outside of their five non-instructional days?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe it's known as joint planning. There is an amount of money set aside. Some of it will be made available to school districts; some of it will be, as in this conference — to use that as an example — that the ministry paid certain amount of the conference, and there were other expenses that were peculiar to each district. It's easier for the district in New Westminster to decide how much it costs to send their person or their teacher to the conference in Vancouver than it is for the board in other places. So that's an attempt to account for all of that, travel expenditures and so on. There is extra money set aside.

The difficulty in answering some of these questions — and I guess why I referred to it as "nitpicking" — is that there is an amount of money set aside for curriculum development. That involves primary teachers; that involves travel from the districts and so on. There's an amount of money set aside for in-service development. I can't tell you exactly now how many primary teachers are going to do what next March. But we know there is going to be a cost involved, so we made an estimate and we put it there. So a fair amount of it will be from the districts.

As for the five professional development days, perhaps we have a different impression. I was under the impression that professional development days were so that teachers could get together so that they can discuss and find ways to improve their learning skills in order to make a better education system for the students in this province. That may be an old-fashioned concept of professional development. So part of their time, surely, on those professional development days should be to enhance programs to bring themselves up to date, to familiarize themselves with what is going on. To say, "Look, we have five days for professional development; if you want to do any other professional development, then you've got to stuff it somewhere else," what do they do on their days, then, if we're taking five other days in order to do professional development that goes along with curriculum, upgrading and in-servicing?

So there are five days allotted for professional development. Not all of the five days will be needed for all teachers for this and not in any year. But surely some of the professional development days shouldn't be: "Well, that's something I have in my hip pocket which has nothing to do with professional development that's related with the ministry." So I don't know what the problem is. I thought professional development was teacher days; sending the kids home for five days so that teachers could engage in activities that would benefit the kids. That's exactly what we're talking about.

MS. EDWARDS: I think that the minister has been in the business long enough, and I have been in the instructional business as well. I believe we know that we often make plans for our own professional development, and we can see very clearly from our experience in the classroom what would be very helpful in order to do what we want to do. Perhaps you've had this experience; I certainly have. It comes down from somewhere else. It could even come sideways; I'm not suggesting that it's imposed. But there is a decision that your professional development be done for some particular goal that may be

[ Page 7486 ]

very good, but it leaves you no time to do your own professional development.

As I understand it, many of the teachers in this province feel that professional development will be used certainly to go ahead with.... If they are primary teachers, they will want to know better how to deal with a different system, which is the ungraded or the continuous progress. But they are asking me what the Minister of Education is going to do about this. Is the Minister of Education expecting that all the development for continuous progress will be done within their five non-instructional days that are currently within the School Act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I have some difficulty with the implication that the ministry is suggesting — in conjunction with the suggestions that have come back from the Sullivan report, EPAC and everything else, for what changes need to be made in the educational system, and because the ministry is putting up the money and saying that these exercises must take place — that it's got nothing to do with professional development, and that somehow or other it is a ministry initiative and professional development really has to happen from the teachers. Am I to assume that the teachers say: "Because you're doing the ungraded primary and there's some time in servicing and curriculum development necessary for that, on our five days we can't talk about that"? I guess I can interpret the other side of the coin. Can't we work together with the teachers? I think most of the teachers will accept this. I don't know if the BCTF executive ever can, but certainly the teachers can accept that professional development is professional development and is best done when their input is put together with information from the ministry and from the school districts and everybody is working for this common purpose: to serve the best interests of the students.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: I take that to mean that the minister does not accept that there is a certain centralist tendency. It's there. When the minister decides he's going to go in a particular direction, then it is a ministry program, it's a ministry initiative, the minister has decided to do it, the government is putting it in place, and you definitely have a responsibility to get that program in place and do the PD to go with it. You are saying you don't want it that way; you want to pretend that it's coming up from the grass roots, out of the marsh like swamp gas, I guess, and it's going to all come together and everybody is going to use their PD days, and the ministry is not going to make any predictions or planning in order to arrange the kind of professional development related very specifically to this change in policy, done outside the days currently there for teachers to direct their own professional development.

[3:00]

1 have a couple of other questions I've had given to me by primary teachers who were concerned about some announcements the ministry made in its information circulars. This is implementation of the whole primary program and the whole business of assessing, which the minister doesn't want to do by grade anymore, but somehow he says it still exists somewhere else but wouldn't if this way and the other way. The essence of the concern is that nearly half of the government's technology program expenditure this year will be diverted from buying computers for student instructional use to the use for administration and for the assessment machines that would have to be reallocated to the central access to local systems that monitor student progress. Is that correct, or would you like to respond? As you know, it was brought out as one of the points in one of the BCTF publications. I'm sure you have an answer. I don't know the answer.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You bet I have an answer for that one, and I'm certainly delighted you asked the question. Again, it's the type of unfortunate distortion that goes out into the hands of people and is repeated in the press, repeated in so many documents, when it is absolutely incorrect.

Last year we committed ourselves to $15 million a year for five years for computer technology implementation in the schools. About $11 million in round numbers was given directly to the schools. The other was for preparation of software and so on that goes with it, and the other portion of it was for the special education technology centres that are being developed in each of the regions.

This year, in January or whatever, we announced the regular $15 million for this year's program. As we got moving into the Sullivan report, we realized that further technology would be necessary in order to monitor continuous progress and do the kinds of things that were coming from the consultation process as to what was necessary. So before the end of March, in recognition that it takes time to set up this system and there is no use preparing the programs when they don't have the machines, and there's no use having the machines unless we prepare the programs, we put up another $5.9 million. On top of the $15 million we had already allotted, we put the $5.9 million up to say, since we're moving in this direction and since they need lead time for the programs and the computers.... These are different computers. So $2,500 was allotted for each school, regardless of size, plus then on a proportionate basis according to the needs. We put out that money, and we set some of it for the implementation of the software that is going to be necessary. The ministry is doing a lot of work on that.

We put out our $15 million as usual, as planned, as committed. Then we went out and said: "We're putting out $5.9 million for this part of the program." I'll be darned if I don't read in the next BCTF newsletter that we've taken the $5.9 million out of the money that we had allotted for the year, when it was on top of.... That goes out and then everybody says: "Well, look at that. For their central purposes, they're taking money away from computers for school." Now

[ Page 7487 ]

do you know why I'm glad to be answering that question? It's high time. Then you pick that up, you don't check with me, you feed it to the House, to your own colleagues and to everybody, and you say: "Look at what they're doing." It's absolutely incorrect, yet here we are being blamed for taking this money out of the system.

I know your question didn't encompass all this, but I think I'm expressing some of my frustration. When you manage to get Treasury Board to give you an additional $5.9 million to get on with what you're trying to do, and then people say, "You're shafting the school system...." I get a little tired of that kind of incorrect information. Nobody in the press will phone me and say: "Is that correct?" They just print it, because somebody makes the accusation.

What is the BCTF agenda when they do that? Why do they put that in the newsletter that goes out to every one of their teachers? What is the purpose of that kind of misinformation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the minister expressing his frustrations, but it's not appropriate for him to ask questions of the critic; at least the critic is free to answer, but I don't think is obliged to.

MS. EDWARDS: My tears of sympathy for the minister are exceeded only by my tears of sympathy for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) when I asked him recently about another program and he wept a lot because he was misinterpreted.

I'd like to go a little further. You're obviously aware of this, but one of the other concerns I have.... In case the minister is worried about this, I get these concerns put to me by teachers, and I am coming to the minister to ask. That is exactly what I'm doing. I would like to know whether the ministry plans to stop collecting information about class sizes, because that is a matter of considerable concern. It's central to the issue of good education in British Columbia. That is another interpretation there: is it correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to that is no We need to have average class sizes and that type of information, so we're not going to stop collecting information that we need.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't know whether the minister wants to go into the whole kindergarten business. Of course, the dual entry has been delayed, in a sense, but in fact there is some concern about what kind of assessment is going to go on in kindergartens. Kindergarten is referred to in various publications the ministry puts out as part of the first four years of school, and there's an indication that there's a considerable assessment function — in other words, frequent assessment and lots of entries into these computer systems we've been talking about — and that in fact that's where it's directed. I wonder if the minister could give me any idea of what he sees as the cost of that kind of new assessment process for kindergarten, particularly when we've got a rather bifurcated system; let's put it that way.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, it's difficult to answer about the cost of a function that isn't necessary, that doesn't exist. There's no new assessment process necessary in kindergarten.

MS. EDWARDS: I find it interesting that the minister then.... I mean, the literature very clearly states that we will have — and some of this literature was put out, I believe, before the minister decided to delay dual entry into kindergarten — the first four years of a student's life, and kindergarten is the first of those four years. Then, of course, we talk about this assessment, which involves rather extensive numbers and reporting, and training to get people to put in numbers so that the ministry staff has access to it. That is extremely different than the rationale for kindergarten right now, and I'm just interested in what the minister has to say on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There will be new assessment, new measuring tools and new evaluation tools necessary in the first four years of school. Do I need to repeat that, or have you got that first part? You got it. Okay.

New assessments and that sort of thing will be necessary throughout the first four years in school. When I said there is no new assessment program necessary in order to institute dual-entry kindergarten, it's because kindergarten teachers have regularly assessed when the pupil is ready to read, cut, colour and when they are ready to know these sorts of things. No new assessment programs are necessary for kindergarten.

If I might mention the dual-entry kindergarten, since you have asked, right now it's possible for students to be up to one full year apart in age when they start school. The royal commission recommended that we do something about that, and there was a lot of concern in the education community. I can remember the concern when I was in the school system as an elementary principal.

What we have done is say we can't solve it all as they do in New Zealand where they can enter school on their fifth birthday, whatever time of the year it is. They seem to be able to cope with that. We said we don't think we can go all the way. Look at the static that some people have been able to make in just suggesting twice a year.

We have said let's make it no more than six months apart, and that will be better than a full year apart. Then we said that will mean a second entry during the year. We said students therefore will be eligible to enter in September or January if they have turned five in that closest six-month period. We've said that in discussion. I even questioned the dates, but EPAC and other people suggested that the best date was January 1 — after Christmas when school starts — so we've got two entry dates.

We've suggested that happen, so we said we'd then make students eligible to enter at those times. Picture it if we had said: "We are going to pick a few, and only select 40 percent or 50 percent that we would make eligible, and then you pick the ones who

[ Page 7488 ]

are ineligible." We've said they are eligible. We have said, in recognition of reality and the transition, that we will allow boards to delay this where they find it difficult or impossible — and there could be situations; we couldn't anticipate all of them. But we've got to make them all eligible, so we made them eligible.

On some sort of a misunderstanding, they looked at their budgets that were given to them and said: "It's not in the budget." Yet I had clearly tried to say: "If you need extra teachers, extra room, extra materials, that is part of the extra money. So it is not in your budget."

There is also good reason for it not being in the budget; it's a one-time shot. If there are 40,000 kindergarten students of eligible age in a year, and 20,000 of them show up in September, there will not be another 40,000 showing up in January; there will be maybe another 20,000. In other words, it's just the one-time move in the first January in order to top that up.

Then you don't have to get rid of the teachers and extra materials, because those kids will flow through, and hopefully the increases in enrolment are coming anyway. That will all catch up and come together very nicely. That's what we've done with dual entry.

Then people said: "You don't have a new curriculum ready." When we start the kindergarten students in September, it doesn't depend on a new curriculum, so you can teach them kindergarten in September according to what you are teaching them now. You take another batch of students in January and teach them kindergarten. It could take a year. Some students now are doing things in kindergarten that other kids are doing in grade 1, and they are doing it before the end of the year.

What we are talking about is not novel, and it isn't an invention or an imposition by the ministry. It is what people are putting together — the teachers and others. Paranoia is created by somebody standing up and saying: "They are going to get a new batch of kids in January, and they don't have a new curriculum for them." You don't need to have a new curriculum if they are just starting from the beginning of kindergarten and taking them as far as they can, any more than you need a new curriculum starting in September.

That deals with that. People say: "Oh yes, now you say you don't need a new curriculum, and yet you are talking about changing the curriculum." The whole thing goes together.... The dual-entry kindergarten is not dependent on curriculum changes; it's simply dependent on a little more space. That's been provided for, along with additional funding, as required. Many school boards have said: "We're not going to do it, and the ministry is not going to lay this one on us." We have said: "Fine. You tell the parents whose students turn five in February and who are eligible that you are not going to do it even if the ministry is putting up the money. Have fun."

MR. G. HANSON: I'd like to address a few remarks to the subject of native education. I know some changes and improvements have been made over time, but fundamentally I think it remains that native people and their tribal organizations.... Those are the real organizations, not strictly the bands, because the Indian bands are an artifice of the Indian Act, etc. The real political organizations of native people are the tribal councils.

[3:15]

Very little recognition is given to them, and I want to say to the minister that more participation in curriculum development and matters that affect native education must be turned over to native people. I know that when the master tuition agreement was renegotiated after two years of negotiations.... From my reading, some discussion about native matters was injected, but the fact of the case was that when push came to shove, the tribal organizations were not given the kind of say they require to make the necessary changes. In 1988-89, the statistics seem to indicate that something like 27.5 percent of native people will finish high school, compared to 55.8 percent of non-natives.

There are a few other statistics that I would like to put on the record in the minister's estimates. There are approximately 30,000 people of native ancestry in the public education system, including about 7,540 registered or status Indians. There are an additional 3,300 in band schools. Yet there are only about 200 native people with university teaching certificates in the province. That is only one native teacher for every 167 native children.

While I am making that point, I want to make the same point that I made during the estimates of the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree). In the non-native establishment bureaucracy, there tends to be a lumping, because a native is a native is a native. Of course, there are approximately 25 different linguistic groups in the province lumped together into seven language families — 25 or 26 dialects and seven major language families. When we talk about increasing the number of native teachers and native teacher aides and the whole matter of curriculum, more attention has to be paid to the fact that a Kwakiutl person is different from a Salish person, in terms of their language and their culture. My colleague, who happens to be the only person of indigenous descent in this House, is a Nisga'a person. Yet it may not be appropriate for him to be a teacher's aide in a Carrier school. More appropriately, it should be a person of Carrier ancestry who understands the language.

I want to make that point, because I think the ministry and this government.... To break that mould of paternalism, which seems to characterize the history of education in the province.... Of course, we're very proud that the Nisga'a School District was established under the NDP government in 1972-75; it's a source of pride in our party. I think there should be more native school districts in the province and more direct participation.

I know that there can be negotiations between the Indian bands and the school districts, and then Indian Affairs gives money through to the band, which buys the services from the school district or provides the

[ Page 7489 ]

money. The native people are not satisfied with that system. They want to stand on their own two feet with respect to education, because it is so fundamental to the continuation, vitality and revitalizing of native culture, values and so on, which is so important to the well-being of native cultures.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I would like to read into the record a little bit of the background, and then I'm going to ask a few specific questions of the minister. In February of 1969, when the master tuition agreement was first signed providing federal funding for status Indians attending B.C. public schools, there was no consultation with the native community whatsoever. When that master tuition agreement expired on June 30, 1987, there were protests by native groups. A new agreement was negotiated and signed by this minister and William McKnight, the minister at the federal level at the time, on April 20, 1988 — again largely without native participation.

Today, as a result of the history of native education and many other factors, native students face a significantly higher drop-out rate than non-natives, and unemployment rates are significantly higher. Increasingly, it has become recognized....

I want to read a quote that goes back to 1972, from the National Indian Brotherhood: "Only Indian people can develop a suitable philosophy of education based on Indian values adapted to modern living. Until now, decisions on the education of Indian children have been made by anyone and everyone except Indian parents." No other people in British Columbia would be asked to tolerate that kind of situation. Even though the curriculum has increased to some extent as a result of the Sullivan report, matters relating to Indian language and Indian culture are still basically the same.

Native groups saw the ending of the old master tuition agreement as an opportunity to obtain greater control over what was essentially a paternalistic delivery of education services. The ability to control education was seen as an essential part of the larger move towards greater self-government among B.C.'s aboriginal people. But when the master tuition agreement was negotiated and signed without the participation of the various native groups, the Assembly of First Nations walked out of the talks in August '88, publicly rejecting the very concept of the master tuition agreement, largely on the basis of a lack of involvement, direct input and participation.

When I look at what was stated in the Education Leader on May 20, 1988, the deputy is quoted.... Even when the funding was allocated, because it costs more to fund education on an individual basis.... The example used here was the Stikine. In the '87-88 school year, under the fiscal framework the per-pupil tuition fee ranged from a low of $3,235 in School District 36 in Surrey to a high of $8,626 in School District 87 in Stikine. It was pointed out that because the provincial average is always lower than the actual cost per district, school boards are faced with consistent underfunding of native education. As a result of that, there was a top-up of an additional $4 million from the federal government.

This is the fundamental question: what is the obstacle to involving, in a fuller, more participatory way, native people in negotiating education matters such as the master tuition agreement? Why aren't they granted full equality in terms of having a direct, equal say in their own education, as parents in other school districts would have? What is the obstacle? I'd like the minister to respond to that question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There's no obstacle. We've tried to encourage that. Native representatives were invited to all of the negotiating sessions involved in the MTA. They came to some and didn't come to others. I guess that was because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the MTA was. The native community saw it as an opportunity to negotiate an educational policy agreement, and all the MTA is, in effect, is a payment transfer agreement between the federal government and the provincial government.

When the MTA was running out, we were still trying to involve native people in doing things, but we were told that the federal government had no authority to transfer some $33 million to us unless the agreement was signed by March 31. Rather than give up the $33 million, we signed the agreement. What we did incorporate in that agreement, however, since we couldn't come to a total educational policy concept agreement, was that it was based on the number of eligible native students, as determined by the federal government, times the number of dollars in each district. The old agreement had the number of students times the provincial average.

There was a lot of static on that, because as you pointed out in your statistics, Mr. Member, the average is determined by the highs and the lows. We took the average, so any district could say, "You're paying us more than the federal government is giving us"; but they wouldn't tell us that. The other districts, however, were saying: "You're paying us less than the federal government is giving us for native students." We had based it on the average, and that came out in the discussions.

So we said: "Okay, that's fine. Why don't you base it on the district where the students reside?" The federal government agreed to that, and later found out, of course, that it cost them about $5 million more because the actual costs are higher in the districts where many of the native students are. Anyway, I won't go into all of the details of that.

The other thing we did get an agreement on was that where a local band could negotiate an agreement with the school district, the money would flow directly from the government to the band or the district, whatever their agreement said. Count us out; we were only the pipeline for the money to get to the districts. As was mentioned before, we had to top it up because the pipeline wasn't as full as was needed. That was done under the MTA.

One of the provisions was put there because we had no local agreements in place. We said agreements

[ Page 7490 ]

must seek the approval of the provincial minister and federal minister. The natives had considerable objection to that, so we've agreed to discuss it with the federal government and with them to see if they can negotiate a local agreement. The concern was that it had to be a year-long written agreement — staff for it and put in whatever they need. They can't in and out sort of thing. We're accommodating as much as we can.

[3:30]

The other thing is, before the Sullivan report came out, we had tried to find ways.... I met with some of the Indian bands who asked to meet with me, or groups of bands with Indian leaders, and they put some of their concerns on the table. One of them was that they wanted their own school district. Of course, the question then was, how do you fund it? How do you operate it? Do you go back to residential schools at the secondary? Some of them said no, because they wouldn't have enough students in one place for a secondary school. Are you really looking for isolation of the Indian community — back into their own schools — or do you want integration? There are no easy answers to those questions, but we kept exploring them. The result was an attempt to set up a native advisory committee to meet with the ministry, with reps from native bands all over the province. That got started and then bogged down.

Then the Sullivan report came along and confirmed, fortunately, that we should really be involving the natives more, and I'm delighted. I guess part of it is that we don't have the answers, but we certainly have the intent. We've put a native representative on the provincial advisory committee. We're carrying on with our native advisory committee. We have made a commitment and provided funding for working more about the true native story into all social studies curriculum. That's an attempt. We're providing for the opportunity to teach the native languages in the schools where it makes sense. We have to deal with where numbers warrant. Our biggest problem is: who's going to teach them? There aren't enough native-speaking teachers who have teacher qualifications. The system says you have to have a teaching certificate before you teach in the schools. So we've proposed that school boards be authorized to hire people to work with teachers. There's quite a resistance to that. Some people see it as union-busting or contracting-out. I hope it will be taken a lot better once people realize that our intent is to assist teachers, not to take over from teachers.

These are the kinds of things we're trying to do. We've allotted money. We hope we'll get help. We've tried to fund some between ourselves and post-secondary at Prince George — a language training for native teachers to collect the visuals. We've funded some of those things. We're a long way from there. I agree with the member that the statistics are bad They're deplorable. I can't change the statistics. If there's anything we can do to change the basis for those statistics, that is what we're working on. Hopefully, with the initiatives that we're taking and the initiatives that will come from the native advisory committee and others, we'll be able to make it so that these people are not at the low end of the statistics on performance, graduation and continuing.

We're doing the best we can. We could use all the help we can get, believe me. I would be a complete failure trying to teach the native language. I might teach about it if somebody gave me the right information, but I would be a disaster trying to teach the native language. Hopefully we can develop more of these people. We're also working with the universities to say: "You've got to work more about native culture into the teacher training courses and, to whatever extent possible, try to make native training available." Some of that is happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, it seems most propitious to stand during debate on the estimates of the Minister of Education and introduce to this Legislature, on behalf of the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) and myself, a group of 28 fine grade 6 and 7 students from West Heights Elementary School in Mission. They're accompanied by two of their teachers, Miss Elizabeth Coulter and Mr. Ross MacLeod and they'll be here for a couple of days. I would ask all of those present to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. GUNO: I want to thank my colleague for stepping aside to allow me to take part in this estimates debate on education. I want to touch on a few issues pertaining to northern education. I realize that the minister, like myself, represents a fairly large northern riding and has first-hand experience as a teacher in a northern community and appreciates the challenges of trying to provide quality education to the people in the north. I think some of the problems he encountered during his experience as a teacher are still around. It's a big problem. It's a challenge. I think it's an important area for the government to address, because if we're going to subscribe to the notion that we deal with education on an equal basis, everyone in B.C. ought to be provided with quality education.

There are problems, and one that I wanted to highlight — I've done this just about every year during these estimates — is the whole tax issue. I've canvassed this with the minister last year, and I just wanted to get an update on what is happening to deal with this. In talking to many of the people in my riding, it is a major problem, because there are actually very few taxpayers, and they often bear a disproportionate share of the burden in terms of meeting the extra costs over and above the amount that they get from the provincial government.

For instance, in Telegraph Creek there are only 40 to 50 taxpayers for the six schools there. Many of the residents are on a reserve and are exempt from those tax burdens. Also in Cassiar School, as I understand

[ Page 7491 ]

it, there have been recent changes in the fiscal framework. It has certainly helped, but it does not completely resolve the problem of very few taxpayers bearing the rather overwhelming burden of trying to make up for the extra amount required.

Another thing that I wanted to get some comment on from the minister is the looming problem of teacher shortage. Most of the people I've talked to in Atlin have indicated that this is going to be a major problem — more now than in the past because of the greater demand for teachers in the south. Special education teachers are almost impossible to get, a problem compounded by similar shortages in social services and health.

I understand that there are incentives, such as loan forgiveness, for teachers to go north, but these are not significant enough to attract more and more teachers to the north. I was just wondering if the minister has any programs in this year's budget that would provide for or at least take a look at the problem. I think it's going to be a serious one for the northern schools, to try and have enough incentives such as school facilities. These are often areas o great frustration in trying to teach in the north: the lack of equipment, up-to-date texts, funds for extracurricular activities and adequate accommodation for teachers to live in. It gets more and more difficult for these school districts to attract teachers not only to come but to stay.

I understand that there are some creative things being tried in the Yukon. They are having the first two or three years of teacher training in the community and then finishing off in the south. Those are the sorts of things that I think we ought to be looking at in the future. I'm wondering if the minister has contemplated those kinds of programs to start meeting or at least dealing with some of the problems that are certainly going to arise in the future.

The other thing — I think my colleague has touched on this — is the lack of any funding for developing native content in the curriculum. The only area seriously doing that is the Nisga'a School District. I have to commend the minister for responding to the Nisga'a community in changing the name of the district from — I think it was — School District 92 to Nisga'a School District; it's a step in the right direction. Now that we have the right name, we ought to have some programs that would be appropriate to that particular nomenclature.

It is a problem in Cassiar. The community of Good Hope Lake has been trying to develop, along with the school district, a program to have some native content in the curriculum, especially in language training. But the problem, of course, is lack of funding Again I want to canvass the minister about his plans for meeting some of these things. Has there been any consultation with people from the north in terms of developing these areas?

The prolonged strike in the Nisga'a School District this year points out some very serious problems there in terms of funding. There is really nowhere for them to go once they have had to spend all the money they are provided by the provincial government. There is no really solid tax base to go to. They have to live within that, and it causes a lot of problems in providing some of the more special programs.

I would really urge the minister to seriously sit down with the people from the Nass Valley school district to see how we can deal with some of the serious problems that are there right now.

I will stop there and hear what the minister has to say about the issues I've raised.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the member for his comments and questions. I've sat down with the various boards, met them at conferences and that sort of thing, and I am getting a pretty good handle on the problems. I wish I had as good a handle on the solutions.

We have been working on it, and the provincial fiscal framework review committee has made recommendations in the past about funding for dispersed schools. If they are more than 30 kilometres away from the headquarters office — and that's virtually every school in the Stikine district — they get a higher per-pupil allotment. There are all kinds of things built into the formula.

Let me just carry on with the Stikine district for a moment. We recognize their low tax base, and so we share 90 percent or better in the Stikine district, while the average is 75, and the other 10 percent comes from local taxation. That's in the fiscal framework. I recognize, as you do, that if they go above the fiscal framework, all of those dollars are 100 percent on the local taxpayers. So a small amount in the Stikine district can be a significant tax.

The only thing that I can tell you is that in terms of what people are paying for education by and large, when you take off the $430 homeowner grant, then they are paying quite a bit less for education than in Victoria, Saanich or Vancouver, where they have all the amenities. I don't have any argument; it's just a fact.

I don't know what the net average cost is. The net average that they are paying is probably below the $430 in the Stikine district. For instance, in the Nisga'a district.... I've just got these figures; maybe I'll get them for the Stikine. For any taxpayer there, after the homeowner grant it's minus $224; they get $224 more than the average person paid. If somebody has a $100,000 house — and this mill rate is based on a $30,000 or $40,000 average — he doesn't care what I say; he's taxed at that mill rate.

[3:45]

In the Stikine district, the average homeowner, in this coming year with all of the taxes that have been put on, has $249 left after the homeowner grant. Again, that's averages. What we are looking at, if you get away from the averages.... The mill rate is based on the total amount, and of course you can work out the average arithmetically. If you get away from that, you have to wonder about the whole valuation structure and so on, and that's something we've decided to look at in the next year.

Much has been done to try and accommodate the needs of this other school district. We are constantly

[ Page 7492 ]

bombarded with statements that we should give the industrial and commercial tax back to where the districts are. If you want to just make the comparison, if all the industrial and commercial tax in the Fort Nelson district goes to the district instead of to the province and is redistributed.... Then in the Stikine, unless you get a lot of mines up there.... The industries don't have the decency to locate themselves evenly throughout the province, and so we take that money into general consolidated revenue and put it back out with the other. It has gone up, from consolidated revenue, while the commercial tax has gone down, Just talking about those measures that we have taken to try and beat the tax system....

All I can tell you about the language and the native culture and those sorts of things is that we are trying. In the Nisga'a district they have, out of that funding and, I guess, other funding, done a great deal to develop the Nisga'a language and teaching of Nisga'a in school. It's probably more advanced there than anywhere because of the concentration and because they have had the opportunity and a lot of assistance to do it — and a heck of a lot of hard work on their part.

In the other areas, I mentioned we were talking to the university. There is some proposal now, maybe a tri-university proposal, to do a native teacher training program in the north. Through the technology funding we are trying to get upgrading programs out there. Once we get those linkages with satellites, we can get that out to any teacher. If it happens to be a video, fax or updating on something that should be in the native studies curriculum, it can go out.

We are doing that, the teacher training, both them coming south to get the education — but as much as possible we want to try to put in effect the flavour of the Sullivan report, which said: "Try to take the training, upgrading and in-service programs out to where the teachers are." The teacher-training programs, the access-for-all program that the minister of post-secondary put out to try and get it out into the colleges.... It's much more likely that some people from the Nisga'a or the northwest could come to, say, a college at Terrace and put in a proper language training program there than have them all at great expense come and live in Vancouver or Victoria Those are the things we hope will happen.

As I said to the member from Victoria, we can use all the help we can get. We're fairly rich in intent, but fairly poor in our knowledge of the native history, culture and language, because there hasn't been much written on it. I hope that within a few years a great deal more can be done on that. I don't know if the member is aware that I spent a couple of years as elementary supervisor for the Stikine School District, so I know what he's talking about when he mentions Telegraph Creek, Dease Lake, Good Hope Lake, Cassiar and those areas. I know the problems, and we're doing our best to come up with the solution, in terms of putting money, resources, effort and good intentions into it.

MR. G. HANSON: I want to continue along the same lines as my colleague for Atlin. There are a number of initiatives and issues that need to be addressed here. One is that projects like the Native Education Centre and the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology should be accorded more recognition than they get. They do a fine job. We've met with students and staff at the Native Indian Education Centre. They are providing an important service. I think they should get additional support from the province for their work.

I've got a number of questions later on that I want to ask with respect to provincial contribution of native education, so I just serve notice of that.

The native Indian teacher education program at UBC is very useful, but the demand is enormous. When we saw the students demonstrating with respect to this capping — the idea that somehow there would be a cap — on post-secondary enrolment and saw the kind of impact that that had on students across the country and how they mobilized themselves around that, it indicates the extent to which the demand for education is increasing among the native people.

It's a very young population with an average age of.... I don't want to pick a number out of the air, but I know it's an extremely young population. There are a lot of native people who have gone through the residential-school experience or through work or whatever and are wanting to return to school. Like their counterparts in the non-native community, there are many native people wanting to go back as mature students. They've had their families, or their families have moved on, or they've worked, or for whatever reason they now want to attend — they want to catch up - a post-secondary institution, whether it be a college, the Native Education Centre, BCIT or whatever. My point is that there is an explosive demand: a young population and the same features as of the prevailing population — mature students wanting to return. So the demand is very high and the need for funds and support is very high.

My point was that we need in this province more native teachers who can return to their own communities or go to rural areas. My colleague talked about added incentives to meet the needs of the northern and interior rural areas. Even though the ministry has committed $2.4 million over the next year for incentives for teachers to go to rural areas, my question is: will these — or what proportion of them — be native-trained teachers?

I have a series of questions; that's the first. Second is that the master tuition agreement permits bands to deal directly with the Department of Indian Affairs for the federal share of education funding. Does the money then go through the bands to the school board? Do bands have any say about how that money is spent? What say do the bands, after having received the money directly or to the school board, have about the policy and curriculum spending of those funds?

Another question is: if bands deal directly with the federal government for education money, how

[ Page 7493 ]

does this affect their ability to qualify for provincial money — that is, for special programs — if at all?

Next question: how are band schools funded? Is their curriculum and administration any different than non-band schools with native students? There's a great need in the classroom for additional assistance for native students. To what extent can you increase the funds available for aides to assist in the classroom with native children?

I'm going to go through a number of things and then ask the minister to respond.

We also want to talk about education for non-natives on native issues. It's important that the curriculum be beefed up and that there be more information available to non-natives about, as the minister said, the real story of the native people and their history, culture, values and what matters to them.

The underlying concern for natives is that education must support, not destroy, the traditional lifestyle. However, education must also address the general lack of knowledge among non-natives about native history and lifestyles. Greater emphasis in the curriculum on these issues would be important, as would more native teachers. The point there is an obvious one. As they say, knowledge is a very light load, but it takes recognition, funding and support to make sure that the non-native community has an appreciation of native people.

For example, there are many people who say: "Well, did the native people here have pottery?" No, they didn't have pottery. "Why didn't they have pottery?" Well, they didn't have pottery because they had wood technology. First of all, if they're coastal people living in a mature coastal forest.... It's not easy to control a forest for agriculture, especially when you don't particularly need agriculture and you have marine and woodland resources, be they animal or vegetable, that can support a very high level of society. So people developed wood technology, cooked in boxes and made boxes. Often the people that I know are not aware of the level of sophistication around things. They assume that pottery, etc., is important.

Hollywood and the film industry have certainly influenced people's attitudes and ideas about native people, and stereotyped ideas about plains Indians. The 10,000 years or 25,000 years of human history, depending on what particular evidence you look at.... I think the people of the province, native or non-native, whether they are of Asian ancestry, or from Africa, the Caribbean or wherever.... The more knowledge they have of the human history of British Columbia, the more enrichment and enhancement of their sense of this province and this country they will have. It's an important investment in our understanding of our own human history in this land.

The most fundamental question in education is language, because language is the glue that holds a culture together. I know there's an advisory committee in place studying preservation, enhancement and promotion of native languages in the province, but I don't see any legislation before us. We've had some 60 bills that are going to come into this House during the course of this session. There's not a bill from the government side on the issue of native languages. I had hoped this would be the session. It was promoted to be, but apparently it's somewhere in the machinery.

Every year that goes by — I shouldn't say every year; I should say every hour, every day — native elders pass away. They move on, and when they move on, they are the lost windows into the past. I've seen a native poster, as the minister probably has, promoting the preservation and use of native languages. It said: "Save our languages. Let us learn our languages so our grandparents can tell us who we are." I think that poster sums the issue up very well. Any further delay in establishing a native heritage and language cultural institute in the different areas of the province will be a loss to all of us, not only as a country but as a human family on this globe.

[4:00]

Greater recognition of the need for native language training is required. The Ministry of Native Affairs has announced its intention to have a heritage and language institute, but there is no legislation before us. As the minister was saying, "who will teach the languages?" because there are not a lot of linguists. It's easy to train people to transcribe. I think there has to be a provision to grant elders — people fluent in the language — some kind of associate teacher status so that a person who is a fluent speaker in a native language and has the ability to teach young children can transmit that language and transcribe it.

There are video technologies available now, although money is required for programming. For example, a disk is put into a video terminal, a button is pushed, and you can call up the Kwakiutl language, Kwakwala. You push "eagle" and the word comes up, the eagle is there and the sound of the eagle. The Kwakwala word for eagle is "kweek." It's interactive. Children who love video games, native or non-native, can interact with the machine and actually learn the native language under the guidance of an elder.

I would like the minister to look at exploring special associate status for native elders who have the ability to teach these precious disappearing native languages within the province so that they would be able to work right in the classroom directly with native people and allow a sort of fast-tracking of the bureaucracy around status of teachers, qualification and so on. Someone fluent in a native language with the ability to teach and transcribe it should be allowed to teach in a school under a special status. I think that should be done.

Money should be expended to provide programming of video software around native languages in the province of British Columbia for interactive language training of children with a video terminal in their own language. As you push "eagle, " you can then push "eagle fishing" and "eagle flying." I think you get the point. That needs to be done.

[ Page 7494 ]

Because of the higher drop-out rate, natives face particular difficulties in re-entering the education system.

MR. PETERSON: On a point of order, I note that we don't have a quorum in this House, and I wonder if perhaps we should have one so the business of this House can go on in proper order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for bringing that to the Chair's attention. While we are waiting for the members to enter the House, the second member for Vancouver East requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: I have the honour and privilege today to introduce in the House a group of senior citizens not only from my constituency but in fact from the neighbourhood in which I grew up and the neighbourhood in which I currently reside. They are the Renfrew Park Community Centre seniors and are very pleased to be here today. Many members of this House may not realize that in Vancouver East there is a very high percentage of seniors, although they live in their own homes as yet, so it is relatively hidden, As many members know, I have been pushing on this side of the House for more services in Vancouver East for senior citizens, so I am pleased that they are here today and I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member may proceed now that we have a quorum.

MR. G. HANSON: We need good support networks for mature native students who want to return to the school system for upgrading, Certainly people need help in the transition between high school and university, as they have in the Saskatchewan native pre-law program. Nothing like this has been announced from this government. We looked at other jurisdictions, because usually you find certain jewels in other jurisdictions in terms of progressive policies around aboriginal education.

I just want to let the minister know about the Edmonton school district, which has an interesting project called the Sacred Circle.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: There seems to be a lot of yacking going on here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the members please take their chairs, and then the honourable member can proceed with his deliberation.

MR. G. HANSON: In Edmonton there's a project called Sacred Circle, which involves native home school liaison service; a native studies consultant service to help teachers develop native studies programs; and a larger number of native classroom aides and summer cultural training camps for natives and non-natives to learn about native traditional culture. These ought to be considered in British Columbia, not only because we have a very large native population and over half of all the native languages in the country, but because they're the right thing to do, and the time has come to do them.

I've covered a fair amount of ground, Mr. Chair man, and I'd like the minister to think about some of these things. There was a gentleman who wrote a report in the late sixties, Mr. Harry Hawthorn; he wrote a two-volume royal commission study called "Indians of Canada" covering everything from education, culture, economic — you name it. It's in the library here. One of the things he said was that you have to regard the native people as citizens-plus, and with that notion comes added support.

As the minister said, the statistics are deplorable. The numbers cry out for remedial action. The minister said he would welcome help. Well, I think I'm offering help today. I'm suggesting a special status for elders to teach in the schools, extra native aide workers for classrooms, more curriculum, greater recognition for the Native Education Centre and more support for the things that my friend from Atlin raised about the tax problem in the north, where there's an insufficient tax base to provide the special needs projects and programs that are required. I should give the minister an opportunity to respond, and see what he thinks of these ideas.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I appreciate the assistance. You'd get little resistance from me about giving associate status of some kind to the elders to teach. I met with a couple of the native groups and have suggested.... I'm frightened, as you are, that some of these elders will be gone in a short time and with them will go the language, the colourful stories and the things they can tell us. With video we can capture that. So for heaven's sake, let's capture it, even if we haven't got time to transcribe it into writing. But let's get it on some sort of record. I think we can use that. We can use their stories; we can duplicate videos and use them directly or indirectly as teachers. I hope there is widespread support for our initiative to say that....

We can't rely on these people strictly as volunteers. I believe in the Queen Charlottes there are two native seniors, under the direction of a teacher, who are teaching or assisting in the school. There is great concern that anyone who does not have a teaching certificate should not do any actual teaching. Well, when you're trying to convey a language knowledge to people, it may have to be teaching. We haven't got time to prepare them with teaching certificates in order to get the language into the schools.

Yes, you have my full support. We can certainly use them and the technology. Let's do those things. I know there's no bill before the House on native languages as such, but I can assure you that the intent is to include native languages as well as other languages. English is the primary one in our public

[ Page 7495 ]

school system. It will certainly be permitted and hopefully encouraged.

I would point out that we have set aside some money specifically for language and culture development incorporation into the public school system and also into the native schools, whether they have an agreement with the local school board, or they're setting up their own schools.

You asked the question about the MTA funding. When the funding arrives, what say do the natives have? If there's no agreement between a local school board and ourselves or the native band, then the money comes to us, and we send it to the district. Then it varies in the districts, as to whether they have a native advisory committee. For instance, in Terrace they've had a fairly good one operating, and it helps in some of the other communities. They also have committees. How they spend that money is a local decision.

Where a band chooses to set up its own band school, rather than send the students to the public school, they have complete and full say and the choice as to whether they want to use our B.C. curriculum materials or not. If they do, they're available to them. If they have an agreement with the local board as to how they arrange it, then the money from the MTA from the federal government can come to the band, to the school board or to the board directly, according to their agreement. But we're out of the picture. I guess part of the question is, if it takes $5,000 per pupil to educate them in the school system, how much of it goes to native education?

I'm trying to answer most of the questions that the member had. Another initiative we've taken as a result of the royal commission report is to provide up to a full day of kindergarten for native students and special ed students. Now it's half-day kindergarten. The theory behind that is simply that because of cultural blockages or whatever they're behind when they get to kindergarten, and so they stay behind. By giving them a full day, maybe we can bring them up to scratch. It will be by choice, and we've asked people to let us know.

[4:15]

As far as non-native students and the curriculum for them, that's where I hope we would get a lot of assistance. Much more material is now being developed by the native community. You mentioned a few examples. When I was teaching, many years ago, I remember a series of booklets on the natives of British Columbia: the Charlottes, the Haida, the Nisga'a, the Sekani and that sort of thing. I found them very interesting. I would imagine they're quite a bit out of date and too condensed. A lot of good stuff has come out since then.

You may remember that the native community in Kamloops took on the job of trying to collect this history and actually translated it into a book involving the stories. We put in $15,000 originally towards the research in developing a textbook and another $25,000 the next year into the printing of it: Donna Meets Coyote and.... I'm sorry, I forget the other title These are stories from the natives which were then distributed to the school districts. They were in English, not in the native language, but for all students to read on the native culture. They have helped. What's the one from south of Prince George? Stoney Creek Woman, which I've just heard about. I know it has the potential. There are a lot of others.

I did get a set of books from Alberta on some of the things they've done on native stories. Whether they're applicable here or not I don't know, but certainly the more we can put together of that.... We're willing to put the effort into it. We're far behind, so we've got to take such measures as using the technology. When I say the technology, obviously you can put so much more on one disk than you can store anywhere else. They even have computers now that will translate signals into voice, so maybe for pronunciation purposes, why not? As one example, Japan has sent us some material in the Japanese language to distribute in exchange for some of our stuff, because they're teaching English in the schools and the stuff is popular. The kids will use it. When I was an elementary school principal we put some local history on, including some from native people. We had native people into the school to tell us, and we asked them for permission to tape-record it and put it into the library with some of the listening posts. It were more popular than the books.

So the potential is there; we've just got to try to put it together and capture it. Even after we finish this discussion, maybe specific items that the member has which we may not think of, or no one else thinks of.... I would certainly be willing to meet with you and the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) at any time to try to put it together and get it into the works. I wish I could do more of it, but obviously I'm limited in the hours I have.

If I haven't answered some of your questions, I'm sure you'll take another crack at me.

MR. G. HANSON: I'm going to conclude my remarks, but I just want to say one thing. A number of members on both sides of this House had lunch last week with a delegation of New Zealand Members of Parliament, four from each side of their House. An interesting point that I learned about the Maori people of New Zealand is that they've recently determined — and it should be obvious to everyone — that performance at the later levels of school go up if a child has an opportunity to learn their own language initially. The confidence that they gain from knowing who they are and what they are about enhances their performance in the English language at the later levels of school.

Operating on that premise, whatever can be done to provide the opportunity for young children to learn their own language and to centre themselves in their own culture provides an opportunity for them then to go on and do better and increases the opportunity to graduate from high school and go to university, etc. I just wanted to make that last point.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a couple of different areas that I'd like to canvass with the minister. First

[ Page 7496 ]

of all, a constituency concern. I have raised this in several different forums, with the minister present, I hope.

First of all, during the budget speech I went through a lot of statistics that our school board is wrestling with around issues of growth. I don't know whether the minister had an opportunity to take a look at that, but I'll go over them briefly, and perhaps you can respond.

The primary concern is, Surrey being a young community and the population growing at such a rapid rate.... I believe the statistics are that something like 60 percent of the lower mainland's growth and 50 percent of all the province's growth went into our particular municipality. Most of the people moving into Surrey are moving there because of the accessibility of reasonable housing. What that translates to is that the majority of people moving there are young families. Along with that come school-age children and pressures on the schools.

The minister, I know, on several occasions has met with our school trustees, as well as the administration of the school board, talking about some of these problems. I hope he has had the opportunity to begin to tackle in an imaginative way some of the solutions that are necessary.

Our school district is unlike many other school districts in the province, in that we are dealing with not only the problems brought about by growth — whether it's the number of portables or the number of young, new, beginning teachers — but the whole budgeting that goes along with that.

I quoted some numbers that the school board has been able to pull out that deal only with costs related to growth and not acknowledged or picked up by the province; in other words, costs of growth borne by the taxpayers alone. I have made the argument for some time, and I believe rightly so, that the whole province benefits from the growth in our municipality, and therefore there should be a shared cost — a recognition that the province also has a responsibility to try to buffer that from some of the citizens.

The minister looks a little puzzled by that comment, so I'd like to elaborate. I believe the costs of schooling all of our children provide benefits that we gain as a society and as a province down the road. The fact is that a large number of the school-age children in the province are going to school in municipalities like Surrey. Therefore there is a responsibility beyond just the basics, in that without recognizing growth there becomes too much of a discrepancy between the districts.

Let me see if I can pull some of the numbers out of this particular report. The cost for portables, for instance. The fiscal framework does not provide enough funds for leasing costs. The shortfall this year is estimated at $700,000. There is also a shortfall for portable equipment costs which contributes to the non-shared capital component of this year's budget.

The report goes on to identify, in addition to portable costs, the maintenance cost. The shortfall in recognizing maintenance costs this year, the report says, will be $4 million. The argument here is that the framework does not recognize the rising costs associated with increased enrolment and more intensive use of facilities in the district. They are estimating that the increase in costs because of the pressure of growth and the pressure of the number of kids trying to use the facilities will be $4 million.

Growth-related planning. The administrative allowance in the fiscal framework makes no provision for costs associated with the planning and commissioning of new schools. This ignores the hundreds of thousands of dollars of staff time and consultant fees required specifically for this in Surrey because of our rapid growth. The point the school board has tried to make — and I think successfully, in that they have support from the ministry in recognizing the need to fast-track, so-called, the capital costs, the building of new schools — has to be made also for the other costs incurred by the school district that are related to growth. There's a need for some relief.

I'm hoping that the minister can unfurrow his brow and provide some information or comments relating to the concerns I've outlined.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My brow, as the member has to point out.... I suppose if I blink my eyes, it will be on the record. I don't know what relevance it has, but some of the statements the member makes are enough to furrow one's brow permanently, let alone temporarily.

One statement I got was that because our growth rate is faster and because that benefits the rest of the province, we should get special consideration. Madam Member, I would like you to come back to Fort St. John with me, to my constituency, and convince the people that because your growth rate in Surrey is a lot faster, it benefits my North Peace constituents, because they keep telling me that they're sending all this oil and gas money down to build schools in Surrey and those sorts of things. That one had me a bit puzzled.

If I move away from those extremes, if you help me convince Maple Ridge, Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford — where there is also growth — that we should knock it off and put special consideration into Surrey, because somehow or other their growth rate benefits those districts as well as it does Surrey — I have some difficulty with that one. That was what got me frowning, I guess, since we've got it on the record.

The other statement regarding the growth in Surrey is that we have worked very well with the Surrey School Board. We have made every effort to fast-track. I have our high-priority list for the next couple of years, and Surrey seems to be up at the front end of it — 28 total high-priority new facilities, 12 of them in Surrey. And we're fast-tracking as quickly as the plans are put in. We've made the case. Then I get to additions. I have a list of only about 30 here, with 11 major additions out of the batch in Surrey, and on it goes. I have about 16 site acquisitions for the whole province, and 10 of them are for Surrey. Twenty-eight new facilities; 12 out of the 28 for Surrey. I don't think we're doing too badly. As a

[ Page 7497 ]

matter of fact, some other people are saying, "Hey, how about us?" but we are trying to put the priorities first where the students don't have accommodation. Even with the fast-tracking we're doing, the kids are showing up faster than we can build the schools, so there have to be portables and that sort of thing.

Whenever school boards make the case that they've had to provide temporary space that they hadn't allowed for, we've accommodated them. I think if you checked with the school board, you'd find out that they're quite happy with the ministry's response to their requests of: "Since we're growing so fast, we need more." Every time you get more students, you get more money on the basis of those students and for each staff member and so on and so forth, so automatically the formula triggers increases to the Surrey district.

I would suspect that if our provincial average increase was about 10 percent, you would find that Surrey is probably much higher than that over last year's budget because of the growth factor. Anyway, we can look that up if the numbers particularly appeal to the member in exact terms. I know that we're putting a lot more money into Surrey because of the growth, and we're putting a lot more facilities into Surrey because it's necessary.

[4:30]

I'm a bit concerned about the member saying that since we're doing all this, then the administrator should get higher pay or there should be more allotment for more administrators. There's a bit of a question there.

I guess I was right: Surrey, for instance, as compared to that 10 percent provincial average increase in budget, last year was 16.1 percent. This is the fiscal framework this year — 14.3 — and then they've added on top of that.

I don't know whether it takes more administrators to build more schools or whether it can slow up the process if you have more people handling the same paper. I'm ambivalent on that one, but there's so much administrative money that goes along with the funding for teachers, staff and so on, they're automatically picking up more administrators.

Now that's interesting. You take the homeowner grant into consideration despite everything in Surrey The projection for this year is a one-dollar decrease in the net tax payable by the average homeowner in Surrey. That's quite different from most other places.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad the minister pointed that out, because it reflects a tremendous school board, in touch with the needs of the community and able to manage the money in an extraordinarily responsible way, given a very difficult situation. I'll go over the numbers again for the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you disagree with that? Give him a chance to disagree.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I hear some of the ministers on the other side having some difficulty with that statement. Perhaps they would like to say it for the public record.

Let me go through my points again very slowly. What I am referring to is a principle upheld by the public education system, and the recognition for a need to educate our young people, because our young people are our future. If the minister will agree with that, we'll go to the next step.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm with you so far.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We're okay there; all right. The minister agrees that there is a principle here for public education, for access to the education system for all young people, because what we're looking at are our future adults and the future of the province. My argument, Mr. Minister, is that if we do indeed uphold that principle, then what happens in one school district is for the good of all of the province. Would you agree there?

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister concerned that this kind of accessibility and equity of treatment may cause some problems for his ministry? It's fairly fundamental. It's fairly basic, in that what is good for your constituency indeed is good for the whole province. In other words, I would fight for the rights of the kids in your riding to have a good education as much as, I'm sure, you would fight for the rights of the kids in my riding to have a good education. I mean, that's pretty basic stuff. I would be really disappointed if anybody disagreed with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Is the member directing her remarks towards the estimates presently before the House?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I certainly am, and through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Although your comments are very interesting, Standing Orders does clearly state that debate must be not only relevant but "strictly relevant." We know that all debate in the House is to be relevant, but Standing Orders does point out that the debate in Committee of Supply is to be strictly relevant. Of course that additional word "strictly" does mean that the debate in estimates is much more limited than in some of the other items we debate in this House.

With that, I would ask the member to proceed but to remember that we are debating vote 16, which is the Minister of Education's estimates.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the Chair for that interesting intervention, and I would like to go back to the minister. The minister suggested that he had some difficulty in understanding the point I made earlier. I'll continue on that basis.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 7498 ]

What I am trying to do is to establish a pretty basic principle within the education system, one that says that there should be equity, there should be fair treatment and everyone should be treated the same. The point I was making to you is that our school district has an unfair burden, brought about by the fact that it is taking a disproportionate amount of the growth in the lower mainland. I want to make it very clear that my argument, while I'm talking about School District 36 in Surrey, is applicable to any other school district that has to pick up the extraordinary costs brought about by growth. My argument points out how the funding formula for school districts that the minister has in place has a bias, and that that bias treats school districts with declining enrolments more favourably than school districts with increasing enrolments.

I'll go through the numbers again, because the minister finds this amusing. In the 1989-90 budget for Surrey, they have identified — and this is the beginning of the process; they have not identified all the related costs — $700,000 for portable costs. They have identified $4 million for additional maintenance because of the growth factor, They have identified an area that is related to planning for schools. The minister points out that he has fast-tracked capital costs, but that fast-tracking does not deal with these costs, nor does the funding formula. So these costs have to be picked up by the school district, through the taxpayers. Thousands of dollars for staff time and consultants' fees are regularly required to deal with the planning and to compensate for the growth.

I make the comparison from the school district in Burnaby where I grew up and where they are actually closing down schools. A lot has changed in Burnaby since I left. Many of the schools are closing down, and they are not having to pick up the same kinds of costs for planning new schools, new equipment and new facilities. They're not having to pick up the costs of that additional pressure on the schools and the additional need for maintenance money because of all those little feet going down the halls that the school wasn't meant to facilitate in the first place. Burnaby doesn't have to pick up the cost for the leasing of portables.

So you can see, Mr. Minister, that it is not equitable. The school districts are different, and the funding formula does not recognize the difference in the pressures brought to bear by this growth. If the minister would share in these costs and would recognize and deal with the funding formula in such a way that there is some compensation for the pressures brought to bear, that money could go to other services for the kids.

We talked a little bit about the fact that many of the teachers in our school district are new, young teachers. That means — and the minister, with his background, should understand — that when contract negotiations are up, many of the teachers' salaries are being brought up to the more senior levels as they progress through the system. A school system that is more established and has older teachers in it does not have the same flexibility in the budgeting process that is a reality of the fact that you have numbers of new, young teachers.

I hope that I have made it clearer. I've tried to speak slowly and simply to the minister, and I hope that his response will reflect some consideration of this very real need. It is not an argument simply for one school district, but an argument that tries to point out that there are discrepancies in the funding formula, and that all school districts could benefit if the province would recognize the additional pressures brought to bear by this reality.

Would the minister comment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I did answer some of the questions, but I guess the member is on a mind-set that doesn't allow for those answers to be slotted in with that information.

I said we adjust the fiscal framework based on enrolment. To allow for growth after the September enrolments, we do it again in December. I did say that we provide for portables, where the need is approved by our facilities branch.

Let me give you another fact. For instance, this highly unfair system that means the average taxpayer in Surrey — after the homeowner grant — pays $210.... The average homeowner in Burnaby — where the member took the liberty to say there are declining enrolments and so on — pays $359. That's almost $150 a year more for a quality education system, as compared to what the Surrey taxpayers are paying.

I know the member mentioned $700,000 for portables, $4 million for maintenance and that sort of thing, and that they're not getting enough. Would she believe that there are 75 school districts in this province, and that each one of them feels they should get a little bigger share for maintenance, heating costs and things of that nature? The fiscal framework tries to make all that equal.

But I think I did get the member's main point: that she believes in equity, as I do — equal opportunity for students to learn. Maybe not as MLA, but as minister, the only place where I part company with the member is that she seems to say that if it's good for Surrey, it's good for all. Maybe I can go that far, but then she starts to get into: "...and if Surrey gets a bigger share of the pie, then what the formula dictates for everybody else is also better for the others." Of course, I have a little difficulty with that one. The salary increases and all of these things are built in. I'll go along with you in that if it's good for Surrey, it's good for all. I'll go that far, but I can't go along with you if Surrey then gets a disproportionate share, based on the formula that it would be better for the other districts.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm increasingly happy just for little bits, and if the minister will go that far, then we'll keep working at it. Perhaps some years down the line we will have an agreement on the need to take a look at the funding formula, and what's included in it.

[4:45]

[ Page 7499 ]

I'd like to move along to the issue of dual entry and again use my municipality and school district as an example. I also believe that because it is a new, young, growing community, we can learn a great deal about some of the difficulties by these stresses.

I would like to ask the minister if he understands that his new plans for dual entry will cause the school district to put in place 18 new dual-entry classrooms that will require 18 new teachers; that we are expecting something like 720 new students to come into the school system. I believe that they have estimated there will be a need for extra money amounting to $1.4 billion to implement the Sullivan recommendations. In particular, it will cost something like $15,000 to equip each of these new classrooms. Can the minister advise where this money will come from?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I sometimes wish that members would either listen or be in the House.

I pointed out that we did not put the money into the budget for the dual-entry kindergartens in January. We said we're putting money aside for equipping, housing and staffing the dual-entry kindergarten needs. The member also, I guess, would miss the point that if half those kids come in in January, the other half will come in in September. So it's a one-time advance, rather than an addition to the operating budget. I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat that, as everybody takes a turn at it.

We have provided for it. We've said: when you show us what your costs are.... There are some places where there is no need for another room. Kindergarten is a half-day program. If in that school they're running one kindergarten or three kindergartens, there's automatically room for one more, in space terms, but it might need extra staffing. We don't necessarily say each new kindergarten class in January will generate the need for another classroom or more equipment. What we're saying is: put your needs together. We know there are going to be some difficulties, and so tell us about it or delay it.

A whole bunch of districts in the province, without getting into that, said: "You can't make us do it.

We said we didn't intend to. So they said: "Okay, we're going to delay it." Then what are they going to do next year? The same problem — going to change. And in the meantime some parents are going to be beating on their doors, saying: "My child is eligible The ministry said they're putting up the additional money to do it, and you won't let my kid in." I'm concerned about that problem. We've allowed for it We haven't put it in the budget, because it doesn't make sense to put it into standard operating budget. It's a one-time blip.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Then can we be assured that the minister will help with all costs related to implementing dual entry, including the setting up of any new classrooms required to put the program in place? When the minister is talking about a one-time shot, and that money will be available, will it deal with all of the costs?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I can safely say that we have committed ourselves to providing the necessary costs. Now the minute you put all costs on it, is that desired costs or whatever? The approved costs, the necessary costs, we are committed to funding.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to move to a different area, an area that concerns me greatly for a couple of different reasons: one, my critic responsibility with social services; and, I think a little closer to home, the fact that I am a parent, a parent of young teenagers.

I'd like to hear a bit from the minister about any work that your ministry is doing to tackle the problem of dropouts. I think the number of young people in our constituency, indeed in the province, who don't make it through grade 12 for one reason or another is a problem that we will all pay for down the road. Perhaps the minister could bring me up to date on some of the thinking in the ministry: whether you are trying to tackle this problem; what stats you've got about why kids do drop out of school; and what solutions you might have to begin to remedy the problem.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Earlier we were talking about the computer technology, the addresses and names and some basic information that would be necessary so that we can determine if they are dropouts, if they are showing up somewhere else, and that sort of thing. It's difficult to do, unless you have some way to cross-check information. So as to the statistics, we're interested in that.

As far as the dropout problem is concerned, if after legal age they want to leave school, I'm not going to put in a policy to tie them to the desks. All the things that we're working with, from the incentive programs, to making the curriculum more relevant to them, to student-driven curriculum, all of those things.... I think if the member read the royal commission report, there were many suggestions in there on how to entice students to stay in the school by making it relevant to them, whatever career path they want to take. So career education, diversity of courses, credibility of the courses in relation to anything else — all of those things are designed to keep students at school. If a person wants to be a mechanic, we hope that we will turn out a graduate and a mechanic rather than somebody who wants to go into mechanics and because it's not available at school has to drop out. Really, the whole thrust of the changes in education is to keep these students in school.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am glad to hear that the minister does have initiatives in this area. I would like to suggest, though, that the problem is a very complex one and I am sure the minister would agree with me. Many problems make it impossible for kids to make those choices. The minister talks about student-driven initiatives. It's very difficult for a kid who is having a rough time at home to be able to take that initiative to be plugged in to what is happening at school.

[ Page 7500 ]

I hope the minister will comment on work that is going on with other ministries. I have been spending a fair amount of time looking at kids that are now being termed in the system as interministerial kids — kids that are in some way plugged in to several different ministries, whether it's Health, Social Services and Education, or whether it's Corrections, Social Services and Education. There seems to be a crying need for there to be closer working relationships between ministries to deal with the needs of children.

In particular, relating to the Ministry of Education, I would like to have the minister comment on any work that he is doing with Social Services to deal with the issue of sexual abuse, the issue of identifying and supporting children and families through crisis times in the hopes that you can keep them there in school. Unless the whole child is being dealt with, it is unlikely that you will be able to develop an educational system that will meet the needs of the children that are in crisis and therefore keep them in school, keep them plugged in, and help to develop them as full human beings rather than compounding the problem.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sure that the member must be aware of the great progress we have made in coordinating the efforts of the ministries of Health, Education, Social Services, Advanced Education and Attorney-General. A great deal of progress has been made, and a lot of coordination is going on. We have committed ourselves, as you may recall, in the policy directions based on the recommendations of the Sullivan report and other input and discussions. We fully intend, because we couldn't come up with the answers that quickly, to give ourselves a year. By next year we fully intend to work out the necessary protocol arrangements and coordinating efforts to go as far as we can so that no jurisdictional walls will exist as far as the interests of kids are concerned.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The ministry in this province has thirty years of Social Credit government, and the Minister of Education says that surely we are aware of all of the good interministerial work being done to deal with the needs of children.

I am aware, Mr. Minister, of kids falling through the cracks and kids not getting the service that is needed. Quite frankly, protocol in dealing with some of these problems doesn't help the front-line workers. What they need is tangible progress. They need some kind of a tangible link in the schools to be able to help those kids, because they're dealing with the problems of those children right here, right now. They don't need another year; they don't need another ten years, like the minister from Burnaby suggests.

The minister says that at this point there is protocol in dealing with the issue of reporting sexual abuse and other interministerial concerns. What needs to happen, beyond protocol, is some clarification about roles and responsibilities; some clarifications about rights of parents and children; clarifications, as I said, about the responsibility of the adults in the system to report and be assured, once they have reported, that there is the kind of support necessary there at the school for those kids, so that they are not just reporting, not just opening a very painful wound, but helping in the healing process. Without that support — we don't need protocol; we need support, actual tangible support at the school level, at the front lines — we're not going to see a great deal of help, I would submit. Instead, we will see more frustration and more disillusionment. Quite frankly, there is nothing more painful for children than to disclose that they are having a problem, whether it is a sexual abuse problem, a battering problem at home or drug abuse problem in the family, to come to school and talk to a teacher or a counsellor, to take that step and ask for help, and then find out there is no help there for them.

[5:00]

It's been a long time coming, and I suppose I should be pleased that we now at least have the ministries recognizing it and looking for protocol. I would suggest that we need a heck of a lot more than just protocol.

I would like to ask the minister what work he is doing in relation to the learning disabled, particularly wards of the state; whether the Ministry of Education has a proactive policy in place that encourages the ministry to get involved and help children that fall under the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Services with their learning disabilities. I would suggest that in doing so, the ministry would be helping to cut down the number of children that end up in corrections facilities and the number of serious problems down the road. It seems a very basic, fundamental principle here, so I'd like to hear what the minister has to say about it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know it's said in soft voice, and it's said sweetly, and all that sort of thing, but it upsets me when I hear a comment like: "I am so glad that now, after my discussion, the minister has realized some needs out there. The minister has gone as far as recognizing the need for some protocol to serve these students." I am so happy that I didn't have a brain in my head or an idea before you came into this place.

You talk about child abuse. You hang on a word. You take the word "protocol" and put your own meaning onto it as though it were an abstract term that has nothing to do with reality. What do you think it means when we're talking about developing a protocol arrangement to clarify the responsibilities, the duties, what information can be exchanged and that sort of thing, in order to coordinate better what we are doing now?

On the child abuse program, several years ago this government established a commission on child abuse. The recommendations came in, and we set up the protocol at that time. The protocol included hiring a director to look after this program. That protocol had to deal with the Ministry of Health, the doctor's word, the social worker's word — where those things

[ Page 7501 ]

come in. That's what we mean when we talk about protocol. Protocol's not some abstract political term as it is in your lexicon. It does talk about the needs and the resources that are available and all of those sorts of things. A great deal has been done.

So I do resent the comment that we're finally as far as recognizing the need for the protocol, when many of these programs are going on in the schools. The rehab program and the coordination of those programs to be run under one ministry was long before you told me about the need for these sorts of things. We have done a great deal of this.

We have rehab programs. We have a manual of programs, policies, procedures and so on, so that everybody is clear on it. That's been put out there. We have the special resource programs. We have the youth centres. We have the off-the-street program, the Reconnect program. All of those things have happened, and they are a coordinated effort by the schools, the Social Services ministry, the Attorney-General ministry and.... To just talk about a lack of any sort of real policies or real commitments or real resources or real programs that the people need out there, and say that we've finally got to the stage of protocol, I find a bit irritating.

Mind you, I guess, I have a little bit of a problem which that member pointed out. I guess we have a difference of opinion, and not only regarding the term "protocol." I look at a situation and I see a lot of good. I look at a student, I see a smiling face. You seem to be naturally looking for a wart there. Why not look at the whole student? Why not look at the whole program, instead of saying: "There has got to be a wart there, because I've got to criticize and attack these people."

When I was in the school system, there were kids who didn't behave properly. But I didn't spend all my time dealing with kids who didn't behave properly, as a principal or as a teacher. It might be that one kid was misbehaving, and that's the one you would see. I saw the other 599 who did behave properly. I hope that I will never focus my attention, as you do, on.... As I mentioned earlier today, you can't see the forest for a particular tree. You're looking for something that is a fault. So you say that some kids fall through the cracks, and you'll never admit that a lot of kids don't fall through the cracks, because of the coordination that's going on here.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I make absolutely no apologies for striving for something better. I make no apology for looking at the child who is acting out and wondering why, and how we can help. If that child is acting out, often there is a darned good reason for it.

I am pleased that there are many other children who are plugged in, who are doing well and who have a wonderful life. But I think that it's something for us all to strive for: recognizing that if anyone in our society is hurting, indeed our whole society hurts with them. What a wonderful place it would be if everyone could see the world that way and strive for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. I make no apology for that.

When the minister talks about protocol and suggests that his government is doing something, and when he talks about the protocol that was established around sexual abuse, I point out to you that your government has cut back services for that healing process. Yes, a lot more people are aware that sexual abuse takes place, but a lot fewer people are being serviced in that healing process.

Time after time it is brought to this government's attention that there are programs not getting the funding needed to help in that process. When I suggest that I am happy that you are at least recognizing and developing the protocol, I don't in any way want to diminish the work being done, because I truly am happy that the recognition is there, and that you are making some steps towards trying to define the deficiencies and deal with them.

My argument, Mr. Minister, is that there is more than just the need to define. There are many people on the front lines who have lived with it and who have defined it, and now they need support. Let's talk about tangible examples. Through your ministry, there are few — and in some areas none — counsellors at the elementary school level. There is a tangible example of professionals needed to deal with some of these problems. That kind of support can help to buffer and deal with some of the problems these kids have. If you can deal with it at the elementary school level, often you don't have the problem later on in life.

There is a need for training and support for the professionals on the front line to deal with some of the problems that Social Services faces on a daily basis. That is what I am talking about, and that is what I have called for. For the minister to feel wounded by my comments perplexes me. I quite frankly am confused by it. The only reason the minister is mad is because he has to live with the 30-year legacy of the Social Credit government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I could get into lengthy discussions. I think the member said there were no tangible examples of any help for these students, and I guess it's a case of where you focus your attention. To my knowledge, any student who has been sexually abused and has come forward has been provided with counselling services. Many students in this province — far too many, as far as I am concerned — have received counselling assistance through the Ministries of Health and Social Services and through the schools, as is available.

That member would say, "I know of two pupils...." because that's what you look for. You look for the flaws; that's all that you look for. You go around looking to see if there's some student who didn't get counselling. You'll never give credit. If a hundred students get counselling and one is missed, that's what you focus your whole attention on. I would prefer to focus my attention on the fact that 99 did, and we'll do our best to include the other one or to add those services.

[ Page 7502 ]

That member mentions that there are no counselling services available at elementary schools. First of all, every elementary teacher has a counselling function to deal with students, because they're not just math teachers or English teachers; they are professional people who work with kids. That means that they have a counselling role automatically, whether or not it's a priority to have a counsellor at the elementary school.

Ironically, while some districts are telling me it is impossible under the funding structure, other schools are doing it, because they say: "Within that money, we think elementary counselling is important and therefore we are doing it. If it means one more pupil in a class in a school, then we think the counsellor is that important." The next school will say: "We want one less pupil in the class and we want another extra amount of bucks for counsellors."

There's so much money that school boards have put into supplementary budgets: $253 million in this province. A small portion of that, if they really believed in it themselves, could have gone to providing those supernumeraries in the school, the extra ones for counsellors.

I'm not against counsellors. All I'm saying is that the potential to put in those counsellors is right there at their fingertips if they make it a priority. But they say, "We want counsellors," in addition to everything else. "It's not a priority in our spending budgets," you're saying, "so you give us some more money and then we'll include it." I'm saying that all you've got to do is make it a priority, and the money is there right now.

MS. A. HAGEN: This afternoon, up to this point we have been focusing on some of the issues that are particular to the members on this side of the House in their own ridings. Over the last moment or two, we've been discussing a very serious and emerging need in our schools. I just want to dwell on it for another moment before we do move into some new areas.

I noted in his last comment that the minister suggested that every child who has.... As a result of good programs that have been brought into the schools with the support of the school districts and the support of the ministry to assist children to deal with any abuse that they experience and in fact tell a trusted person about what they're experiencing.... The minister, I understood, suggested that there were no problems in counselling and follow-up services being available for those children.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What was that?

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm asking to clarify, Mr. Minister. I thought I heard the minister say that there were no difficulties in any child....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister then perhaps can clarify. The minister is saying that he didn't say that. Let me perhaps just first of all ask the minister: does the minister believe that any child who reports sexual abuse to a school counsellor, schoolteacher or another trusted person — perhaps in the Ministry of Social Services of Housing — indeed has available to him or her counselling and follow-up services? Is it the minister's contention that those services are available to any such child in such need?

[5:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I did say that every student who has been sexually abused has had counselling, and I guess that's where that has been established. I did not say there were no difficulties, that every one of those students has had counselling, because when it has been established that they've been sexually abused, they've had that. I didn't say that there were no problems, and I'm sorry that I said "every student," because I'm sure that with your research focus, you'll find one who didn't, because that's your emphasis. I hope you don't. But I'm sure that you'll look until you find one to make inaccurate my comment — which is quite general — that every student that we know of has had that kind of help.

I did not say that there are no difficulties. I think we could do more; we hope we can do more. It's partly the availability of counsellors and that sort of thing, but we have tried to get help out to every one, and to my knowledge we have. That does not mean that every student who comes to a school counsellor or a teacher with a complaint automatically gets counselling, but if there's substance to that, then probably they would.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think it is helpful to clarify that matter and for me just to speak very briefly from a perspective of my own community. The issue of counselling — past the initial revelation of a difficulty — being available to children is really one of the most critical issues that teachers and counsellors face in my district. I know that it's an extremely difficult issue for everyone who deals with those children.

Let me ask the minister whether in his review of fiscal framework he would be prepared to review his current position. I want to state it as I understand it and give the minister an opportunity to confirm or clarify if I haven't understood it accurately. I want to ask if the minister is prepared to review his current position that elementary counsellors should not be included in fiscal-framework funding. Secondary counsellors are included, I understand, in the makeup that determines the kind of staffing that is available at a secondary school.

Just to perhaps put forward my point of view, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is an integral part of school staffing needs, and elementary counsellors should be in that staffing component, just as the minister and his staff accommodate staffing for special needs and a whole range of other kinds of staffing that produces a formula that produces funding. I've long been concerned that elementary counsellors are not a part of that perspective. I have a

[ Page 7503 ]

sense — and this may not be a fair one — that the minister himself has a position on this, a position that opposes the idea of elementary counsellors within the school system, and therefore he is not eager to have the funding for such counsellors come under the general formula that he uses. I know he made a comment a moment ago that perhaps would indicate that he's supportive of elementary school counsellors.

Given the kinds of issues that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) just raised, I'm supporting her concern around that particular need. Would the minister in fact give us some commitment now that in his looking at the funding available within the system for elementary staffing, he would be prepared to include in the funding formula the need for elementary counsellors at some reasonable ratio with the number of children? He has an open and, I think, very enlightened perspective on this, which recognizes the importance of that kind of service being available within our elementary schools towards the aspirations we have that children be supported in getting the education they need, with their health, social and intellectual development being the focus we would have.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess the point the member is making is that in the staffing levels at the elementary level, unless we peg one part of it as counselling and then add it on top of the deck, no elementary counselling can take place. I'm suggesting that within the present staffing levels in the schools there is the possibility for counselling — if it is a priority in dealing with the students.

Admittedly, in the secondary schools there have been these staff entitlements, and over many years counselling has got recognized. I guess, if we added one staff member to each school and didn't label them, then I suppose we might not have secondary counsellors.

As much as people want local autonomy, they seem to say: "But you've got to put the right label on these people or there can't be a counsellor." I'm saying it's right within their structure now. Some school boards have, within the district allotment, two elementary counsellors that go around and counsel at the elementary schools. Some have a counsellor in one of the schools. Some have a librarian, some don't; some have a district librarian. They do these things differently.

I can understand where the member's coming from. They say: "Well, look, we've achieved everything we've got, and now we've got this staffing level. Counselling is important. So add it on." You know, band is important — so add it on; this is important — so add it on. I don't argue with the importance of any of these. I'm just saying: "Are they only important if the ministry adds them on? Can't they be part of the group? Can't they be part of the situation?"

I don't know if that answers your question about my opinions and views. I note that the member very carefully goes out, does some research, finds out what I said in one situation and comes back and tries to apply it as though that were my only philosophy and everything I stood for. It's not true. I'm answering on this situation at this time.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN: There is a perception, Mr. Minister, that you perhaps are not personally supportive of the idea of elementary counselling in the schools. You have certainly indicated that that is not the case. I really have difficulty following the rationale that if we add this particular person, somehow that's simply giving in to somebody's request and is a sign of weakness or something of that nature.

The mandate of schools has broadened, and the schools have tried genuinely to respond. I think we all recognize that we're not always able to keep on top of some of those needs. There is something very tangible about indicating that counselling is an integral part of schooling and is to be organized, surely, at the local district. I think it would be a very powerful statement for the minister to make, particularly around the issue that was being raised: supporting children's general health, their sense of self-esteem and their sense that they are protected in the school system. I'll leave it at that. We've had a good discussion on that issue.

We're getting toward the end of the afternoon. I want to just use this time to pick up on a couple of small items that I want to clarify. As the minister may recall from yesterday, I am trying to be sure that I understand very accurately the commitments made in the budget this year for education; after all, these are the minister's estimates. So let me turn to capital funding for a moment. The member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley was dealing with that just a moment ago.

I think it's a fairly simple question, Mr. Minister. The ministry announced on May 3 its capital funding program, and we are very pleased to acknowledge the significant improvement in capital funding that's available this year as part of the royal commission implementation and an opening up of the coffers after years of — I think the minister will agree — pretty severe constraint on any kind of capital projects in the schools. There's a lot to be done, and I think school boards and school districts, in my consultations with them, are pleased with the fact that there are some dollars available for some very important work — $250 million committed by the ministry.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I note that the minister has a very suspicious frame of mind in these estimates. Really, it would be helpful if he waited for the question, didn't assume that there was some low blow coming and understood that I, like all MLAs, am trying to do my job in ensuring that we understand the work that this ministry is doing in support of education. He sometimes accuses.... Let me use a softer word. He sometimes makes some comments about people

[ Page 7504 ]

being paranoid or suspicious. I would hope that he would not fulfil the prophecy with respect to his own attitude and would wait for the question. I'm quite prepared to have his spirited or his calm response, depending on how he receives it.

This is a straightforward question, a question for information and clarification that I wish to ask the minister at this time. The minister has committed $250 million for capital projects: new schools, revitalized schools and other capital activities. But in the press release of May 3, the minister said that out of this $250 million something in the order of $72 million or $73 million had been reserved within the capital budget for rapidly growing school districts with substantially increasing enrolment. The purpose of these reserved funds is, as I understand, to allow for districts to plan and construct a school within a single year.

I'm puzzled about that reserve. Are there some projects still on hold? Are those projects now approved? It would seem to me that if we're talking about building, we'd want to get on with it and have those schools ready for next January, or at the latest, next September. Are all the funds committed, Mr. Minister, or are there still some funds in abeyance? If there are, why?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That was quite a preamble for a straightforward question, so maybe I'll ignore the preamble, for a change, about the perception. There are many perceptions about me — some accurate, some contrived and some promoted and fostered for various reasons, which are not accurate. However, we'll leave the perceptions.

We did announce the $250 million — $200 million for major capital. There's $50 million for minor capital — major additions under a million dollars or renovations and minor additions. There's $24 million that we built into the budget, on top of that, which school boards can use at their discretion; they don't have to go through the process.

[5:30]

The $72 million out of the $200 million that we put in reserve was, in my estimation, a very positive step, because the process has always been that you could get the project approved and planned one year, and then you had to wait for the funding the following year. We set aside $72 million for projects that we hope, as soon as they are ready to go, we can plan, design, tender and build in one year — because of the situation that people have talked about, the fast growth. We're not tucking away or hiding money. We put this in for fast-tracking projects within this year. Ordinarily these people would not get the construction money until next year. Because we've set aside that $72 million, because we think it's going to be needed, they'll get it as soon as the projects are ready The projects on hold are the ones that are not ready to build.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the minister say that we just have a little more work to do and that the money is going to be spent this year on those projects. Can I just have a nod from the minister, to know if that is what he said? He's shaking his head.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'll check the Blues. But I still find it passing strange that districts that have been waiting patiently to build schools, having had some signal that the ministry was going to fast-track last year, wouldn't be there with every sign that they were going to be requesting that fast-tracking now. Well, we'll look next year. I just hope that every cent of that money is in fact in place for my good friend in Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, and for other areas where the population is growing very fast.

One other question on capital projects. It has to do with whether school districts in some of the metropolitan areas where land values are going out of sight are going to have the dollars and the approval to purchase sites in anticipation of schools that need to be built. Let me just note that I was informed of one district where the rapid increases in land prices this year mean that land that might be needed for a school in that district and could have been bought two or three years ago for $40,000 an acre is now at beyond $250,000 an acre. Those kinds of escalations are going to be the order of the day, and we do have some idea of where schools are going to need to be built. What's available for school districts for that longer-term planning in respect to land acquisition?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's part of the $200 million. If it's a priority project, then we try and assist them and get the best possible deal we can.

I think the member is implying that we put some money in reserve, and that means that money isn't available for other districts who want money. This year we got $250 million-plus for capital projects. All of that money is committed. Some of it is on projects that have already been approved — planned, ready for construction. Of it, $72 million was set aside — and some of that has changed since then — for projects that we knew had to be done quickly, but weren't ready at the time of the press release.

All that money is earmarked. There is another $250 million for next year, and we ran out of the $250 million long before we ran out of the requests. We can't keep approving anything and everything that people demand. I wish we could in one year. I think it would be disastrous in many respects and probably wasteful if we did everything in one year to try and catch up. We've given ourselves a six-year program to try and catch up with the maintenance, the rebuilding, the restructuring.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I thought we had done fairly well, because we more than doubled what we were getting. We're getting the fast-tracking out there. We're doing fast tracking in. one year that was never done before. We're getting assurance that when we give them the

[ Page 7505 ]

planning approval, they're going to get the construction money. I thought we'd done fairly well, but obviously you found something wrong with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Yale-Lillooet seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: No politics though.

MR. RABBITT: I would not stoop to anything like that in this chamber.

Today I have some politicians from the district of Logan Lake in my riding. For many of you who aren't aware, Logan Lake just happens to host the largest copper open-pit in North America. With us today we have Mayor Ove Christensen and the former mayor, now an alderman, Al Smith. I should note, as I had another president of a Steelworkers' local in here earlier today, that Mr. Smith was very active in his early days with the Steelworkers, and the present mayor is still a steelworker. Accompanying these two fine gentlemen, who are down here working on behalf of their community and the constituents of that lovely little town, is the administrator, Tom Day. I ask that the members give these gentlemen a warm welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: With leave of the House, perhaps I might take this opportunity to make an introduction at this time, too.

Leave granted.

MS. A. HAGEN: Listening to the debate on the estimates for education throughout the afternoon has been Mr. Fred Herfst, who is the executive director of the Federation of Independent School Associations. I'd just like to welcome him for the afternoon.

I want to ask the minister again for a clear answer to the last question I asked, if he's prepared to provide me with it. May school boards apply for approval to purchase land in advance of the need for schools? Just as an example, if it is known that there is going to be need for a school within a three-year period, can a school district at this time get approval for the capital funding required to purchase that land?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to the first version of the question is yes, they may apply at any time. In answer to the second question, we can only give approval if we have the funding to back it up.

MS. A. HAGEN: So in principle it's available; it's a matter of the funds being prioritized.

At this time the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is going to join the debate. I don't want to move into another area without having an opportunity to canvass it more fully, so I ask the House to welcome him to the debate at this time.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to talk this afternoon about a matter that causes me great concern. It is, I must say, a matter of concern that I receive quite a few letters, petitions and notes from my constituents about. It is, of course, the matter of taxation for school purposes.

The minister might be interested to know that several groups have sprung up in my riding to protest against school taxation rates throughout the greater Victoria area, particularly in the two school districts that form my riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. In fact, in the past few weeks I've received in excess of 400 letters from constituents who are upset with the cost they're facing as homeowners with respect to school costs and the taxation rates being levied on them. I agree with those constituents when they tell me that we in this province sit on the verge of a taxpayers' revolt.

Quite frankly, people are fed up with the amount of money they're required to pay in property taxes for school purposes in the two districts situated in my riding. It's becoming an unbearable burden for most of the people in my riding, at least for those people who write to me. Why is that? First, it's because education costs in the Western Communities and the Esquimalt-View Royal region are increasing at a rate that significantly eclipses inflation. Secondly, assessment rates are also increasing at a rate that significantly eclipses inflation. In fact, in the past few years I have had letters from constituents who tell me that the assessed value of their homes has gone up 40, 50, 60 and, in one case, 180 percent over the last....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You must make it relevant to the minister's estimates. The Assessment Authority is not a relevant issue for the Minister of Education.

MR. SIHOTA: In addition to that, their taxation rates in terms of the portion of taxes they are paying towards school costs have increased by about the same percentage. People are finding that they are paying an unbearable amount of their income towards the school portion of property taxes. Those concerns are obviously more acute at this time of the year, in June, when people are hit with the bill from the municipalities, regional districts and schools, and realize just how much and how excessively their taxes have increased.

Throughout my constituency, property owners feel that they pay a disproportionate amount of school costs. Hardest hit in that regard, Mr. Chairman, are seniors; and secondly, those individuals in my riding who are on fixed or modest incomes. The ordinary, average, hard-working individuals in my riding who go off to work in the morning and try to earn the best living they can and then attend to their family needs find that more and more of their hard-earned dollars are going for this purpose.

That's why I say that if the government doesn't take steps to deal with this matter, they are going to have a taxpayers' revolt on their hands. The groups that write to me are quite prepared to pay their fair

[ Page 7506 ]

share of the costs of municipal services and their fair share of education costs, but they ask that there be some reasonable ceiling commensurate with inflation. They want something done now. That's why, on their behalf, I am raising the matter today with the minister.

The province, of course, has the ability to pick up a greater share of those increased costs. It's time, in keeping with the royal commission recommendations, for a total review of the taxation system. Perhaps, as some have argued, a percentage of the property purchase tax which is levied on homes when they're sold should be applied to education cost increases.

If steps aren't taken by government soon, it's my belief that the minister is going to have far more problems on his hands than he's got now. I'd just like to ask the minister if he could put on the record what steps the province is taking — because I may have missed it in an earlier portion of the debate — to deal with this pivotal question and to arrest a revolt before the government has an even greater problem on its hands? What steps are you taking to review the taxation methodology in this province?

[5:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know what steps we might be able to take to stop a revolt in that member's riding. It seems to show up in various forms. One thing that perhaps they'll have to give some thought to is who they elect to represent and make the decisions for them.

They're upset by the tax rate. Yes, we can agree with that.

The member has indicated that there are a number of modest earners and modest homeowners there, and the $50 increase in the homeowner grant would probably help those people a great deal. It virtually took up more than the increase, in many cases, of the total tax bill. The province shares 80 percent in the fiscal framework for the Sooke School District, rather than the 75 percent average. We are recognizing the lower tax base, so we share 80 percent of the fiscal framework costs.

But we have very little control over what the school boards decide to spend over and above the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework provides a quality education system, although people would argue that, of course. But it can and does provide a quality education system. If they choose to go above it.... The supplementary in the Sooke district has more than doubled in two years.

We've tried to accommodate the homeowners with the homeowner grant. I might point out to the member that the tax paid by the average homeowner in the Sooke School District — this is gross figures — was $599 in 1988 and $688 in 1989, for a change of $89. That's the average for a quality education system. If you take the homeowner grant off, they paid a net of $219 on average in 1988. Because of the $89 dollar increase and $50 in the homeowner grant, they paid an average increase of $39, up to $258. Most of this results from the supplementary, the discretionary decision-making by the school board, and we have a difficult time controlling that.

I know that in some places people tend to revolt against paying taxes. Yet I can remember them asking for more education services. At least on this side of the House we're not under the illusion that you can increase services, spend more money and lower taxes at the same time.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister has cited a number of figures which are average figures. I know where he gets them from, so I won't say.... But I can tell you that I'm hard pressed to find anybody in my riding who has experienced the problem in keeping with those numbers. It seems that everybody I run into and who addresses letters to me falls way outside that average and is, in fact, in excess of that average.

It is true that the fiscal formula has been amended. In fact, I remember that last year I had a rather lengthy debate with the Minister of Education in this regard with respect to the fiscal framework, and we urged him to reconsider the fiscal framework. I remember that the then chairperson of the school board, Sharon Wilkinson, joined me in pressing the minister in that regard. I must say we're pleased to see that the minister came up with a fiscal framework a little bit more sensitive to Sooke than had been the case in the past. I give Sharon Wilkinson a fair bit of credit for working with the ministry after our dialogue here in the House to try to deal with the fiscal framework.

Again, that hasn't seemed to address the problem. The problem is that the very amount which the province hands over to the Sooke School District and other school districts in my riding just does not seem to cover the basic requirement for education.

The minister can point the finger at somebody else, namely the local school boards, but we've had changes in the local school board this year, and we've seen increases of 15 percent to 30 percent, in terms of taxation rates for schools. It says to me that the problem doesn't rest with the elected officials on the school board, to whom it is convenient for the minister to point fingers. It seems to me that it rests with the fiscal framework — in other words, those sums of money that the province provides to the schools.

I know our school boards in the Western Communities particularly, and in Victoria, and most of them are very good, well-meaning people. If they were provided with enough funds to deal with the basic educational requirements in those communities, they would see the need to come up with 15 or 25 percent increases.... That fiscal framework — namely, the amount of money the province sends over to the school boards — is inadequate and forces them to bring about these increases that are above inflation.

In addition to that, of course, is this whole matter that the school board only has authority to tax residential property owners. As a consequence, residential property owners pay a disproportionate amount of that 15 or 20 percent increase. They end up paying more because other categories of land owner-

[ Page 7507 ]

ship in my riding can't be taxed directly by the school board — namely, industrial or commercial property owners.

The averages that the minister cites are not the experience that I have as I go around. The $50 increase in homeowner grants after all these years doesn't do much to address the experience that people have had — particularly seniors — over the first four or five years. This is the first increase in homeowner grants that we have had in several years, despite requests from this side for more.

To point the finger at the school board overlooks the fiscal framework inadequacies — in other words, the amount of money that the province provides. My advice to the minister would be that the province has to take a greater responsibility in this regard, go back and take a look at that fiscal framework and at the taxation policies in this regard, and come up with a formula that will not overburden homeowners in my riding, because they're prepared to pay their fair share but not a disproportionate share. Come up with a framework and a taxation scheme that is fair and equitable to them. I just don't think we've got that in this province, and I don't think I'm the only voice in this House that stands up and says it.

I'll conclude my comments with that, Mr. Minister

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can appreciate what the member is saying, and he certainly has a lot of agreement around this province that the system isn't that fair. Until 1985, when we capped what school boards could spend, they spent within the fiscal framework. We had a quality education system. We had shortcomings, but we had an equitable and fair tax base because we controlled it centrally. People said: "If our school board, representing our people, wants to spend more money than you think should be spent on education, then why should we not have the right? We'll be accountable to our people." So in '86 we agreed.

Then it took off. Whatever the fiscal framework, we moved it up more than inflation. They moved it up even more and said: "We're accountable to our people." Two years ago they said: "You're $162 million short." So we put in $172 million because we'd be left behind. Somehow or other that got absorbed — this is across the province — and they added another $152 million of discretionary spending, which is 100 percent on the residential taxpayers We said: "Well, we know we've been behind." So we were able to get more money this year. We put some $230 million in the fiscal framework. Last year they said we were $152 million short. Inflation is running at about 4 percent, so to make up for that and other things that we can't anticipate, we gave them 10 percent to look after inflation and all the other things that should be in. This is the fiscal framework — the sharing portion. They looked at it as tax room, I guess, and went up by another $248 million, or something of that nature. The figures can vary as to exactly what you include, but it's still proportionate.

So no matter how much we boost the fiscal framework and the sharing portion, it seems to grow beyond that. In the Sooke district, if I may conclude with that, the inflation rate was 4 percent. We increased the fiscal framework by 11.1 percent, and they added some more money onto that over and above what the fiscal framework provides. Most of the tax increase is driven by the supplementary grant. If the member says that most of the people he meets with are above those average figures.... The average is determined by 50 percent of them paying higher than that and 50 percent paying lower. Maybe you're running with the wrong crowd.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, okay; that's median. But by and large — let me put it this way — the average is determined by some people higher and some lower. With arithmetic mean or average, if you like.... It's a little different than the median score. There obviously are some people lower than that in order to make up the average, but they won't complain to you. So I'm well aware of it.

For seniors, we've made accommodations. They can defer taxes. We moved them up $70 this year, which should more than look after the tax increase. I don't know what more we can do. I guess what is desirable is that the taxpayer shouldn't be spending more money, the province should. That's an interesting one that I'll develop next time.

With that, it seems that members still have some questions to ask, so I would move that the committee rise.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1988 annual report of the Legislative Library.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.