[ Page 9541 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Funding for aboriginal programs. Mr. G. Hanson –– 9541

Meeting with North Dakota governor at Western Premiers' Conference.

Mr. Williams –– 9542

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 9542

Negotiations with doctors. Mr. Ree –– 9542

Privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 9543

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9544

Mr. Guno –– 9544

Mr. Sihota –– 9544

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9545

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 9546

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Rose

Mr. Guno

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself and a number of ministers who are being visited today, it's my honour to introduce to this House three visitors to our province and to our precincts who are here in the desire to reinforce and diversify their relationship with British Columbia, and to explore possibilities of bilateral cooperation with our government. The visitors I refer to are the Ambassador of Tunisia to Canada and his wife, His Excellency and Mrs. Sadok Bouzayen. The Ambassador is accompanied by the Tunisian consul in Washington, D.C., Mr. Hedi Sioud. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today Mr. Martyn Green, the manager of Canada West Petroleum Association, and Mr. Gordon Winter, vice-president of environment and corporate relations for Mohawk Oil. Both of these gentlemen from British Columbia are with a group of 15 gentlemen from the Association of Petroleum Industry Co-op Managers. They're from Alaska, California, Hawaii, Washington, Delaware, the Gulf of Mexico and other parts of Canada — Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Great Lakes area. They are here to review the current technology and contingency planning for oil spills and also the care of wildlife that has been affected by oil spills. I'll be meeting with them after question period today. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D’Arcy), who is not here today, I would like to ask the other members to join me in welcoming a group of 47 band students from Stanley Humphries Secondary School in Castlegar, with their teachers Mr. Lorren Culley and Ms. Laurie Boskov, who is a chaperone. Please join me in welcoming these students.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is an alderperson from Prince Rupert, Rhoda Witherly, a person I have had the pleasure of working with in the community. I would ask the House to welcome her to the gallery.

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the galleries today is a family from the great constituency of Okanagan South. I would ask everybody to welcome Mr. and Mrs. MacKenzie-Elliott and their daughter Sara.

HON. MR. PARKER: I would ask the House to welcome — and to offer congratulations to — Mr. Geert Dierner. He has retired to British Columbia after sharing his life between Canada and Holland. Next week he and his wife celebrate their fifty-eighth wedding anniversary.

MR. PERRY: It's a delight to welcome to the House today some students from Jericho Hill School in Vancouver. They will be receiving the welcome in American sign language through an interpreter. The students are: Mr. Justin Walker, Mr. David Gardner, Ms. Leanne Rumbly, Mr. Wade Sorenson and Mr. Stevens Mah. They are accompanied by their teachers, who are rather famous teachers in the Jericho Hill School: Mr. Kaz Sluzarczyk, who is famous not only for his ability but also for the difficulty in pronouncing his last name, and Mr. Gwillym Smith. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: In the House again the afternoon is my father-in-law, Norman Burke. Accompanying him this afternoon are two lovely ladies: his wife, Margaret, and Dorothy Crawford from Comox. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the members' gallery today is a friend from Kamloops, a member of our city council, a person who does a great deal of community work. He is here in his capacity with the union board of health. Would the House please join me in welcoming Pat Kaatz.

HON. J. JANSEN: Visiting us from the great community of Chilliwack are Mrs. Toor and her son Kavie. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. SERWA: In the precincts today are 60 grades 10 to 12 students from KLO Secondary School in Kelowna. The band students are accompanied by their instructor, Mr. John Mutter, and several parents. On behalf of my colleague the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself, I would ask this House to make them welcome.

MR. BARLEE: I notice in the precincts an old friend of mine, an alderwoman from the municipality of Summerland, that nice lakeside town on Okanagan Lake: Sheila White. Would the members make her most welcome.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

MR. G. HANSON: A question to the Minister of Native Affairs. The federal Secretary of State has restored funding across the country to women's centres. These cuts were initially made to aboriginal programs and were equally unjustified and damaging. Has the minister persuaded the federal government to restore funding cuts made by the Secretary of State to aboriginal organizations?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No, we haven't. We have, in fact, worked with a couple of the major organizations — Kahtou and Northern Native Broadcasting — to look at other ways of funding them.

[ Page 9542 ]

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We feel it's important that the federal government live up to its obligation to the first nations of Canada. We believe that action to be discriminatory and unjust. My question is: has the minister decided to demand that his federal counterpart go to the Secretary of State and have these funds restored?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I suppose it would be appropriate for MPs across British Columbia to contact the ministers involved and urge them to restore funding, and I hope that members across the way will be in contact with their respective MPs to join in that call.

MEETING WITH NORTH DAKOTA GOVERNOR
AT WESTERN MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question to the hon. Premier. Did the Premiers meet with the Governor of North Dakota at the meeting in Portage la Prairie?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did the Premier not feel there was an inconsistency in meeting with an American Governor at a time of constitutional crisis in Canada?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I suppose at the end of the day — which is what it was — on Tuesday we could have played golf or done any other number of things. But I think it's tremendously important that we deal with our constitution and keep the country united. We want a strong Canada.

It's also important that we maintain good relations with our American neighbours. They are, certainly, a large trading partner....

As a matter of fact, I have been invited to attend one of their meetings of governors, in the hope that we might work toward ways of encouraging further and closer cooperation in all matters, including those of an environmental nature, infrastructure and possibly economic initiatives and such.

So it is important that we deal with our constitutional question as we did so thoroughly and so well, and it's similarly important that we keep our good relations with our American neighbours.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Governor of North Dakota, George Sinner, argued for meshing the two currencies: Canada's and America's. He said: "The stability of human life is a little more important than whether the Queen or Lincoln is on the dollar."

Does the Premier find this useful at a time of constitutional crisis in Canada?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, Governor Sinner is a fine man. He certainly has a fine state. He's been elected. He's a very popular individual. He's got a large family — ten children, as a matter of fact. But he says things that I don't agree with, and I'm sure we say things that he doesn't agree with. As a matter of fact, as you are aware, he was sort of siding with the NDP on the trade issue. I certainly didn't disagree with him then, and I don't have to disagree with him now. He, too, comes from a free country, where they're entitled to their views and are allowed to express them.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the minister responsible for the Expo land contract. Does the Crown still face any unresolved liabilities?

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: When I asked this question last week, the Minister of Crown Lands stood up. I presume the minister isn't sure whether he's responsible for the Expo land contract.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair cannot accept interjections from people who are sitting. I'll ask the minister to stand and make a statement if he wishes to. I can't rule on something that's just an interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: The question was taken as notice at an earlier date and will be dealt with subsequently.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

MR. REE: My question is to the Minister of Finance. On Tuesday of this week, I attended a sit-in of doctors on the North Shore. It appears that there's a reluctance upon the part of the government, or of the negotiators, to sit down and negotiate with the doctors. Mr. Minister of Finance, is the government prepared to sit down at an early date and negotiate with the doctors on the outstanding labour dispute?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The answer to the question is quite simply yes. We have been waiting for the doctors to indicate their desire to get back to the table. We did meet prior to the doctors taking job action, and at that meeting we indicated to the doctors our very serious desire to find a resolution of our conflicts.

As a further indication of our goodwill and desire to find that solution, we suggested two different approaches that might have merit. First of all, we suggested that insofar as the first year of a supposed three-year contract has already expired, we would therefore be dealing with history in the sense that we might isolate that first year and try to find a resolution of that particular issue so that some continued progress might be made.

Secondly, if that wasn't to their liking, we might consider discussions about a problem that the government concedes is evident in this dispute. That problem relates to the general practitioners who are billing the system appropriately, serving their clients well, but in the process find themselves trapped with

[ Page 9543 ]

high rental or rental increases, wage increases to receptionists — in other words, overhead costs.

We suggested our desire would be that maybe another dispute-breaking mechanism could be that we would isolate those problems and deal with them specially in a unique way — all of this designed to indicate the government's serious desire to find a happy resolution of this most difficult issue.

The doctors' negotiator did not give us any response to either of those suggestions and suggested that he would call us when he was ready for his next meeting. We subsequently learned that the chief....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you wish to make a ministerial statement, after question period would be the appropriate time. During question period the scope of the question has to remain within the answer.

PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. Yesterday I raised the matter of privatization, and I referred to the auditor-general's report, which concluded with respect to a number of matters that privatization was costing British Columbians more, and it would have been cheaper to have certain matters left within the public sector.

With respect to the government's plans on privatization, the Premier, when he first made his announcement about privatization, indicated that there would be phases 2, 3 and 4. Is the Premier prepared now to give a commitment, in light of the evidence in the auditor-general's report, that the government will not be moving to those phases?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House certainly has great faith in the private sector, and we believe in the private sector. It's still our view that if there are services that can best — or equally — be provided through the private sector as opposed to government, we would certainly consider the private sector for those particular services.

I realize this conflicts with a socialist approach to governing, where obviously — as we saw after 1976 when we inherited a public service of 47,000, which has now been reduced to slightly under 27,000 — there is a difference philosophically.

I mentioned yesterday to the questioner that we were looking at privatization not only as a means to save money — it is — but also as a way to provide us with flexibility and to encourage greater economic activity from those sectors or activities that might be moved into the private sector and would thus be able to expand.

We've seen enormous success in that. The privatization program has been a great success. If there are further services that could be provided for in the private sector, I would certainly be a supporter of such.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier should understand that the issue here is not a matter of faith in the private sector. The issue here is the government cutting bad deals, as it tries to impose its will on the people of British Columbia by proceeding with privatization. It's a bad deal when you give away $13 million to BCBC. It's a bad deal when you lose $150 million in gravel pits. And it's....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We were doing so well in the early part of this week. We must be getting near the end of the question period. Perhaps if I could ask the member to stand and just actually ask the question. The rest of it is probably public knowledge and doesn't need to be repeated.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in August of 1987, the Premier said there won't be any fire sales, specials or giveaways with respect to privatization. The other day, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) said that in region 1, rents were reduced to assist a private contractor. Given that the beneficiary was a campaign manager of the Minister of Finance, has the Premier investigated to determine that no "specials" — to quote his word — were extended to that former campaign manager?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to read just briefly from a report, as the member mentioned a report. It's from the ombudsman.

"An intriguing question, though, regarding public services delivery is the extent to which the threat of privatization of the delivery model induces public sector managers and employees to become more sensitive to individual fairness issues. In this sense, competitive market forces may indeed be having a positive impact on the quality of public services."

That's a very important statement, I think. The ombudsman is telling us that because some of the services are in the private sector now, we are in fact providing a better service through the public service. In answer to the question, I would be the first to admit that when you're involved in a number of activities in the privatization process, without a doubt, some might work out more effectively and, in fact, be better than others, but the measure is the bottom line and how all these programs collectively affect efficiency of service and benefit to the taxpayers in the final analysis. I compare only the last three years to the three years of the NDP from '72 to '75 and the disaster that followed, the size of government and its presence everywhere in our province, to today, when we have a balanced budget, the best economy in the country, a wonderful— however, much smaller — and effective public service and more jobs for all people in the province.

MR. REE: Regretfully I don't have my Standing Orders here in front of me, but I recall somewhere — and probably you can elaborate on it for me — that in question period one is entitled to a supplementary

[ Page 9544 ]

question, when they're being asked. I would ask the Speaker to look at the record and see that I was deprived of that today.

MR. SPEAKER: While on the point of order, the Chair has been assisted by the opposition in providing the Chair with a list of people who wish to ask questions, as guidance for the Chair. The Chair has not had the similar privilege from government members who wish to provide the Chair.... However, the Chair is not bound by either list; it s only a guidance for the Chair, and I will take the member's point as a point of information.

The member has a further point of order?

MR. REE: I don't wish to argue with Mr. Speaker. But I had been recognized for a question at the time, regardless of what list you had, and I understand you may have been advised that I was going to be asking a question.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 4, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990.

PROVINCIAL COURT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. SMITH: Bill 4 is a matter which deals with pensions in relation to the Provincial Court of B.C. As you may be aware, last year — or perhaps it was the year before — we had a program in the province dealing with the issue of early retirement for senior civil servants. This bill is similar to that and follows along the same principles as that. So I'll give it a bit more explanation as I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. GUNO: I am glad to have the opportunity to be one of the first from this side of the House to comment on this important bill. It purports to provide that the costs of paying for this policy— or for a policy that encourages the judges to take early retirement — will not be borne by the pension fund but, as I understand it, will be paid out by the Attorney-General's ministry.

We have a number of questions here; one is the motive of the government. I think the bill is clearly trying to create sufficient incentive to encourage provincial judges who wish to take early retirement and to provide some attractive incentives.

One of the concerns I have is that I hope this policy is not meant to reduce the number of judges. If that is the intent, then we would strongly oppose it. I hope that what we're doing here is to ensure that the work of the Provincial Court— which is involved in criminal, small claims and family matters — is enhanced and made more effective, especially in the rural areas and the smaller communities throughout the province.

1 know this is certainly true in the riding that I represent. As a matter of fact, in order for the Provincial Court judge to hold court, he must travel to Stewart or New Aiyansh— of course, with a small retinue.

One of the first questions I would ask is: what assurance does the Attorney-General have that we're not going to have some form of judicial drain — a massive exodus of experience, wisdom and people who have developed a certain rapport with people who come before the courts?

The reason I ask this is that, as you know, in our provincial correctional system, up to 18 percent of the prison population are people of aboriginal origin. Yet at the same time, the aboriginal people represent only 3 percent of the population.

[2:30]

As I understand it, today there is only one judge of aboriginal descent, and I think he is retiring. Now if this policy is meant to encourage and to provide more opportunity for people of aboriginal descent to be appointed as provincial judges— or women.... I think that the makeup of our provincial courts today does not reflect the presence of women in the province. So I want to know exactly what the real motive of this government is in introducing this policy.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should let the Attorney-General know that with respect to this legislation we will be supporting the bill, and I have some matters that are more of a technical nature which I want to raise during the discussion at committee stage, whenever that may happen.

Therefore I want to make a number of general comments with respect to this legislation. It is my understanding, if I recollect correctly— and I stand to be corrected on this — that the recommendation of the compensation advisory committee which was made sometime in 1988, and the review of that by the Labour and Justice Committee of the Legislature which occurred after the advisory committee's report, formed the basis of this report.

I must say that I was a part of that process and worked with the former Attorney-General, both in his capacity as Attorney-General and subsequently as a member of the Legislature, in seeing the passage of those recommendations through that committee, ultimately to the House and, I take it, now implemented through the provisions of this legislation.

In that regard I think it's fulfilment of that work. I think that committee recognized there were a number of discrepancies when it came to the pension available to judges, as well as the remuneration paid to judges at the Provincial Court level. We endeavoured to deal with those in a fair and impartial way, and I was rather pleased with the outcome. I don't know if the Attorney-General was or not, but I certainly had no difficulty with the set of recommendations that flowed from that.

The legislation that is before the House will, if I can put it this way, allow the government and the Attorney-General's ministry to rejuvenate the Provin-

[ Page 9545 ]

cial Court, allow for some new people to come on to the court and allow those who are desirous of leaving to get on with their lives and get into other fields of endeavour.

I guess in that regard I want to look a little further down the line and also reflect back on the experience of the Provincial Court and the nature of the appointments that have been made to the Provincial Court. I think in many ways the process that we have, which is non-political and where we proceed with the recommendations of the judicial Council, is a commendable process.

There are, I know, many good candidates for appointment who are available throughout the province to serve on our Provincial Court, and I think that 1, the Attorney-General and my good colleague from Atlin would agree that at the Provincial Court level the courts are really at the front line of legal disputes and see the drama of life experiences played out daily. Poverty, the situation facing natives, small claims matters and criminal matters are all matters that come to the attention of the Provincial Court.

I was reviewing some statistics the other day in relation to the composition of the Provincial Court, and I would hope that this legislation would allow the government to address the issues that I am about to raise. It's my understanding, from memory, that there are 11 or possibly 12 women who now sit on the Provincial Court out of a total, I think, of about 100 to 115 members of that judiciary. There is, as my colleague from Atlin has indicated, only one member from the native community who sits on the Provincial Court.

From experience — because I didn't look at this, and in some ways it's not easy to determine — there are only one or two people that I am aware of in the Provincial court who come from visible minorities, despite the fact that there are good and qualified people from ethnic communities, the native community and certainly women who have practised law and are quite capable of serving on the Provincial Court.

I guess in some ways the composition of the court reflects the attitudes of this government over the past few years, because it, of course, has been predominantly in power and has been in a position to address the issue of women and the representation of natives and visible minorities on the benches.

I think it's unfortunate that the Social Credit Party over the years has not encouraged a greater participation or encouraged those who make the ultimate appointments to be cognizant of the need to have more women, natives and visible minorities on the bench. Therefore we've seen the kinds of numbers that I've talked about. I don't think it's surprising, when you take a look at that composition, to know that it exists. I think that with this government, appointments throughout quasi-judicial functions tend to reflect the same type of percentage as one sees on the Provincial Court. I know the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) in the past has made these same comments about multicultural communities in British Columbia and multicultural representation on various boards and councils. I know my colleague from Vancouver Centre would agree with me that it is absolutely essential to see more people of visible minority backgrounds, natives and women appointed to these positions.

It is my hope that the government, which has not addressed this problem in the past, will move to address it now, given that there will inevitably be vacancies occurring on the provincial bench as a consequence of these amendments.

In my mind, the proper process to do that is not, of course, through the government making appointments through the political route, but through the route we have now: asking those who are responsible and available to do the evaluations of those who wish to serve on the bench, and to be mindful of the need to address those groups in society that are underrepresented on the bench. There are many good candidates throughout the province who come from those backgrounds, and I would hope that the Attorney-General will communicate our desire to see representation along those lines.

Having said that, let me make a number of other quick comments with respect to this legislation which I am sure those who serve on the provincial bench are desirous of seeing implemented. In some ways, the bill is just an initial response to the proposals made last year in the recommendations forwarded by the judicial Council to the ministry.

I also believe there would have been representations from the Provincial Court judges and the former chief Provincial Court judge, who I understand has now gone on to serve as a judge of the County Court, if I'm not mistaken from my readings of the progress of people on the bench. I'm not too sure if I know all the details of that change. I guess I should inquire to see what happened in that situation. If I'm thinking of the right person, he actually did a very good job in his capacity as the chief Provincial Court judge. If the Attorney-General has anything to say about that aspect of it, I'd be listening carefully to his comments.

The bill represents a first step in response to the proposals that were made last year. There are a number of matters that I think need to be canvassed at the committee stage. It's my understanding, if I recollect properly from the bill, that the years of service required— the minimum — is high: about 23 years. It is my understanding that there is a one-year averaging in the legislation, whereas the committee had made a dissimilar recommendation. I'll check on that, and we'll deal with that at committee stage when we get to it.

Mr. Speaker, we're happy to support the improvement to the Provincial Court in this amendment, and we'll be supporting it.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the standing orders, the House is advised the Attorney-General will close the debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of questions raised, which I will be delighted

[ Page 9546 ]

to answer in detail at third reading. Speaking to the principle of the bill with the question raised by the member for Atlin — namely, the motivation or the purpose of the legislation....

A couple of years ago, the senior people in our system had an opportunity for this kind of package. It would have been inappropriate at that time to include within that same program members of the judiciary, by reason of the need for separation of the functions. Simply put, this program allows for the judiciary to have access to that opportunity in the same way that others had two years ago.

I have discussed it in meetings with the chief judge of the Provincial Court, as well as during my attendance at the annual meeting of the Provincial Judges' Association. I can assure the House that I have not had any contrary views from members of the judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the Attorney-General to move the committee motion for tomorrow.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as leave has been refused by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

[2:45]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Committee of Supply, Mr Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 17: minister's office, $308,497 (continued)

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to see you back in the chair for more discussion on education. You're getting educated over the last few days.

I want to turn our attention at the start of this afternoon's discussion to a few aspects of the Royal Commission on Education. I'm going to choose two or three areas on which to question the minister.

The first issue that I want to talk about is youngsters who leave our school system without having achieved graduation status. I believe that the minister, in his new document "Year 2000, " has used a new term for such students. I can't recall the term, but I thought it was good. Perhaps he might want to refer to that term when he responds. We quite often call such students dropouts. I've never been very comfortable with that particular description of students who don't finish.

I think the minister and I would agree that one of the goals of education is that the youngsters who enter our school system should graduate in as high numbers as is possible. The record in British Columbia is not one to be very proud of. We haven't seen improvements; indeed, we've seen a deterioration in the number of youngsters who graduate from high school. The percentage of young people in the 18-year-old group who graduate in a year is only 57 percent. Almost one in two young people who are 18 years of age have not graduated from our school system. That figure has remained relatively constant over a 15-year period, except, interestingly enough, for one rise in the period from '82 to '85.

Of the almost 36,000 students who enter grade 12, only 25,000 graduate. So even though the students have made it to grade 12, only 70 percent of them actually graduate that year. If we look at the number of students who enter grade 8, and then look at the number who graduate five years later, the figure is 64 percent at this time.

There have been interesting improvements during the last 20 years, particularly in those students who enter grade 12 and graduate. Presently the percentage is around 70 percent, as I just noted. Twenty-five years ago, in 1964-65, the percentage was pretty close— around 69 percent. It's interesting. Over a period of years, with some variations in the 60 percent range, but notably in the period from 1973 through to 1983, the percentage showed a steady increase up into the low 80 percent.

I don't know whether it's significant or not, but during that time we had an NDP administration. We also had a Social Credit administration, during which time the support for our school system grew to its highest level. Once we got into the period of restraint, starting in 1983, we began to see a deterioration again. I think it's difficult to know whether there's cause and effect. But I think it is interesting to note that there was a period of about ten years, from 1973 to 1984-85, when the figure stayed in the high seventies, low eighties. In fact, in 1973, the figure jumped from 64 percent to almost 77 percent, and it held steady there for seven or eight years until 1982-1983.

I know the minister might comment that these figures are not accurate, that we don't have a very good tracking system, that a number of students do graduate later and do come back to school -all of those kinds of observations— and I want to encourage him to consider those observations, because I

[ Page 9547 ]

recognize too that students do perhaps conclude their program in January of the next year after they're 18 when they pick up a semester. Many students do drop out for a time and come back to take their GED, but we have a snapshot here of one in four students who do not graduate, and we have a pattern of a deterioration in our record since we kept those records. I think those patterns are of concern to us.

One of the goals of the Royal Commission on Education, I believe the minister has stated, is to ensure that these young people do have an education that encourages and enables them to remain within the system until they do achieve a graduation standard. That graduation standard, as we know, is very often a ticket into post-secondary apprenticeship jobs, a whole range of the activities that young people take part in once they have left the public school system.

I want to ask the minister two questions. What plans around the royal commission implementation will be in place to improve immediately this sorry state of affairs which has almost one in two eighteen-year-olds not graduating by the time they're eighteen? And what financial resources coming out of the implementation moneys available this year— perhaps next year, because I know this is a multi-year funded plan — will be available to be targeted to this particular group of young people and their needs, so that they can indeed have the opportunity to achieve graduation status and the ticket they need for training, job opportunities and post-secondary education that will enable them to participate fully in the economy of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we have said and have agreed that it is difficult to know mathematically, and statistically therefore, exactly what those numbers mean, because we don't have an individual tracking system. So a student who shows up somewhere else or goes into another institution, into an independent school, into another province, is in effect subtracted from the number of students in grade 8, and the difference works out at about 30 percent. Apparently this is not unique. It is at the 30-35 percent level pretty well across Canada, so we don't know what those numbers are. Whatever the numbers are, we agree with the Sullivan commission report that they're too high and that we want more students to stay in the schools.

The chart that the member uses from the annual report about only 57 percent graduating — that's not correct. That chart basically says that 57 percent of 18-year olds in the province have achieved graduation standing. There are many students who graduate at 19, so they would not count in that. Again we don't know that it's a correct report in that in the survey— and I don't imagine we counted every 18-year-old in British Columbia — only 15 percent of 18-year-olds had achieved grade 12 graduation.

The numbers have varied from time to time. In the early eighties a change was made to the graduation requirements, and provincial examinations were introduced. So that made it a little more difficult for some students to obtain a "graduation certificate." For some, that delayed it, and so the numbers would have changed slightly. One of the reasons for that was that we had come out of the sixties and seventies when graduation was considered— to state it in extreme terms — that if you had survived 12 years in school.... The universities, as more people wanted to go on to universities, were questioning that, and so provincial examinations and graduation requirements were tightened up so that the graduation certificate would have validity at the post-secondary schools, because if it didn't, then we were facing the possibility of post-secondary entrance examinations.

Having done that, so that there is some standardization and consistency across the province, the universities have accepted the school product. I might point out that the first year started out with a wide discrepancy between school marks and provincial exam marks, and they have come together. I think it's partly because, if you were teaching three grade 12 students in a small rural school, how would you know how they compared against all the fish in the pond? But now people have a basis for comparison.

Yes, the critics have said that it standardizes the curriculum, and probably there is some validity to that too. You train them, and they spout back enough of the right stuff that they were trained in, and that indicates graduation. Well, we weren't satisfied with that and neither was the Sullivan commission. But the commission said that, in talking to many students and many other people, they found out why kids were dropping out of school. They said it was because there was nothing there that interested them. They did not plan to go on to university, and there were no real programs for them.

The schools and the ministry have made quite an effort to try to provide various options. As a result, in the new graduation program to deal with this problem, we have moved towards a more student-directed curriculum. We're saying that there will be standards set for what a student needs to achieve, but it is not necessarily at the same time. So all students will have a common core curriculum which involves reading and associated skills: communication skills, numeration skills, practical life skills and fine arts skills. Beyond that, they can pursue their interests.

[3:00]

To give an example, if someone said, "I don't plan to go to university; I want to be a mechanic, " perhaps a little was offered in the school in the way of mechanics but certainly not enough, because we required all the other things for the student to do. Now they can focus on mechanics as well as learn to read and critically analyze and all those things. They can do mathematics and science, built around their interest in mechanics. We feel that it will go a long way towards keeping students in school and having them recognize that even a mechanic is no longer just a wrench-puller these days; he has to be able to analyze sophisticated technological equipment and read sophisticated manuals. Some people say that some of those are printed at about a second-year-university level. They can focus on what interests them.

[ Page 9548 ]

The true question is: what is being done immediately? Some of the curriculum programs have been redesigned and geared towards more student-directed learning programs. That is happening immediately. As far as finances go, some money is going into those resources. More options are being made available. Computer technology is being made available now. The steering committee and the graduation curriculum committee have put together a program which has now been approved. It has gone to the printers and will be out later this spring to give in more general terms what is expected. Gradually the specifics will be filled in, as teachers assist us. For instance, the graduation program will go out this year; next year, all the teachers— and anyone else who wants to — can have input into what is acceptable and where modifications need to be made, and all that will be put together. Then in the following year, the program will again be revised based on that input, as the "Year 2000" document was.

Some of the $140 million this year, of course, goes into that curriculum development, into analyzing the input from the system and continuing our efforts to adapt the new curriculum material and guides towards what the Sullivan commission report said: focus on learning.

I'm not satisfied with our "dropout rate," because I don't know if some students, who left school because they weren't planning to go to university and went on an apprenticeship program and became craftsmen, should in fact be considered dropouts. Numerically they were.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have a question to the Minister of Education. During the discussion by the member for New Westminster, there was reference to the expenditure patterns between 1972 and 1983, 1 believe.

The minister was talking about the enhancement of the education system during the period from 1975 to '83, and referred as well to the issue of the restraint program, around 1982-83. 1 wonder if the minister could tell the House what the expenditure patterns were between, say, 1975 — or 1972, for that matter — and 1990, or as close to that as we can get. Could you track for the House what those expenditure patterns are, by whatever measurement you wish to use— absolute dollar increases, percentage of population, percentage of enrolment, whatever — and advise the House what the achievement level was and how it was measured for the K-to-12 system during that same period?

Mr. Speaker, in my short time in this House and during my life in British Columbia, since I've been interested in these matters, I have listened— interminably, I believe — to the proposition that expenditure levels, if they're high, result necessarily in greater achievement and a higher quality of education. I have recently had a number of my constituents question me about that notion. They're not certain that one follows from the other, and they have asked me to try to determine for them whether it is safe, appropriate and proper to make those assumptions.

I, like many other people who have been in the school system, have gut instincts, assumptions and suppositions about what the answer to that may be. But I don't have a lot of detail or data. So I wonder if the Minister of Education could enlighten the chamber about that very important issue. Use whatever time-frames you wish, for that matter. I think it really goes to the root and heart of the debate in British Columbia, when you listen to it carefully: if you just pump more money into the system, you'll turn out a better quality of student; if you don't, you won't.

I would like it if the minister could perhaps give us some advice about that issue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, in very general terms, interestingly enough, during the 1983 to '87 or '89 period, achievement stayed up and improved in the school system. Achievement results certainly increased. There were some national surveys done at the grade 4, 7 and 10 levels during the '83 to '87 period. Our students did well in '83 and better in '87 on those national exams. So there's certainly no sort of relationship between less funding and poorer results.

Another thing that many people, when they make comparisons with spending during the mid-eighties, neglect to point out is that 1985 was the lowest point in enrolment in the British Columbia school system. Also, in 1985 — and the opposition is very prone to using 1985; that was the one year the funding went down a bit — the funding formula changed. The fiscal year, the school year and those sorts of things changed, so it's very hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison with that. I think, if you look at it on a per-student basis, it went up. It's just that the total went down somewhat, because the number of students, as I mentioned earlier, dropped by about 50,000. In '86 that levelled off, and since then it's been coming up again. Of course, the funding has gone up dramatically since 1986.

To give you some statistical information on that, the gross expenditure per pupil in 1981 was $3,269; in 1982, $3,873; and in 1983, $3,963. Then it didn't go up at the same rate; nevertheless, in 1984 it was $4,007. Then in 1985, which we were talking about— I mentioned the blip there — it went down from $4,007 to $3,958. In '86, when we get back to a valid year-to-year comparison, it went up to $4,258; then to $4,495 and $4,820; and in 1989-90, to $5,478. Those are the gross costs. As I've pointed out, the gross contribution in the coming budget works out to over $5,980, if we look at the total expenditures.

As far as the achievement results are concerned, each year when we put out the annual report, we put out a statistical supplement which gives all the facts and figures. There's far too much to put into an annual report. For instance, between 1983-84 and '88-89, this is the number of pupils that made As or Bs: in algebra, it went from 34 percent to 37.4 percent; biology stayed about the same; in chemistry, at about 36 percent; in chemistry 41 to 48 percent of the students made As or Bs; in English and English literature, 27 to 35 percent, 34 up to 41; French, 41 to

[ Page 9549 ]

51.2; in geography and history, slight changes there; in physics from 41 to 52.8.

There is a lot of statistical evidence to show that the achievement results were there. Parents and the public had been demanding higher standards, the universities were expecting higher standards and the system delivered higher standards.

Some of the provincial examinations and some of the measures that were taken by the government or by the ministry did help, but I think we also must not forget the contribution of the teachers who, when they said people expect a higher standard, worked at that and were able to get the students to come up to a higher standard.

I think that as we move in the new directions in education, the focus on students — with the new reference points and criteria — will be competency-based rather than time-based. In other words, for ten months survival you get a C, and anything better than that you get a B. I'm being a bit facetious, but in this case at any point in the year the student and the teacher will know what knowledge, skills and attitudes the student is to achieve. When they achieve that, they move on to the next step and the next level.

I think that when teachers, students and parents are all aware of what knowledge and skills a student needs to move to the next step, they will be far better equipped to do better. The student will know: this is what I've got to achieve; this is what I've got to master to go on to the next step. If I can do it faster or if it takes me longer, that doesn't make me a good guy or a bad guy. It simply makes me a little different than the others— which we've always acknowledged. So I think that's going to do a great deal. If you know exactly what you're supposed to achieve, and you set that target for yourself, it's an initiative and an incentive.

I think our standards are going to go up, certainly at the enriched level or with some of the students who have been turned off by marking time in the system while the other kids caught up. I think those are the students who are going to end up showing some dramatic initiative, because they don't have to wait for anyone else and they don't have to leave. When they've finished a program there is so much more to learn, and you can spend a year in grade 12 even if you have already mastered most of that material to carry on and you can....

There's no limit on learning. There should not be a limit on learning. There's only a limit on an organized textbook, but there's no limit on learning, and I think these people are going to do very well.

[3:15]

MR. ROSE: I was a little nervous about the question that the Attorney-General asked the Minister of Education about spending and the relationship between spending, accomplishment and quality, because if there is no direct relationship between the increased spending and the quality of the product or the learner, then I think the A-G has just blown the Minister of Education right out of the water. We've heard him brag here for the last few days about how much he has increased the spending, and if he is not increasing the spending to increase the quality, I don't know why he would do such a thing.

HON. MR. SMITH: New programs.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm not sure it's all new programs.

If you are speaking about new programs, there's another interesting thing about them. As an ex-teacher, I'm a little concerned about individualized instruction. I think that's wonderful in theory— everybody goes at their own pace, we don't have a lock-step system and blah, blah, blah, blah.

I've heard that played over monotonously for about 40 or 50 years. I understand all that stuff, but I've been a teacher long enough to know it's darn tough to accomplish. It's even tough in primary school, but when you get those hormones coursing around a person's body in junior high it's even tougher, because there are other distractions that some of us recall vividly, no matter how old we are.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Do you want me to describe them for you? Oh, I think you perhaps know what they are.

I'm sorry the Attorney-General has left, because the Minister of Education said, "learning is a lifetime thing, and there's no end to it," and I was trying to enlighten him a little bit. So he cut off and he cut out— he's kind of a dropout, really, when you come right down to it.

I thought the statistic from my hon. friend for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) was quite interesting — that the highest retention rate was during '82 to '85. That's when the least amount of money was being spent on education in recent years per capita and per student. I think the reason was that there were no jobs out there; they stayed in school because there were no jobs.

All kinds of things affect the retention rate in schools. Some of the smaller districts don't have such a wide variety of course options, and therefore there are more dropouts. There are certain ethnic, native and language considerations— there are all sorts of things that affect dropouts besides the amount of money you fund.

The opportunity to have a large number of programs is a function of the size of the school district. Generally, when I looked at the dropout rates three or four years ago, it seemed to me it was the small districts and those with large native populations that experienced the largest dropout rate, and it wasn't just because of funding. It had to do a lot with cultural considerations — the fact that they were working in other languages.

I don't mean to go on and on, because there are some other things I want to say. The minister mentioned that as teachers became more experienced with the external exams, there was less difference between the teacher marks and the marks of the external examiner. He put that down to a variety of

[ Page 9550 ]

reasons. I've got one that he didn't mention: teachers begin to teach to the test. They narrow, rather than broaden their offerings, so that their class, and their reputation as a real whiz at getting kids through the exam, becomes inflated in terms of their own reputation. I think it's wrong. That's why I have felt that external exams are not always the best measure. But they are a monitor and people want them— I said that three or four years ago — so we have them.

Finally, it's very difficult, because of the basis of the statistics and how they're presented, to know where we stand in terms of educational spending. I've got statistics here of the 1988-89 expenditures from the Canadian Economic Observer, December 1989, and I've got some other stuff from the same source, which indicates that in 1989-90 B.C. still ranks eighth in terms of per-pupil spending. Again, whether you're eighth or seventh or sixth might not necessarily directly affect your quality; there are a number of other factors that affect it as well. It's not that we don't think, because we have such a rich province here, that we shouldn't be near the top, compared to the other less fortunate parts of Canada.

That's all I'll deal with for now. I have some other questions relating to my local situation, Coquitlam, that I'd like to discuss with the minister at a more appropriate time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know the member said that the Attorney-General just said that if spending has no relationship to increased performance, then why are we spending. The only thing that I can say is that we are spending more money on education because there are more pupils and because we want to provide better learning opportunities for them. If you keep the system exactly the same, and spend more money on each classroom and not change the system, then I would say it's perfectly true that more money to try to beat the same stuff into them does not beat more stuff into them. I think we can dispense with that.

We said when we were going to make all these changes that we estimated it would take $1.4 billion above the regular spending, over ten years, to make it happen. And we're certainly on, track with that.

I could just mention to the member that I know that sometimes it sounds like semantics, but he keeps talking about individualized instruction. Yes, some of that happened at one time. But what we're really focusing on, from the Sullivan commission recommendation, is individualized learning, with the teacher as the guide. If you try to teach each student separately, it's an impossible task. But I would say that a teacher could more easily guide the learning activities of 25 students than try to teach 25 students and bring them all to the same level of understanding and comprehension and knowledge and skills, which everyone knows is impossible. So we end up with, under the same intensified instruction, some students mastering 51 percent of it to get a pass and some students mastering 99 percent of it. In this case, under the individualized focus-on-learning model, students know what it is they are to achieve. There's a measurement, and the measurements would have to change, of course, so that they will know when they have attained that level, and they will know that they are now ready to go on.

I keep having difficulty with you saying we rank eighth in per-pupil spending across Canada. I don't know whether I'll ever convince the members on the opposite side. I guess it's to their political advantage to use the lowest possible figure. We have taken just the operating amount in the school districts and that, we say, is at $5,259. I've repeatedly said that in other provinces they include the capital cost, the debt-servicing, the new programs, the new curriculum, all the other things that they put in there. They include that, and come up with a figure of $5,500, and ours is at $5,259. But when we compare our total spending in public school education, it comes out to.... I get this figure from taking the amount in the estimates and subtracting the amount for independent schools, because that's at half and there are different variations with those numbers, so they're not valid. Then if I divide the balance of $2.96 billion that we're spending on public school education in this province by the 495,000 students, I get a figure of about $5,980. It depends on which figure you want to use.

HON. MR. SMITH: What's that, relative to the rest of the country?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Relative to the rest of the country, I'd say it's at the top.

MR. ROSE: How much?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's $5,980. What is and isn't counted in the different provinces can change the picture at any one time. I don't know which figure we want to use, but I know that when we compare all of our spending, we're well up there. We rate at the top in national academic tests. I think our spending, when everything is considered, is well up there with the rest of them.

Might I point out that it is not a spending contest between provinces. It costs more for a house in Toronto than it does for one in Victoria, so we shouldn't say that the only way housing can be equated between Victoria and Toronto is that.... To say that if it costs $300,000 for a shack in Toronto, we have a poor living standard if it only costs $200,000 for a good house in Victoria.... Those are the kinds of invidious comparisons we have to deal with in this political debate and in the politics that happen here in the House. I guess we can all play the game, but when all of our expenditures are recognized, we certainly stand well up in Canada in expenditures and at the top academically.

MR. ROSE: I was going to continue in my gentle way, but not very far. I know It's very difficult to make expenditures comparable from one place to another: you know, that little shack in Sault Ste. Marie, New Liskeard or somewhere else. You can't always make comparisons between Victoria and To-

[ Page 9551 ]

ronto either, so we're all guilty of a little comparative manipulation.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You don't like that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We use statistics to our advantage.

MR. ROSE: Yes. I was surprised, you know. Everybody over on the other side said that the budget was just wonderful, and everybody over here said it was awful. We bring a different perspective individually.

Let me end on this to display and dazzle everybody with my tremendous historical knowledge of individualized instruction. I've been around teaching long enough to know that you don't have lockstep anymore. You used to have it in about 1930 when the king was on his throne and God was in his heaven and all was right with the world. Whatever our mixture was racially, we made them all little WASPs— whatever shade of WASPism we decided on.

But along the way came various innovations in teaching. I guess among the earliest was better textbooks, followed by radio and then television. Then we had programmed learning, various kinds of individualized instruction, contract teaching and teaching machines. Brother, we've been through them all; we've had them all. They're all gimmicks, and they're all part of the learning environment. We all know that.

Individualized instruction is really difficult. He said: "We're not going to have individualized instruction, because that's impossible." We know that as well; I know that as a teacher. It's very difficult for most of us. Some of us do quite well at it— I'm not one of them — but it seems to me that all of this stuff will founder like the previous solutions we came up with. Every innovation, usually American.... I don't say that as a bad thing. They were creative, and they tried different things.

I commend the minister for trying to bring in a new perspective through the Sullivan report, but we are going to have to train teachers and parents to expect different things — or educate them, if you want to use educo, "to lead out," and all the stuff we learned at our colleges of education.

I'd like to say that we found out with these other things, such as programmed learning, contract teaching and teaching machines, that they would work fine for certain students who were highly motivated and who could work on their own without a lot of supervision. They worked well for them; they didn't work at all well for others. It depersonalized the teaching, and that's what we have to guard against. Sure, we should have individualized learning; sure, we should have computers; sure, we should have all of these other things. But none of these things is going to take the place, I don't think.... I'm not sure the minister is making the claim that they will, but my little caveat or warning is that it's not going to take the place of an inspired teacher. It may add to his arsenal of skills, but don't expect too much to come from it too soon.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I know we've had a lot of gimmicks in education, but not all of them were gimmicks. I tried programmed learning with some students. It allowed them to move at their own pace, and they liked it. Programmed learning by itself — unfortunately, people felt that would be the answer, because it was good in some sources. I found that the students got fed up with programmed learning, if that was all there was. But I found that a combination worked.

I saw, as the member says, good examples of "individualized instruction." I also saw examples of it that bombed out because people were really trying to instruct each individual at a different pace to accomplish the same target; that, I contend, is impossible.

What I'm talking about is individualized, personalized learning. Let me read from the "Year 2000" document; perhaps that will help the member. We have said in the document that people can carry forward the things that worked effectively but focus more on learning. This is the revised "Year 2000" document, and it says, under "Meeting Individual Learning Needs":

"The focus on personalized learning does not mean that individuals are expected to work and learn by themselves, and in fact, learners will continue to be grouped in various ways most of the time. Rather, personalized learning refers to the goal of organizing learning experiences and selecting teaching methods in such a way that learners can be motivated and their individual learning needs can be met most fully.

"This approach should make it possible to address a wide range of learner needs by using a range of teaching methods, by slowing or accelerating the pace of instruction, by using special materials or equipment, and/or by drawing upon specialized support services, as the situation demands."

I could go on, and I would highly recommend that reading.

[3:30]

The initial "Year 2000" document tried to combine the philosophical base that educators had developed, with more specifics. This is a stand-alone document. The curriculum guides — the primary one is getting into finalized form, and the others are in draft response form— are the ones that will start to give the details, the how and that sort of thing. We can carry forward the good practices of the past. Sometimes students will work most effectively in a group. But I contend that if the purpose of reading is to assimilate information and critically analyze what the author is saying, it is not essential that all students always read the same story. Yet it is quite conceivable that to make a point or develop a concept, a teacher will have all the students sometimes read the same story, so that there can be a full discussion on it. Then it can go to groups.

I have to go to some of my own experiences as well. I taught special education; I did some enrichment programs. When you got the students and found out where they were and what their interests

[ Page 9552 ]

were, you built on that. Students with different objectives and starting levels invariably made better progress than if we had tried to stuff them into the same module. I have had the good fortune, as a principal, an elementary supervisor and an Education minister, to see many people in the school system doing this very effectively. If it works for the slower learners in special education, if it works in enrichment and makes better progress there, I guess we're saying that the same concept when applied to all students will in effect make better progress for all students.

How do you explain that in a few minutes? I don't think you can. It is supported by everything we know about learning. Kids learn in different ways. They learn at different rates. We have concentrated so much of our effort to some efficient method whereby we can ignore all those variables and somehow or other get them all to master what's between the covers of the textbook. Thank goodness many teachers have deviated from that. Just as Education minister, I've seen that people might be teaching reading or science, but when the whales were trapped in the ice— guess what? — teachers were teaching science around that, geography and mathematics around that, reading and writing skills, speaking and reporting skills. When it is possible to do that, if I might use that one analogy....

I talked to a primary teacher who was very excited, because the royal commission recommendations have, in effect, given her the support to do the types of things she has always wanted to do, rather than be confined to saying to all the kids, who have full comprehension of words such as word processor, computer and that sort of thing: "Now I want you to master 'See Jane run. See Dick jump."' The kids are well beyond that, so why not let them deal with...?

I have to quote this example from a teacher using the "I wonder if" approach. I've seen it used in primary classrooms, and teachers spread the word around. In this case, it was: "I wonder if spiders have hearts." This was a kindergarten and grade 1 class They had quite a discussion. All the kids got interested, wondering if spider have hearts. "How do we find out?" They went to the library. There were pictures there, but they weren't clear enough. One of the students said: "My dad teaches at the university; maybe he can help us." He got his dad to send in some information. I'm not even that expert on biology, but they tell me that the students found out eventually that spiders don't really have a heart as we know it, but they have a kind of pumping system that keeps the bloodflow going. Kids started that. There's just no end to the "I wonder if" when kids are excited about trying to answer the questions they're interested in instead of the 20 questions at the end of a chapter. I did that when I was in school. "Why do I have to do these questions?" "Because they're there, and because the ministry put out that book as a prescribed book." We are no longer doing prescribed books; we're doing authorized material that says: "This material has been checked by the ministry and certainly is not unsuitable." However you can use that. I'm sure that all of us can come up with many examples: "Why do I have to do this?" If you could answer that "why" question satisfactorily, they were away to the races.

I see that the member now — like he accused the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) — is dropping out of the House. With some of the conversation that goes on here, I think it's very easily understandable.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue the speculation about whether spiders have hearts. But I think a more realistic question that we from the north wonder about is whether the minister and his bureaucrats have hearts in terms of understanding the special needs of a riding like mine.

The minister recognizes that in Atlin in northwestern B.C. we have a unique situation. There you have the smallest school districts. You have one school district that is primarily aboriginal; that's the Nisga'a School District. There are some particular questions and needs when we talk about educational standards and individualized learning. They are very exciting concepts, but there the basic question is one of survival, of continuing to try to provide very basic educational programs under very trying conditions in the north.

As the minister well recognizes, there are many factors that provide this kind of uniqueness. At the top, of course, is the higher cost. Just shipping the material north to build even the most basic facility is a nightmare in terms of trying to anticipate the rising cost.

With the operating costs, we never can anticipate from one year to another whether there's going to be a more severe winter, with the whole logistics of trying to move students to the school. In the Nass Valley, for instance, children are bused from Greenville, which is approximately 60 kilometres away. Often, because of the severity of winter conditions, the children have the option of missing school because there's no transportation available, or they're boarded in New Aiyansh and often spend days without their parents. I don't think these are the kinds of experiences that kids from any other parts of B.C. experience.

So it does start to beg the question: exactly how does this new policy accommodate these sorts of problems? We have a tougher time in teacher recruitment, simply because in many of these northern communities there are not the kind of amenities that many young teachers want or have taken for granted.

Also, there is this tremendous cultural gap in New Aiyansh. I know I've witnessed the tremendous adjustments that teachers and students have to make in terms of dealing with one another's differences in background. Even in non-native communities in the north, there's still that adjustment made between largely rural children having to deal with largely urban young teachers, who have yet to understand that way of life in the north.

All these factors add up to providing a tremendous challenge in establishing some very basic educational programs. So it's not surprising that there are

[ Page 9553 ]

higher dropout rates in these communities. It's not because of just the difficulty of obtaining a quality education — that is taken for granted in other parts of B.C. — but also the whole sense of despair: "What is it after this? How much of my education...? How do I compare with kids from other parts of British Columbia, especially the southern part of British Columbia?"

There's this built-in inferiority complex that our education provides. I've read the Sullivan report, and I know that it addresses it to some extent, but I'm wondering if the minister has any more light to cast on some of these difficulties that I've just enumerated.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate some of the concerns that the member has raised. I wish I could say, without reservation, that the extra cost per pupil in the Atlin, Stikine or Nisga'a district has solved the problem and provided a fully equitable educational opportunity. We keep talking about the $5,259 figure. The member may be aware that in the Stikine, because of its remoteness, its secondary school and the way it's spread out, the cost per pupil works out to over $13,000. It's the extreme one in the province. In the Nisga'a district it works out to about $9,846 per pupil, compared with a provincial average of $5,259.

We are trying to put in other programs. For instance, we acknowledge the busing. Sometimes the busing is necessary because there do not seem to be enough students in one place to make an effective school situation. I wish we had the answers to all of that.

Some of the things we have tried to do.... In the regional correspondence schools, now at least people visit there — not only the students who are not going to school, but also those who are going to school and taking some of their courses by correspondence because you can't have enough qualified teachers to provide all the courses in a secondary school of 25 or 50 students. Not all the teachers can be experts. Under the guidance of the teacher, the correspondence courses and other things can happen.

[3:45]

We're trying to work the fax technology into the computer technology, so that it should no longer take several weeks for an assignment to get in; it can get on a fax. We've got that started; it has been piloted, and we're trying to get it out there. It's not the fax machines that are a problem; it's the connections— the hookups. We now have cases where a student could actually send in an assignment to the marker by fax in the morning; it's relayed, and if the marker happens to be handy, it could technically even be done that day and sent back by fax to the school, and the student can get on with it. That's the kind of help technology has provided to us.

We have the small-district and small-school projects, remote funding.... For instance, in the small secondary schools we also have ratios something like eight to one as compared with 22 to one in some of the larger schools.

We have tried to assist with the teaching situation, in that we have rural teacher education projects, the Alaska Highway program.... We hope to expand that into the northwest. We've also got the loan forgiveness program for people; they get one-tenth of their loan written off for every year they stay in a rural area. We have put out some language and cultural grants for native programs. I guess I'm very optimistic. With the flexibility in the curriculum materials, more and more local materials.... I've seen some of the work they're doing in the Nisga'a schools, where they are doing stories about the native culture and lore, which is much more meaningful to the students, and they are more interested in reading it. More and more of the money is going out there for them to choose the resources they wish to use for students to learn.

I still remember very strongly my experience as an elementary supervisor for the Stikine district many years ago. I travelled to Telegraph Creek, Atlin, Cassiar, Lower Post and all of those schools. Particularly in places like Telegraph Creek, where the native population was something like 43 out of 45 students in the school, we had all the standard materials that didn't make sense. As the member knows, even a simple thing like the word "cow".... Kids in Telegraph Creek had never seen a dairy cow, but there was a picture of this dairy cow, "c-o-w," and the kids couldn't figure out what it meant because "cow" was a cow moose. So we had a teacher there who started picking pictures that made more sense to those people. I use that as a simple example. She wrote some stories on the natural thing, and through my office I combined with her and did a workbook exercise. At least it was something relevant to the students. The students enjoyed it a bit more because it meant something to them. Once they learn to read from that material, then the progress can go on.

We're trying to put out special grants. We have put aside money for language and cultural grants for native programs, and we are assisting in that regard.

The curriculum flexibility is really going to be one of the biggest benefits. Using the whole language approach the primary teachers use.... If students are writing and reading about what they're interested in, they develop better reading skills, and when they develop better reading skills, then they are more competent in any field. I would like to think that right through to the graduation program, if what they are studying has more relevance to them, they will perform better in the future.

Just to give you another example of the type of thing that has happened: the "Year 2000" document went out. It was following the concept that this is a bilingual country and so all students should take French as a second language from grades 4 to 7, or whatever, and there was a lot of discussion on that. In the final draft.... Some people in the native communities pointed out to us: "Why do I have to learn English and French? I want to learn a native language." As the capability to teach some of the native languages is coming into the schools, a new "Year 2000" document says that the school board may, at

[ Page 9554 ]

the local level, decide that another language — the native language — is more important as the second language. It provides that option. So there has been recognition of the input.

We have also combined with the University of Alaska on their project where they are taking students in from the native community, and there is.... I was going to say "indoctrination," but that's not the correct term. They bring them in for about three months— or one or two months or whatever the case is — so the students can get a concept of what the post-secondary institute is like and see what they can do. Then if they enter later in the fall, it's not the same shock.

The university of the north, I would hope, is going to add a fair amount towards getting what we would like to see as our goal: that native students will graduate at the same rate as any other students in this province.

MR. GUNO: I was quite interested to hear the minister's response to some of my concerns. I am gratified to hear that he recognizes the tremendous cost per student of providing education in the north, and also the whole question of the relevancy of some of the materials used in the schools and the flexibility in the curriculum.

I can relate to that. As a kid going to school in a small schoolroom in Aiyansh, I had difficulty understanding the background of some of the materials that we had. All of us of a certain generation can remember Dick and Jane and the kind of cultural background that that provided, which was totally foreign to me as a child trying to understand it.

I think there are certain movements towards trying to provide, at least in the Nisga'a School District, more relevancy in terms of providing cultural input. But there is also a concern that that program is becoming diluted because it is no longer an integral part of the process. The minister may correct me on that, but it has become something isolated and not the main part of the whole curriculum development process in the school district.

Related to that, I want to know exactly how the master tuition agreement fits in. What does it fund? Is it an augmentation to the general cost of education in those areas, or is it there for providing special programs? How are these funds allocated? What sort of focus do they have?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We saw the master tuition agreement as an arrangement for the federal government to provide the funding for the native students who attended the public school system in British Columbia - for that contribution. So we saw it as a funding transfer.

In the last draft of the MTA, we looked at some of the possibilities and I think tried to recognize what we could, at the point we were.... Where a native community comes up with an agreement with the local school board, then the funds can go directly to the native community and to the school board by whatever arrangement they make. So we were still on the funding arrangement. To begin with, the approval of the federal and provincial government was needed for those agreements. We made a modification and said no, if the school board and the local band agree, then that's all that is needed.

More of the royal commission money Is being directed towards native education, and I would be somewhat reluctant to see the native curriculum become an isolated development. What I was trying to say was that if you can make it more relevant when people are learning to read, then it is not limited to that particular curriculum. In other words, they learn in a wide range of areas.

I could use other examples. I happened to start teaching in the north Okanagan when the reserve schools were being closed down and the native students were being integrated— or assimilated, if you like — into the schools. There were some pretty dramatic adjustments, and we did try to cope, with what success.... I saw the first students staying in up to grade 8; 1 saw the first graduates later on, some of whom had been at the school.

When I moved to Fort St. John some 15 years later, that process was just happening there. They were closing down some of the reserve schools and expecting these kids to walk out of a reserve school from grade 7 and walk into a junior secondary school at grade 8 and somehow or other, overnight, overcome the cultural differences. We didn't have the answer to it, but we tried to accommodate them, to do what we could with them. But I saw the process repeated; I saw the first native student graduate from North Peace Secondary School. There are quite a few of them doing that now.

Now I guess there is some emphasis on going back to native schools on the reserves. Some of that may be good; some of it may have some problems, particularly at the secondary level.

But we're willing to listen. We have had a native representative on the provincial advisory committee and still do; we've got a native education advisory committee over and above that that we hope will help. We can use all the help we can get, because even though we are committed to trying to provide the native language in the schools, we have to overcome the reluctance. In some schools we don't have certified teachers who speak the native language. We have the BCTF objecting to our bringing in people who don't have teaching certificates.

We're trying to pull all that together so that — maybe under the guidance of a teacher, which the act now allows — we can actually pay someone who speaks the native language to teach it in the schools. It's a matter of time. I know there's impatience, and I'm impatient as well. In time I think we will get more of the students developing the native language and getting their teaching certificates. The NITEP project at UBC has graduated something like 83 native education teachers in the last couple of years. They're still carrying on with that program, and we are assisting with it.

One of the measures we have taken is full-day kindergarten. We are funding full-day kindergarten

[ Page 9555 ]

for native students. I guess time will tell whether they want that or whether the students are capable. The Sullivan report and others were saying to us that the native students had so much adjustment to make that they didn't have enough time; they came in different than the other students and with half-day in grade 1 they had progressively fallen behind. So we said: "Okay, if you want to and if you can, we will fund full-day kindergarten where you would like to do it."

[4:00]

I guess the reason I am somewhat hesitant is that I know that what we are doing is inadequate. I know we are making the effort, but we need a lot of help. Even all of the funding and all of these methods don't cure the problem overnight. I have to go back to relying on patience and perseverance and the will of the people out there to make the program work. I think that will come to be, hopefully much faster than even I dare to hope.

MR. GUNO: I would like to make one comment in light of the minister's last statement about asking for patience and perseverance and understanding. The problem here is that we are watching generations of native people more or less going to waste because of the inadequacy of the two levels of government in responding to their educational needs, and the lack of understanding of the steps that should be taken to deal with this very difficult question.

At one time the answers were very simple: herd all the native kids out of their communities and put them in residential schools thousands of miles away. When I was ten years old I remember boarding the train in Prince Rupert and travelling for four days to Edmonton. I don't know what bureaucrat decided that I should, at ten years old, attend a residential school in Edmonton, but those were the very simplistic solutions that were provided.

Today, of course, I think we have become a little more sophisticated, and we recognize that the question is complex. I think that the whole issue of teacher-training is something that this government should really seriously think about. As you pointed out, there is the NITEP program which has— and I take your word for it — graduated 83 teachers. But have we ever followed through to see how these teachers are being recruited? Is there any follow-through in terms of how they are doing in the educational mainstream?

The last comment I want to make arises out of a conversation I had with a teacher in Kitimat, who on her own decided to — well, they were mainly non-native kids; there were only about two that were not — bridge what she called "a gap of two solitudes," of people who don't basically understand one another.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

She felt that the best way to do this would be through the grade 1 children that she had under her charge, and so took field trips to the nearest Indian reserve and talked to some of the elders. She developed her own material that showed the history of the local tribe.

So I think that when we talk about relevancy of material, it shouldn't just be geared toward the native or aboriginal kids, but also toward the non-aboriginal kids so that they have a basic understanding of the people who come from the neighbouring aboriginal communities. It's an aside, and I don't think it's really all that relevant here, but it's an opportunity for the kind of initiatives that we should encourage in terms of broadening the understanding and tolerance between these two solitudes that I referred to.

I think the NITEP program, as I understand it, is a partnership between the Department of Indian Affairs and the provincial government. What sort of assessment has been done recently to see how effective it is in providing that need to have more native teachers in our schools?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I guess I can't say I have talked to the UBC people. I've talked to some native people who are familiar with the NITEP program, and I keep searching for their views of it.

I also know, I guess from experience, that sometimes we can come up with our ideas and great intentions — and I think we have learned something — then we try to ask the native people what they think of our intentions. A field trip could accomplish the exact opposite of what the intent was, if it isn't there.

We are sort of committed to saying that into all of our school curriculum we want more incorporated about our native culture and history. We want that in social studies, science and other curriculums as much as we can, and we also want to assist the natives in developing a curriculum there.

I am personally convinced that asking native persons what is important to them is a far better way to find out than for me to decide what is important. I think some of that is happening in the system. I don't know whether I have answered the member's questions.

The report I have on the NITEP program so far is that it has provided that educational opportunity with some consideration, instead of the rigid application of: "You've got to have met all the hoops through grade 12 in order to fit." They have made some allowances and a more open door entry, and are focusing on the native aspects far more in that program. The reports that I get informally— because I haven't traced all of those teachers, and I don't know of a system that has — are that it may not be the be-all and end-all but it has helped a great deal. Perhaps we can improve on it.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to continue asking and clarifying in my own mind how native people are going to get funding for the public school system through the local tuition contracts. With the new school taxation process, I just want to be sure that we're talking from common ground.

As you know, the Kootenay people have signed local tuition contracts and have been working....

[ Page 9556 ]

They have signed a couple in various places, in various parts of the process of negotiating. In doing so, they have talked to your ministry. Before I ask specific questions about that, I would like to clarify that right now, under the master tuition agreement, the ministry gets enough money from the federal government to cover the shareable costs— 90 percent of the block, as I understand it. Is that correct?

HON. MR BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, as to how the money gets to the native bands.... The member must be aware that Kimberley and Windermere, I believe, were one of the first areas in British Columbia where.... The local band and the Kimberley district signed an agreement. When that happens, then the MTA per-pupil amount that would generally come to us, and go from us to the school district, goes directly to the band. The agreement signed between the band and the school district determines how they arrange the money. That's basically what happens.

When an agreement is in place, we say: "There are a hundred students here. At the cost per pupil in that area that they have generally provided to us....

If it was $5,000 per pupil, the money —100 times $5,000; $500,000, say — for that area used to come to us, and we sent it through the distribution system to the district. Now it would go directly to the band.

The arrangement is between them and the school board as to whether they put all of the money towards paying for education or.... Usually in the agreement conditions have been built in to ensure that the band is not going to just give the money automatically to the school district without getting something in return. I think it's a local agreement that can work quite well.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could perhaps move back to the Fernie and Cranbrook districts. In those cases, if there were native children going to school, then under the master tuition agreement the federal government pays a transfer payment to the provincial government, and the provincial government pays 90 percent of the block to the local school board. Is that correct, under the new block funding?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. We pay 100 percent of the block per-pupil amount to the school districts. We then expect that where the money comes through us, the federal government will provide us with that per-pupil amount.

The only other thing we have is the language and cultural fund. We are providing some money through the Sullivan commission implementation. When a band and a school district have an agreement in place, that money is available to them, because we want it to be used in the school system one way or another.

MS. EDWARDS: Could I clarify that with the minister? The language and cultural funding is totally separate from tuition funding. We're not talking about language and culture here; we're talking about the fiscal framework that Is now carried over into block funding. As I understand it, 10 percent of that block is collected totally from local property owners; then 90 percent is collected from general revenue. The provincial government normally collects the equivalent of the 90 percent, or at least shares that.... Ninety percent is paid from the provincial government coffers, from wherever you got it, to the local school board. Under the master tuition agreement, the provincial government has agreed to pay 90 percent of that block for every native student who goes to a school district without a local tuition contract. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, there's a bit of confusion there. If the block allocates $5,000 per pupil for that district — I'm just using a round number — then we pay $5,000 per pupil to that school district, whether it's a native student or otherwise. The 90-10 is in the tax relief program. With the extension of the homeowner grant, local taxes from the municipality used to go the school board for the supplementary and their local share. Now all of that residential taxation will come to Victoria, but the total of that residential taxation net of the homeowner grant constitutes about 10 percent of the district operating budgets. So the other 90 percent comes from other provincial sources. But we provide 100 percent of the $5,000 to the district, and certainly with the federal government, the agreement has always been....

At one time, if there were 4,000 native students in this province, we took the provincial average cost, and they paid us the provincial average cost times the total native enrolment. Then we distributed through the fiscal framework, so one district got more and one got less. People always focused on the ones that got less than the provincial average, but no one was too concerned about the ones that got twice as much as the provincial average. I know that in the last few years since I've been minister, we always had to top up what we got from the federal government by $4 million to $5 million to meet the costs of the school district.

[4:15]

Then when the MTA was renegotiated and resigned two or three years ago, the federal government said they didn't like us giving somebody less and somebody more. They suggested that they would give us the costs per pupil in that district, and so I agreed. Then they found out that by doing that, they were picking up the $4 million or $5 million that we had been picking up, and then they wanted me to rescind on my agreement. But they worked so hard to convince me.... I did a little bit of homework on this before I negotiated, so we gained from it. That was the case in point: the amount for that district.

The money that we get presumably will carry on on that basis. If it's $5,000 in Windermere and $6,000 in Nechako, the federal government will provide us with the money for that district, we will provide that 100 percent to the district, and the other is a taxation measure. Of the total education bill across the prov-

[ Page 9557 ]

ince, about 10 percent of it will be paid for from residential taxation; the other 90 percent will be paid for from other sources of revenue that the province gets. But it has nothing to do with 90 percent to them or something of that nature. It's 100 percent of their costs.

MR. RABBITT: I request leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: I apologize to the member across the way.

In the precincts and touring the beautiful grounds, we have 64 students from Hope Secondary School. They joined us today for part of question period and have been enjoying the tour through the building. I would like to commend two of the teachers, Mr. Don Dale and Mr. Wayne Leckie, and the four chaperones who have accompanied them, and give a special word for those teachers and chaperones who make the special effort to get the rural students down here to Victoria to see how this House operates. I would ask all the members here to join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: To continue with this questioning, I would like to ask the minister if he is now saying that all the costs of native education in B.C. are covered by the master tuition agreement— all the costs that the provincial government pays for in the 90 percent that the minister claims has nothing to do with anything. I believe the still shareable amount, as it used to be called, is 90 percent. Is it fair to say that the federal government now gives you a full 90 percent of the average cost of every native student in the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to explain it as briefly as I can. Remember that $5,259 per-pupil figure that we bandied about so much — the provincial average? That works out to a different figure in each district. That's the operating cost. That is what the federal government gives us— the operating cost per status native student. That's what they give us or directly to the school district — the cost in each district.

The royal commission money, the computer money and all of the other money that we put in — they do not contribute to that. So I can honestly answer that we do not get from the federal government all that it costs for the native education in this province. We get only the operating cost per status student in those districts, and I make that distinction because there are a number of students that are not status, so they don't count them. We don't get the money for them, but they still come into our schools, and many of them are classed as native education students.

I guess that's about as plain as I can make it. We get only the operating amount in that district, and, of course, we guarantee 100 percent of that operating amount to the district, and provide it to the district whichever way the money goes. Any extra expenditures on education are provincial.

MS. EDWARDS: I would say the minister has said that the province is prepared to absorb some of the costs of native education through the fiscal framework when there is no local tuition contract. From what the minister said, I gather that's the case. I have certainly spoken to Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Independent School Society. Their correspondence with the minister has said very clearly that the province is prepared to absorb some of the costs according to the fiscal framework.

That being the case, Mr. Minister, I just wanted to clarify. If there is a local contract drawn, the master tuition agreement money goes to the band or the area council and the band makes a contract with the local school board, and then there is no provincial contribution at all.

You look puzzled, Mr. Minister. I can't understand why you would be puzzled by that. Is there still a provincial contribution? Because there is a local school board contribution in the sense that the 10 percent that is strictly from a local area is picked up by local area taxpayers.

The minister is suggesting there is no 90:10 division, but he keeps mentioning it. That is, the division is strictly local, what used to be called "non-shareable." When there is a local tuition contract, the provincial government is no longer involved in the transfer of any money, and the federal government pays for what would be 90 percent of the block.

I don't know how a referendum would go on after that, Mr. Minister, but maybe you could clarify for me that if there is a local tuition contract, then the provincial government at the current time would pay no costs toward native education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'll try again. The member keeps bringing in that 10 percent. That's only where the money comes from: 10 percent from residential taxation.

MS. EDWARDS: That's right.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You've got it. The 100 percent is what is paid for the students' education in that district.

Perhaps I can do it this way. Let's try and do it in simple arithmetic. Let's say the district consists of 1,000 students, and the cost is $5,000 per student. The district would get 1,000 times $5,000 for the 1,000 students. If 100 of those students are native students, then they would get 100 times $5,000 through the federal system, and they would get 900 times $5,000 from us, which, if you add it up, works out to 1,000 times $5,000.

Then the province, above and beyond that, puts in the royal commission money, the computer money, the other money — to which the federal government contributes nothing. So we're adding more money.

[ Page 9558 ]

I don't know whether I'll ever get through to that member that we pay $5,000 to the district when the cost is $5,000. We get from across this province about 10 percent of the money from residential taxation. That comes into the province. It's added to the 90 percent that we get from the other sources. That 100 percent of the $5,000 is sent out there.

I don't know where you get that the local taxpayers are paying something towards native education, and we're not sharing in it, or some confusion that you've developed in your own mind. If you assumed that there was no residential taxation, then it would be easier to understand.

You seem to feel that somehow or other, on top of what we send there, 10 percent comes from residential. It doesn't. The 10 percent from residential is part of the total. I don't know. We'll try it again, I guess, if you didn't get it that time.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think this might be the subject of a letter that my colleague and I could draft. I think my colleague has been trying to get whether the $5,000 came from the federal government entirely, and whether the tax rate for the local residents is adjusted. Is that then a part of local revenue and doesn't get into the 10 percent?

Anyway, I don't want to ask the minister to necessarily answer that. We will draft a letter, or have a chat with the deputy minister and get it sorted out. I think both of us are still not quite certain whether we've got the answer clarified.

I want to turn now, Mr. Chairman, to another issue. It does, in fact, pick up on some of the discussion that we've been having this afternoon around what makes our schools work. What makes them work are highly qualified teachers, who are qualified to teach in a wide range of teaching environments, whether in New Aiyansh, the Kootenays or the lower mainland. How are we doing around both the staffing that we have and the projections for the future? Again looking for some common ground, the minister and I would agree that what we should be looking for and wanting to attract and to retain within our school system are the brightest and best of our high-school graduates who are choosing this profession as a profession where they will have a tremendous amount of job satisfaction and will contribute, as we know teachers do, to the life and quality of our province through the lives of children.

I'm going to state quite baldly that perhaps the greatest challenge we face in the next five to ten years is the challenge of having available— in a system that is under very significant process of change, revitalization and transformation — enough teachers with the kind of training that we would want them to have for the job we're asking them to do. Looking at some of the information I have, it's not as comprehensive as I would have liked for these estimates, because I had very short notice, as did the minister; I didn't think that we were going ahead with these estimates today. I want to put on the table some of the information I have that would suggest to me that we are heading for a very severe crisis in teacher supply within the province.

In the past we have had similar crises and have gone to other jurisdictions in Canada or indeed across the world to attract teachers to British Columbia. But this time around I don't think we are going to be alone in the crisis. I for one have made it abundantly clear that I don't like the idea of having to deal with teacher shortages by robbing other jurisdictions that have as great a need as we do for these very important people within our system.

Let's just look at some of the figures. I would note that I rely for these figures on material that comes from the ministry, so these are not from some obscure source; they're figures that the minister provides to all of us in British Columbia through the reports that he makes to us annually. If we look at the pattern of students qualifying for initial certification— that is, teachers who are then qualified as new young graduates to come into the system —  this is the pattern from 1980 through 1988-89, the year just prior to this school year. Starting in 1980 there were 1,683 graduates coming out of our three universities. With one exception, in '82-83 when the number was 1,500, the decline has been evident ever since. We dropped to a low of 1,128 graduates in 1985-86, then began to climb in a very modest way to a figure of 1,293 graduates in the last school year.

[4:30]

Just to make the case and to juxtapose those 1,293 graduates against the number of teachers who left the profession in 1988-89, just over 2,100 teachers left the profession in that year, while 1,293 — let's say 1,300 for ease — teachers graduated, so right away we've got an 800-teacher shortfall, just assuming we're staying even. But we have bottomed out in declining enrolment, that spectre that we all faced through the eighties as the number of children in school declined. The enrolment in our school system has begun to climb, and it is projected to climb something like 10 percent over the next four or five years. Again I'm indebted to the enrolment projections by head count which come from the ministry's statistical report. We have more youngsters in the system.

I want to add some other components to the picture that we're dealing with. As the minister has noted, the mandate for schools has increased. It has increased in that there are many children in the system now who were not in the system three years ago, five years ago, ten years ago. Many of those students are youngsters who have special learning needs. They have disabilities — often of quite great proportions — so that the number of people we need to have in the system, like teachers, aides and assistants, has increased. I have no idea what the quantity of teachers might be for those special needs, but the mandate is larger than it was when we had 1,600 or 1,700 graduates. The number of students has increased in absolute head count, and it has increased in the kind of student we have and therefore in the number of teachers we need to work with those students.

[ Page 9559 ]

Furthermore, the mandate has been expanded, and that means more teachers in the system. For example — just to mention one mandate element — the minister has included in the government's mandate an acknowledgement that elementary counsellors are an important and integral part of the staffing component of a school. And there is a recognition of that. With that recognition comes some funding, and with that funding comes the opportunity for school districts that may not have employed such professionals to now consider whether they should be included within the system.

Complicating this even further is the fact that people who graduate into teaching don't necessarily stay within the system. They leave. There has been some tracking of the loss of teachers as they enter the system. Twenty percent of educators who are brand-new into teaching, I am told, leave within the first year. And as many as 44 percent of those teachers move out of the system in the first five years. Those teachers in some instances are on leave. And I would think a very considerable number of them may be on maternity leave, because a large number of people in the profession are women entering the profession during their childbearing years. A significant number of those teachers, I would imagine, may be on leave — perhaps for a short-term maternity leave, perhaps for a longer term before they chose to come back into the profession, or perhaps with no intention of coming back into the profession at all.

There is a fairly significant attrition rate with teachers new to the profession. In addition, we have older teachers — and by "older," without any qualification, I am looking at teachers in the 40 to 60 age range. There is a fairly significant attrition rate with teachers of that age as well. Some of them take early retirement; some of them decide for whatever reason on a mid-career change.

The issue, Mr. Minister — who I note is smiling over this issue, and I don't know why — seems to me a fairly significant and serious one. The issue is that we are not graduating as many students as we were and that we do not have a retention rate that would give us cause for comfort, neither at the beginning level of teachers' careers nor in mid-career.

Now I know the minister has provided within royal commission funds some dollars for some change in the resources available to universities for more students to graduate. I know, too, that we now have students graduating from some of the colleges — an excellent move — so that students are able to get teacher training close to home.

But I am not satisfied that the measures announced are going to come even close to providing for our needs over the next period. In this context, I haven't even mentioned the issue of retraining, which all of us would agree is a very important component of the implementation of the Royal Commission on Education. Retraining may take place within the context of teachers continuing to be involved in full-time teaching and having leave from their duties for that retraining. It will also, I believe, involve teachers being out of the system for periods to take more comprehensive retraining to keep abreast of the methods and technologies they want and need for the royal commission implementation.

So the combination of loss of teachers through the period of restraint — when teachers graduated who were not employed and never did come back into the system — with a relatively low number of teachers being trained up until the present and with an attrition rate that is fairly serious.... What are the minister's comments about how he sees his ministry working with education institutions? How does he see them planning to ensure that we are training an adequate number of the brightest and best of our students to be teachers in the 1990s in B.C.?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member could have condensed all that into: "Are we facing a potential teacher shortage, and what are you doing about it?" But it's impressive, I guess, to go through statistics that we are well aware of, are way ahead of and are doing something about. On April 12 we put out a press release in response to a comment by the B.C. Teachers' Federation leader saying we are facing a teacher shortage and we haven't listened and we haven't done anything about it. So I responded with some answers. If the member didn't get a copy of that press release, I would be delighted to send one.

We recognized that during the recession, when this province had 50,000 pupils fewer than now, some of the people who had just graduated couldn't get teaching jobs. We also recognized that in future we would need more teachers. But it was difficult to get people to go into teacher training when their friends had got their certificates and couldn't get jobs.

You may recall that we went into what we estimated was a proper time-frame, a three-year early retirement program, where by removing the penalties for retiring early, we encouraged those teachers who wanted to leave to do so after age 55. That opened up several hundred positions for those young people who had teaching certificates. Once again their friends could say: "Hey, if we take teacher training, there is a possibility of a job." At the same time, we were saying: "Teaching is a great profession, and we will be needing more teachers in the future, so please enrol." And it has been working.

While people use statistics to go back to 1981 and all through that, we were well aware that we could be facing a teacher shortage. So with the early retirement program now under the royal commission implementation, we have put up some money, and there are several hundred additional teachers in training because of that.

I might point out, if we want to play statistics, that since 1985, 3,882.4 teachers have been added to the teaching force — I've got the ministry looking for the 0.4. Seriously, those are part-time teachers and that. But say that 3,882 teachers were added to the teaching force, while a 24,268 student increase showed up. That means we added one teacher to the system for every 5.25 students. That's how statistics work. In effect, one teacher was added to the system for every five students added to the system.

[ Page 9560 ]

The teacher-pupil ratio went down by about 2 during that interval, say from just over 18 to just over 16. That ratio of 2 represents, in this present enrolment, something like 1,800 teachers in this province. So we have managed to bring down the pupil-teacher ratio, and boards have hired teachers at a greater rate than they have added students. There are now 1,600 teachers in training, and we are doing many things to encourage more teachers to go into training. I'm talking about 1,600 potential graduates per year, and we're targeting for up to 1,800.

We have also accepted the view from the Sullivan report that we need to increase the recognition and status of teachers. Some of that is done during Education Week. Teachers get a good reception from the public when they let the rest of the public know what's going on — those who don't have students in school. We have the parent advisory committees. There are a lot of things going on, but as far as teacher enhancement is concerned, we put out a recognition of excellence in teaching— 110 teachers in the province. We tried to do it last year, but it bogged down for lack of cooperation. But this year we're going ahead with it, so 110 teachers will each get $2,000, which might help them with their courses. But more than anything, because they will be spread throughout the province, I think it will recognize and get some publicity for excellence in teaching— and most of the teaching force in this province is excellent and committed and dedicated. I've said that many times.

We've got the loan forgiveness program, because the shortages always show up in the remote areas, and the student growth seems to concentrate in the big areas. The teachers leave and come to the large centres, where there are jobs because of increased enrolment, but they leave a space in some of the rural areas. So we have said that one-tenth of the loan that it takes you to get through education training will be forgiven each year that you stay in a rural district.

So a lot of things have been done to increase the teacher supply, and I think we are winning the war. If we add the colleges that are now going to the third- and fourth-year program, I am sure that many people in those areas may end up going for teacher training in their third or fourth year, which they could not have done if they had had to leave home and family and come down to Vancouver to go to SFU or UBC, or to Victoria to go to UVic. I think that besides the direct efforts, the indirect efforts are going to help.

[4:45]

I'll tell you something that would really help to get teachers in: if the opposition and the BCTF started talking about the satisfying side of teaching and the rewarding experience of having students, and that teaching is great and wonderful. And it is, when people get the satisfaction of seeing students learn. If some of that would come out, instead of the constant negative carping about how awful it is to be a teacher in this province....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, it's going on all the time. I think that would help a great deal to encourage people to come into teaching.

I'll tell you something else. The new directions from the Sullivan report, the flexibility in the curriculum and the autonomy that requires the classroom teacher to make the decisions.... This is to be an educated professional, who will be making the decision of what resources the student should learn from, and who will guide that learning activity. That educated professional will be making many decisions about whether the students should be grouped or individualized, and where they should move on. Those are the professional decisions that encourage people to stay in teaching.

What you decide matters; it makes your life much more worthwhile. I think that if people start getting into the guidance of learning activities, and combining preparation, teaching and evaluation assessment as an integrated operation, it may take off some of the pressure people feel now, where they have to prepare a lesson and hope that everybody will listen to it and absorb it. They know in their heart of hearts that it is virtually an impossible task, but they have been committed and are dedicated to doing it as well as they can.

The member also mentions retraining. The changes in the system are evolutionary, therefore you don't have to shut down, retrain and start up. Retraining is an evolutionary process. That critic might be interested in knowing that the ministry....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The education critic; you're just a normal critic — a natural critic.

A lot of in-service has been going on during the year. This summer the ministry, with other groups, is sponsoring courses on the new curriculum and on the new approaches to it. Out of the 30,000 teachers in this province, some 12,000 teachers are taking part of their summer to — if you like — retrain, upgrade and to get that. There's a lot of material going out. There are teachers who are doing the program one place.... They're going out and acting as consultants by talking to the teachers in a district about how they did it, and how they think it can be done.

There is a constant retraining program going on. Please don't try to leave the impression that the only way you can retrain is to shut down the system, and then when you're retrained, you reopen the system. I'm exaggerating, but that was the impression I got: that we are going to create a shortage of teachers by retraining. No, the retraining is an integral part of continuing teaching.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would like all members in the House to welcome 50 students from the

[ Page 9561 ]

Hillside Middle School in the great community of West Vancouver, with their teacher, Mr. Herrin. I'm sure they are appreciating this great debate that's going on between the Minister of Education and the opposition.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to answer three very direct questions on the issue of whether there are going to be sufficient teachers in the next period of time to staff our schools, remembering that everyone — from Mr. Sullivan to this humble servant of the people — has some concerns about that.

How many teachers does the minister expect he needs to have available in the system — on an annualized basis — for the next couple of years to replace teachers who are retiring, taking leave or voluntarily choosing to leave the profession? How many teachers does the minister expect to have trained by all of the training institutions within the province? How many does he expect to have graduating in the next couple of years to meet that need?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The short answer, Mr Chairman, is yes, there will be enough teachers, because we are taking the measures I talked about to ensure that there are.

I've mentioned in my previous comments that there are some 1,600 now — it's gone up from about 1,200 — per year that we expect to graduate, if we can get a little cooperation from people who will encourage people to go into teaching, instead of telling them how awful it is. I think we can build that up. Our target is at least 1,800 and hopefully 2,000 per year We think that will meet the needs for the retirement, for the other people, and with more professional autonomy I expect that fewer people will be dropping out, because what they do will matter more. There will be more job satisfaction, and I think that we will be able to handle the situation quite well.

If you want to talk about enough teachers, all you've got to do is change the pupil-teacher ratio in the province by one, and you've got 1,800 more teachers.

MS. A. HAGEN: At the present time what we're looking at is 1,600 graduates — at least 2,000 teachers who are not in the system this year — so there is a shortfall. The minister is suggesting that one of the ways of dealing with that might be to increase class size. That presumably is a policy that he would discuss with affected parties before he went ahead with it.

I want to ask one other question on the issue of staffing. It relates to the ministry's goals in respect to enhancing the role of women in the profession, particularly in respect to women in administration.

Again using the minister's statistical information, I want to note that the representation of women in administration in British Columbia is still woefully inadequate. We look at the number of professionals in the system and see that there are significantly more women still in the teaching profession. That balance has been maintained over many years, but if we look at the representation of women in administration: six male principals for every female principal; three male vice-principals for every female vice-principal; five male department heads for every two female department heads; three and a half male directors of instruction for every female director of instruction.

In instructional support — which is interesting — where women are in the classroom working directly with teachers, we're almost even-steven. There's just a slight balance in favour of women in that field. In testing and assessment, we have six males for every female in the profession. These are '88-89 figures.

I would note too that earlier — although I haven't looked at the current situation within the ministry — the number of women in senior administrative positions was relatively small. I haven't examined it in the last year, so it may have improved, but at one time I think that there was one executive director and one person at an assistant deputy minister level.

In the royal commission funding outline that the minister provided ten days ago, there is a half a million dollars identified for rural trustee training and gender equity— $500,000 in a $140 million budget. That's the only amount that I can see specifically related to any kind of initiatives that government might be taking to improve on that balance.

I recognize that this is a joint issue. It's very much an issue at the school district level as well. But I would be interested in the minister's comments about what he is doing in his own ministry and in the province as a whole to encourage, support and target a larger number of women in positions of administrative responsibility in the education system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the amount of money designated for that is not an indication of its relative importance, because all of the training programs include women in the profession. It's not the only amount; this is an additional amount for a specific purpose.

We are encouraging women — and I do it personally any time I talk to women in the teaching profession — to apply for vice-principals' and principals' jobs. I haven't quite got the audacity to tell them to apply for superintendents' jobs if they've had absolutely no administrative background. Perhaps there are people that can move....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I didn't. She's sitting down, so I (a) didn't hear it and (b) wasn't paying that much attention to it.

People who move without any administrative experience to the top administrative position in a district do a disservice to the applicant and probably to the future of women in administration. It may be possible, but it's very difficult. It's the equivalent of somebody being a very good nurse and being asked to take over as principal of a school. It makes it difficult.

[ Page 9562 ]

I can say that we're encouraging people to apply. Some boards tell me that they would gladly put more women in administrative positions, but they can't get the applications. Maybe that is something that has to work in the total picture of gender equality. But I can tell you that more and more women are moving into those positions, now that probably about two-thirds of the board chairpersons in this province are women. They may hire more women, if they have a choice between an experienced woman and a male teacher. I don't elect the school boards, and I don't elect their chairmen. The school boards — not me — decide who they hire as administrators, and they are doing what they can.

In some of the positions in the ministry, we require administrative experience. If we are looking for someone with experience as a superintendent, we give that precedence over their being male or female. We do, however, encourage them and try to bring as many women as possible into our ministry — and into moving up the ladder, if you like. But many of the people who are now at the top administrative position didn't just move from nowhere to the top position; they moved through and gained the experience necessary to be a deputy or assistant deputy minister.

[5:00]

We have women's programs, with a coordinator; we now have women in the ministry in managerial positions. We think that as they pick up some experience in manager positions, as other people in the ministry have done, they will be eligible and qualified to move into other positions. We're doing what we can. I think we need more applicants; we need more encouragement. We perhaps need more women feeling that it's what you know, rather than the old carry-forward image that the principal had to be big, tough and ugly. That's not the case.

MR. LOVICK: Is this autobiographical?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I qualified in that regard. That's why I got the job. Certainly it wasn't by looks.

I'm saying that that's some of the traditional carrying-forward — that you had to be big, mean and ugly to be a principal, because that was the expectation. But out in the system they're finding out that even tiny people who are good managers of people make good principals, whether they are male or female. More and more they're finding out that vice-principals, principals and directors.... What they do and the experience they have with the job are the significant factors, rather than how mean, big and ugly they are.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would just like to note that my city is a model in this regard. We don't necessarily have as good a record as we would like in education, yet 45 percent of the elected people in my city are women. We have a woman superintendent; we have a woman city clerk; and if we had more room, we would have more women in senior administration.

Unfortunately, because we are a small district, we train them and they go off to be principals in other districts.

I think there is modelling to be done, and I would hope that the minister would be looking at taking some chances on women, regardless of the myth of them having to have administrative experience. I think he would be pleasantly surprised at how wonderfully well they would serve the education system if we did hire them because of their educational background, even without that administrative experience, and put them into some of those positions.

I would just note that the superintendent of my school district didn't come up through the conventional ranks, up all the ladders, and she has been one of the best superintendents I have ever known in all of my years of being associated with the education system. Our board, I am proud to say, did take a chance on that person, because we knew what she had to offer. And she has delivered.

MR. LOVICK: I, along with my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), want to canvass some local issues about education. I am sure the minister will be eager to respond to those concerns.

Let me start with a few words of praise. Over the past couple of years, I have had occasion to bring a couple of delegations of school trustees down to meet with the minister. I appreciate that he was prepared to give us some of his time and expertise, and indeed to make so many of his staff available. I'm happy to report that it happened last year as well, with my colleague and me both, and another delegation from School District 68 trustees. So we appreciate that very much.

Mr. Minister, I'm sure you know already the dominant kinds of concern that we in our district have, and I know that they aren't entirely unique; in fact, they are probably more or less typical.

We are, of course, a growth area — more specifically, the northern part of the community. The perennial question is whether we are going to get a significant increase in capital funding. We need more schools. In certain school districts we are now functioning with some 75 portables. Clearly that, I'm sure, is not satisfactory to anybody, at least for a long term. I am wondering then if I could just pose a very direct question to the minister: namely, whether he can give me any information at this time regarding capital funding plans for School District 68.

1 know that these estimates are coming somewhat earlier in the process than normal. I believe it's usually about two or three weeks from now that we would get that kind of information. But I'm wondering if the minister could give me an advance scoop on the subject.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's very difficult. I think the member is about a week early. I've been fairly well obligated to be in the House the last few days. At the same time, we have been going over the capital

[ Page 9563 ]

projects. As we say, we always have to re-prioritize the priority list. I know there is some funding in there for Nanaimo district. We have recognized some of that.

I've just asked the ministry to kick around some of the pros and cons on some of the items. We've got to get down to $275 million approval. Even in that planning, we also have to look at what that generates for next year, because as we provide planning money, we have to try and keep in mind that next year we've got to build it.

I know there's some there. I'll probably be able to, on an individual basis, give him a better idea about next week.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister. I appreciate that, and that would be some comfort, of course, to parents, trustees, students and teachers in the Nanaimo and Ladysmith area.

I'm sorry that we couldn't be a little bit more specific. I was saying this would be a wonderful opportunity for a great scoop — a press release — to talk about the largesse of the ministry and how it's committed to education and decide that regardless of whether the riding were represented by opposition MLAs, they would love to tell us that everything is unfolding precisely as it ought. However, it was not to be.

Let me just touch on a couple of other items, relatively straightforward, I think. As I alluded to a moment ago, we in our school district have the same problems as most others. Usually those are readily put under one heading, namely funding. That's no surprise or secret to anybody.

The trustees in Nanaimo tell me that our block funding amount was woefully and demonstrably inadequate. They emphasize that to stay precisely where we are, to maintain the status quo from last year, we require another $675,000; and that, I understand, is without doing anything to accommodate the new initiatives, the new requirements, and even the already established curriculum changes that were announced some time ago and that will be implemented this year.

The concern, then, is simply that we have that kind of inadequacy. Before I go on to be more specific, perhaps the minister would like to respond to that one. The estimate, by the way, from the trustees in School District 68, Mr. Minister, was that $675,000 was the shortfall in terms of maintaining the status quo. To add in the new programs, and to adjust to the new curriculum, they would have in effect a shortfall of some $2 million. I wonder if the minister would care to respond to that information.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, when they are predicting their $2 million shortfall, I don't know whether they're making allowances for the extra resources, the extra staffing for dual entry, the extra provision of capital, and all of those things that are over and above the block. So they are above the block. I never quite know what people mean by status quo. All of last year's expenditures, plus a 6 percent increase, is the status quo.

We have said that any new mandate, any programs, are funded over and above that. What is it? The budget went up from $63.3 million to $69.8 million, a 10.3 percent increase, which includes enrolment projections. We feel that by the fiscal framework, that covers their last year's costs, and the inflation increase on that. It may not cover their appetites, but that is true. Interestingly enough, the districts who got.... Whatever they got— below the provincial average, above the provincial average, or whatever — I keep hearing that it's woefully inadequate. If a 9.9 percent total increase in the operating budget, or a 15.2 percent increase in the total budget is woefully inadequate, then I don't know what would be enough.

Each district says: "No, no, we accept that the 9.9 and the 15.2 is quite adequate for the province; it's only our portion of it that is too low." The only thing is, if that were coming from one district then it might be easier, but when it's coming from 75 districts.... Believe it or not, one district, because of the equalization that we built in, got more money than they expected, and they never even said thanks. They said: "It's woefully inadequate." What do you do?

MR. LOVICK: I detect from the answer that the minister is feeling somewhat beleaguered. That's understandable. After all, he's had a rough ride for the last two or three days in the House.

I don't want to make a big thing about the adequacy of block funding and so forth, because surely the record is clear now. We've had about two solid days of debate on it, and I think citizens can judge for themselves.

But let me see if I might take a test case. The minister points with some pride to the fact that apparently in addition to block funding we do have some extra money to deal with other things; for example, dual-entry programs. He also, I believe, was making reference to things like targeted funding. Am I correct? That's also something above and beyond?

Let's take the targeted funding in School District 68 as an example. I am referring to the specific area of technology grants. My school district tells me that they had anticipated the technology grant they received this year would not necessarily be more than last year but would at least be the same. Instead, what they discovered, Mr. Minister, is that they got less; in fact, they got quite a significant amount less. What they had last year was apparently some $421,000 for that purpose; this year they are getting some $277,000. We're talking about something like a one-third reduction. That translates into, by the way, a reduction from $32.60 per pupil in the district to $20.97. Obviously that's going to cause some anguish and difficulty for that district, as I am sure the minister will appreciate.

They tell me they are going to have serious problems installing the computer labs in the elementary schools. They simply won't have enough money to do it. They tell me, moreover, that in the secondary

[ Page 9564 ]

schools they will have difficulty making the additions to the business education programs that are part of the new ministry initiatives; in other words, programs that the district has to carry out, yet they are apparently being cut back in that area.

As the superintendent and his staff inform me, their planning was based on a certain set of assumptions — namely, that the target funding would at least remain where it was, not that they would have a one-third reduction. Perhaps the minister would like to respond.

[5:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No matter how carefully you try to explain things, people still form their own expectations. We said that we were going to try to do $15 million per year for school-use computers and then distribute that proportionately. In the Nanaimo School District they got $283,600 in the '88-89 year, $421,400 last year and $277,400 this year. So you are correct: they got less this year than last year. So did every district. Last year we put out the $15 million, some of which we put to the central and then distributed between $10 million and $11 million that we distribute directly to the schools each year. Last year we came up with another $6 million that was to put one computer in every school for the tracking of students' records and that sort of thing. That was specifically for the evaluation, assessment and monitoring process. That was an additional amount on top of the others. It all adds up to the $421,000. But the expectation, if they were going to be realistic, should have been in terms of what to expect in the base funding, if you like, each year. It's unfortunate that they chose to see the one-time funding as part of the total and then expect the same amount. I guess we'll get that from other districts as well. We tried to make it clear last year that the extra $6 million which we added was for a specific purpose. They have chosen to add it up and compare it to last year. That's what I run up against all the time.

MR. LOVICK: I understand the minister is telling me that the professional staff in School District 68 misunderstood what they were given last year, and therefore have the wrong idea of what was supposed to happen in this year's budget. My understanding is that they, as they tell me, were led to believe they would get the same amount, and instead they got one-third less. I'm wondering if the minister would like to clarify that. I think it's a fair and important question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Apparently they got the wrong impression. We had given out a portion to every district, the amount based on the $15 million The first year we said science, labs and business education programs — different priorities. Last year special education was the priority but not the requirement from us, because some schools had already put that in under funds for excellence in previous years. There is in every budget an allotment for equipment and supplies. In every budget in every new school and every renovation, there's always more money in minor capital. This is a special grant.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The answer to your specific question is that it would appear that deliberately or accidentally school officials added up the regular amount and the special amount, and missed the documentation that clearly went out in that regard. They assumed that It was the regular amount and then based their expectations on that. It can be in all of the figures that people do. I'm not saying it was intentional; I'm saying it was unfortunate that they did not separate the two amounts.

MR. LOVICK: I want to just pose one other question in this whole area of funding, and then I'm going to defer to my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), who has some questions.

I understand also from the staff in School District 68 that their task is made somewhat more difficult than it ought to be because they are still waiting for information on implementation— how the "Year 2000" process and program will unfold. They apparently do not yet know, for example, the amount of money they are going to get for the second-year primary programs implementation; nor do they know how much money they are going to get for the graduate programs or the intermediate programs. The point they make to me is that they are put in the awkward and unenviable position of having had to submit budgets without those details, and therefore feel that they're being cast in a position that is untenable. I wonder if the minister might have any answers for the staff who present those concerns to me.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is no specific allotment for the intermediate or graduation programs, because they are still in the draft response form. They are not being initiated yet. Within their budget, in many schools and some classrooms, people are not waiting for it to become a requirement; they are changing some of their teaching and learning styles to accommodate it. That doesn't generate extra costs. The intermediate and graduation programs aren't there. In the primary program, money was allotted last year to each district for retraining of teachers, the in-service required....

If a district went to dual entry last year, we met our commitment by saying: "If you need more staff, it will be there; if you need more space, it will be there; if you need more supplies, they will be there." This year we have said that students who come in in January will be funded at six-tenths of the total funding that would apply if they came in in September. We've spelled that out. We won't know the exact amount until students get there. Before we gave the exact amount, we said that the students who come in in January are considered to be under royal commission implementation and will be funded accordingly.

[ Page 9565 ]

As soon as we could get the computer amount after the budget.... That was one of the quickest ones to do, because we had developed a distribution formula. Some of the programs where a district is.... We can't really fund them until we know that they are doing it. We have said that about $83.7 million of the $140 million will be going directly to school districts to carry on their activities. How much of that goes to each district depends on what they're doing and that sort of thing. We basically said to them: "Plan your operation. The money will be there to the extent that we require a new mandate of you. We can't expect you to do new things if we don't correspondingly fund them." That's about where we are.

MR. LOVICK: I listened with interest to the minister's response. I have no doubt of the sincerity of the remarks, but the problem I do have is with what seems implicit in the remarks: that those folks out there, those individuals in the various school districts— my own in this particular instance — somehow don't understand what is a relatively simple budgeting process. That seems to me what I'm being told. The question — to be direct about it — is: why would I get those concerns voiced to me by the professional staff people within School District 68 if the matter is as simple a matter of budgeting procedure as the minister just outlined? It seems to me that there is just a little tension between those two. I wonder if the minister would like to respond to that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I've tried to respond to it.

What happened is that we said if you have dual entry — just to use that as an example.... If you have kindergarten students coming in in January, they will be funded. They say to us, "How many dollars is that?" and I can't answer. How many students have they got? Do they need another classroom? Or do they have a morning program in that school, and will these kids fit into the afternoon program so it only requires staffing...? All of those things have to come together.

We've asked them for their projections, and the money is there for the projections. We will fine-tune that in September and January. For instance, the six-tenths per student I'm talking about will be there when they tell us in January how many students we need to multiply that six-tenths by for the standard of funding. That is a concern, and they say: "How many bucks are going to be there for in-service?" About all I can say is: "The required money." We don't just take an equal amount and give it to each district, whether they're doing anything about it or not. We simply say: "Apply, tell us your needs and we will try to fund them as best we can." I don't think we'll ever fund them at the level that people want.

For instance, some of the districts have come back and said: "If we're going to get new students in January, we want to hire the staff in September so that they'll be there." We say no, that we will not pay for X number of teachers from September to December if they're not required until January to June. They would like it. It would be nice, I guess; and It could do a lot of things for them. But we're saying: "Suit yourself. Out of your block if you can do it; we are not funding extra for it."

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to ask a few questions of the minister regarding the implementation of the Year 2000 program — particularly as it applies to School District 69. Earlier this year my colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and I attended a meeting in Cedar at Woodbank School. It was a meeting set up by the SLC, and there were parents and teachers there. Enormous concern was expressed. I want to bring some of that concern to this House and ask the minister to respond.

One of the general concerns was that parents and teachers were feeling left out or excluded from decision-making in school policy. They were also very concerned that their children were going to be used as guinea-pigs in a new or unformulated program.

I am reading from the minutes of that meeting, just for clarification.

There was also concern from parents, teachers and administrators about the lack of commitment for funding for the Year 2000 program, which obviously calls for smaller classes and much more individualized study programs. They were concerned that they had had very little response from the Minister of Education. As well, the parents expressed many concerns for the teachers. Obviously their workload is going to increase under this program, and the increased workload and responsibilities will add stress which could have a detrimental effect. It seems to me those are legitimate concerns.

Very specifically, the concerns that came out of that meeting were about a firm commitment from the ministry for some kind of extra funding. Obviously we have a new program that requires smaller classes, more teachers — and more classrooms, if you are going to have smaller classes — more equipment and so on. The teachers, parents and trustees are concerned about the availability of that funding and the commitment to it. I wonder if the minister could just tell me how much funding has been committed for that purpose, over and above last year's basic funding.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Last year, over and above the operating budget and some of the other targeted funds, we put up $43 million which we attached to the royal commission implementation. This year it's $140 million.

There has been talk about a lack of commitment for funding for the changes. The government has committed.... When we announced the royal commission implementation and the policy directions of this government, we said at that time that we estimate $1.4 billion over ten years, above the standard operating, in order to bring about these changes. Now that's a commitment.

[ Page 9566 ]

We said that it would not be equal per year, that it would start out, grow and then taper off, because over time.... For instance, the dual-entry students that come in are funded as extra students— from the royal commission implementation the first time. Then when they are part of the school system, they are funded as FTEs in the block, and the funding in the block is increased because of that increase. It becomes a bit blurred as to which is royal commission implementation.

[5:30]

There has always been some in-service for teachers. Probably the best example I can use is that we have said there's extra money for in-service. If you really want to look at it, what about the five professional days that teachers have now? I am not precluding them. As a matter of fact, I'm encouraging them, on their professional days, to discuss some of the new changes. So what amount of that money do you attach to that?

Some of the teachers are saying that we should not, and that those were days they had before, so we shouldn't count any of those days toward professional in-service. I really can't buy that. They say that if you say there are five days for Sullivan commission, new changes and curriculum understanding, those should be five additional days. We're saying that there can be additional days from the royal commission implementation as needed, but you can also use some of those five days toward that.

So in total, of the $140 million that I've talked about, somewhere in the block you could attribute about $85 million to programs that are already in there, including the example I used of the professional days. There's about $31.6 million for the computer funding, the native programs and some of the special Pacific Rim programs. You could leave out the $85 million, if you like, because it's in the block. But it still gives you something like $170 million that is extra funding over and above the block.

I can understand that some of the meetings, where people have gone to.... And a lot of Issue Alerts went out: "They've said they're going to provide $1.4 billion. Where is it?" And we say: "It's a commitment of this government to education, but we can't do next year's budget this year, provincially or otherwise, so we have to deal with it a year at a time." We did say, and I've said very clearly: "I didn't know the exact amount we would get."

I know that I asked for at least $111 million, because that was in our original planning. As it turned out with some other things that were considered, we got $140 million. But I had said we couldn't possibly keep the program going and add anything to the changes if we got only the same amount as last year. Obviously we convinced Treasury Board and the government that was the case, so I don't know about the lack of commitment for funding.

Of course, when people feel threatened by change, those who want to say, "Stop the world, I want to keep or retain the status quo, " will always come up with things like: "Our kids are being used as guinea-pigs." This is not a guinea-pig situation. Because it's evolutionary, people can feel their way into the changes; they have to be comfortable with them. The changes will never really be totally in place until the teachers take ownership and the parents understand it. But that has to come.

The primary program was done as a concept. Then primary teachers got together and translated that into a draft response copy. That went out through the schools, and the primary teachers of the province responded. A committee of primary teachers and ministry people got together and refined it, and it was then reprinted as the primary program, which is now more definite. The other programs will take the same course.

This is based on the Sullivan report recommendations and on what we know about learning. We have accepted that children are different, that they learn at different rates, that they learn in different ways — all of those things. There's a great diversity, and so much of the effort was on making the system more efficient to try and make them the same. This program says: "Acknowledge those diversities, capitalize on them, build on their strengths by positive reinforcement, and you will get a much happier student." Self-esteem is a big factor. You will get a much better product, if you like, at the end — a much more educated person.

People are always threatened by change. I don't knock that. But I say: give it a chance, and if something is wrong we'll work on it. We're not saying it's a way-out experiment- throw the baby out with the bathwater. That was a concern in the "Year 2000" document. They basically said: "Please carry on with the things that you know have worked successfully with your students and then modify those to the focus on learning rather than the focus on teaching." I think we've got a much better system than we've had in the past.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to thank the minister for his response. I am certainly not questioning the philosophy that lies behind the changes; in fact, the individualized teaching that works for the benefit of the individual child is something that we on this side of the House have long argued for.

I have some concern, however, that the minister appears to be minimizing these people's concern and is somewhat scornful of them. I don't think that's a legitimate response. It seems to me that these are very real concerns. Certainly the consensus at that meeting was that while there is no argument about the validity of the program — that is not a problem with anyone — it seems the bigger problem is the speed of the implementation, and I have a couple of questions arising from my last comment.

You responded that parents and teachers must take responsibility for this. I understand that there is something like three half-days of training for teachers built into this year — something like a $153 allowance for each teacher to do some retraining for this. This question was raised at that meeting. Teachers were being expected to take classes in the evenings, on weekends and in the summer. An allowance of $153

[ Page 9567 ]

per teacher amounts to three half-days, hardly adequate for such a dramatic change in teaching policy. There's some concern expressed about the speed of the changes, the lack of training, and so on.

I would like some response on that. What is the minister doing? What commitment is there to teachers who have been in the system for years, are used to the system the way it is and the way it has been, and are now going to change to different structures and different ways of doing things? That's one question. Are there, in fact, just these three half-days, or is more going to be done for and with teachers?

The second question has to do with the funding you spoke of in response to my earlier question. I would like to ask If that funding — the $140 million — includes capital costs such as new classrooms, equipment, and so on. Or is it simply operating funds?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the last question, the $140 million we're talking about is for the royal commission implementation, and it's in the operating area.

We have the other $350 million: $75 million in minor capital and $275 million in major capital. That's the amount of the projects approved, and it generates actual cash and mortgage expenditures of, I guess, about $214 million in total. But that's over and above that. It's part of the capital; it is not part of the $140 million. I don't think there's any kind of connection there. If more space and equipment are required because of dual entry, I think there may be an overlap there; but it's part of that.

The other thing is that I think the member said I was trying to minimize the concerns. I had just concluded my comments by saying that I fully appreciated the concerns, and I assured people that it's evolutionary and that it will go on. I did not say that teachers and parents have to take responsibility for it I said that the system will not be fully in effect until teachers take ownership — in other words, until they are the believers in what they do in the classroom, as they are now, and until parents fully understand that. There's also some funding provided from the royal commission implementation fund for involving parents in making sure that they understand.

There are teacher consultants going around, who have looked at and done their own successful programs of continuous progress of dual entry — those sorts of things. They are going around not only sharing their experiences but also picking up from others who were running pilot projects in the first year, asking: "How did it go? What went wrong? What didn't go wrong?" These people are going out there on a continuous basis, and they've put together a package, a primary kit, which is going out to all the teachers to say: "I don't know how you want to do it, but here are six different ways that they did it in other districts and their relative experience of success with it." So there's a great deal going on to provide the assurance to make the thing work

I might point out that they keep saying: "The minister's pushing this; the minister's pushing that."

I did not design the primary curriculum. I did not design the "Year 2000" document. It was done by educators. It was done by people coming together — primary teachers and other teachers — because of their experience. They have drafted and redrafted these documents, and then they came to me for final approval before printing and asked: "Does it fit within the structure?" I asked some questions. I suggested perhaps a minor change but nothing really in substance. What's happening out there is coming from the educators of this province, from parents and from other people who have had their input through the Education Advisory Council, the steering committees and the curriculum development committees. There's a lot of it going on. Certainly I am defending this, because I believe in the focus on learning.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister is pointing out that he has had very little to do with this document, and perhaps....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I didn't say "nothing to do with it." Will you ever listen?

MS. PULLINGER: The minister is pounding his desk in frustration. However, we'll ignore that.

The content of the document, I would agree, has gone through a process and had a royal commission and so on; that's good. However, I would argue that the implementation — which is what I am talking about — has a lot to do with the ministry.

The minister also addressed my question of capital funding and addressed the normally approved construction. However, I would just like to point out to the minister that the concern is not for regular construction due to more people moving into the area. Obviously if you need smaller class sizes you are going to need more space to house those classes; so that's a concern.

I have just one other issue I would like to bring to the minister's attention in the House. Under your ministry this year, I would ask if you have allocated funding to take care of the capital costs — the great concerns in the Ladysmith high school. Their gymnasium, for instance, is inadequate; they're having to double up and more. Similarly, the library is far less than what is required for the number of students. The computer labs are being overused if anything; they are simply not enough for the students. And there are things like science labs, mechanical shops and so on that are missing. My understanding is that at least a five-room addition is needed just to meet the present needs of that school.

Similarly, at the Cedar secondary school, the gym is less than adequate; it's undersized. I understand that the school administration have been trying for years to have the ministry address the problem. But as the principal says, he has met with a resounding lack of success.

Another issue they are concerned about is the heating and ventilation system, which is not working well.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

[ Page 9568 ]

There is a lot of concern in Nanaimo. We need two new schools for the north. They are going ahead, but they are going to be crowded by the time they are built. Nanaimo District Senior Secondary needs to be rebuilt; similarly Wellington. There are concerns with the other schools as well. I understand the Ladysmith school is number five on the list.

[5:45]

1 wonder if the minister could tell me what is happening with Ladysmith school. Has budgeting been allocated to address the problems there and to incorporate the students' needs?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, I know I am never supposed to get exasperated. I am supposed to be the epitome of patience. And I think I've put up with a fair amount of distortion in this House. But I have just finished saying that this is not my arbitrary document; a lot of educators have been involved. And that member stands up in this House and says: "The minister has just admitted that he's had absolutely nothing to do with this document." I've had a lot to do with it, and I resent that kind of distortion. Perhaps I should consider the source and simply ignore that, but my goodness....

MR. BARNES: Vicious attack.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This is a vicious defence, not a vicious attack. Aren't you going to respond? I haven't had a good fight with you for a long time.

With respect to the question about the capital funding, you don't know how much I would love to leak the information to you about Ladysmith and to your colleague about Nanaimo. But I have learned from experience that the minute I leak that advance information to you, I get calls from the other 74 school districts saying. "Where is ours?"

What I have said to the first member I will repeat to the second member. We are reprioritizing the $550 million of high-priority projects to fit within the $275 million. Hopefully we will have that total package together next week, and we'll be able to let the member know.

I can tell the member that in the prioritization scheme, health and safety come first, a roof over their heads where no school exists comes second and renovations come after that. I don't at this moment remember individually the 230 projects — or something like that — that are on that priority list. But we are working on it, and we will let each district know as soon as possible. As I tried to indicate to the first member, it has absolutely nothing to do with your politics; it has to do with the needs of the children.

MR. ZIRNHELT: We are going to change the subject, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the minister if he could indicate to me what he has done with respect to the application from the Clinton high school. The Clinton high school is interested in a program of forest management that they consider critical and innovative in terms of retaining students in the school. This has broad community support

Their concern is that the population of the school will drop below a level that will allow them to retain teachers, and that will virtually collapse the senior high-school program. They feel this is an area where there should be some interministerial cooperation. And they feel it will stimulate the whole population of the town, which is critical to the economic health of the area. I am just wondering if you can give us some indication as to whether or not there is money in your program to expand this type of program.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't recall all the details, but I do recall the essence of the district's proposal for on-the-scene forestry training and cutting and using some land and some cooperation from industry and others in the community for a hands-on forestry training program as part of the training program in this school.

I know that the request was for big bucks from us to fund that program. In terms of the 16 or 20 students that the program might handle, it was an awful lot per student. We have our curriculum branch looking to see what part of it we could fund as part of curriculum development. We're looking at that as much as we can, but as I recall, part of the program was predicated on the thousands of dollars that other people would spend from other districts to come and live in Clinton and take this program. There has been some optimism in that regard in other programs. So it's a little bit dicey. How many students are going to come for six weeks from their homes and pay extra money? Or are their school districts going to pay it?

So I am raising some of the questions, some of the concerns. I can tell the member that we're looking at it to see to what extent we can see it as part of local curriculum development and to what extent we can fund it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Can you tell me that you are actively coordinating with other ministries that might be involved, such as Regional and Economic Development?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, we are. As I say, I was speaking for the Ministry of Education. We are looking at the extent to which we can get involved in it; then we can see where the others can come in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, come on, that is exactly what I was going to ask you. I'll put it on the record anyway, because I notice there are only a few more minutes left. I wasn't asking for a leak; I just want to know what you're doing. You don't have to....

MR. LOVICK: Does he know?

MR. SIHOTA: As my colleague says: do you know? Do you know about Lampson Street School?

[ Page 9569 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll never tell until next week.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says he won't tell until next week. Meanwhile we'll have an election. I can remember, in my riding in 1979.... I think Evan Wolfe was the Minister of Finance in those dark days....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure he won't turn it down.

He came into our riding and announced the equivalent of the lottery grants. I can't remember what we used to have then; it might have been just lottery funds. He announced that Lampson Street School would be renovated, brought up to standard and ready to go in 1980, and that we'd have children there at school to deal with the overcrowding that was evident in the schools in the west end of the Greater Victoria School District.

That was a decade ago, and we've still got overcrowding. We've got portables at Rock Heights. I think we've got five portables at Vic West. I don't think we've got any portables at Macaulay, and we're still waiting for the government to come through on its promise of a decade ago about funding for Lampson Street School,  which the minister knows as well as I was one of the first schools in British Columbia. It's a heritage site, declared by the municipality, with the view that they might be even more successful in getting funding from the province if they made that declaration. The school board is waiting with bated breath. Will the minister now tell us the status of that funding request, or will we have to wait until tomorrow — Friday — to get an answer from him?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I recall the history of the Lampson Street Elementary School, we committed to fixing it up, improving it and renovating it. The only problem that developed was that the students left. Now that there is the potential for students to return, it is on our high-priority list for reviving, renovating and putting back into action.

As I tried to explain to the other members earlier, as much as I am dearly tempted to tell you, the minute I do, everybody else will have to know. So I have to know the total package and all of that. I'm anticipating that we will be finished my estimates by 11 o'clock tomorrow. From 11 until one, I will work on that list so that I can announce it to you Monday, Tuesday or whenever. As soon as we can, we'd like to make sure the districts can plan as quickly as they can and put it together.

That's about where it sits, but I can't tell you tomorrow.

MR. SIHOTA: We have private members' statements tomorrow morning between 9:30 and about 10:30. You could work on the list during that hour instead of from 11 to 12, so that when we come in after statements, you could provide us with the information. My press release will be ready to go at 12.

I'm told by my eminent House Leader that it would be in my best interests to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

MR. ROSE: As is customary on a Thursday night, Mr. Speaker, as you well know — going back for many, many years as part of our parliamentary traditions — it is my pleasure and duty to confirm what we're going to be doing tomorrow — and maybe even next week, and maybe on into the sunset; I don't know. But I would like to confirm with the hon. House Leader of the government that statements will occur between 10 and 11 a.m. tomorrow, and that by agreement and by leave, we will be dealing with two motions until 11:40: one having to do with the Korean veterans and one having to do with adult literacy — adult literacy standing in the name of the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). Subsequent to that, we will continue on with the hon. Minister of Education's estimates until adjournment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the opposition House Leader said it so well I won't repeat it. But we do have that agreement, and if we get finished with the Minister of Education tomorrow, with his estimates, we'll get on to the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for his estimates. And if we finish that, we'll get on to the Game Farm Act, Bill 9, second reading.

Hon. Mr. Reynolds moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.