[ Page 9591 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Engineers Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 9591

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 9592

Oral Questions

Island Highway cost estimates. Mr. Lovick –– 9592

Mr. Gabelmann

Fraser Valley hospital bed demand. Mr. Peterson –– 9592

Labour dispute at Riverview. Mr. Sihota –– 9593

TRIUMF Kaon project. Mr. Mercier –– 9593

Federal funding of native Indian programs. Mr. G. Hanson –– 9593

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

On vote [7: minister's office 9594

Ms. Cull

Mr. Williams

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. G. Janssen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Jones

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Perry

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the members that we have friends in the gallery today from the South Pacific, and they have brought a Commonwealth friendship quilt to give to Victoria as the host of the '94 Games. That quilt, as the members know, is going to be unveiled this afternoon at 5:30 at the Victoria Conference Centre.

I would like to introduce them: Joan Caulfield is the coordinator of the quilt project and a newly arrived resident of Victoria; Carole Shepheard was responsible for overall design of the quilt; Toi Maihi is the designer of the Maori elements of the quilt and a member of the marae where the friendship totem pole was permanently installed following the 1990 Games in Auckland; and Luseanne Koloi of Tonga is a member of the Pacific Island Women's Association in Auckland and coordinator of the Pacific Island contribution to this beautiful piece of fabric art, which is given to Victoria as the host of the '94 Games.

Would you please give them a warm welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: This past week the city of Vernon in British Columbia was privileged to host the Centennial Cup, which is emblematic of the tier 2, junior A hockey championship. The finals were held on Saturday night with two teams from British Columbia, which is most appropriate. The Vernon Lakers were the winners of the Centennial Cup. Would the House please join me in congratulating them.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, every year Fletcher Challenge brings students to Victoria from their various operating areas. As in previous years, a group is here today from Campbell River. Thirty students from the three high schools in the Campbell River area are in the gallery this afternoon, accompanied by teachers Stu Meldrum and Gunter Mundschutz. As well, Brian Cruise from Fletcher Challenge is here. I'd ask the House to make the students and their chaperones welcome this afternoon.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as an honorary member of the Victoria Rotary Club, it is my very great pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Steve Coppinger, group leader of the Rotary exchange program. The group is composed of four professional young women from the Philippines, as well as a team leader and his wife.

Our Rotary Clubs are indeed appreciated. Throughout the decades, their members have enhanced the life in communities throughout the world by their hard work and commitment in a wide range of educational and social development undertakings, exemplifying the creative potential of dedicated volunteers in reaching out to others.

I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to Annabelle Eusebio, who's a registered nurse; Gloria Comprendio, a college teacher; Fatima Nonita Laquin, a senior food researcher; Rebecca Maria Lejano, working in banking and finance; Salvador Isleta, team leader; and his wife Candy Isleta. Please join me in wishing our fine visitors a most enjoyable stay in beautiful British Columbia.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to introduce, on behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, Ald. Rick Green, who has served the constituents of Delta for a number of years and is over meeting in my office on agricultural matters. He also serves as the vice-president of the Delta North constituency. Would this assembly please make Rick welcome.

MR. PERRY: J'ai le plaisir de présenter Mlle. Carine van Zuylen, 1'attaché de presse du consulat général de France, qui est dans la galerie aujourd'hui. J'aimerais l'accueillir chaleureusement de la part non seulement des députés mais aussi de la galerie de la presse.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the MLA for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker), I'd like to ask the House to welcome a group from Hazelton Seventh-Day Adventist School. Here today are two chaperones, Judy Walper and Dan McCreery, and students Rose Lee Lang, Kim Pfannmuller, Jennifer King, Melissa McCreery, Tim McCreery and Rhett Proctor. Please join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thought it might be appropriate to call to the attention of the House that today is the ninth anniversary of the election of one of our MLAs. I refer to none other than the venerable House Leader, the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who is much greyer now than he was nine years ago.

Introduction of Bills

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Engineers Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

In presenting this bill, I'd like to briefly tell the assembly that the bill has been requested by the professional engineers' association, the geoscientists and others. What it essentially does is to combine people with applied science degrees in the geoscience specialties and allow them to be registered with the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia. It therefore allows that association to have disciplinary procedures, as they normally do with their other members, and allows the whole field of

[ Page 9592 ]

geoscientists to be included, for their benefit, under the Engineers Act.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY 
EDUCATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Private Post-Secondary Education Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Members may recall that during my estimates we discussed private post-secondary institutions and a few problems that have occurred in British Columbia. I must point out that there are 426 institutions that offer post-secondary training operating in the private sector, and there have been very few problems. That is to the credit of the private post-secondary community.

However, there have been a few problems, and the post-secondary institutions have requested that we put this legislation in place. Essentially it is consumer protection legislation and will to some degree govern a little better the management, affairs and consumer protection of students attending such post-secondary institutions. I'm sure the members will look forward to debating the bill. It is good consumer affairs legislation, and we are pleased to present it now.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ISLAND HIGHWAY COST ESTIMATES

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The estimated cost of the Vancouver Island Highway upgrading has doubled since it was announced some 18 months ago. Does the minister agree with the auditor-general's conclusion that this huge escalation occurred because her ministry does not have the basic ability to estimate the cost of a major highway?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, I don't agree.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary, if I may. The minister said to one of my colleagues some months ago that she could provide no estimate on the cost of part of that highway. How can she reconcile that answer about inability to cost-estimate the project with what she said just now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In response to the question, the estimate was a very preliminary estimate that was originally given, and it was determined as a rough estimate before the scope of the project was finally determined. We are now in the final stages of determining the scope of the work that will be done, and we are now in a position to give some more accurate figures.

MR. LOVICK: A further supplementary. At no time has the minister or her predecessor ever said that the announced Vancouver Island Highway project, with a cost estimate...was a preliminary estimate. When was the decision made to say that everything done previously was a preliminary estimate? When did you decide it's a new one?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm really delighted that the member for Nanaimo is questioning us on the appropriateness of the Island Highway. I was in his community last week, and I can tell you that the people in the Nanaimo-Parksville area are delighted with the progress we're making.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary again. The minister obviously has a predicament hearing. I am not asking about whether the project is good or bad. I am simply asking the minister whether she knows how much it's going to cost. Can she tell us? I'm giving you a chance.

[2:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I said earlier, the cost of the project will be determined by the scope of the undertaking in all of the sections.

MR. GABELMANN: Further supplementary. Twelve years ago, when we were trying to get the highway, we were told that the phase from Parksville to Menzies Bay would be $200 million. The cost in 1986, from Victoria to Menzies Bay, was to be $400 million. Three years later, the cost was to be $600 million. Several months ago, the cost was to be $1.2 billion. I wrote the minister a letter and asked her how much it was going to cost. She wrote back to me saying she didn't know. Does she know today?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's difficult to be precise to the cent until you have gone out to tender, but we do have....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is throwing questions out, and I'm having a problem understanding what it is he's asking.

The project is proceeding, and we are looking at costs in the area of $1 billion. When we have more precise numbers, we will certainly be pleased to table them.

FRASER VALLEY HOSPITAL BED DEMAND

MR. PETERSON: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Fraser Valley hospital council report

[ Page 9593 ]

indicates a current shortfall of about 500 acute-care beds and a need over the next ten years for an additional 1,300 to 1,450 additional acute-care beds, due to very rapid population growth projections. Can the minister tell this House, first of all, whether or not he accepts these findings; and secondly — if he does — what action he is taking to meet these very serious demands?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, we're very much aware of the need for additional beds in the south Fraser area. In fact, we have met with a number of the hospitals and asked that they coordinate their planning in terms of the additional bed requirements in the particular area of care they specialize in. We've met with the Delta, Surrey, Peace Arch and Langley boards, and we encouraged them to put forward a coordinated plan of action, which I'm pleased to say they have. As a result of this coordinated planning, we announced last week $97 million in capital construction for the Surrey and Peace Arch area.

This will significantly enhance our capability in terms of primary and secondary health care for those areas. For example, the size of the hospital in Surrey will grow from 357 beds to some 650 beds, and Peace Arch will also have significantly enhanced capacity. We continue to address other concerns. We're very much aware of the need for additional bed space, occasioned both by growth and demographics.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT RIVERVIEW

MR. SIHOTA: There is currently a dispute involving psychiatric nurses at Riverview. I'm sure the Minister of Health knows about this. Will the minister confirm that employees of the superintendent of brokers' office and the Securities Commission have been told that they will be required to fill in for those who may be striking at Riverview?

HON. J. JANSEN: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a letter here signed by the employees of the office of the superintendent of brokers — and a copy of the letter has been sent to the Premier, as well — complaining that they have been told that they will be asked to back up at Riverview. Could the minister explain why this government has decided that accountants and financial experts should be providing emergency health care services and why he has not been informed of this?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the question is addressed to the wrong minister, but the Minister of Health may wish to reply.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, the question not asked was: how are we resolving this dispute? In fact, the dispute is being resolved, so perhaps the question is not necessary.

MR. SIHOTA: I can tell the minister that it is of significant concern to those who work at the superintendent of brokers' office. Accountants may know about the intricacies of the BS fund, but they don't know how to give enemas.

The question to the Minister of Health in this regard is this: does the minister not agree that it would be preferable for these services to be provided by people who have skills in health care, as opposed to those who have skills in financial matters? Would that not be his preference, as Minister of Health?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's preferable that the contract be resolved.

TRIUMF KAON PROJECT

MR. MERCIER: My question is for the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. In view of Premier Filmon's endorsation of the world-class kaon project on behalf of the government of Manitoba, can the minister advise this House how long it will be before the high-tech project, which will be of great benefit to B.C., can go ahead?

HON. S. HAGEN: The question, I think, is directed at the status of the project definition study, which is undertaken jointly by the federal government and the province of British Columbia at a cost of $11 million split 50-50. A great deal of work has gone into this study by some of the brightest scientific minds in the world.

I am sure that the House is aware that on any given day at the TRIUMF facility at UBC, there are 400 scientists from 26 countries around the world working and carrying out experiments there. Some of the questions asked by this study are: do we have the ability to build this project, and do we have the ability to engineer it?

I am pleased to inform the House today that the project definition study will be presented to ministers from both the federal and the provincial governments on May 24 in Ottawa. I know that this will be of great interest to the scientific minds in Canada, as well as to the great scientific minds around the world.

FEDERAL FUNDING OF
NATIVE INDIAN PROGRAMS

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier agree with his Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) that it's up to the federal Members of Parliament to demand the restoration of funding for aboriginal programs in B.C., which were cut by the Secretary of State?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we've not had an opportunity to discuss the federal funding programs or the lack of them, but certainly I know there is a trend for the federal government to unload the cost of certain programs onto the provinces. In particular, we've experienced it, as well as Alberta and Ontario. I think we ought to try and do all we can to protect the interest of B.C. taxpayers, because I

[ Page 9594 ]

believe that we owe it to them to make certain that they do not become burdened with costs that have historically been the cost of the federal government.

In principle, certainly, I would agree that we ought to do whatever possible to make sure that the federal government continues to fund those things that it has historically been responsible for. If you'd like to send me some particulars with respect to your findings on this, or if you have your own views, I'd be pleased to receive such information from you in the normal manner. As always, we'll certainly consider all such matters.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it's apparent that the Premier wasn't even listening. That's the problem; he's not listening to the aboriginal people of Canada.

Because of pressure, the Secretary of State restored funding for women's centres, and they left the Indian people out. When I raised it with the Minister of Native Affairs, he said: "Go and see your MPs." Do you agree with that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I agree that perhaps we are at a bit of a disadvantage in having so many New Democratic Party members in Ottawa, and that perhaps we have too often seen them get tied up in their own philosophical issues or in statements they can hardly back up. But I would certainly agree that we should not ease up on the Members of Parliament; regardless of what party they represent, they have a responsibility to the people in this province. Just because they are New Democrats, they can't walk away from that and say: "We'll leave it to the province. We'll have some MLA raise it in the House. Our hands are clean." Those MPs were elected to represent the people of this province — all the people — whether they are on that side or this side. Shame on those members if they're trying to shove it on us.

MR. G. HANSON: To the Premier. Why has your government been silent on the lack of restoration of funds for Indian people in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It seems that the silence has come from the NDP MPs in Ottawa. I have yet to receive a letter, a message, a phone call or a visit from any NDP MP. They can come to my office; they know where it is. One of them occupied the office for a time. If they can't take those few minutes required to pay a visit to the Premier and say to the Premier: "How do we resolve these matters? Together, we are the Members of Parliament. We live in Ottawa, Mr. Premier. We would like to work with you to see how we can see things done better for the native people of this province." If they can't find those few minutes, if they don't care enough or if they are so hung up on their party politics that they're afraid to visit someone of another philosophical or political persuasion, I say shame on Mr. Barrett, shame on every one of those NDP MPs!

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled answers to questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for doing this. This is an opportunity to actually read those questions, rather than take up the time of question period. All members should appreciate the courtesy offered by the minister, and hopefully a similar courtesy would be extended by everybody.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries, I ask leave for that committee to sit this afternoon at 2:45.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind members of the House that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet tomorrow at 8 a.m.

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. CULL: I want to return to some of the debate we were having on Friday before we adjourned, and to the discussion and exchange that the Minister of Education and I were having about innovation and capital funding.

[2:30]

I took the opportunity this morning to have a look at Hansard to see what had been said, and I want to go back to some of those points because I think there were some very interesting remarks and suggestions made, and some things that definitely deserve being followed up.

To begin with, the minister was talking about the need for innovation and cooperation between school districts and municipalities, particularly in the areas of the province where we are experiencing rapid residential growth, and school districts are scrambling to keep up with that growth by providing school sites and facilities, expansions and what have you.

The minister remarked that one of the innovative ideas he would have liked to have seen was a turn-key school operation paid for. Presumably the developer would provide a turn-key school operation.

The remarks he made were: "It would take a little imagination, wouldn't it? People will automatically say to me: 'But the system doesn't allow it. Can you give us the authority to proceed?"' He said if someone came to them saying, "Can you give us the authority to proceed?" that: "I'll tell you, I'm not going to tell them to take a run."

Presumably we'd have to get school boards, municipalities and developers together to agree to such a proposal. The first thing that we would have to do is bring the local governments onside. The school

[ Page 9595 ]

districts and the local governments would have to sit down and talk about this before approaching any prospective developer, and I'm certain that one of the first things that would come from a local government — in fact, I know it has come in the past when school districts have discussed this with various municipalities — is that they don't have the authority to require it.

I know the minister said: "Well, let's not let the lack of authority stop us here." But we do have a problem, because we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs — certainly many of the past Ministers of Municipal Affairs — telling local governments that the way they will best address growth problems is to ensure that the zoning is in place. There is a lot of pressure on municipalities not to hold their zoning at artificially low densities, thereby adding to the length of time it takes the development community to respond to the demand for more housing, more commercial space and what have you.

The clear message that has come from this government with respect to zoning is to ensure that the appropriate zoning is there in advance of the need. That puts the municipality in a very difficult situation. If the developer has the zoning that he or she needs, there is no need to negotiate with a school district or a municipality about providing additional services. The developer simply gets permits and goes ahead.

Obviously there is a need for some kind of legislative mechanism here to assist the school district and the local government in their discussions with developers because, no matter what we choose to think about the development industry, I haven't in all of my time in the planning field noted that many of them are particularly altruistic when it comes to providing community services. Municipalities do need some kind of leverage — or, in this case, legislation — so that they have something concrete with which to sit down with the developer to extract these kinds of additional services.

It's not enough just to demonstrate that there is indeed a cost of development. There quite clearly is. The municipalities know it, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs certainly knows it, and the developers know it too. But what we're looking for here is some means of assisting local governments and school districts to be able to conduct these negotiations.

My first question to the minister is: what is the minister doing with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture to bring forward such legislation?

I'd also like to move on in the remarks made by the minister. In response to some comments that I made about this need for legislation, the minister immediately zeroed in on development cost charges. I thought that was very interesting, because in my remarks I didn't mention development cost charges at all. In fact, my preference — and the preference of school districts, and probably that of municipalities in many cases — would not be to go to changes or additions to the cost charge system that exists in this province, but to deal with the whole question of acquisition of sites, such as we have now under the Municipal Act for the acquisition of parkland.

I'm sure the minister is fully aware of this, but for the information of the other members, under the Municipal Act municipalities, when approving developments or subdivisions, have the authority to require that a certain percentage of the land, up to 5 percent, be taken as parkland. The Municipal Act has been very helpful in this respect, because it's given local governments, provided they do their planning properly, the ability to request specific parkland. In other words, the developer doesn't have to just turn over the swamp for parkland; the municipality has the ability to determine where the most appropriate site for parkland would be.

In addition, in the last number of years — again, this is to the credit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs — they have given local governments the ability to say: "We don't really want any of the land in that development for parkland, because it's not in the appropriate location. But we will take land in another area or we will take cash in lieu." Those are the kinds of innovations I'm certain the minister was referring to. But there is no ability for school districts to cooperate with municipalities to acquire this land for school sites. That would be, in my mind, a very innovative approach along the lines of what the minister has been suggesting, if school districts could identify, in cooperation with local governments through a community planning process, sites that would be needed for schools in the future.

This isn't a particularly radical idea. Our neighbour to the east, Conservative Alberta, already has and has had such a system in place for many years. Under Alberta legislation, 5 percent of land can be taken for parks and an additional 5 percent can be taken for schools. In fact, within this enabling legislation — and I think that's the key; the province has provided the enabling legislation — all kinds of cooperation has occurred. Let me give you just one example. The city of Edmonton has used this legislation to develop a tripartite agreement between the city parks department, the public school board and the Roman Catholic school board in Edmonton to come up with a sharing formula so that they can take the total 10 percent of land and allocate it to parks and public and separate schools in the most effective manner possible.

That's the kind of innovative solution I was talking about — not necessarily development cost charges, although they certainly deserve a look as well. Those kinds of legislative mechanisms would allow the very kind of cooperation the minister was talking about. The difference we have between Alberta and B.C. is that that province has shown some leadership; it has amended its legislation to provide the framework for cooperation.

If we look at just one example here in British Columbia, again at the Westwood property, which affects the Coquitlam School District, we know from the ministry's own figures that the original budget for school sites in the Westwood area, where three to four schools would be needed, was somewhere in the

[ Page 9596 ]

order of $450,000. The actual purchase price is now estimated at $1.5 million. That's quite an increase in cost that could have been avoided — freeing money from capital funds to be used for all of the other long list of projects that school districts have — if there had been legislation in place allowing school districts to acquire sites.

I've talked about a number of different things in response to what the minister said, but I'd like to know.... On Friday he basically challenged school districts to be innovative, and I've said they have tried to be innovative; they've asked the ministry to be innovative. What is the minister doing with respect to negotiations with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture to change their legislation and to change their attitude, which appears to be against such innovation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm very impressed with the member's attempt to tell us and the world what she learned as an employee of the provincial government — on a municipal planning committee, I guess.

What I put out were some suggestions about some innovative approaches. The member says I didn't mention development cost charges. Today that member says: "Well, we might not want the piece of land that the developer wants to provide for us; what we want is the money so that we can go and buy the land somewhere else." Once again we're into that socialist status quo mentality: don't change your thinking, don't do anything innovative, simply add development cost charges.

The member makes a great issue of the Westwood Plateau, and yes, I would like to have seen something a little different. But to take a piece of raw land with no road, no sewage, no water and no connections of any kind, and to compare that price with the developed land with all of those services and infrastructure in place is again an attempt to distort that sort of thing. I think the member said: "The municipalities and the school boards don't have the authority." Have they asked?

MS. CULL: Yes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They haven't asked me. The UBCM and that member over there say: "We want development cost charges restored. Let's not think of anything new." Some districts are exchanging land with municipalities for parks or whatever. Arrangements are being made at the local level, and we try to support that as much as we can, to try and expedite the building of schools. But all the member says is: "Well, let's keep the status quo system and just put in some centralized regulations to make it possible." When people are not even asking for the right to do something new and innovative, what's the point?

I have had discussions with colleagues, members of Municipal Affairs, Treasury Boards and others, trying to make these suggestions. Then we get into the House, and I say, "Look, we could use some innovative thinking out there," and all the member comes back with is, "Well, it hasn't been done in the past"; or "It has been done somewhere else," or that sort of thing. As long as you take that approach, instead of saying: "If it hasn't been done before, maybe we should look at it...."

Take the Sullivan commission report. What did that opposition do regularly? They said: "You shouldn't be trying to implement these changes." It's the same mentality. In other words, what we're doing.... Let's criticize that, but if somebody asks for an innovative idea or for someone to come forth with a suggestion.... I suggested quite a few things on Friday. But, of course, the member's knowledge is very narrow, so she just focused on the land issue.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did I hear the minister right? Buried in all of that rhetoric I think there was a minor aside about the Westwood Plateau. Isn't that right? "It may not quite have been the way some of us would have liked" — something like that. Indeed!

Did the minister stand up there and say: "Let's at least reserve 5 or 7 percent of the Westwood Plateau site for public schools"? Did he carry on that fight? Did he recommend that a reserve for public schools be held with respect to the Westwood lands?

[2:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, the minister tries everything he can to ensure that school sites are preserved. The only difference between us is that I try to get changes, and I persist. I continue to try to get changes made. I don't just stand up and exploit it for political purposes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, the minister has now said that he actually did try to get a reserve for schools on the Westwood lands; that's the case. But he failed, obviously. It's not that difficult, and I guess the minister can at least join us now with a chorus of "I told you so." It didn't make a lot of sense to let the Westwood lands go, with countless new neighbourhoods in the Coquitlam area that you're going to have to pay through the nose for in the future.

Does the minister have a current cost estimate of buying back school sites from the Westwood lands?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, but I can tell the member that the cost of the land that will be serviced and with the infrastructure will be more than it was as raw land.

If the member would like to know, I also had to face a situation in Coquitlam where, when the land was already there and we wanted to put a small addition onto one of the schools, the municipality tried to charge us— the school system — a horrendous development charge, because they wanted to do all kinds of other things: pay for the sewer, and so on. So I don't know whether you gain anything. Here's a municipality that said: "Oh, you should really get that land at the raw land prices rather than paying the serviced land prices." If we had got it at the raw land prices, I wonder if that same municipality would not have done the same thing and said: "Well,

[ Page 9597 ]

now the Ministry of Education should come up with a million dollars in cost development charges, because that way we could pay for municipal services." I don't know where the answer lies.

Yes, I have had some difficulty in changing the system. One of the reasons I've had some difficulty is that everybody has the same answers: we don't have development cost charges; we don't have this; and we don't have the other. I just say: "Well, let's look at what might be possible." Then, of course, it doesn't help a bit when these members, just for political purposes and nothing else.... You couldn't care less about what happens to those school sites if you can't get a few political points out of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Come on! You're saying that our new member from Oak Bay is simply doing this for political reasons.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I've got it. You complain about information between Municipal Affairs and Education going back and forth that we may have been privy to. The point is a reasonable one. It's a public policy issue that was advocated within the public service— I say, properly — and it's a public policy issue that is now being debated in public — properly. The minister attempts this phony bravado by saying it's all politics, when other provinces have long since had this kind of requirement.

The minister didn't give me a number; he just said, "Yes, it's going to cost us more." Well, that doesn't make sense, Mr. Minister. You had an opportunity.... And I presume, from what you say, that you tried to talk the Premier into being a little smarter than he normally is.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a challenge, no doubt about it. But if he had been the last guy who had caught you in the parking lot, it might have worked. It's all those other guys along the hallway with another idea. My God, he really has a problem. But you know, the trick is to get him just before he gets into the cabinet meeting and has to vote. That's the way to deal with that specific problem.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. You had the opportunity here. You sold the site off for $63 million, and on any pro rata basis, you're going to pay through the nose for schools at Westwood. As I understand it, the current number is $10 million that you're going to have to pay back.

He shakes his head. Wait until you get through that Wesbild wringer and see what you have to pay back for school sites in the Westwood Plateau. You'll excuse it by saying: "Oh well, it's the servicing cost, and we have to pay because of those added costs for infrastructure." But you had that opportunity; the Premier had that opportunity.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's all taken care of.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it's all taken care of out of the taxpayers' pockets; that's how it's all taken care of.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, that's how the NDP does it; they're always in the taxpayers' pockets.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why are you so itchy today, Mr. Premier? Did you just get the latest polling results? Did you just find that a summertime election is not in the cards? Is that why you're as itchy and antsy today as you are?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Socialists don't stand a chance; people don't want socialists.

MR. WILLIAMS: What are the numbers that are bothering you, Mr. Premier? You know what they are; that's why you're so antsy today.

That's the problem: there isn't any long-term planning. You guys are the most hung-up people on ideology in British Columbia. If it comes down to planning, you're against it; you say it's a socialist idea. I kid you not.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Look, yes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's the great planner....

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, now the Premier's against free enterprise. Can't he make up his mind? No, he can't.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, you really are antsy today. It is the polling results that are disturbing him.

But let's get back to the business of planning. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) has raised a valid point, and that is that in terms of major developments at least, we should be requiring that a percentage of those lands be set aside for schools. If it isn't set aside as direct lands, it should be an amount in lieu of it. We now do it for parks; it makes every good sense that it should be done for schools. This minister gets up and dismisses this business as politics.

I remember when I became a new member here a century ago.... Those kinds of speeches are often given by new members, and they tend all too often to be ignored by the government side of the House; they genuinely do. After a while, you learn that you need something bigger than a 2-by-4 to catch your attention. I'm saying that, because the member isn't using something bigger than a 2-by-4, you should listen,

[ Page 9598 ]

because she's a person of considerable competence who has a specific message to put here.

It is not politics, as the minister would dismiss it. It's a valid policy issue that deserves some rational debate, and we have not seen it so far.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm intrigued by the contribution to the rational debate that the member put forward.

Actually, what I as trying to do was to make the first member for Vancouver East a little smarter, because he's saying: "Give me a price that they're going to charge for that land, and then you try to negotiate the best deal." That's quite a system, isn't it? Give me the top price that you might have to pay for that land, and then see how good a deal you can make.

Well, I'm not about to come up with that price. I said I can't give you the specifics of it, because we negotiate the price. We don't put out an exorbitant figure like $10 million to encourage the people to ask for $10 million, because obviously you're saying to the public that if you were government you would put a $10 million price-tag on those lots for the schools. At least, I can take that implicitly from that. I'm not about to increase the price by lack of intelligence on the way I debate it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying you wouldn't have the problem of negotiating price if you'd establish by legislation a percentage of major sites that would be available for schools. You would not have the problem. You wouldn't be wasting the taxpayers' money. It just involves a little bit of planning. That's the trouble that this government has: even a little planning is difficult for this administration to handle.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's something called expropriation without compensation.

MS. CULL: It's hardly expropriation without compensation. We already have the proposal within the Municipal Act for parkland. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, the province of Alberta also has it for parkland and school sites.

I was encouraged to hear what the first member for Vancouver East had to say, though, because I am a new member in this House. I raise these points again because of the discussion we had last Friday.

The minister has put out a number of ideas calling for innovation. I was present at the education facilities planners' conference when he floated some interesting ideas. I know that the minister, despite what he says in the House here, has had positive reaction back from school districts. There are people in the educational community, particularly facilities planners, and people in the planning departments of local government, who are interested in putting politics aside and getting on with developing school sites, with managing growth, with meeting the needs of the people in this province.

What I am putting forward is a number of ideas that probably mesh very well with some of those that you've put out, such as amending the Municipal Act to allow municipalities, in cooperation with school districts, to acquire land for schools. That gets you around a lot of the problems that we've been talking about with the Westwood lands. It also puts the school districts in the same position with development cost charges.

The minister persists in trying to twist it around to say that we're asking for more and higher development cost charges.

There are many other things we could be doing, and I'm hoping that the minister is working with his colleagues in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to get these brought into place.

Since this one seems to be falling on deaf ears on the other side there, let me turn to another issue — that is, day care. Again, going back to the comments that we had on Friday, the minister said that I and members on this side of the House were suggesting that the Ministry of Education fund day cares. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. What I asked the minister — and I will ask him again today — is: has he been working with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the Ministry of Health to determine whether capital budgets from those ministries and the Ministry of Education can be pooled or coordinated in some fashion so that we can actually build community schools with facilities that include far more than the traditional education facilities?

I'm not suggesting that the Ministry of Education fund items outside of the educational field; I'm just saying that it's not good enough to simply ask why these people aren't coming together in the community, when the ministries themselves have not been providing any leadership in this area. If you're looking for innovation, surely one of the things that the Ministry of Education could be doing is to work with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, to work with the non-profit child care operators in this province to find ways to build facilities that then can be run by other groups to provide those services which are most ideally provided at the community level, in conjunction with schools.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the member says that we're not interested in planning — that we're not interested in working on any of these things. It was I who suggested some of these innovative approaches. The member, instead of agreeing and saying there might be some merit, and being a bit supportive, found that somewhere in there there has to be something to criticize this government for. That's the kind of mentality that makes it much more difficult to achieve things.

[3:00]

As far as day care is concerned, from the Cornerstone study, we have discussed with our other colleagues things that should be done to coordinate our efforts. But I can tell the member quite honestly that, not being able to fund the educational capital facilities as much as I'd like to within my ministry, no, I

[ Page 9599 ]

don't go looking for how I could extend that funding to day care facilities. We don't go out looking for funding day care facilities. What we do is encourage boards, when the facilities are available, to work to the betterment of their students.

My mandate is K to 12. 1 don't go looking around for how to fund buildings for nursery schools, or day care facilities, or all of those things. If there's some coordination possible, of course I'm interested. But if you say, "Are you going out trying to find ways to fund day care facilities," the answer is no, I don't go looking for more work.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we can all appreciate the difficulties that this minister has in trying to meet capital needs of districts. He's come into a ministry where there was a deficit in that area. There's a huge problem. It's a problem that's acknowledged, I think, by everyone. What we're attempting today is to have a good discussion around those issues.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: If the Premier would let me speak, it would be helpful.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Education, who is talking in his capital cost projections about what I think are called "Year 2000" schools, what some of the characteristics of those schools might be that are different from schools built in the past. Perhaps the Premier might listen and get some information that would be helpful to him as well, since I think the Minister of Education quite often has difficulty educating this Premier on education matters too.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think the member said it very well — that they are trying to talk around these issues. I would much prefer if they would talk on the issues, but that's fairly difficult because it doesn't suit their political agenda. Perhaps if we can get on some of the issues....

We don't go around looking to design a building in a certain way. What we're talking about are programs, and then we're discussing the capital structural implications to make those programs effective. We're looking at some extra funding money for some schools to say: "If you did the school a bit differently, how would it serve the objective of the programs better?" We're not trying to come up with some new fancy castle into which we can then stuff a program. No, we want it to serve the needs of the kids and of the program. So I don't have a set of specifications.

We're asking people if there is another way to be more flexible. There is. That is one of the things I would hope that people would sometimes look at — does it really need extra space? — to change their minds.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister seems to be fixated on the issue of space, but indeed space is one of the things we need in order to provide programs. Let me just make a couple of suggestions which came out of the Royal Commission on Education that might in fact be incorporated into schools. It follows along on the comments of my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head about community schools and schools which serve families within the catchment area of the school.

The ministry has developed an extensive set of protocols, many of which have to do with health and community services. It's possible that some of those protocols will require, if children are to be served, some special arrangements in the design and development of schools. Within those protocols, for example, there is a suggestion that although the ministry has no responsibility for preschool children, there may be children, particularly in the ages very close to the time of entry into the school system, who should be accommodated part-time in school and part-time still in a developmental preschool situation, because there may be developmental delays in their progress. It seems to make sense that those children would stay in the same setting, that they might go from one place to another within the school. But those are extra children, and they are going to need space for those programs. Those are just two examples of the kinds of issues we are talking about. I have question to the minister. In the planning of new schools, are the needs in a community for children's services being looked at? Specifically, are they being looked at in respect to royal commission recommendations that will integrate children, perhaps at a younger age, into a school setting?

When we talked about dual entry, we talked about the fact that children are now entering school, according to the minister's program which will take effect in the '90-91 school year, at two separate times. Many of those children are involved with day care part-time and with school the rest of the time. We're talking about what will happen to children who may in fact stay in a half-day program for a full year and quite possibly could have a preschool or day care program situation, as well as a kindergarten program. Is the minister looking at any of these kinds of issues. And are there developments around what we might call "lead schools," in the design of schools, that might give us some futuristic approach to the way in which services for children are provided in a community? I ask that question, recognizing the difficulties the minister has in meeting all the needs that he has had brought to his attention and that we will undoubtedly continue to bring to his attention through these estimates. It would be nice to hear that the minister is in fact looking a little beyond K to 12, a little beyond just the straight education services, because I think the royal commission initiatives recognize the integration of children's lives into a school setting. New buildings could well reflect the forward vision that the commission brought forward, and we now have an opportunity to respond, as we are building new schools in the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the school plans, there are facilities or space requirements for nurses' rooms

[ Page 9600 ]

for health facilities, for those involved in protocols. I guess the one thing I'm once again trying to do is break the mentality that the member has just confirmed, that to change a program you have to send the students to another program box. You cannot integrate students in a classroom; you have to have a separate integration room. That's the kind of nonsense we have to get away from. You serve the program, and it can be served in flexible ways: in standard classrooms, in different classrooms, in flexible classrooms. I don't know what the member is looking for. Do we have to have a separate integration room? Surely the member is not suggesting that.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I just ask the minister a simple question? If there are children who, according to the protocols, are going to require education programs under your ministry and children who are going to require education programs that might be under Social Services and Housing.... I'm thinking particularly of developmentally delayed children between the ages of about four and a half and five, where there is some indication that the ministry is going to have part-time programs in the regular school program or part-time programs that might be in the more traditional, developmental preschool or day care. Is it the ministry's suggestion that those programs all go on in the same classroom? It may be possible, but is the ministry planning that kind of arrangement? Or are those children going to be in a different setting with a different program suitable specifically to their needs, because they are not yet fully ready to be integrated into the K-12 program?

This is just one example of what I'm talking about in how schools could be developed so that broader uses may be made of the space. Since these are daytime uses, it's pretty difficult — unless the minister says these children are going to be integrated before they are five years old — to figure out where you're going to put them, unless you are putting them in a preschool or a special developmental day care that might be attached to a school, in order for those children to benefit from two different programs as they move into the early stages of schooling.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know whether there's much point in repeating myself. We are not getting into preschool programs. According to the Sullivan report, in the primary program, the "Year 2000" philosophical statement, the idea is to get the students when they qualify age-wise for entry. Then we provide an educational program that suits the children. It's not that we say: "You send them to this room to put this part on them, and you send them to this room to put that part on them." We're trying to get away from compartmentalizing.

I guess the member doesn't understand integration of students or continuous progress, if you have to send them here and there. The protocol agreements simply ask what services from other ministries would be provided toward the educational program. My ministry takes the responsibility for providing the educational program, and so does the act.

We also are looking in the protocol agreements to see what other people from other ministries we need to bring in to assist the teachers, the school board and the school to provide the educational program. We're not saying that if you need to learn how to tie your laces you have to go to another room because in this room we're doing reading. For goodness' sake!

MS. A. HAGEN: I think that under the protocol agreement for preschool programs for children with special needs, we might anticipate something happening in school buildings to provide for those children. It would be an excellent move.

I want to go back to capital funding with a more general question and ask the minister to clarify fairly briefly for me the amount of funding available. I would just like to walk through a question and ask the minister to help us on this side of the House to understand what the ministry does have available for capital funding.

The budget speech announced — and the minister has noted on a number of occasions — that there's $350 million available this year, which is $100 million more than the annualized program of $250 million over six years. We note that within the actual debt servicing aspect of the budget, $214 million is identified. Because I'm not always clear about how debt servicing and actual expenditures relate, it would be helpful if the minister would just explain what we are going to have available that can be translated into actual building costs, and where the $214 million fits into that. There's $350 million available for capital funding, but $214 million is available for debt services. Can the minister explain the discrepancy and whether there are funds in any other category of the estimates that relate to that $350 million?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I guess the member is right: she doesn't understand the relationship between capital and debt servicing. In capital approvals we have $275 million worth of projects to approve this year, and $75 million in minor capital. That adds up to $350 million worth of projects. Many of those projects are not paid for by cash at that moment. In our financial statements, we have to show what the existing and new mortgage payments add up to, and that's $214 million a year.

The member keeps saying: "I realize that the minister has these problems of not being able to get all of the capital he wants." Will that member ever give us credit for moving up to a commitment of $250 million a year for six years, and then moving that up to $350 million to front-end some of it while we've got it? There's no credit for any of that, just a constant reiteration of the problems. If you're going to constantly nitpick, how about at least acknowledging that some progress has been made by this minister and that there's been some support from this government to show its commitment to improving the facilities in this province? Can't you even recognize that, Madam Member?

[3:15]

[ Page 9601 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: If the minister were a teacher, and I asked a question for information and he responded in that way, I would say he was a very poor teacher. I asked a question for information; it was a straightforward question. It's helpful not to have a lecture when you ask a straightforward question. I appreciate the answer. I did note at the outset of the question that there is additional money, and I think that that is commendable.

Now I want to ask one or two questions about those funds and particularly turn to a set of priorities the minister referred to on Friday, when he said that as he was dealing with his task of trying to prioritize a large number of requests in the pool of dollars he had available, there were three criteria he used in descending, or ascending, order: first of all, he is concerned about having a roof over the heads of kids, presumably not a leaky roof; secondly, he is concerned about health and safety; and thirdly, he is concerned about repairs. I think that was his rough rule of thumb of how those priorities might be established. Given that there isn't a big enough pot ever, as the minister has noted, to provide for all of the needs out there, it's probably as reasonable a rule of thumb as one might expect.

I want to briefly deal specifically with the health and safety issue. All of us know, especially since the San Francisco earthquake, that there has been great concern on the part of parents about the kind of work that needs to be done to make buildings safer for children. I understand that in 22 or 23 districts some surveys have been done in this regard. First of all, is the minister prepared to release at this time, to the public in the districts where those surveys were carried out, the results of those surveys regarding earthquake preparation and earthquake safety?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think the member has the priorities wrong. I believe I said that the first priority is health and safety and the second is a roof over their heads; then we go on from there. It is a rule of thumb.

We have done a great deal. Every school that has been built since about 1958, when earthquake standards were put in place, is built to those standards Any renovation is done to those standards. We recognize that we can't do them all in one year.

The member asked something about some studies: will we release the studies? The ministry has had some discussions with school boards in order to come up with what schools are old and that sort of thing. That's available at the district level. We did a rough survey to find out what we needed to zero in on so that we could do some planning. The $24 million in minor capital in the budget, the $31 million we put into the budget this year for minor capital, and the capital reserves the districts are sitting on — there's all kinds of money there for them to survey.... Then we will try to reconstruct, build and fix the schools up to adequate standards as soon as possible. I suppose that even if we came up with all of the money we wanted, we couldn't do the design planning to do that. So we try to do our best to deal with the problem, rather than creating paranoia.

MS. A. HAGEN: I commend that attitude, because it is a very difficult area, and one that I know the minister and school boards are mutually concerned about.

There are going to be schools which are old and whose construction is such that they are not repairable on any kind of economical basis. Surveys will show that there are schools that cannot be repaired within any kind of reasonable cost estimate. Is it the ministry's policy that for schools that have been identified as requiring such extensive engineering work and reconstruction work it would not be economic, in fact, to carry out such remediation for earthquake protection? Is it the ministry policy that those schools will be on a priority list for replacement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, if a building is old, that doesn't mean it's unsafe. The first thing a study determines is whether it is safe. There are schools in other parts of the province that may be old but they're not in an earthquake zone, so that is a determination.

When we study a school, the engineers look at what it would take to make it safe and fix it up. If that is as much as or close to replacement, then we don't; we try for replacement. We do replacements when it doesn't make sense economically or for safety reasons to fix up a school. Within the envelope that we have to spend we try and give priorities to those schools that have the greatest needs for fixing up or replacement.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the last year or so the ministry has provided a track system for building schools with planning money up front and then the actual capital cost for building or replacement following in the next year. For schools that do exist and have been identified as needing to be replaced because it's not economic to repair and upgrade, can we assume that if planning money is approved in let's say this fiscal year, boards could count on the usual course of action and those schools would be on track for replacement in the year following?

In other words, once the school gets into the track and replacement is decided upon by district and ministry, can we assume that that track will follow as the night to day, with planning money one year and dollars for the actual construction of a new school in the succeeding year?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are two types of planning money. One is preliminary planning, which is usually minimal. We make every possible effort so that when we get to the detailed planning it is to ensure that when the plans are complete the construction can go ahead. I can't guarantee every one, such as night follows day— or day follows night, which I'd rather say on this side. We don't know if plans might slow down or break down. We have had

[ Page 9602 ]

situations where it didn't go according to plan, and then we have moved that money to something that was ready to go rather than sit on it.

The member thinks that when we approve $350 million for projects, we take $350 million and stick it in a bank account and there it is. It is not. It is approval, and then the borrowing is done as the need develops. But we can approve projects up to that point.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not sure whether the minister hasn't created a new kind of planning. I didn't know there was preliminary planning. Obviously once a school is identified as being prepared for either replacement or building, I would imagine that the preliminary planning is long past and we're into the business of actually planning to construct a school.

The minister has made all kinds of promises over the last few days and asked us to ask him a week from now and he'd let us know. Could the minister just let us know the status of the capital budgets? When can boards anticipate getting some information about what will be available for them in the year ahead?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The status is ongoing, in the works, and making great progress.

MS. CULL: I just want to go back a bit to earthquakes. The member for New Westminster was asking about the relationship between planning money and money the following year to replace schools that might need replacement. The studies on earthquake safety and a school's ability to be upgraded to be safe in the event of an earthquake might be such that it wouldn't make sense to actually try to repair it and that it would make more sense to rebuild.

I just want to shift the focus a little bit onto those schools that do have the potential to be brought up to standard. I know that as part of the work the Ministry of Education has been doing on earthquake safety a small number of schools were looked at to determine exactly what it would cost to bring them up to standard. One of the schools in this area is Victoria Senior High School. The studies have been done and in this year's capital budget is a request for $1.4 million to do the work to bring the structure up to standard.

Given the priorities that the minister outlined for health and safety, could the minister tell us if once the surveys have been done and the work has been identified, school districts can then count on getting approvals in their next capital budget?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My ministry staff have had good discussions with the districts on their priorities and concerns. As I tried to indicate last week — but it falls on deaf ears — I'm not yet in a position to announce which projects are being funded and which aren't.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chair, by using that illustration, I wasn't asking for the minister to tell us now whether the Greater Victoria School District would hear about its approval; I was asking whether we can assume that there is a relationship between having completed the survey, and knowing what has to be done, and getting onto that high-priority list for approval in the next capital year for the work to be done. If, according to the minister, the number one priority for capital approvals are, in fact, health and safety, surely once we've finished the architectural and engineering work to determine what has to be done to a specific school, that renovation or repair would be the number one priority for the next capital year. I'm asking if there is a relationship between the study and the approval for the work to be done.

HON. MR. FRASER: I can hardly contain myself when listening to socialists talk about engineering and public safety. The reason I was so amused was that I remember an event in the city of Vancouver one time, when it was rumoured that an old school building was coming down. The old socialist didn't want it to come down. He didn't care about the safety in that building; he was worried about saving the building from a heritage point of view. The story stuck with me all these many years, and it goes something like this. It's a good story.

[3:30]

An engineer was hired to survey the building and look at the masonry and the stones in the foundation, the bricks, the floor loadings, the roof and the whole thing — they almost counted the stones; it was a very careful analysis. Finally we were in city hall one day — I just happened to be there — and here's the old socialist talking to the engineer, whom I knew, and he said: "Now, tell us about the building, whether it is any good or not." The answer was: "Well, the foundations aren't very good; in fact, it's probably a miracle it's still standing." Then he asked: "Well, how old is this building?" And he said: "It's about 80 years old." Then he asked: "Well, what about the floor loadings and the wood?" "Well, the wood is in quite good condition, but the floor loadings" — we were in imperial units at that time — "are 30 pounds per square foot. For a public building, you need 100, so you have to do massive upgrading in order to have it go with the new public standard."

He went through the building, the electrical system and everything mechanical — heating, ventilating, the roof — the whole building. The old socialist was told over and over again that the building didn't pass and would cost millions and millions of dollars to retrofit. But he wanted to save the building. Safety was not the issue; he wanted to save the building.

So finally he turned to my engineer friend and asked: "How old did you say the building was?" He said: "Eighty years." "Have there been any earthquakes in the last 80 years?" "Yes, there have been several." "Have they been quite large?" "Well, some of them have." "And the building is still standing?" "Oh yes, it is." He asked: "Would an engineer like to have a building that he built last 80 years?" "Yes, he

[ Page 9603 ]

would." "Well, then it will last another 80 years, " he said. And on he flew over all this engineer said.

Listening to the rhetoric from the other side today, I can hardly believe it. But you know, it's this minister and this government initiating all that safety; it's that side over there complaining about every single initiative. I know that the minister has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrading schools, and other ministers have done the same thing. I commend the government and that minister for their effort. And so they should be commended. So should all those people in the districts, who really care that we've got safety out there and really care about the education system.

I must be sympathetic to the minister — on and on, nitpick, nitpick, nitpick, when in fact, the thrust and philosophy of the government are to make sure that all students in British Columbia get a decent education, that they can go from high school to any post-secondary institution in the province or even in the land. I say to the minister: keep up the good work, because they probably don't really want to hear what you're doing; they just want to nitpick at you. Good on you, sir.

MS. CULL: Last December, Willows Elementary School contacted the minister and asked about the situation at that school and whether the government would release to the school at that point the earthquake surveys that had been done and indicate what was going to be done in bringing that school up to standard. I wonder if the minister can tell us what decisions have been made with respect to Willows Elementary School.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 17 pass?

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not quite sure whether the minister indicated that he planned to answer that question or not; perhaps he could clarify it for us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it hasn't been mentioned this session, but I would just remind hon. members that there's no compulsion at all for any question to be answered. If the minister doesn't choose to answer a question, there's no requirement for him to do so.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chair, I am not familiar with estimates debates, but I heard the minister make some remarks without using his microphone, and I wasn't sure if he was answering me or not.

I just want to go back to the question about replacement buildings and also renovation. It's interesting that the member opposite used the illustration of an 80-year-old building. We know that sometimes the old buildings are actually quite able to withstand earthquakes, while those that were built during the 1960s, when architectural design was such that many of the building envelopes are quite unsound because of windows or other items....

Interjection.

MS. CULL: In greater Victoria one of the most dangerous buildings is the fire hall on Yates Street. Check when that one was built.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: Built in the 1960s.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't build fire halls.

MS. CULL: Yes, I know you don't, Mr. Minister, so I will stop replying to the members opposite and come back to the issue here.

I want to go back to the criteria again, because they are of great concern to local school districts. Again, I'm encouraged to hear the minister say that health and safety are the main priorities.

In school districts which are experiencing some growth, the minister will agree that space is obviously needed to house those students. While I certainly agree with the minister that it's not always new space that's needed — in fact, there are all kinds of flexible and innovative ways for space to be created — eventually, school districts do come to an end of being able to use creatively the space they have. In the capital planning process, school districts are required to prioritize their request. And they are faced with requests of prioritizing a roof over their heads — that is, space — with health and safety issues. Can the minister advise us whether school districts are being directed to prioritize health and safety issues over the space issues, or, if not, whether that is what the ministry is doing when the school district has to provide additional space for new enrolment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that the member just won't let it pass, because she's got to get on record her concern for this particular school district and individual schools. She's not really interested in answers; she's just getting on the record.

I have said health and safety, roof over their heads. But we don't quit building any new facilities until everything else is fixed up. It's a concurrent operation. We prioritize in those terms. If it's an emergency, then it's dealt with. I don't know what an emergency is; I rely on the engineers and the facilities experts for that. I know the members opposite have absolutely no trouble being experts in everything, but I rely on some of the professionally qualified people around me.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to thank the Chair and the minister for having this opportunity to speak on the minister's estimates. The Premier just made some remarks on the good logging jobs that are diminishing very quickly — particularly with this government's policy in logging. However, Alberni continues to have a shrinking population base, which is probably good news to the minister, because it means you have to provide fewer classrooms and fewer seats in the Alberni district. However, it does create some concerns in the community, which has seen its popu-

[ Page 9604 ]

lation decrease a further 1 percent in the last year — to the envy obviously of some members from the Vancouver area. The average price there is only $46,000. When you consider that in Vancouver you need to make an income of $85,000 in order to even qualify for a mortgage....

The reason I mention that is simply because if the Alberni School District was forced to go to referendum — they feel they may have to next year although they managed to squeak through this year with the funding provided — the assessments on a house at $46,000 are of course much less than the assessments on a house of $220,000, the average price in Vancouver this year. So the rate of tax would have to be considerably higher in Alberni per house than it would be in Vancouver. It would be more difficult for my constituents to raise the required dollars to fund necessary education.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Some five schools have closed down in the Alberni region in the last number of years.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The whole of Alberni will close down if you elect the NDP.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I like the Premier's comment that Alberni will close down. Well, the Premier and his Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) are quickly moving to see the demise of my constituency. Maybe that's why his party has had such a dismal record in the by-election and previous elections.

I would like to continue in the estimates, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm leaving. I can't stand it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm glad to see that the members opposite are applauding the Premier leaving the House.

I plan to be brief, Mr. Minister. If you're as brief in your responses as I am in my questions, we should be through here fairly quickly. In the Alberni riding we have a couple of secondary schools and three junior secondary schools, and some 12 elementary schools.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Many of those schools I attended.

HON. MR. FRASER: Did you graduate?

MR. G. JANSSEN: No, I didn't, as a matter of fact, Mr. Minister. I was lured away by those good-paying logging jobs in Alberni.

The questions I have for the minister.... I hate to sound like I'm covering again the ground we covered last year, but the same problems still exist. The Alberni District Secondary School, which has some 1,200 students attending it, was due for some renovation, or a new school was needed. I think the school board has decided to go with a new school.

The problems there are immense. The music room is no longer there, so the children have to carry their music instruments from one room down into the auditorium and back again. The science classes are now located in the old arts and crafts room, which has had some bearing walls removed in order to make room for it and now faces an earthquake hazard. The library is in a similar situation.

Last year the minister assured me that the school would receive a high priority on the list; still there has been no resolution to that problem. I wonder if the minister has another priority other than the high priority, so we could get on with building a new school for the senior secondary students in Alberni and providing a good education level.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's still on our high priority list. You are on the record as showing your concern for your constituents and schools, but I have to give you the same answer: I'm not in the position yet to announce that list. I'm glad you found your last year's notes.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm glad the minister remembers his last year's response.

A number of other schools in the area — such as Eighth Avenue Elementary School, which some people have said should be bulldozed — are awaiting funding. The school in Bamfield, which was again promised last year.... I understand the native community is waiting for some federal assistance in order to go ahead with that project. I wonder if, in fact, the minister has anything to add on those two schools, or to the fact that the A.W. Neill and E.J. Dunn Junior Schools also have no facilities in which to offer such basic courses as music.

As I indicated earlier, the community is diminishing in size. However, we still expect to have first-class education for our students there. A lot of that, of course, depends on the minister's capital funding so that we can rebuild those schools and bring them up to standard. We are dealing with 1950 schools in Alberni, and we're trying to provide 1990s education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Alberni schools, from what the records show, are providing a good education to their students. They did a local educational survey there and came up with some good results. Once again the member is on the record for his interest in these schools. Once a year it's nice to know that the member takes an interest in the schools in his constituency. I wonder who represents the constituency the other 12 months.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The questions are very simple: when is the capital funding going to come forward; when can we expect some results in rebuilding those outdated classrooms — other than them being put on a high-priority list?

The minister continues to say — I suspect for not just last year when I asked these questions, but for

[ Page 9605 ]

many years: "You're on a high-priority list." We continue to send our children to schools that are on the verge of being unsafe.

We're trying to provide a 1990s education in Alberni. The job skills required in that community — thanks to the policies, in some cases, of this government — are moving out of those primary-resource-based industries, so we're trying to upgrade our young people so they can get an education to move into those other highly skilled jobs. However, we're being asked to meet 1990s technology with equipment and classrooms that were designed in the 1950s.

[3:45]

Is the minister prepared to tell me when we can expect some capital funding in order to rebuild those schools, or is he just going to repeat that it's a high priority?

Obviously the minister is not prepared to make any kind of commitment to my constituents.

Another concern we have is that the Alberni primary schools now have 23 to 25 students enrolled in them, which is relatively good in the provincial scheme of things. However, with diminishing class size, diminishing schools and the fact that the Year 2000 program is coming, it's of concern to teachers and the school board in the Alberni riding that it could move up to 29 students per classroom, which they find is reaching the unacceptable point.

They are also wondering if the minister is prepared to provide more dollars for assistance in training teachers to meet those Year 2000 criteria, since the school board is finding itself stretched at this point with a lower population base to find those dollars that are going to be needed to provide the programs I've just asked about.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I can't keep giving the same answer over and over about when I'm going to announce it. When it's ready — soon, I hope. I can tell the member that when we moved up to having $350 million available, the priorities went to well over $538 million. So we have to reprioritize the high-priority list according to the greatest need. As soon as we can, we will be announcing it. Just because the member keeps going on record about what we're going to do about his schools and so on.... I've said to every member on that side that we're not in a position yet to announce that. If I announce it for your school, then all of a sudden everybody else would want to know about the position of their schools. I would have to put the whole package together. You tie me down in the House with these inane questions, which makes it more difficult for me to work on the list. However, I guess that's the way it goes.

The money is provided for in-service, for retraining teachers, under the $140 million above the budget. I don't know why your board is strapped for providing in-service to the teachers when the teachers are getting in-service and all kinds of opportunities, and there is funding available for it. Is $140 million not enough? There's a 15.2 percent increase, a $400 million increase and a 7.1 percent increase in the operating budget in Alberni, with a reduction in enrolment, and the member says they might find themselves strapped, they might have to go to a referendum; and if they go to a referendum, the cost to the houses there.... The price of houses is less. On the referendum ballot, if the member would do a little studying instead of just spontaneously standing up in my estimates, he would find what the cost was per $10,000 assessment. If it's only a $40,000 home, it's only times four; if it's a $100,000 home, it's times ten — very simple arithmetic, really.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister continues to say "soon," not only to me but to other members of this House, and he wonders why we continue to ask when. If he would give a direct answer and not just say "soon," but perhaps "in August, May of next year or 1993" — he can't say that because he won't be in government then — it would give a definitive answer as to when we can expect some of the answers to these questions. I don't enjoy standing up on behalf of my constituents year after year, asking the same questions and receiving the same benign answer: "Soon." Another priority list and a higher priority, perhaps, but there's still no school.

The school board has indicated that they're ready to go with the new capital projects to rebuild both the Alberni District Secondary School and the Eighth Avenue Elementary School, and they're simply waiting for the ministry to come up with answers. But the ministry keeps delaying the answers. The minister keeps saying: "Soon." Well, soon is not good enough, Mr. Minister. We're looking for capital funding and some answers in this House to the questions we're asking. Perhaps if you gave more definitive answers, we wouldn't be here as long as we are, and we wouldn't have to keep asking the same questions.

Is the minister prepared to say that the answer will be coming — he can write me the answer if he likes, after his estimates are over — or to give some indication to my constituents as to when his ministry is prepared to move on some of the questions that I've raised and, I'm certain, the school board has raised to him?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Certainly after the estimates are over — I can be that definite — and before March 31, 1991, because we're talking about the capital allowance for this budget year; preferably much sooner than that. We won't go to '93, as the member suggested.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think we've exhausted the issue of capital funding, unless some of my other colleagues want to raise some issues in connection with their own school districts.

I'd like to change the focus of our discussion for the next session of this set of estimates and turn to a document that has come out of the royal commission called "Interministerial Protocols for the Provision of Support Services to Schools." First of all, I want to say that I think this initiative is an excellent one on the part of the ministry. It fits with the framework

[ Page 9606 ]

that has been part of the development of the royal commission implementation. It states the purpose, the principles and the matter of protocols. I would like to suggest that if the minister could have a little faith, he might just anticipate that questions are for information and clarification, not necessarily for criticism, which seems to be his standard perspective on any question, no matter in what good will it is put forward.

Let me deal with an issue that the minister has addressed in a press release. There has been some concern about tasks that teachers and teaching assistants may be required to perform. I know that there are different perspectives, not only within the teaching profession and the support service workers in the teaching field but also between perhaps the BCNU and the RNABC, around this matter of providing health services for special-needs children. There's no question that we have in our districts and in our schools children with very severe levels of disability. It's quite wonderful that those children indeed are integrated into our regular classrooms.

For the sake of clarification of the issue of who will perform certain medical services and whether they are at what is called level 2, which involves such services as gastrostomy feeding, related care, administration of oxygen and medication, and so on, or whether they are higher level services which involve using catheters and a whole range of activities that we normally would think of as being very much in the medical and health-related field, would the minister be prepared to provide a definitive list of the details of what teachers and teaching assistants may be expected to perform, and the basis on which decisions will be taken about whether these school-based personnel will have that requirement of them? I think there's a real concern among professionals and paraprofessionals in the education field that they may, even with training, be asked to perform services that they don't feel they're competent to perform or that are not appropriately within their domain.

This is an opportunity, perhaps, for the minister to clarify what kinds of services might be performed by teachers and which services will indeed be performed by health staff, whether they are public health nurses or specialists who come into the school to deal with the needs of these very special children.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I can't come up with a list of every single procedure that will be covered to help students. In many cases, teachers take some specialized training; they have assistants who are required to have some specialized training.

I guess someone found that, for whatever reason, to try and relate two, if you like, unrelated phrases — one from one page, one from the other — and try and create some fear, paranoia, negative thinking....

The health people, the education people and the social service people who worked on these protocols were satisfied by them. There are certain routines that are described in the protocol agreement, and I would suggest that the member read them. But I know that if you're looking for negatives, or the possibility of criticizing.... "These routines include but are not limited to...." By saying "not limited to, " they mean that it's possible for someone to provide some service, and their willingness to provide it, and the assistants are there.... So they can. But I can't come up with all of the things that might be excluded.

For instance, the criticism and the paranoia resulted from Mr. Denike, on the Vancouver school board, a university professor who is enthralled with his own ability to juxtapose two different things, unrelated, and come up with a problem. The man searches for ways to come up with problems and then expresses them to the public.

Then you had the reaction of the president of the nurses' union saying, "Teachers aren't trained to provide these specialized services, " when a little reading of the protocol agreement would have shown that the list that they were protesting — Mr. Denike and the president of the nurses' union.... Those were specifically described in the protocol agreement as only to be administered by licensed nurses in British Columbia.

There was a reference on the one page to post-basic, child-specific training. That referred to specialized routines such as gastrostomy feeding and related care, administration of pre-established and prescribed oxygen, administration of premeasured and prescribed medication— implicitly, by the proper medical authorities — seizure management without specialized training. I had students in the school system who had epileptic seizures. We didn't leave them lying on the floor and say: "I'm not a medical professional." We dealt with it, and we tried to acquaint ourselves with the basic measures to do that, and people are still doing that in the school system.

Then it says on the following page in the protocol agreement: "Educational assistants hired for children with special health needs will be required to have basic skills...equivalent to those provided in home support or community support worker programs offered by community colleges." Then in the next one — and this is the one that has caused all of the unnecessary paranoia: "Teachers and assistants will also be required to have child-specific training from a health professional in order to carry out the specialized procedures." That child-specific training is predetermined by the Medical Services Association to be possible to be administered by other than fully trained professionals; but they need some basic training in that.

[4:00]

The critics are relating that to the phrase on the previous page: "Some procedures which include but are not limited to tracheotomy care, ventilator care, suctioning and catheterization may be carried out only by nurses holding an active licence to practise in British Columbia, working under written instruction from the child's physician." Yet the press release that was put out attempted to create paranoia. The president of the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C.

[ Page 9607 ]

said: "That's unfair. Teachers are not qualified to carry out these procedures" — which it specifically says in the agreement can be carried out only by licensed nurses. Why do people persist in trying to create problems that don't exist? Why is it that for political purposes you don't care about that kid who might have a seizure when there is no doctor or nurse handy? You don't let that student die. You deal with it as best you can.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that what we're trying to get at here is that there is appropriate personnel for regular procedures, and that teachers who may be required to deal with the emergency circumstances the minister has just described have that kind of training.

Let me ask the minister if any teacher will be required to undertake then level 3 care. I note throughout the protocol agreement, as a background to my question, that there are times when personnel may not be available. Is it the intention of the minister to in some instances provide training for teachers who are needed to assist those students, or does the teacher have the option to say that she or he does not feel qualified or prepared to provide those services? I'm talking here about routine procedures that are a part of the child's daily health routine and are necessary for that youngster to be able to function within an integrated school environment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, again, that's how people distort. Teachers will not be required to take specialized training; however, if teachers want to work with these students who need specialized services, then the protocol agreement says that training shall be provided by professional health care people. If the teacher wants to work with students in that category — and many do — the health training should be and must be provided only by them, and boards are responsible to see that if a person is going to work with this child that needs that specialized care, that person must get appropriate training from the appropriate health people. That's what the protocol agreement says, and somehow or other it has been translated into: "Every teacher therefore must take this kind of training."The answer to that is no.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I presume that means that when the protocol agreement refers to the fact that tracheotomy care, ventilator care, suctioning, catheterization and other very specialized procedures will be carried out by nurses, that is who will provide those services. It's very specific. I agree with the minister that it's very specific, that it does state that these will be carried out by nurses.

I have a few more questions that I want to ask just around the protocol agreement. Just in general terms, this agreement comes out of the suggestion from the royal commission that there needs to be greater coordination among ministries that provide services for children. I'd like to ask the minister if the Ministry of Education elements of the protocol are funded within the block, or from the royal commission funding resources of $140 million, for example, this year, or a combination thereof? If he could perhaps just comment on where the funding for these services may come from.

In the same question, I'd like to ask the minister to comment on whether the services are now defined or enhanced. Are there enhanced services that are the outcome of this series of protocol arrangements with Health, Social Services and Housing, and the Solicitor-General?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is some funding in the block for the ongoing provision of health services in the districts. There is additional funding under the royal commission implementation for the increased services that are necessary. Then we have our share — I think it's about $3.5 million — to make possible the intent of the protocol agreement, and the other ministries also have some money to provide the necessary services. For instance, if the Health ministry is to provide the instruction, they are providing for that.

For the first time that I know of, the four ministries combined and coordinated their budget efforts to make sure that we wouldn't say, "This is to be provided by the Health ministry," and not discuss it with them. So each of the ministries has some money in its budget to implement the protocol agreements.

There are some statements of objectives in the protocol agreement which I wish we could achieve overnight, but some of them require specialized training. I could use physiotherapy as a good example. We say that there should be a physiotherapist for every so many in the school population. In some cases we might provide for that, but we can't get a physiotherapist to go into the region. We are making our best efforts to set some achievable targets.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would assume, then, given that about $9 million in support services to schools has been identified in the $140 million available this year, that if we take off $3.5 million to actually service the protocols, which is what I heard the minister just say, we then have perhaps $5.5 million in enhanced services in the schools. If I'm hearing the minister correctly, he says that the royal commission funding is directed towards the enhancement of services, whereas the fiscal framework provides for the ongoing services.

I take it, too — I was going to inquire — that the issue of inequities is simply a fact and that we're going to continue to have some inequities, because of the issue of the availability of personnel.

I would like to ask the minister, though, about another overall principle that is addressed. Under the section called 'Purpose," one of the purposes of the paper is "to increase the accessibility of appropriate services locally" — I understand that clearly — and "increase the responsibility of local communities for the provision of such services." That's a fairly broad statement. I'm not sure what it means — whether it means local communities, in terms of the ministry

[ Page 9608 ]

offices that function in those communities, or whether it has a broader interpretation. I would like to ask the minister to comment on that purpose and on who indeed is involved at the local level in this increased responsibility for the provision of various services for kids.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it means specifically what it says. It means that we expect greater interministry cooperation to service the students, not the provider of services.

I have to refer to a comment the member made — this is the way they distort things: "I take it that these moneys will only be used for new services." If the kid is bleeding from an old wound, you treat the old wound as well; you don't worry about which dollar you attach to it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think there is a little lack of clarity there, and I appreciate the minister's comments about that.

The other issue, in terms of having for the first time an opportunity to look at these protocols.... It appears that when we are looking at services in the school system that may be health-related and that are provided under Ministry of Education funding, the costs are shared between the ministry and the local school districts. Would it be correct to say that any Ministry of Education services coming under this protocol that are in the fiscal framework are shared-cost services and that local taxpayers are responsible for some of the costs through their residential taxes? They may be responsible, for example, for some of the equipment the Ministry of Education supplies for deaf or blind children and for a whole range of items I haven't particularly listed, but that I noted as I was reading through the protocol. Are some of those costs recoverable through the appropriate ministry — most likely the Ministry of Health? Are local residential taxpayers providing, with their tax dollars, medically related services or other special-needs services to children through the fiscal framework and the shared-cost funding?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the short answer is no. The total education budget in the block is $2.66 billion, and just under 10 percent of that comes from residential taxation, in total, across the province. The 100 percent of the block is provided by the province.

The other additional expenditures are provided from the consolidated revenue fund of this government to provide these services. I can't say that the local residential taxpayers aren't contributing, because they are. But they are not being held accountable for what happens in their district. If it's in the block, government is guaranteed 100 percent of that. If it's over and above the block, we've guaranteed 100 percent of that.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just to conclude on the protocol issue: it has long been a concern at the local district level that certain services that really are in the field of Social Services or Health come out of Education dollars. In many districts where the combination of non-residential and residential tax pays pretty well all of the cost of education, even though it is funnelled through the consolidated revenue account and then transferred back to school districts, it is a direct cost to taxpayers.

The minister euphemistically keeps talking about 100 percent of the funding coming from the province. It is a euphemism. We must remember that in quite a number of school districts, a very significant amount of that funding does come from residential taxes. I hope that sometime in the next few days the minister is going to tell us what does come from residential taxes.

I think that at some point it may be an interesting public policy issue about whether residential tax dollars should go to some of these health-related services that come under the Ministry of Education budget. That is a public policy issue that boards have brought to the attention of the minister time and time again.

I would anticipate, too, that that cost to the local taxpayers is going to increase because, although at this stage of the game we have money in so-called royal commission funding for added services, once those services are in place, presumably they are mandated services and are going to be part of the block. They're not going to be in some special fund. The tax bite at a local level will be increased. In terms of public policy, that's something we need to take a look at in future, as far as that shift of cost to the local taxpayer is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) has some comments to make in respect to this coordinated service to children that is being addressed for the first time in a planned way through the interministerial protocols.

[4:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I want to address something that I'm sure everyone in this House is very disturbed about, and that's the....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, all six of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not disturbed.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: At a time like this, I really hope that Hansard is able to pick up some of the comments. I wanted to talk about the incident in Surrey where they've just recently found that one of the students in a Surrey school had been murdered, and many of the kids in that school knew about the murder of that child and didn't find it in themselves to talk to anybody about that — their parents or any of their teachers.

While I would hope that the concern I feel about the situation is shared by everyone in the House — and quite frankly, I believe it is — I want to be able to

[ Page 9609 ]

talk to the minister. I'm glad the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is also here, because we're talking about the interministerial care for kids, and how governments relate to the services they provide to children.

We've tried on other occasions during different estimates to talk to the minister about some of our concerns, and quite frankly, in my recollection, we've never had an example quite so stark as this one to focus in on as to the need for a holistic approach to the care of children.

While the ombudsman is doing a considerable amount of work around coordinating and trying to deal specifically with children who are in the care of the state, I think there are some things we can learn by looking at this situation. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his ministry is specifically looking at some services in the schools that relate to the mental well-being of children. Very clearly the teachers in the system, with the number of children that they're trying to deal with, are focusing most of their attention, skills and so forth on trying to make certain that there is a transfer of knowledge and that those kids have an opportunity to learn.

But I think that with the changing times — and very clearly these are younger children who I understand are in elementary school — there may very well be a need for counsellors to be in the schools and for there to be more direct coordination with Social Services and street workers, for instance, so that there's more of a connection with the schools as to what's going on in the streets and what those kids are having to face. I believe that it's a need that has been advocated for a considerable length of time.

I'll leave it at that. I have other things I'd like to raise at this point, but I'm hoping that the minister will have something to add to this debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's put on the record the opening comments of the member: "I know this is something that everyone in this House is concerned with." I pointed out all three of the opposition members who are in the House to discuss this issue, and that member has the audacity to stand up and talk about how everyone in this House is concerned.

I get a bit upset with that member. I don't think I have ever run into a character with the ghoulish tendencies of the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. A tragedy has occurred, and that member sees it as an opportunity to exploit politically in this House. I don't pretend that I'm going to deal with that kind of question. Is there no end to your ghoulish tendencies to exploit politically every tragedy?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to say that I'm disappointed in the minister's response; but quite frankly I'm not surprised. As I said, it isn't the first time that we've asked the minister to talk about interministerial responsibility. It's not the first time we've asked the minister about counsellors in elementary schools. It's not the first time that we have asked the minister to talk about the needs of kids. We have a situation in my community; as their representative I am compelled to deal with it, and I will deal with it whether the minister wants to respond or not.

The reality is that we have children in the school who knew of a tragedy and had no one to talk to; who went into a survival mode and said nothing because they were afraid themselves. The ministry has an opportunity here to try to grapple with this problem, and instead the minister tries to shuffle it under the carpet and say that this is not something we talk about publicly.

My community is traumatized by it, and we want you to talk about it. We want to hear what you're going to do about it. We want to know that those kids are going to have some options in the future. We want to know that you are sending a team into those schools in the north end to try to deal with the trauma which those kids have been struggling with on their own, without any support from the schools. I want to know, Mr. Minister, that you have a plan in place to help deal with my community.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no difficulty in discussing the interministry coordination. I have no difficulty in discussing elementary counsellors. I just object to that member using a tragedy to make political hay.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If the minister doesn't have a problem, why doesn't he answer the questions? This is a terrific opportunity for you to say what you're doing for counselling for kids in Surrey. Do we have to wait until another community has another tragedy, Mr. Minister? We'd like to hear what you've got in....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're sick.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We'd like to hear, Mr. Minister, what you're going to do. Do you not accept the responsibility? Is that the only way you have of answering?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would suggest you address the Chair in your questions.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like the minister to answer a specific question. My question is: does the minister have a program in place? Can we be assured that there will be specialists sent into these schools?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think I'd be more inclined at this point to recommend counselling for that member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think the minister's response shows some real neglect for his responsibility. The minister is unable, especially in a time like this, to show some leadership, to provide some information and some relief to the people in North Surrey. Does the minister want to go down on record as not answering the questions, and abdicating his responsibility as the Minister of Education?

[ Page 9610 ]

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise an issue with the Minister of Education, but after the testiness he showed to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, I'm afraid that he won't be able to accept his responsibility to deal dispassionately and objectively with questions from this side of the House.

My question deals with another tragedy. Perhaps the minister has a simple answer to the question.

The tragedy resulted from an accident on a school bus in the Burnaby School District. There was a letter to the editor in the paper last Friday in which the parent of a child on that bus expressed fright because there was no seatbelt protection for those children, or at least some of them.

I was under the assumption, based on accidents that happened a few years ago on the Island, that there was a seatbelt policy in place for school buses, so I was quite surprised to see the letter to the editor last week. Could the minister clarify for me, please, government policy with respect to seatbelts in school buses.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, there has been a fair amount of research at the federal level, in the United States and in various places. No one, to my knowledge, has come up with any conclusive evidence that it is better to have seatbelts in school buses. The construction specifications for school buses are very rigid.

Once again, I guess it's easy enough, when one accident occurs and no one was killed.... As a critic I guess it's easy enough to say that if there isn't a seatbelt on there next time, it could be worse. Nobody has yet established that.

We are aware of the seatbelt issue. It raises its head periodically. But no one has come up with a definitive answer.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could explain to me then why it's different for school buses than for all other vehicles in this province. I accept what the minister says, but it just does not make any sense to me.

The minister talked about school bus construction. Perhaps he could elaborate to the point where I could appreciate his argument. We require seatbelts for cars; we require seatbelts for trucks; we require seatbelts, as far as I know, for all vehicles in the province. Why not for school buses? It doesn't make any sense to me.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, if the member is really interested in the information, rather than the political possibilities in this, I'd be delighted to sit down and provide him with all of the information and particulars that we have received.

Because I say the buses are to rigid specifications, I'm supposed to know every one of the specifications. I do know some of them. They have high seat backs to protect them. Other buses don't have seatbelts either. They must be able to withstand their whole weight on the roof without collapsing. There's a whole variety of rigid construction — the seats have to be bolted to the floor so that they will withstand the jar from a crash, and those sorts of things.

[4:30]

I don't have at my fingertips every one of the specifications for a school bus. But I do know there are regulations in place from the Ministry of Highways and Transportation and other organizations which say you can't use it as a school bus unless it meets these rigid specifications.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I accept everything the minister says. I am sure that in the interests of safety for children and passengers on buses.... On airlines and in virtually every other vehicle there are stringent safety requirements. The minister has not explained, and I guess he's saying that he cannot explain. I don't expect him to have the answers to every single issue, but I don't think this is an unimportant one. I'd like to take the minister up on his undertaking, so that I might receive those studies and better understand the issue, because I want to be able to explain it to that Burnaby resident to the point where parents are satisfied that the minister is doing the right thing. Right now I cannot do that.

The minister is not paying attention. I suppose he isn't concerned either that we have a correct policy in place or that members of this assembly are able to explain it to their constituents. I was trying to help the minister out by explaining to my constituent why there are no seatbelts on school buses, and unless I'm provided with that information, Mr. Minister, I will not be able to do that. So I would appreciate the information that you suggest you have.

On a completely different topic, I'd like to ask the Minister of Education the ministry view on American Sign Language, as an accepted language for deaf education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, I'm sure that we can provide the member with some of the inconclusive studies showing that it cannot be determined, which is how I answered at first. There's no conclusive evidence that seatbelts would help in school buses. In return, I wonder if the member would provide me — other than with the article from the Province — with his conclusive evidence that seatbelts would be a great asset on school buses. I wonder if that member would help us in that regard.

Concerning which form of sign language is best, there is an ongoing discussion between different groups about that. We're not taking a position on it. If anything, our position is to best serve the students. I suppose that if I took a position, you'd want to know my research, and so on it goes. We won't have a position on a disagreement between whether left is better or right is better.

MR. JONES: I asked the minister to make studies available to me, so that I might explain to Burnaby residents why there aren't seatbelts on school buses. The minister wants to twist my remarks into some political argument. I don't have any political argu-

[ Page 9611 ]

ment; I'm just trying to understand ministry policy. I'm trying to understand ministry policy on American Sign Language. There doesn't seem to be any ministry policy. He says there's a debate going on. The minister seems ambivalent as to which direction that debate goes. It seems to me that there is some requirement for investigation, for understanding the debate, and for recognizing the desire of a large segment of the deaf community to see that American Sign Language becomes the language of instruction in this province. Can I take it from the minister's remarks that he is not pursuing this matter and that there is nothing underway that might lead in future to some change in policy with regard to American Sign Language?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm rather bothered by that member's implying that because we don't say that one system compared to another is better or worse — we accept both systems, and let the people do it — it somehow reflects an inadequacy on the part of the ministry. We don't plan to change the policy, because we don't have a policy on it. We let the people speak the language that they are most comfortable in, and I would imagine that practice will determine which is the easiest. For us to say that this textbook or this philosophy is superior to these or that this practice is superior to the other.... What does the member want — central government control? Is he saying that we should feel inadequate unless we take a position on which is the best way to sign? People are signing in more than one way. I don't know why we should say: "You are wrong. We're going to legislate that system out of existence, because we like this one better." We don't want to operate that way.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The member keeps coming back to the school bus issue. He wants to explain to his constituents. Check with ICBC. Check with the motor vehicle branch. Give us your statistics on why you think the way you do. All that happened is that I read the article in the paper and somebody wrote in and said: "I was so concerned, and I was surprised, that there were no seatbelts on school buses." The discussion has been raised before, it has been discussed before, and now the member sees an opportunity to jump on that particular issue. Well, jump on it; but do a little homework first.

MR. JONES: Question to the testy Minister of Education. Are you monitoring the debate on American Sign Language?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Personally, no.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On a previous question to the Minister of Education, the response that the children in North Surrey had to this situation, from what I've read in the paper, is a response that many victims have: rather than deal with a situation they don't feel in control of, they go into almost a survival mode. I would liken it to survivors of sexual abuse. Again, what I'm asking the minister is twofold. First of all, will the minister consider sending in a special team to deal with this specific situation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I know the member wants to pursue this, sees it as a great political opportunity. But there are professional social workers out there from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services; there are counsellors in the schools; there are a variety of professionals out there; and I would like to let them do their job.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just for clarification then, is the minister saying that his ministry is not helping to coordinate a response to this situation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 17 pass?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll repeat the question, if the minister didn't understand it: is the minister saying that his ministry is not involved in helping to coordinate a response to the situation in the schools in North Surrey?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 17 pass?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister didn't understand the question. Let me elaborate a little bit. As I understand the situation from media reports, a number of parents were appalled by the fact that those children knew of the situation — or at least, knew of the stories — and did not talk to anybody about it. I think that I am less appalled at the children's response than I am at their continued victimization. If the school system— the ministry under your leadership — is not prepared to coordinate a response to make certain that the professionals are available in this particular instance, then those children continue to be victimized. The very judgment they made when they heard of this story, the judgment call those children made that there's no one out there that will listen, or that there's no one out there that can change it, or that there's no one out there who cares, is being played out right here, because the minister refuses to get involved.

So I will place the question again, and I will continue to place the question, because I have no intention of abandoning those children or those families. If the minister doesn't have the information, all the minister has to do is stand up and say: "I'll look into it for you and I will report back to the House." It's very simple. If the minister has made a decision, all he has to do is get to his feet and say: "I have decided not to get involved." So I'll give the minister this opportunity to let us know what his position is.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I answered the question. I said that there are professional people out there now, from the RCMP to counsellors to

[ Page 9612 ]

others involved in the situation. And so, because the member wants to play ghoul for political purposes, I don't want to play or be a party to that.

MR. PERRY: Point of order. I found the last remark quite offensive to my colleague and I wonder if the minister would withdraw that. I'm concerned about the use of the word "ghoul," if I heard him correctly - or "playing ghoul."

MR. CHAIRMAN: As members know, if any member feels offended by something that someone said, they can ask that it be retracted. I'm sure the minister wouldn't want to offend anybody. Minister of Education, would you retract the word "ghoul."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If it offends that member for me to call a spade a spade, then I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I did once before this afternoon, I must remind members once again that whatever question may be asked, there is no compulsion that it be answered. There is no requirement that all the questions that are put be answered by any particular minister when his estimates are in debate.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just in clarification of that point, I would assume, then, that there is no restriction on the rights of the opposition to continue asking the question either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is always a question of repetition, which is covered in our standing orders. When debate becomes particularly repetitious — I think the words used are "tedious repetition" — then of course it is a matter for the Chair to call to the attention of the person on his feet and ask him to proceed with debate on some other tack.

Does the member have another question?

[4:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes, I do. It is again relating to the situation.... I am wanting to clearly understand the minister's answer. The minister says that there are professionals in the field that are involved. I want to know whether it is an ongoing team working with that school and specifically whether the minister has considered.... In my introduction I talked about the ombudsman's report and the need to coordinate programs for children. Has the minister considered, rather than dealing with crisis management, looking at an integrated program in the schools to deal with the whole child?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have many programs in the schools, integrated and otherwise, which the professional teachers of this province carry out to deal with the whole child.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I don't have to bring it to the minister's attention that teachers do not have all the skills to deal with all the situations that face them. The Sullivan report, like many others before, recommended a closer integration of, as an example, the Ministry of Social Services with the school system. I introduced the aspect of victims of sexual abuse and talked about the need for some kind of integrated support for the teachers in dealing with the children in the school system.

The minister said that there are counsellors out there. Can the minister tell me whether there's a counsellor at that school full time or whether it's one of the few floating counsellors who deal with many schools in that school district?

Can the minister tell me how many elementary schools each counsellor has to service in my community? Is my community atypical, or do other school districts also have to share one counsellor for every four or five schools? Can the minister give me that information?

The minister says that they have professionals in the schools that deal with the whole child. I say to you, Mr. Minister, that you may be focusing on education, but you are not in the real world — not in the real world that these kids have to face. You aren't even in the ballpark when you are dealing with these kids' lives, and you had better wake up and smell the coffee and deal with those kids now so that you don't have more serious problems, if this one isn't serious enough.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member, as usual, has a great time using any opportunity to play politics.

I said that there are counsellors and professional people out there. I did not say they are all in the school. I don't know how many counsellors in each one of the Surrey schools are available and how many people they have. We fund a total operation — special education extra. We fund a total operation, and it's the school board that determines how they arrange the staff in the district. I would suggest that the member, instead of playing politics with a tragic situation here, check with the school board for that type of information, because they're the ones that have it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One last intervention, because I want it on the record that I am completely and totally appalled by your responses. For you to say that I am playing politics is absurd. For the Minister of Education in this province not to know the facts in a situation like this, not to be prepared to answer the questions, is a complete dereliction of duty.

Mr. Minister, I have nothing more to ask you, because very clearly you don't care enough to find out the answers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I care about the kids in this province, but I don't care for that member's political interest. Take a tragedy, take any situation like that, and suddenly the member becomes very interested. She says that if I don't know exactly how many teachers and counsellors are in each school in a district the size of Surrey-with about 40,000 students in it and about 2,200 teachers - and I don't know the exact placement of each one

[ Page 9613 ]

of them because of a crisis that has arisen, then that is a dereliction of duty. I would suggest that the member take a look in the mirror. If she's that interested in those kinds of particulars, she could get them at the local level instead of playing politics with them in this House.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister a question about what provision has been made in the new School Act for section 19 schools. I'll tell you the basic background. Big Creek School was closed down by the local school district because the numbers fell below the required ten students. They were getting the $100 per month to pay for somebody to supervise the correspondence of those students, but now there is no funding for that available to the local school board. I would like to ask if that funding will be reinstated in some form, or is it totally upon the pocketbooks of the parents in that area to pick up any costs of supervising instruction?

There are at the moment seven students of elementary-school age who can take instruction or supervision from a person in a locale. There's no school there. It would appear to cost between $600 and $700 a month now to the local school board, and the minister was matching that. The parents were also kicking in that amount of money. If these were students enrolled in a school, the school district would be getting the $6,120 per student, so that would give you approximately $36,000 to administer programs.

What we understand is that the correspondence branch costs are around $1,000 per year per student, so there's a considerable saving to the ministry by not having to fund supervision of students in this area. If a teacher's aide could be put into that school on contract from the school board at $20,000 a year, and then the cost of correspondence added, the province would be getting better supervision, the students would be getting some instruction from a teacher's aide, and the parents would be a lot happier. Is there any provision to pay for what were section 19 schools?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, because we've regionalized the correspondence section, the school board, when they provide those services, now bill either the regional correspondence course or us. The school board does, and then we reimburse the school board for those expenses.

MR. PERRY: I have a fairly simple question for the Minister of Education, I hope. I have written to one of his officials, and a letter will be coming through the pipeline, but he won't have.... I don't think it's been typed yet, so I don't expect him to have a studied answer. I'd just like to raise the issue for his consideration. Last week we had a visit from the Canadian Cancer Society's coordinator for education, a registered nurse who had formerly worked in the Richmond school system as a health educator.

She showed members of the NDP caucus social affairs committee excerpts from videotapes made by the Canadian Cancer Society for anti-cancer education in the schools. One of these has been nominated for a major American award or has already received one, and it is probably going to be nominated for another award. It was produced at an expense of about $100,000 out of money from the Steve Fonyo fundraising effort a few years ago.

The concern I'm raising for the minister's attention is that the representative of the Cancer Society pointed out that when she took these videos to the Ministry of Education, she was told that the ministry's process for approval or screening of films had a time deadline on it and that she had missed the deadline for one of the age groups. If I correctly recall, I think she said the primary and senior-secondary age groups were closed, and there was a window still for review of films or educational materials in the grade 7 to 9 range. Therefore one of these films could be screened, but the others couldn't because they had missed a deadline.

I pointed out to her that this struck me as a rather arbitrary policy, that by the very nature of health education, facts change rapidly. One needs a flexible process to be able to review new films; videos of this nature intended for school kids rapidly become dated. For example, the award-winning film features — I think his name is Pat Mastroianni, the star of "Degrassi Junior High," who in 1990 would have fairly universal appeal to high-school students of that age, but next year or the year after may not be so popular. I just wonder whether the minister has any comments to make about this. Could he reassure us that the ministry will be flexible enough to take incoming educational materials from the Cancer Society or other reputable groups and screen them on a periodic basis or in some timely fashion — for example, quarterly?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The ministry — or, in many cases, me — is always approached by someone who has the ideal film, book, program or that sort of thing. Because of that, we don't necessarily act precipitously. We have a curriculum-screening process in the ministry, and we look at whether it is suitable and whether it ties in, for instance, with our "Learning for Living" curriculum. As I understand it, right now at the primary level, at some point we close the recommended list, print it and send it out. I think what the Cancer Society was told was that for now, in this first round, the primary list is already out. We're not going to call it back from the printer and redo it.

We have an ongoing process. People can submit material. We always look at it in terms of how it ties in with our program and whether it adds something more effective. That's really the criterion: how it serves the learning needs of the students in the curriculum, not how it serves the purposes of the proponent of something. It's an ongoing process.

MR. PERRY: I guess I would like, while I have the opportunity, a bit of a firmer commitment than what I've received from the minister. In this case, it's not

[ Page 9614 ]

just any proponent of what might be nice educational material. This is the Canadian Cancer Society; there's only one such body. The representative was from the B.C. and Yukon branch. The film happens to have been produced in Alberta by the Alberta branch of the Canadian Cancer Society. I guess I would like to be a bit more reassured.

[5:00]

Let me use another example, not from the Canadian Cancer Society but from the Federal Centre for AIDS: the film Talking About AIDS, which was broadcast on CBC on April 2. That film, in the opinion of public health authorities and presumably the CBC, and given the amount of publicity that preceded its release, is one of the best such films ever produced anywhere in the world. It was broadcast in prime time and aimed at a school-age audience.

I suspect that the minister would agree with me that the intent of a film like that is not simply that it be diffused once by television and then the teen-age audience either forgets about it or leaves the room and goes out onto the streets. The maximum potential benefit from a film like that can presumably be achieved in a classroom during discussion after a viewing of the film in video format. I think it would be disturbing if a film of that calibre or of the calibre of the one we saw from the Canadian Cancer Society were condemned to wait, say, for a year until the next review process, or even longer.

Let me just explain the content of the Canadian Cancer Society's film. I think the member for Cariboo.... I believe the name was Homeroom; it features the word "homeroom" in it.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) also had a chance to see it.

That film has three central messages: one is a campaign against cigarette smoking; the second is a campaign against unnecessary sun exposure and for the use of sunscreens; and the third is a campaign for a reasonable diet. There would be nothing controversial in that film. The federal AIDS centre's film Talking About AIDS would be more controversial, but the Canadian Cancer Society film.... I'm sure there's nothing in it that would in any way give members of the government side any difficulty.

I guess what I would like to ask for is some commitment from the minister on behalf of the Ministry of Education that it might be possible to issue looseleaf binder updates of approved curriculum materials, which is something done in immunization by the Ministry of Health, through the medical health officers, for all physicians in the province or for community health nurses — some mechanism whereby it becomes feasible to undertake a periodic and timely review of new materials.

By their very nature, they are dated. In some cases, even the best-quality information incorporated into a video by the Canadian Cancer Society — for example, the diet information — may in a year or two be considered out of date. That video, while it had a use, might at that point become obsolete. In that case, the investment of donors of $100,000 in the Canadian Cancer Society and the ability of school boards to obtain that for the bare cost of reproduction, which is about $40, would be sacrificed.

Maybe I could encourage the minister to go a bit further and make some commitment to review the review process within the ministry.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the member asked how we review the material. We have a curriculum review committee that reviews textbooks, other resources, cassettes and a variety of films. Their job is to try to determine the suitability of that material at that particular level or in that particular program.

I'm not questioning the validity of the film; I'm not familiar with it. But should we, because CBC has aired it, guarantee to give it a rubber stamp of approval to start spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy this for every school before the professional educators, who I asked to review this, see how it ties into the curriculum?

The member sees this particular film from his perspective. It may be the greatest film that's ever been done, but I don't think that we should, because the CBC airs it or because somebody wants to sell it to us, immediately buy it without having it go through the proper curriculum review process.

I don't know how definite you want me to be. The opportunity is there for all of this material to be reviewed. If it fits the program, if it's suitable in terms of academic, in vocabulary....

For instance, we had one item come out from a reputable organization in the federal government. We were trying to get gender-neutral. A book was prepared after much study by a federal group, approved by another national group, and sent out, and the thing is completely gender-biased. So we didn't put our stamp of approval on it. We didn't reject it; it's federal. Somebody wants to spend a whole bunch of money on it. But it doesn't fit our philosophical concept of gender neutrality. Yet it was done by a reputable group, approved by a reputable group, and we're supposed to just rubber-stamp it without even assessing it. No.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be obtuse about this; I hope I'm not being. As the health critic for the opposition, I am not asking the minister to rubber-stamp anything. I'm really asking simply for the commitment that there be a guarantee of a timely review process.

The complaint from the Canadian Cancer Society really was that for the material produced in 1989, which will be winning awards in the United States in 1990, the ministry ought to be able to review it so that local school boards or teachers may purchase this video if they wish to from the Canadian Cancer Society and show it knowing that it bears the approval, or at least an okay, from the Ministry of Health— not a guarantee that it's the best film ever produced, simply an okay.

[ Page 9615 ]

We need to put this into perspective. We have, after all, a major commitment to health promotion by the present provincial government. We hear a lot about this. We see it in "B.C. Government News Update." We see it in some of the more progressive documents that come out of the Ministry of Health. It's a popular topic.

I would think that the minister would want to move heaven and earth to make sure that a broad range of high-quality educational materials are available to all the students around the province.

I don't know if the minister has been near a video shop recently, or seen some of the material all our young people have access to all the time, When we think of what people do have access to at the drop of a hat, and as rapidly as it comes out of the manufacturers' shops, it's disappointing to think that a good educational film might have to wait a long time.

All I'm still really looking for is a commitment, for example, that maybe he can promise a quarterly review of materials like this, or that he will ask his panel of reviewers to undertake to perform a quarterly review on educational materials, not just in the health field but in environment or science or areas where things are changing rapidly.

It's not the same as, say, the study of Shakespearean literature, where a year or two won't make a big difference; the material will still be topical. In health, by its very nature.... It's said in medical schools that half of what is taught one year will be known to be false five years later. If we knew better, we would teach smarter than that. In health curriculum in schools, surely we want to be able to get the most up-to-date material out to the students as fast as possible.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I thought I'd answered the question originally. We review the material, and if it doesn't happen to catch this printing, there's an ongoing process. It can be reviewed again and again.

Yet the member seems to persist. In his opinion, this is top quality. It fits everything in the school curriculum. I don't know whether he's that knowledgeable. But he thinks this would be great and we should just spend the money on it right now, before we wait for a reprint or a review. It's that implicit.

No, there is an ongoing review process. Yes, we want to get up-to-date material into the schools. I can assure the member that we don't go to video shops looking for material for our curriculum committee to review. I would be a little shocked if any of my people were going there to look for some of the material.

That member, I think, takes a very strong stand that there should be no censorship, on anybody's judgment, of a film, and now suggests that we should just rubber-stamp some of this stuff. I said to the member that I'm not questioning its value or its validity, but I am not prepared to rubber-stamp some material because it suits that member. It goes through the regular process. Whether there's a proposal for us to use it or whether there's an objection to what is being used, we generally put it through the process.

MR. PERRY: I guess that in the annals of public health this afternoon's speeches will not figure prominently. I don't know why I'm having so much trouble getting across the point that I attempted to raise.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Listen to the answer; that's your problem.

MR. PERRY: I'm really not asking the minister to rubber-stamp anything or to censor anything. Perhaps he can suggest an alternative route for high quality educational materials to be available in the schools.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: High-quality in your opinion or the committee's opinion? What makes you the perfect judge?

MR. PERRY: I'm not pretending to be a perfect judge. I would have thought that the Canadian Cancer Society has earned, through its 50 or more years of existence in Canada, a sufficient public reputation that the minister would accord it somewhat more respect. Obviously he isn't as impressed as others perhaps are with their efforts. I don't know what to say, Mr. Chairman. I find it puzzling that he's so reluctant.

I will just wrap up. There are a number of other issues I would have raised on behalf of my constituents — be it earthquake preparedness in Point Grey schools, where there is a major problem, or some of the English-as-a-second-language issues which are troubling in Vancouver — but I think they have been made so admirably by the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) that I will desist.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to leave it on the record that I am not impressed with what the Canadian Cancer Society does. I said repeatedly that I am not questioning the value of the film or of the material. I'm simply saying that it does need to go through a process. If we simply accept that if a request is made.... I tried to give the example of one that was done without our consultation, went through the whole process and was supposed to be the be-all and end-all for these services, and it didn't turn out that way. I'm simply saying that what the Canadian Cancer Society has put out will be reviewed by the ministry, and if it's suitable, it will be put in. But the member was trying to give the impression that because this is high-quality material — and he made that statement — I should sort of bypass the review process and get with it. That's the impression I got, because I had said earlier that it's being reviewed, it will be reviewed; there's an ongoing review process, and yes, we want the best possible material.

In the past, with the sex education program in the schools, we've had, would you believe, at least eight

[ Page 9616 ]

outfits with the "ideal" approach, and they differ somewhat from each other. So we have taken the approach that either we approve it after the review or we ask school boards to approve it and take responsibility for it. So if school boards wish to buy some of this material and put their stamp of approval on it, without the ministry's stamp of approval, they have a lot of leeway in that.

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

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says he's not about to announce funding for Lampson Street School in Esquimalt. That's too bad, but I'm sure that he will.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Soon.

MR. SIHOTA: Soon — imminently.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I was going to do it this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA: He says he was going to do it this afternoon, but we've kept him here. I'll tell you, all my parents are waiting in Esquimalt for that announcement.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How many parents do you have?

MR. SIHOTA: That is all of the parents in my riding, not my parents. I must say, as I've conveyed to the minister before, it will be a welcome announcement — I'm assuming, of course, that it will be a positive one — because Lampson Street School really is integral to the community of Esquimalt.

[5:15]

I was going to switch and ask the minister some questions not with respect to Esquimalt and Vic West but to pick up on a conversation we commenced during the bill on the referendum, the financing formula. I think that the minister at the time appropriately said that it would be better to raise the matter now than during the course of the debate on the bill.

I want to preface my question by basically saying the following. To refresh the minister's memory on this one, the Sooke School Board decided in 1981, prior to the introduction of restraint, to cut back its budget by $800,000. Subsequently, restraint was introduced, which resulted in further cutbacks; but the voluntary imposition of cutbacks was at that time Secondly, last year the Sooke School Board decided, because of the obvious limited resources of people in the Western Communities, not to seek significant supplemental funding from the taxpayers, whereas adjacent school districts did. That has had an effect on the budget of the Sooke School Board, and it's an effect that's important to all parents, because parents, of course, want the school board to deliver appropriate programs for children, and they want a quality education for students in their area. But everything at the end of the day comes down to dollars, and everything comes down to the budget that the Sooke School Board has, and then what it can provide, given the parameters of that budget.

There is, of course, as most parents and trustees understand, the fiscal formula of the government's design that determines how much money a school board such as Sooke would get.

There were these two variables: the $800,000 in 1981, and the decision last year not to seek supplemental funding to the degree that other districts such as Saanich did. Consequently, that has reduced the base of funding that the Sooke School Board will receive this year from the government, and that has a consequent effect of a disparity between students in Sooke and Saanich. As I said earlier to the minister, in Saanich they get about $275 per student more than they do in Sooke under the fiscal formula, despite the fact that there are 1,000 more students and 100 fewer teachers in Sooke than in Saanich. Saanich is a very rich district. It's comparable, because they're right next door. Sooke is poor.

It would seem to me that the goal of the government funding formula would be to address those inequities. Given the fact that the inequities are caused by the decision made in 1981 and the decision last year not to proceed for additional supplemental funding, does the minister not agree with me that, given those two variables in the equation, the formula is unfair as it applies to the Sooke School District?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's always easy as a critic to take one variable and play with it. There are a whole list of variables that come into the picture. People will turn around and look at the fiscal framework only. I don't know how the $81,000 or $82,000 from 1981 cuts into the picture, because school boards had the right to raise their taxes from local taxation — any amount that they wished. So if they were behind that $81,000, they could easily have picked it up, or doubled it. They chose to believe that they could offer — and I guess they do offer — a good educational system, with some consideration to the taxpayers.

The supplementary budget in the Sooke district increased considerably last year. They added quite a bit to their supplementary. As a matter of fact, they were right at the provincial average of supplementary over the fiscal framework. As it turned out, yes, Saanich was much higher. They put in a much higher supplementary.

What we did this year was a levelling process. I explained it earlier in my estimates: we looked at those that were well above the average and those that were at the average and those that were below. To just bring everybody to the average in one move would have meant excessive funding in the lowest district — you know, from what they were used to. And I guess nobody ever has excessive funding; they find ways to spend it. But perhaps it would have meant severe

[ Page 9617 ]

layoffs in the school districts who had moved. So we tried to do a blend of the fiscal framework and a levelling process to bring that together.

The whole point, I think, is that Sooke had enough money to run their operation last year. They have enough money to increase their operation this year, relative to the economic indicators. They don't need to worry about whether somebody is spending more than they are.

I would think that, over a period of time, as some of these variables change, so will the funding change, when we run the fiscal framework and the equalization each year. You have average teacher salaries, student enrolment, regular programs, special needs, ESL, native education, language programs, career preparation, number of schools, dispersion of schools, size of schools, cost of shipping supplies, distance the district is from a metropolitan centre, the number of trustees, the cost of cleaning, maintenance, heating, square metres of space, ages of buildings, daily kilometres of busing, dormitory and boarding allowances if they exist, schools eligible for accreditation, cost of ground maintenance and snow removal, health services, etc. etc. There are a whole bunch of variables.

I think the whole point is that, for some reason or other, school districts felt that when we went to the block funding system and allocation within the fiscal framework, suddenly their relative position on the scale of spending should be changed. And I'm saying no. What is necessary for them is the amount of money they needed to run the system last year and the amount of money they need to run the system this year. In that sense it is equitable; they have as much money to increase their operations as other people have.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, in that sense it may be equitable, but in the real sense it's not, because you get these disparities between two areas. I compare Saanich and Sooke because they are right next door to each other, they have comparable costs, and it's an easy comparison because of that. The point is that there are real discrepancies.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The minister has effectively admitted in his response to my question that last year's budget is the guide to this year's funding. You have a district like Saanich that went to its taxpayers to get more through the supplemental budget, and therefore its base or its pool was larger. Accordingly, this year it gets more from the government. Whereas Sooke, which decided to be prudent in 1981 and cut back $800,000 — I know the minister said $80,000, but I take it he meant $800,000 — made that decision last year to be careful and not overextend the homeowner. When they tried to do that this year, that decision comes home to roost in the sense that they get a smaller share of the education pie from the provincial government. So in some ways they are being penalized for being prudent.

Does the minister think it's fair that the allocation this year was based on what was raised last year, in terms of the supplemental funding, when that served only to heighten the disparities between the areas, and when this year it results in one district having far greater financial resources — hence more programs — than the neighbouring district? I don't want to call it two-tiered, but effectively that's what you end up having. Under your framework you end up having a two-tiered system where there are more dollars for less students in Saanich — hence more teachers — and less dollars per student in Sooke — hence fewer teachers and fewer programs. Surely you must agree with me that that was not the intention of the formula, and that the intention of the formula was to address those types of disparities.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, last year these comparable districts had different costs per pupil. Sooke's total cost was lower than Saanich's total cost to run an education system at comparable costs. This year the Sooke district has a lower per-pupil allotment in the block than Saanich has. So what has changed?

The point I've been trying to make is that because we changed the funding system does not mean that they should now come up to the same costs. I don't understand the member.... If the member is saying that if Sooke had spent a lot more money per student last year they would be getting more this year, he's right. We are basing part of it on what the costs were last year, and what the fiscal framework does for the distribution.

So any district in the province that is below the average of $5,259 — or below whatever they want to be — could say: "If we had found a way to spend more to provide our education last year, would we be getting more money this year?" The answer is yes, because we're trying to keep the costs in line with some levelling by bringing the top spenders down somewhat and the bottom spenders up somewhat, to move them towards the average. But we can't eliminate that differential in one year without creating chaos in the system.

MR. SIHOTA: The first question I'm trying to get at is: as a matter of principle, do you think that's fair? Do you think it's fair that we have these types of discrepancies? I take it you are saying that it's not, because you are talking about levelling. I assume that when you talk about levelling, you intend to level out these disparities over time. Am I correct in assuming that?

So: (a) do you think it's fair that you have these disparities; and (b) am I correct in assuming that the intent — in the long run, under the formula — is to level out those disparities, to use the minister's own words?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The boards ask us to accept actual expenditures from last year. We accepted that. The boards agreed that the best — if not perfect — distribution system and allocation to dis-

[ Page 9618 ]

tricts was the fiscal framework. We've added that one touch of equalization, depending on what the expenditures were.

Had we done it under the old system and not gone to the block funding, we would have, by the fiscal framework, come up with the same relative positions. The only difference there would have been that the board could have said: "We're moving up to everybody else. We might have been lower than them last year, but this year we're moving up to everybody else. So we're going to sock it to the local taxpayers because last year we were responsible. This year we're going to get irresponsible."

I don't think they would have acted that way. They would have acted the same way as they did last year. What they felt they needed, and what they could convince their taxpayers they needed, they got. Now the member says: "Is it fair that one district is spending less than another district?"

I'd say it's fair. It's not equal; I'd say it's equitable. If they spent less last year, and if it cost them less to deliver the education system last year than it did in another district, why should they move above that district because we change the other system to the block funding system? We still have the districts in their relative positions. Every district above the average says it's not getting enough. Every district below the average says it should be getting at least as much as the average. That would mean you would destroy the whole averaging system.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the minister is saying in some obtuse way that the Sooke School District — and hence the parents and the kids who ultimately are the recipients of the dollars — is being adversely affected by decisions made....

[5:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I didn't say that.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says he didn't say that. I think you have to agree that.... Okay, I'll put it to you in a different way. I would submit to you that what happens is that a board like Sooke's, which decides to be prudent and cautious when going to its taxpayers, is hit this year with the consequences of that prudence. The point is that they were a bit more responsible than everybody else, and there's no recognition of that in the formula. It may really be saying that at the end of the day, what the government or ministry provides is not adequate to meet the needs.

Now the minister will say to that, as he said earlier on, that there's enough money in the provincial funding formula and the block payment to Sooke to allow them to increase their operations commensurate with what they had the year before. I take it that that's the minister's argument. But because of the increases passed on to Sooke this year in your funding formula, they are about three-quarters of a million dollars short of being able to provide the same programs as they did last year. The minister shakes his head.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what they tell you.

MR. SIHOTA: That's not what they tell you; I'm telling you that they are. I mean that. I don't accept the minister shaking his head and saying that that can't be.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What about their wage increase?

MR. SIHOTA: We'll get to wage increases in a minute.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: They enter into negotiations. The minister says: "What about their wage increase?" I want to put all this on the record. The wage increases, of course, have an effect on their budget. He says they'd be rich without wage increases. Even the minister would have to admit that all of us in this chamber believe in the free collective bargaining system. A contract is arrived at, and needs are met out of that contract. But that's not the point, and don't try to spin this off on a tangent and blame the teachers for their wage increases.

They're three-quarters of a million dollars short this year. You put it very artfully when you said that their budget has increased consistent with economic indicators; it's just that the rest of the world doesn't always function on those economic indicators.

For example, in my area B.C. Tel doesn't operate on those same economic indicators, and telephone costs go up. The federal government has brought forward all sorts of changes to UI. Apart from the collective bargaining agreement with teachers, those changes to UI — which are an attempt to make the system self-sufficient — then fall on the backs of the school boards.

Those changes and the increased costs, which run about 20 percent, aren't commensurate with the increase that was given to Sooke, which was about 6.6 percent — energy costs and all that kind of stuff. Consequently they end up with three-quarters of a million dollars less.

Not only does your formula from last year result in there being disparities between areas — Sooke versus Saanich — but they end up getting less. As the minister puts it — and I want to quote him correctly: "They can't increase their operations." They haven't been given enough money to increase their operations.

Would the minister not agree with me that there are other costs, along the lines that I've referred to, that have the effect of driving up the budget at a rate greater than the 6.6 percent increase they would have gotten? Don't tell me that they got 10.4, because a portion of that was enrolment. Okay? Let's stick at 6.6. I hear you getting briefed there, and I can imagine that's what you're going to come back to.

Would you not agree with me that there are costs that increase at a rate greater than that which you've outlined? I want to hear from the minister.

[ Page 9619 ]

I'll be back briefly in a minute; there's someone out there who wants....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I think we should have the discussion in here. I just want the minister to not feel offended if I have to walk out there for a second to talk to somebody. He has passed me a note.

But I want to hear his answer. Would you not agree with me that that's the problem? I'm going to have to ask somebody to cover for me on the mike for a moment, if the minister.... I'll be back in literally 30 seconds.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister has been long involved in this House and has diligently been dealing with his responsibilities, sometimes testily, but he seems to be mellowing out a little bit.

Just to let the minister know, I don't think we're going to quite make it this afternoon. As we can see, there are many people on this side of the House who have issues they want to raise in respect to their own affairs. I know the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is eagerly waiting for the response. It's a theme that has run through the estimates, and we'll all be interested in the minister's response to that issue of equity for the schoolchildren of Sooke.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we just had an excellent example here that they can cut and run and come back and what have you, and somebody's obligation on that side is to fill in space to kill time until it's politically expedient for somebody to let the estimates go through. We hardly ever talk about the estimates, which is a sad thing; anyway, I guess that's the way it works.

I think the member from Esquimalt is allowing his legal training and background, and his propensity for wanting to debate an issue forever, to get in the way of his common sense.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh no, that hurts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose if I give you the facts, they won't impress you at all. It just opens up more debate in your mind. That's how legal people work.

We want to do the comparison. Sooke gets a 10.4 percent increase this year. Part of that is attributable to enrolment. Saanich gets a 6.1 percent increase on last year's equivalent budget. There were changes made in the pensions and that, so it's an equivalent budget. Sooke gets a 10.4 percent increase on its last-year-equivalent budget and Saanich gets 6.1 percent. They don't know how much they have yet; they're going to negotiate for wages. They are three-quarters of a million short out of a budget of $40-some million. They don't know how much they're setting aside for wages; they don't know how many teachers they're going to have to have; they can only project their enrolments; and they are absolutely sure that they are three-quarters of a million dollars short for next year. That is ridiculous if you put it.... I mentioned the salaries. Well, okay, if they haven't allowed 7 percent for salaries or 8 percent for salaries, then maybe they have enough. Maybe the three-quarters of a million is there in their budget. They operated last year with that. Even if you take the net percentage, Saanich still gets less of an increase this year than Sooke gets.

I'm not quite sure how to deal with this repetition: "But they are getting less and they don't have enough. Mr. Minister, you've got to accept that this district of mine doesn't have enough money." Would you believe that even the districts that, because of the equalization and that, got more than they had planned for are now telling me that it's not enough? Seventy-five districts aren't getting enough money — 9.9 percent on operating, 15 percent when you figure everything, and it's not enough. They say: "Oh, the rest are getting enough. It's just me that's not getting enough."

I guess I could make one analogy. I don't know where you practise law, if it happens to be in Esquimalt or in downtown Victoria. The rent in downtown Victoria might be $50 a square foot — I'm making up numbers, because I don't pay attention to those rents — and it might be $25 in Esquimalt. You're trying to tell me that therefore if somebody were paying the rent for you, they should give you $50 for the rent in Esquimalt when it only costs you $25, just become somebody in Victoria has to pay $50 to occupy the space. It ain't a fair world if you want it in those terms.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, you start off by picking on my legal training. I don't pick on your training; don't pick on mine.

Believe you me, I have no interest in prolonging the estimates and keeping you here forever. I am asking some legitimate questions that....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But I've answered them four times.

MR. SIHOTA: We just got into the debate. I haven't even asked you four questions. I don't know how you can say you've answered it four times, unless you've been repeating yourself, in which case you shouldn't be tedious and repetitious.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I apologized for going out, so don't take a shot at me for that.

I understand your analogy with respect to square-foot costs and all of that kind of stuff. I would imagine that's built into your formula to the extent that it's necessary. Maybe you're right when you say that it's not a fair world. Maybe that's the conclusion at the end of the day— that you acknowledge that the formula you've set up isn't fair, and I think it ought to work towards some concept of fairness.

The obvious retort from you is: "Tell me, Mr. Member, what you think is fair." I think I've got an

[ Page 9620 ]

obligation to lay out some of those points to you, without — and I know you're looking at the clock — trying to extend it through to 6 o'clock.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I have no obligation to go on for 20 minutes to keep you here until 6 o'clock. Believe you me, if you had just answered my questions, we would have been out of here half an hour ago.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Four times I answered them.

MR. SIHOTA: No, you haven't answered them four times. What you have acknowledged is that the system is unfair. I'm trying to say that a parent with a child going to school, be it in Saanich or Sooke, ought to be able to recognize that a student living in one area — say, Langford — is entitled to the same level of education as a child in Brentwood Bay. That's not available right now in the Western Communities. It's not available for special education. I don't want to repeat myself. It's not available for libraries, computer programs or French immersion, to pick some examples. There's a difference between what's available in Brentwood Bay and what's available in Sooke. I don't think that you, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Premier would cease his heckling for a moment.... We're trying to have a serious debate in this House for a moment, Mr. Premier. I know you'd rather just heckle, because you have trouble taking a few things seriously — except, of course.... Well, I won't get into that.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier wants to know if I ever went to school. He shouldn't be so cheeky.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I did too go to a public school. You guys! Anything to get me off the topic, and the topic here is very simple. It's that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I suggest you address the Chair and not the minister.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to address the Chair, but the Premier would rather address me, I guess, and the same with the Minister of Education.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: You know, you're totally off the wall when you....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: But surely you would agree with me that a parent with a child in Brentwood Bay and a child in Langford ought to have access to the same quality of education. I think that's only fair. I don't expect your system is going to be perfect. Believe you me, I acknowledge the fact that no matter how much money you pump into the system, people are going to come back and ask for more. I've been around government enough to know that well.

So there are limits to what you can provide and to what the tax dollars will go towards. But given the envelope of funding that you've got, your mandate is to ensure that there is fairness, equity and equality of opportunity for kids, no matter where they live in this province.

The point I'm trying to make is that that's not the case right now. The simple request I'm trying to make is to get a commitment from you — which I think should be easy — to say: "Yes, this is what my ministry is trying to work for. Yes, as a matter of principle, we think that kids in Langford ought to have the same opportunity as kids in Brentwood Bay." Surely you don't disagree with that. It's easy to say it's not a fair world, but surely you wouldn't disagree with that point.

What I'm trying to get at is that your ministry, in my view, ought to be trying to change the formula to make sure there is the same equality of opportunity around the province and not to slough it off and say: "Go to referendum or go to the taxpayers for more money." The province has the fundamental responsibility to provide enough money for education, and it has a greater responsibility, in my mind, to ensure equality of opportunity.

[5:45]

I know that the minister must struggle with the same principle as I do, in terms of injecting some fairness into the formula. Surely you know that's your mandate. You've got to concede that that's not happening now. Surely then, you should be laying out what steps you're taking to level the playing field. That's my question. So what are those steps?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, I think we'd better clarify something. I have consistently maintained that our funding system is fair and equitable and that it provides equal opportunities for students no matter where they go to school. At no time have I said that it is absolutely equal. We don't take $5,000, in round numbers, and pin $5,000 on each student and say: "Go get it." If that student is in a class of 12 pupils in a small school, $5,000 wouldn't cover it. If we sent it to a class of 30 math students in a large school, $5,000 might be more than adequate. Please don't twist this now and say the student is not just taking math. I'm talking about the total picture. We don't pin $5,000 on each student. We say that the total cost in that district works out to so much; the total number of pupils works out to so much; therefore the average cost per pupil is this. I don't know whether there is an average pupil, other than one, in any district. But then you get hung up on the students in Brentwood Bay not having the same amount of

[ Page 9621 ]

funding as the students over here. I don't know; maybe it doesn't take the same amount of money to run the school. We don't pin $5,000 on each student and send them to the school.

I've said the system is fair and equitable. In the rent comparisons between Esquimalt and Victoria, I said that if that's your criterion for fairness, then it ain't a fair world. Now you turn that around and say the minister has acknowledged and admitted that it's not a fair and equitable system in education. I did not do that.

It's your legal background. You're twisting and turning and trying to win this court case, and you're trying to kill time. Somehow or other, in the back room, you have decided that my estimates won't finish today. It wouldn't matter what answers I gave — you would never let them through today, because somebody isn't here today on your side. I suspect it's the Leader of the Opposition, who is seldom here, and he wants a kick at the can. So you have a job here to fill up the time until he gets back so that he can play his little game.

What do you want? It's fair; it's equitable. Every student in this province, to the best of our ability, gets an opportunity, and the excellence in the quality of education they receive is not determined by the numbers at any one time. The small schools and large schools — they all do well where the student wants to do well.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Minister, I'm not here to waste your time. I want to ask you some questions, so don't make that allegation, because it's false. We've had our debate around the funding formula, and I've made my points and you've made yours.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Point of order. I've been harassed by that member for a half an hour, and now he says that my answers are false. That's going too far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can hardly consider it a point of order.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not here to harass the minister. I'm raising some legitimate questions on behalf of trustees, parents and children in my riding. You made your point around the financing formula; I made mine.

The point I'm trying to make to you, which I'm sure you will agree with, is this: will you go back to your back rooms when we get finished with these estimates — and the sooner the better for you, I guess — and start playing around with the fiscal formula to ensure that there is equality of opportunity? That's my point.

Now I want to move onto something else, and it's about the dual-entry system. I want to put on the record a letter that I got from a constituent — which is like a lot of others — and I want your comments on this, Mr. Minister. The letter is as follows:

"Our daughter, who will be five years old on November 30, 1990, can't start kindergarten this September as originally planned, because of the new dual-entry system. Our daughter is more than ready for kindergarten. Like thousands of British Columbia children today, she has been going to play schools and preschools since she was a year and a half old. We defy anybody to challenge that she is not ready emotionally, socially and physically for kindergarten. She knows her colours, her alphabet and all the other prerequisites for kindergarten.

"It is our child's future we are concerned about. We do not want her used as a guinea pig in a new system which doesn't have all its kinks worked out. We have many concerns regarding this new system. We're told that teachers are not prepared for this system; in fact, in Vancouver over the spring break, 600 teachers voted to delay the dual-entry system. Other concerns include integration of the new students starting January 1991 with the students who were already started in September. We have enclosed a copy of a letter from a teacher who shares some of our concerns.

"Then in September 1991, we're told, our daughter will be integrated with grade 1 students who are supposed to 'teach my child.' What utter nonsense! We feel that the dual-entry system should be delayed until all aspects are worked out. We feel very strongly that our daughter Ashton should be allowed to start kindergarten in Wishart Elementary School in Colwood in September."

I won't give the name of the parent.

Now that is not untypical of the letters that I get. I abhor the fact that members opposite say, "There's a PS on the bottom asking for money," or, "It's been sent out by the teachers," as the Premier would have to say. I think the parent in question would find that questionable.

Again, because the minister is anxious to get out of here, I will be pointed in my question. This is not unusual, and I'm sure the minister has got similar letters from parents. The teachers have said that they find the system somewhat uncomfortable. I noticed on the weekend that they were asking for some type of independent assessment of what had transpired. The concerns expressed by this parent, I think, are legitimate. I'd like to know what the minister has to say to a parent such as this who raises this issue, and what explanation he would offer to that parent.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the concern is that under the previous system — the once-a-year entry — a student who, say, turned five on January 2 had to wait up to nine months before he could go to school in September. The royal commission was told that it was unfair; that students should enter school closer together.

Whenever you make a change.... It is true, those children turning five in November or December this year would have started in September under the old system. Now they'll be starting in January. But it is also much more fair. You talked about fairness in your other topic. It is much more fair for those students who don't have to wait nine months now. Some people, yes, get caught in the change.

I've even looked at the suggestion: "Why don't you just keep it in place this year?" Well, that's what we did last year. Now this year, if we keep it in place

[ Page 9622 ]

so that the students who are born in November and December can get in in September, then the thing prolongs itself forever. So, yes, there is some difficulty for some students in this first year that it becomes mandatory.

I know that the BCTF needs a confrontation, and to get confrontation, they need an issue, and dual entry is the one issue that they are saying.... They've done everything possible, with the literature and the message they send out, to try and undermine this particular change. I've said repeatedly: "Are they saying that we should go back to the once-a-year entry despite the Sullivan report recommendations? Is that what it is — that nine months or up to a year apart is a better system than six months apart?" No, six months apart is fair. We put the system into place, it's in the act, and the people in this province are entitled to that.

Now some people have to wait until January, as some of the January birthdates, by accident of birth, had to wait until the following September. Nobody has to wait as long anymore. Some people in the first year will have to wait a bit longer, and I don't think you could make any change that doesn't affect some people specifically. Any people who ask, we are answering: "Yes, it has that effect this year, but in January your student will be entering." For the 33 districts that have tried it, it seems to have worked.

MR. SIHOTA: A one-word answer will suffice. I take it, then, that there's no decision to review this dual-entry program, and the minister is not prepared to review it or to have an independent assessment. I take it the answer to that question is no. Am I correct?

Sorry if you didn't hear me; I'll repeat It. I take it that the answer is no, that you won't have a review or an independent assessment. A one-word answer will do. I'll ask only one more question, and we'll take it from there.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, because I'm not prepared to go back and do an independent assessment of everything that the Sullivan royal commission recommended.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask just one other question of the minister, and it relates to the tax notices that will be sent out. As you know, in the past we've received tax notices saying what our municipal tax share is and what our school tax burden is, and that's reflected on the statement. Then you get the homeowner grant, which you deduct, and it tells you what you have to pay at the end of the day. I don't know how you intend to reflect the school portion in this year's tax notices — whether the burden of school costs will be shared equally or whether taxpayers in districts like Saanich, which gets more money from the block funding program than Sooke, will be asked on their notices to pay more for school purposes. Will it be equal on a provincewide basis, or will it be attributed on the basis of the increased money you're getting in Saanich, for example, under the block formula compared to Sooke, where you're getting less? That's my question to the minister on the tax notices.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When the tax notices go out, I believe they always show the taxes that are applicable for municipal purposes and the taxes that are applicable for school purposes.

MR. SIHOTA: How will the school portion be funded?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess that will be decided shortly, when the final decisions are made about the taxes.

Are you ready to quit, or shall we carry on?

MR. SIHOTA: The question is simply this, Mr. Minister: you are providing money to the various school districts, so how will that be reflected? I know there will be a school component, but how will the money that you forward be reflected on the homeowner notices? Will it be on an equal basis per house provincewide, or will areas such as Saanich, which got more money in block funding compared to Sooke, have a larger number attached to the school taxes in its district? Is that how you intend to do it, or will you just do it the same way across the board?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The tax rate will be set and announced as soon as possible. The school taxes, less the supplementary homeowner grant, will reflect the amount that's payable for school taxes. The taxes will not be equal; they will be more equitable than they used to be. There is no way we can move to having every homeowner paying the same amount of money in school taxes, any more than we could move to every district's costs being the same as any other, regardless of the actual expenditures.

In view of that, Mr. Chairman....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They're not going to let it pass, are they?

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.