[ Page 9623 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 9623

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Perry

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery opposite this morning we have some special visitors from Kamloops: a class of 41 grade 7 students from A.E. Perry Elementary School, accompanied by their principal Mr. Brian Hitchens, teachers Gwen Pratt, Ernie Cordonier and Ron Brandt, and parents August Scerbo, Mary Scerbo, Eileen Bourassa and Winnie McKinnon. This class, Mr. Speaker, has just won a $2,500 award for the development of an innovative multicultural program. I'd like the House to make them most welcome.

Mr. Speaker, just before we go to the orders, on behalf of the Economic Development, Transportation and Municipal Affairs committee, I ask leave for them to sit 10:30 this morning.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

MS. A. HAGEN: Over the last number of days, as we have explored the very broad range of responsibilities of the Minister of Education, he has been known to comment on occasion that he wishes we would talk about his estimates. I presume by his "estimates" he means the dollars that are a part of his ministry's budget, and I would like to accord him that attention this morning and talk about dollars-and-cents items.

We have raised a number of issues that deal with those dollars-and-cents items over the last two or three days. We've talked about the new block funding and what is or is not accommodated in that block, its adequacy and its fairness. We've talked about the capital funding initiatives and some of the needs of the province, some of the specific tasks that need to be undertaken, particularly from district perspectives and from a long-range planning view.

This morning I want to particularly focus on the funding for the royal commission initiatives and implementation. I want to spend some time in this arena because I think many people have questions about what moneys are available, how they will be allocated and whether or not they are included in the block or are made available through some special grants under the ministry's ten-year plan for royal commission implementation funding.

I want to just review for a brief moment some discussions that we had in a similar venue last June 13 when we were dealing with the estimates of the minister. At that time I asked the minister to clarify the resources available for the implementation of the royal commission report and recommendations, both on a fiscal year basis and over the long term. I would like to quote from my calculations. This is from June 13, page 7472 of Hansard of last year: "...by my calculations, there is money coming out of current programs for the implementation and, indeed, if we look at what is left" — that is, what is left of the $1.4 billion that the minister announced last year would be available on a ten-year basis for the royal commission implementation — "about 78 percent of the $1.4 billion coming out of new money."

We had some further discussion about that in response to questions that I asked of the minister. He replied: "I've just been trying to add it up, because in each year it varies somewhat. I guess about $265 million of that will be what we would classify as reallocated money; the rest of it is brand-new money."

I want to just note again that of the $1.4 billion that has been announced for royal commission implementation, some is indeed coming from money that is currently in the system and will continue to be in the system, and which is being reallocated and redirected toward implementation of the royal commission. The minister went on to explain what some of those areas would be. We are in fact looking at two sources of royal commission implementation money. Some of it is money that is, as the minister says, new, and some of it is reallocated.

Now let's turn to the announcements the minister has made in this year about royal commission funding. He has announced — and there is a specific part of vote 18 in the budget book — a sum of $140 million from a special fund for royal commission implementation. He has also stated in speeches and in press releases that there is, within the block, an amount of $85.7 million for royal commission implementation. I would presume, going back to my introductory comments, that some of this is indeed reallocated money.

That $85.7 million amounts to a little more than a million dollars per school board. That's just to give us some perspective on it; not one that has very much relationship, I know, to spending, because of the various sizes of boards. But there is supposedly within that block $85.7 million for Royal Commission on Education implementation.

As I look at the material that came to school boards, there is very little in the package that talks about allocated money— money that must go to specific costs. Among the allocated costs are textbooks, but other than that I don't think there's anything in those specific allocated amounts that could be said to be for royal commission. It relates to non-shareable capital, teacher pensions and the Chance program, which supports special-needs children.

What I would like to do first of all is find out a little bit about this $85.7 million that is supposedly in the unallocated blocks to school boards, which they may be directing to royal commission funding.

[ Page 9624 ]

There's only one amount that I know is new, and that is an amount for parent advisory committees of somewhere between $300,000 and $320,000. That amount has been identified, the parent advisory groups have been informed of it and school boards know that it is there.

Other than that, I know of nothing in the $85.7 million that is specifically allocated for royal commission implementation. I have some clues from ministry press releases about what some of it might be, but I'm not sure just how I might deal with that information, because it seems to flow over into regular activities as well as royal commission activities.

I'd like the minister, as briefly as possible and without any kind of elaboration at this stage of the game, to simply tell us what is in that $85.7 million that he has deemed allocated to royal commission for education funding.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I note that the member elaborates at great length and then says: "I don't want any elaboration in return." The member is, I think, somewhat....

MR. ROSE: Be nice; let's start all over again.

HON. MR- BRUMMET: It was; I'm responding to the bad start.

On the matter of allocation, I think the member is a bit confused. Allocation in her lexicon appears to be something additional, and it's improper to allocate something that's already there towards a specific purpose. I wanted to clarify that. In the block funding there are service levels for program implementation, and that is $11.3 million — I'll round off.

Equipment support. There is always money in the budget for equipment and supplies. We're saying: "Don't buy old textbooks that are obsolete; allocate some of that money to buy the new stuff that is needed." So there is $5.6 million in equipment support.

The non-instructional days. Those are in the block, and each teacher in the province gets five days. We're saying that it's quite legitimate — and many teachers are doing it — to use some of those five professional days towards developing new approaches to curriculum. That's part of professional development.

MS. A. HAGEN: How much is that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If you count that in and estimate the number of teachers times five days, that works out to $36.9 million.

Recommended new curriculum materials, instead of buying old materials — about $7.4 million; student and school testing, evaluation and assessment — that's $11.2 million; textbook and resource materials — again, $12.95 million; support for parent advisory groups — $317,000, for a total of $85.7 million. That is where we say that $85 million, out of the $2.66 billion in this province, can be allocated towards curriculum development, towards the appropriate materials and equipment necessary for the new program, instead of putting the money to the old program.

[10:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: I thank the minister for the information and the succinct answer. I'd like to explore some of the information with him.

Let's start near the bottom of the list, where he notes $12.95 million for textbooks. I note, in the information on authorized textbooks, that the amount of money that must be allocated for this year is just about that amount. The figure I have is something in the order of $12.2 million for this year in an allocated amount — an amount that is in fact in a separate box in the information that comes to school boards. Is the minister suggesting, then, that all of the textbook allocation for school districts for this year is to be directed toward the royal commission, when we are really only looking, at this point, at implementation for kindergarten and primary? We're not at implementation yet for intermediate and secondary; nor indeed do we have programs and curriculum in those areas. Is the $12.9 million that the minister refers to an additional amount for textbooks, or is it the same allocation that is noted in the information that has gone to school boards — the amount of money that they must put aside for textbooks in a special account? The figure in the information to boards under the components of the block is $12,269,788.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the whole thrust of the education system is to implement the changes recommended by the Sullivan commission report. Therefore, theoretically, you could take any amount of that money — instructional money, whatever — and say that it's part of the process. Teachers are teaching some new programs, and so some of their salary could be accredited to implementation. They're doing some new things and carrying on some old practices or continuing practices. How much of their salary do you allocate? We can get into that kind of splitting hairs.

The whole point is that with the money that's in there for curriculum resource materials, which I've given the member, and with additional money that's being made available, it's around $30 million to $31 million. We're saying this money is for the purchase of resource materials; you should be buying new resource materials, and the money can be attributed to implementing the new program.

Remember, we're saying it's within the block. Now if that member chooses to say no, it's only $70 million in the block that you can attribute to that, suit yourself. We are not going to punish boards for replacing a textbook that they're using rather than buying a new one. Boards have 30 percent absolute discretion on what they buy in the way of resource materials, and 70 percent, we say, should be authorized materials that are carrying on from the provincial resources branch's approved materials.

To pin down exactly what label you attach to each dollar is fairly difficult. Remember, we're talking estimates here. Some of the costs won't be known until the actual expenditure is made. But we're saying that, by and large, this is how much money is allocated towards the development of the program.

[ Page 9625 ]

Within the block there's money that you can credit to it. Above the block there's money that's available.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think that was a rather feeble answer to my question about whether the $12.9 million in the money that the minister says is in boards' blocks for the Royal Commission on Education is indeed the same amount of money that is for all textbooks. I'm not sure how boards and teachers are going to be prescient enough to know whether the textbook they buy is going to be a textbook for a program that is not yet designed and where we're not yet implementing a program. Maybe they will have that kind of insight. Maybe we're going to sit with textbooks that are not suitable or usable while we wait for that information.

It appears to me that the minister has said, "You've got $12.9 million that you must spend on textbooks," and he's now saying that it's for royal commission implementation. It's a little bit of double accounting, I think, and most people will recognize it as such.

However, that's an item that is clearly identified as an allocated amount. I think I might presume, if I were looking at that, that boards are going to go ahead and buy their textbooks. They're going to have the best information they have from the ministry about what textbooks may be useful for the implementation. And they're going to continue to supply their children with the necessary books from other sources as they wait for implementation to proceed through the various grade levels.

Let's look, however, at the largest item in this amount. It's very large: $36.9 million. First of all, the minister suggested that that is what it costs to buy five professional days. I just want to confirm with him whether the $36.9 million that he noted was in the block for non-instructional time equates with the cost of providing five instructional days, as is part of the school year for every teacher in the province.

I'd like to ask the minister if he'd be prepared to answer that question, because it would be helpful for me in pursuing a line of inquiry. Could the minister please advise me whether the $36.9 million that he notes is in the $85.7 million block amount and which could be directed to implementation is the cost of providing five instructional days for every teacher in the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes. I referred to that in my earlier comments.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's an interesting figure. I've done some of my own calculations, and they are not that high. But I'll accept that the minister is certainly the person who should know what that cost is. it seems to me that it is quite a high amount.

Let me pursue this line of questioning. At this point, we have in the 1990-91 school year the implementation of dual-entry students into kindergarten and the implementation of the primary program, with curricular materials available. Presumably in this year the teachers — a quarter of the teachers, if we look at that number as representing four years of children's education — are very much going to be into in-service training and professional development related to their new responsibilities.

However, there are a large number of additional teachers in the system who are working in the intermediate and secondary levels and who, by and large, over the next two or three years, are going to be continuing with the same programs, as the ministry develops its plans for the implementation of the intermediate and graduate programs. Those are not scheduled to move into the implementation phase until next year. While there may be a couple of lead schools, there are very few teachers directly involved at this time in the intensive in-service and professional development related to the implementation of new programs.

Could the minister please suggest to us if he is proposing that all professional days of teachers be devoted at this time to royal commission implementation, even though teachers may require in-service in physics, math, art, social studies or shop for ongoing programs that are still part of the school curriculum and in organizations that are still the same? Could the minister explain to me if it is his suggestion to school boards that, regardless of the phasing of implementation, from now on we should assume that all professional development days are indeed royal commission-directed?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Professional development days for teachers or in any other profession are generally for members to update themselves, to keep themselves current with what is going on and to improve their knowledge and skills in the field before them. I suppose if you took the example of lawyers who spent some money on professional development and then said: "But you have to separate this professional development of that lawyer. You have to say that he's also studying old laws as well as new laws. Therefore he's supposed to know the old laws...."

To me, professional development is teachers upgrading themselves and bringing themselves up to date with what is current in their professional field. The currency in the professional field is the changes suggested, recommended and accepted by this government — the changes from the royal commission report.

MS. A. HAGEN: I presume from that answer that at this stage of the game the ministry, in terms of accounting for its support of royal commission funding is accounting for $36.9 million of non-instructional days that will be available to the teachers of the province, and that becomes a part of the $1.4 billion that the ministry has indicated is available.

I don't want to pursue this through all of the various elements of the $85.7 million or $87.5 million, depending on whether you're reading a speech or a press release. But let me ask the minister if this information that has gone to school boards about his suggested allocations from within the unallocated block is going to be conveyed to school boards. How are school boards going to be made aware that the minister believes there is money in the block, and

[ Page 9626 ]

that these are the specifics of that money that the minister believes boards may choose to allocate towards royal commission funding, even though — as I say — there clearly are other tasks that boards must engage in in the use of that money?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I know we get into this interrogation system; I suppose I'm being a party to it. I tried to refer to, "what do you mean by allocation?" but I see nobody else on that side can even stand that. I guess they've all left.

[10:30]

We have said there is $2.66 billion in the block, and when you count in things like the dual-entry students who are already there, the professional days that are already there and the materials, resources and everything that people are buying, you can actually attribute up to $85.7 million to royal commission implementation within the block.

We don't have a separate column for school boards. If they want to attribute zero of that money to the royal commission implementation, let them do it that way. We're not asking them to account for that. The only allocated — or targeted — money in the block that we have said you can't bury is the small amount for accreditation of schools. That's earmarked; it's in the block. We have said there is an amount in the block for textbooks and approved resources, which must be attributed to that. You can't spend that on wages or anything else. We have said there's a small amount there of shareable capital that carries forward, and that's targeted funds within the block.

For the rest of that money, we say you can attribute up to $85.7 million towards royal commission implementation. We don't say that you've got to target it to that, or you've got to put it to that. Suppose the boards say: "No, we only want to say half." Let them say half. But the money over and above the block will be distributed on the basis of need and on the basis of implementation for royal commission implementation.

If you choose to say it's not $140 million plus $85 million, and that it's really only $140 million, then I have to accept your argument. Any time a teacher goes to a professional development session on one of those days, you can't count that as new. So count whatever amount, for your satisfaction, that you want to in that block. We're simply saying that is money....

At the beginning of estimates, I said that as new things enter into the system and become part of the system, there is a blurring or a blending of new money and old money. I just can't understand that if you're doing a new curriculum, there's something evil about leaving the money in for what you did under the old curriculum.

There's a new course of studies, and we're supposed to say: "There is money for the new course of studies, but please leave the money for the old course of studies that nobody is studying." That's the kind of ridiculous semantics we get into when you try to say which dollar is pink, which dollar is green and which dollar is blue. They're all dollars. It's a matter of saying....

In our ministry estimates we say there is some money in the block. Our estimate is that it can be up to $85.7 million. There is money above the block for that. So we're not counting the $85 million as part of the $140 million; we're saying the $140 million is additional.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm sure that teachers from grades 4 to 12 will hope that their boards have moneys available for curriculum materials that may not be toward the implementation of the royal commission yet — they may be next year or the year after or the year after — but there will be professional development around their current teaching needs, which goes on as they're moving toward implementation of new programs.

In terms of accountability, I'm not worried about the board's accountability. Because we're looking at a multi-year program, I'm trying to have some information about the minister's accountability.

Perhaps I could best conclude this section of exploration of what's in the block with this question. Given that the minister last year agreed there was a certain amount of money in current funding that would be reallocated — his figures were around $265 million of the $1.4 billion; mine were around $300 million, not much different — is it therefore a reasonable assumption that the $85.7 million that is in the block, according to the minister's own calculations this year, and the $25 million that, according to the minister's calculations, was in the block last year, are indeed a part of the $1.4 billion? Is that reallocated money that we now have in some way accounted for in terms of this multi-year program? That would add up to about $110 million of the $300 million, give or take some, which the minister agreed was currently in the system, not new money. Would the minister agree that this is an account against that $300 million, and we now know that about $110 million of that has been accounted for by the ministry in its calculations as being available to the system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When we made a commitment to the royal commission implementation, we said that we estimated the changes in the school system would take about $1.4 billion. We estimated that it would start low, increase and hopefully taper off and decrease. More and more of it will fit into the system as the changes are made. We still estimate that it will be $1.4 billion in total.

Last year we had two figures: $68 million attributed to royal commission implementation, of which $48 million was absolutely brand-new money. We said $48 million is the addition; we said $68 million is attributed to royal commission implementation, because $20 million was already in there for curriculum development and that sort of thing, and we might as well develop the new curriculum instead of just leaving it there and doing nothing with it.

The member does the arithmetic and says that she knows exactly how much is going to have to be spent of that $1.4 billion six or seven years from now. I'm

[ Page 9627 ]

not that clairvoyant. We've estimated that amount. We've committed ourselves to keeping the implementation process going. In our estimates last year, we thought we would need $111 million, but we said we wanted to keep the program going and to accelerate the pace because there was work going on, so we got more than $111 million this year. I don't know whether we'll need more or less than that next year to keep it going. We're dealing with estimates. The member is trying to translate those estimates into exact figures based on estimates.

I can tell you that we're estimating a 3.6 percent enrolment increase in the province this year. We hope to be close. The closer we are, the better our budgeting and everything else works. But unlike the member, I can't say that that will definitely and exactly generate X number of pupils, so I multiply by the cost per student and can tell you exactly how many dollars are going to have to be there on October 1. It's ridiculous to expect those exact figures; yet that's what the member is trying to do, to play this game: "Give me an exact figure of when it's going to rain in June." I can't. But if I study history, I could probably give the member an indication that it may rain sometime in June, but not necessarily.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister is obviously not prepared to account for the dollars he is putting into the system. I'm simply asking him to acknowledge which pot some of this money is coming from — whether it's coming from the $1.1 billion of new money or the $300 million of reallocated money. I'm going to presume, given our discussion last year and the fact that the minister is not prepared to answer that question, that from the point of view of his accounting, the money in the block is part of the reallocated money. I recognize that whether it is spent or not is a decision of the school boards. Whether it's enough or not is not the question here.

It's a question of knowing exactly how the ministry is dealing with this information and trying to clear up some of the confusion that exists for the public and in school districts when all of these various messages come in. I get press releases and the public gets the press releases, with umpteen dozen figures going right, left and centre. My task as critic is just to try to help people clarify what's there and how well it is being allocated.

As I note, it seems to me rather extreme to suggest that every textbook in the system at this time is related to the royal commission or that every professional day is related to the royal commission; but the ministry states that these amounts are available. Of course, it will be up to boards to decide. I hope, though, that the minister is not necessarily going to say that he has spent all of this money, when it's an allocation that is at best specious at this time.

Let's look, though, at the specifics of the allocations the minister has announced in the $140 million targeted for royal commission programs in 1990-91. Those amounts are still in the works in the ministry, with, to my knowledge, no specific indication of grants either to school districts or to other bodies that have been established. I would certainly agree with the minister that these figures are estimates. In fact, they have to be put into concrete programs, grants and directed activities before we really have meat and flesh on their bones.

I want to talk about two aspects of this list. The only list I've seen that does put in some figures that add up to $140 million is the one the minister made available to the school trustees on the same day as he made announcements about there being royal commission funds for education.

I want to do a link with what we've just been talking about. In the minister's press release of April 28, he lists a range of funding designed to enhance the quality of services to students in the province, and he goes on to note what the services are. He says: "...the gradual introduction of these programs into the school system and, simultaneously, in-service training for teachers. The primary program will be introduced in 1990-91 and the intermediate and graduation programs over the next several years."

I wonder, just to start off this look at the $140 million that the minister has announced will be available, which is part of vote 18 — it's a specific amount in his budget for the year — if he could please advise me in which category of the various granting items the in-service training for teachers might come, and how that would be determined and distributed to school boards. Could the minister please advise me how this money is to be used?

Approximately what amount, if he has any idea...? In what category does it sit? Maybe it sits in the category of primary, intermediate and graduation implementation activities, including grants to school districts of $9.2 million. Perhaps a fairly large portion sits where it says it will be directed to support public school operations like dual entry, full-day first-year primary, and so on. Given that the minister is stating that there is money in the $140 million for in-service training for teachers, can he give us some idea of what category that sits in and how that money will be distributed or granted to school districts?

[10:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There again, Mr. Chairman, the member seems to try and say that this can only happen in one category. As a critic, it's nice to be simplistic. There are implementation activities and meeting expenses when teachers are called to meetings; they are part of in-service. There are teachers who go out to the districts to have meetings with other teachers because of their expertise and knowledge in the system. Those people are there. Leadership grants.... There are rural teacher education programs; that's trying to get it out into the rural communities. There is the support services to schools category; curriculum development resource material, a large category.

When you develop curriculum materials — I don't know if the member is aware of the process — you get teachers together to try and translate into an actual implementation method the ideas and all of that. Those teachers come together from all over the province. There's money attributed to that. Those

[ Page 9628 ]

people on the curriculum committee then become the knowledgeable people who convey the message and hold meetings within their districts. We have meetings sometimes where teachers' representatives are called from each district. These people come to a central conference, because you can't get 30,000 teachers into the same room. The representatives might be three, four or ten from each district. In the primary program I believe it was eight or ten from each district. They all came together. Their meeting expenses and costs were paid. Then those people spread the message throughout the rest of the province. How do I attribute that to one category, when it happens in many categories?

As I mentioned earlier in my estimates, there are something like 12,000 teachers who have registered for short courses in a variety of workshops this summer on the new implementation, the new ideas, the Year 2000 primary curriculum.

MS. A. HAGEN: Do you pay, or do they?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We pay for some of it and they pay for some of it. Some teachers, you know, go willingly, of their own accord, to increase their professional development. There are some that say: "If you want me to learn something new, you've got to pay for it." But it's a combination. We put on the course; we put on the workshop. Sometimes the teachers pay fees. Depending on to what extent we're requiring it rather than making it available, it will vary as to what they pay.

In some school districts, the only way they release teachers is if somebody pays for the subs. In other districts they say: "This is to the benefit of our students. We count that in our budget, and we look after the subs from within our block."

Somehow or other, that member feels that you can take everything that teachers learn, all the in-service What do you mean by in-service? To me, a staff-room discussion can be in-service. No money; nothing else. The teachers voluntarily, for an hour after school, sit there and discuss what they can do about this program or the other. That is part of in-service. How do I attribute that and pigeon-hole it into a box to suit my critic?

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister has announced, on umpteen occasions, that there will be money available to school districts for the implementation of royal commission funding. It's helpful if the minister can indeed provide us with some guidelines about how that money does become available. Perhaps I can pursue a line of questioning that can get some of that down to the specifics.

Let me take the largest amount of money in the $140 million, which is related to a program that's being introduced this year, the dual-entry first-year primary program. The minister, in his list to the B.C. school trustees, noted that there was about $65 million in the $140 million that goes directly to public school operations. I presume this is money that's going to land in the school district laps for dual entry, full-day, first-year primary, primary teacher assistance, evaluation follow-up, primary transportation and — interesting — home schooling, which is a category that sits aside from the first-year primary.

I wonder if the minister can tell us what his estimates are of the actual cost to the districts, globally, of a predictable, estimated number of children that we expect to see walking through the door in their running-shoes on January 6, 1991. How many students, and what does the ministry anticipate will be the cost per pupil, half a year, half a day?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we have announced, we have told school boards, and I did say at the BCSTA convention, that those kids who come in in January will be funded based on the district allocation of.... Six-tenths of the $5,259 will be added to the provincial block for each of those students. That will be distributed to the districts, not at six-tenths of $5,259 but at six-tenths of their proportionate share. So that is what we're going to do.

We're committed to that when we know how many students come in in January of 1991. Then we will be able to give you an exact figure. We're estimating that it's going to cost a certain amount, and we've said six-tenths of it. We've combined it with other activities such as full-day first-year primary, and again, that's a matter of choice and need, so the districts apply. We put a figure on it, and these are additional funds in addition to the base level in the block now and will be added to their block, but distributed to their block.

In other words, their block increases accordingly, and that's for dual entry, full first-year primary, teacher assistants, transportation costs — that's additional transportation — evaluation follow-up and home schooling for those kids.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have a small point. I'd be interested to know if those kids are going to be funded at a full basis. Are they going to be funded as full-time students if they're not attending full-day primary, or are they going to be funded as half-time kids? Probably half-time kids. Anyway, it doesn't make any difference.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Full-time equivalents. If they're half-time....

MS. A. HAGEN: Full-time equivalents. Okay, fine.

The minister then is not prepared to say what proportion of this amount they're estimating will be required for those actual students. We can do some of those calculations. I would presume that we're going to have about 40 percent more kindergarten kids in the system, given that we're looking at a six-month period in January. That's a pretty significant increase, in terms of the cost to the system. In this amount of money, is there anything for space allocations, or is this entirely operational?

Secondly, can the minister tell us something about primary teacher assistants? We're seeing the phrase "teacher assistants" quite often; it's School Act language. We usually talk about teacher aides, and the

[ Page 9629 ]

ministry is using the term "teacher assistants." What are teacher assistants, and what are the terms under which they will be available? Who makes those decisions? Is that a decision that comes from the ministry, or do school districts apply for those positions?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess we play yo-yo again. I'm sorry that I have to go back and explain. I would have thought that my education critic would be aware that in first year or in kindergarten, it takes two of them to make one FTE. I thought my critic would be aware of that, so I didn't elaborate. But let me explain it very carefully.

MS. A. HAGEN: You don't have to.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member said: "I don't know whether you're going to give full funding for a half-time student or not." Why do you put that kind of thing on the record if you understand? I did not at any time suggest that there would be full funding for a half-time student. It takes two half-time students — that equals one — and that ends up as one funding: six-tenths of one FTE.

Now if the student comes in.... If they have a full-day kindergarten by choice, then there's funding to pick that up, and actually the FTE count goes up accordingly. Two halves make one student for funding. If one of those students comes for two halves of the day — guess what? — that student generates one FTE, and we pay six-tenths if they come in in January. We pay ten-tenths if they come in in September. That ten-tenths is already in the block, because they're counted on September 30 if they are there, and therefore they are funded in the block. Now I hope we got that part of it straightened out.

There is a service level in the block for teaching assistants, and we don't say every room must hire a teaching assistant. We leave that on the basis of need — not allocation from Victoria. Boards know what those funding levels are within the block. However, they have the right to vary and to do something different. When we add up their total budget, we add up the amount allocated for teachers' salaries, for pensions, for other....

Referring to a previous question, I guess the member feels that if you take five days out of the school year, you deal only with the teachers' salaries; you don't deal with the total compensation package. That's why you can get different figures, depending on what you include or what you don't include. We have allocation for a lot of things in the budget. School boards know what those are, but only in those targeted funds we have said they are required to show that as a separate entry. The rest of it they can move back and forth by their decision; that's what we call local autonomy.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm going to take a different tack, Mr. Chairman. Out of the total $140 million that is allocated for royal commission implementation this year, how much will be available in school districts?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We estimate that almost $85 million of that will be available in one form or another within the school district spending, and $19 million will be available to the independent schools. Part of that, of course, is the 50 percent funding that was generated as a result of the royal commission recommendation. We have allocated another $18 million in broad terms for grants for native bands, supporting local initiatives, native language and culture, post-secondary institutions directed at the teaching profession, expanding the number of graduates from education facilities, and so on.

[11:00]

You asked how much of it was going to be spent by school districts. We think a good portion of it, up to $85 million. But we haven't put it into their bank account. We've basically estimated that as they put in programs.... For instance, if the school district has full-day kindergarten, we haven't marked that much for every district. In some districts they might not go for full-day kindergarten, but if they have, they show as FTEs and that is added to their block so that they can run the full-day kindergarten.

As the member said something earlier about having $1 million per school district or per school board, I'll tell you, some of these small school districts would be very happy with that, and the larger school districts would, as usual, be unhappy with whatever.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just pursue a couple more points with this. How do boards access that $85 million? I just want a general two or three principles here, because....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I recognize it's not in a separate.... The minister is saying it's in a separate bank account.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, it isn't.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister is saying it is not in a separate bank account; it is an estimate. I accept the fact that it is an estimate.

In the interest of access and equity, how do boards get that money into their bank account to provide services within the district? Does the minister have a process whereby boards apply for grants? I'm looking here at matters that are not necessarily related to enrolment, which clearly has a cost attached to it, but for other programs: primary transportation — my district doesn't need it, but I know they need it up in Abbotsford; full-day kindergarten — the minister has just said you may or may not need it; the minister noted that there were some differences in terms of how moneys were made available for in-service training.

Does all of the money that goes to school districts come from decisions that are taken at the ministry level and then accorded to school boards, or are there means by which school boards apply for some of these funds, and can the minister give us some idea of what the criteria and applications might be? Is it all centrally decided and funnelled down to school

[ Page 9630 ]

boards, or is there information in the form of applications for special grants for implementation that come from boards, and what are the criteria for that to ensure broad distribution and equity?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The more I explain, the worse it gets, it seems. I try and explain when the member picks out one item. We said that we estimate about $85 million will be available to school boards for school board spending. I tried to explain that we don't put that in a separate bank account; it's determined by the needs. That's the decision.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET. Let me put it this way. There are service levels that we fund: we fund so much per pupil; we fund so much per class. To use the example of the first-year primary, we determine at the provincial level, arbitrarily and dictatorially, that if students are there for six months out of the ten, then they are funded for six months out of the ten. That's a horrible central decision, but we think it's logical.

How do the boards access that? They access it when they send in the number of students that qualify. So that is how that is determined.

How do we determine the busing? There is a service level for busing, per kilometre, per student. If the board says that because of the dual entry we have to add 18 bus spaces for 20 kilometres, or whatever.... I'm making up some numbers to try and simplify it so the member might understand. When they send that in, we increase their service-level funding for busing accordingly. When they have another classroom, we increase the service level to those factors that are funded for an extra classroom We increase the service levels based on the need, based on the reports and information that we get from the school boards. We don't know how many pupils they are going to put in full-day kindergarten, so we wait. When they report, we say: "How many students do you have now?" They say: "We have another 20 students for half a day each." So their service level goes up by ten FTEs, or six-tenths of the ten FTEs if they come in in January. There's a service-level funding that makes up the block. The distribution to the school districts of the additional funds is based on the service-level formula. That's how they access the money; not from a separate bank account but from the ministry.

I don't know how I can make it any plainer than that, or how I can possibly tell the member how much the Coquitlam district is going to get next year. If you can tell me exactly how many pupils they have.... We base the funding on estimates of the enrolment. We have, for instance, estimated that the dual-entry kindergarten might generate 11,000 FTEs in our service-level funding. Of course, what the member chooses always to neglect is that we're going to get 20,000 or 22,000 more students into the school system, and unless somebody does something magical about how children are born, then there will 20,000 less in September. So eventually it tends to level out. Once the dual entry is in place, you don't keep funding dual entry; you start funding full-time equivalents, according to the service levels.

It's that simple, really, until you try and say: "Well, how many dollars to you attach to this kid's collar and how many dollars do you attach to that bus?" It's the dollars that are needed, and they're generated by the service levels.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's helpful. I asked the minister quite a long time ago how many students he anticipated might be coming into the system, and he's now said 11,000. That's exactly what I was looking for. In rough figures, it means....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: No, I know that. Mr. Chairman, the minister is saying: "We don't have an exact figure." We're dealing with estimates. The ministry must have some kind of planning estimates on which it bases its $140 million. All this member is trying to do is ask the minister to provide that estimate. It seems that we almost have to pull his wisdom teeth in order to get that information, and it does protract the event. It's something that tries a lot of our patience — including, I note, the minister's on more occasions than not.

I want to ask just a couple of other questions about the $140 million. I note that one of the elements included in this is expansion of teacher education programs. I want to ask the minister a very simple question. Is the expansion of teacher education programs a product of royal commission implementation or a product of the fact that we need more teachers in our schools and have to train them?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister, then, since he says yes to both of those: is the $4.5 million that he notes is available for the expansion of teacher education programs the amount it's going to cost to train the additional graduates that the minister has indicated he wants to see coming out of teacher-training institutions in the province? Is that the cost of providing training to those students?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't really believe this. I've answered yes; because we're facing a possible teacher shortage we have tried to increase that. And now the member is asking me to try and pinpoint, three or four years from now, when those teachers graduate, which of them are going to be teaching the new program and which of them would have been needed without the new program. They are all going to be needed to teach the kids in this province. I'm not going to put a label on: new royal commission product, old pre-royal commission product. Come on now!

[ Page 9631 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the minister is so defensive about all of this. The government is trying to put a best foot forward in initiatives that it's taking. I commend the government for its work in respect to committing dollars for the royal commission. All I'm trying to do is to ask that in this domain, as in others, we have some good, honest accounting of what those dollars are. What the government has done is to plow as much in the way of ordinary, regular school activities into royal commission implementation as it possibly can, to make it appear that, first of all, the program is thoroughly and well resourced — which we will need some time to assess — and secondly, that there are more dollars available than would need to be available in the system if we were not proceeding with this program.

My point in noting the training of teachers is that regardless of whether teachers are teaching under an old or new program, an RCE program or their own designed program, teachers are teachers, and most people would question whether we should call those expenditures extraordinary toward implementation. The same thing holds true when we look at lumping together a whole range of activities that are part of the normal activities of a school system and saying that we can possibly attribute to the implementation of the royal commission everything in this category in this year of a ten-year program.

Finally, I think there is still a lot of concern in the system about dollars available at the school level for the implementation of the program. I would hope that at the end of this fiscal year, we would be able to have an accounting of these special funds that the ministry has available under the line that reads $140 million and we would know exactly where those dollars went and for what purposes.

That kind of accounting is what we, as people of the province, are entitled to. We're entitled to ask questions about what the minister includes in those categories. This has not been, in terms of looking at the budget, a particularly easy set of estimates, because the minister has tended to be suspicious and querulous about straightforward questions.

Let me just conclude with one item, which gives us a further indication of why we have to know what goes into total pots. We haven't talked about independent schools funded partly in a special vote and partly through royal commission funding. I understand that the royal commission amount of around $20 million is indeed — the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — the difference between the funding that those schools would have received prior to the implementation of changes under the new Independent School Act and therefore prior to an increase in the level of funding available to them.

[11:15]

If we as a public are to know how much money is available from the province to the independent schools of B.C., we have to look at vote 20. We also have to know that there is an additional $20 million over and above the $62 million in vote 20 going to independent schools. There is another category — and I have no idea how much money is in it — for the registering of schools as well. I would assume that it may be $3 million or $4 million, maybe more or less — also in vote 18.

My point is that the public has a right to know what the funding is in various categories for the schools of this province. It has a right to have the information available to them in a ready and accessible way. It has a right to accounting that is clear, open and not difficult to get at. It shouldn't take an education critic poring over a variety of records — not always official records but in speeches and press releases that throw figures around. It shouldn't take an opposition education critic to figure out those elements. They should be clear, straightforward, aboveboard and available.

I think it's also fair to say that, so that we know if there are funds in what the minister says is $85 million going to school districts, because boards are at this stage trying to put together budgets for next year, which involves their planning for all kinds of activities for the schools' ongoing programs as well as for the changes associated with the royal commission. It's fair for them to have a clear indication of how those moneys are going to flow and when. We can all deal with "service levels," which talk about the number of youngsters who are going to be in classrooms in the district. That is quantifiable. It took me three or four questions for the minister even to be prepared to quantify that. But I think it's fair, too, especially in this ongoing program of implementation, to ensure that those amounts are at least known in some general way and that there are procedures clearly in place.

I think it's going to be interesting over a period of time, should this administration be administering this program after an election, to know whether we're going to see figures carried forward for the duration of the royal commission implementation. For example, we now have new money into independent schools. Is a part of the $1.4 billion going to account for that for ten years?

We will have kids in the system with dual entry. Presumably once they're into the system they drop out of any cost to royal commission dollars. But it's not very clear at this stage of the game how the ministry is going to handle that multi-year project. Because we are in the first full year of royal commission implementation, I felt it was worthwhile for us to begin to have some idea about how this ministry plans to manage those dollars in an open, clear, informative and nondefensive way.

We are quite prepared to give all the credit to the ministry for programs that he is implementing. We have a right as citizens to know how he is going to do that with equity, fairness and open accounting. That was the intent of some of this discussion this morning. We eventually got some information, and I will be following up on some of that information, in further discussions with ministry staff, for our own information.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of other speakers who want to deal with some issues that we haven't touched on. The minister may want to comment. I'm

[ Page 9632 ]

ready to move off this particular issue now, and we will be concluding with just a few items that are still on our agenda for this minister's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: just before we continue, hon. members, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. In the gallery today are students from Catlin Gabel School in Portland, Oregon. They are with their teacher Len Carr and some other teachers, and I'd like the House to welcome them. I'd like the record to show that the students are finding the debate scintillating and are enjoying it. We welcome them to our House today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the implication was that the funding information is not open, clear and aboveboard. Every member in this House had an estimates book in front of them where the amounts were stated clearly, openly and aboveboard. I think it is very clear to most people in this province what moneys are available. I think it's very clear to people in this province that we have increased all of the expenditures from last year by 9.9 percent in the operating budget alone. Over and above that, we have added additional money. I think most people understand that when you have $2.6 billion for the operating portion of the block funding and then you have another $400 million for the other things, most people find it is very clear that the government has a strong commitment to education and will back it with the necessary funding.

Where the problem arises is when that member tries to decide which dollar to pin on which kid's collar and which dollar to put to a new textbook and which dollar to put to an old textbook, and that sort of nonsense, which tends to confuse the issue. The estimates are printed, the budgets are printed, and the public accounts are audited and presented as soon as they are put together with the actual expenditures based on the estimates. It is open, clear and aboveboard, and the public has the right to know. Even that suggestion.... The member says: "The only way the public knows how much you spent on independent schools is to look up the figure." We publish the figure. I don't know what more we can do on that.

The member makes a big issue about service levels. We said there is an allotment for the number of students, for busing and for all of that. Those are what we call the service levels. If, as a result of changes that we request, your service levels increase, then we increase the service level funding. It is that simple, until someone tries to confuse it.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the issue of the Westwood Plateau was visited. I'm going to visit it again. It's an issue that I'm very concerned about, because my riding is in School District 43.

While Westwood Plateau is not in my riding, the impact of anything that happens in one part of the riding, in terms of the delivery of the education value, affects other parts of the riding.

Just to reiterate, here we have the sale of the Westwood Plateau lands — lands that belong to the people of British Columbia — for $63 million. Projections are that there's a need for approximately five school sites to service the people who will be living in that area. Prior to the purchase of the property for the one site that has so far been purchased, it was assessed at a value of $500,000. That purchase has now been made for $1.5 million from the developer. Here we have a situation, given the projection of four more sites that will have to be bought, where we're looking at at least $10 million, or almost one-sixth of the total amount of money realized from that sale. This is incredible in terms of incompetent business dealings. It's incredible in terms of the way in which it is squandering the resources of the people of this province, and it simply should not have been sold in one parcel; it should have been set aside. Surely if this government has any of the business smarts it claims to have, it would recognize the value and importance of careful planning.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm glad you acknowledge that.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I see that the Premier is on his way out. He knows that he has to take responsibility for this kind of incompetence in the stewardship of the public purse and the public resource of this province. Taking this land and mismanaging it in this way is going to be one of the major spikes in the coffin of this government as it goes down to defeat. I was hoping that would be in just a few months, but obviously the Premier has decided that he's going to have to delay it for a while.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm familiar with the kind of cantankerous ravings that have been coming from the minister as he has attempted to bafflegab his way through these estimates. He's been on thin ice most of the time. I don't think there's any ice that's thinner than what he's on when he's dealing with this situation. The question that has to come down to this minister is: where was he in his stewardship of the educational resource of this province when the cabinet was going along with this incredible plan to sell that all in one parcel?

Surely when we're looking at an area like that, and it's a Crown asset, we have the opportunity to say: "This is the overall plan that should be in place for this. It can be done in consultation with the municipality." It's the type of thing that could be set aside for a community centre or an arts centre, instead of the people of the community having to go cap in hand to ask for support. Educational facilities could interact effectively with facilities such as an arts centre or others, which should be designed into the

[ Page 9633 ]

overplan and set aside prior to that sale taking place. Then parcels could be sold to developers on the basis of a requirement that what they do would have to fit into a well-thought-out and coordinated plan.

But no, Mr. Chairman, we're left with this situation of having to pay almost one-sixth of the total amount realized from that sale just to buy back the schools that are needed.

I would like to turn to the auditor-general's report for a moment on page 168. It states: "Despite the significant care given to this analysis, we think these beliefs underlying the committee's decision to sell in one parcel were not substantiated in all cases."

Could it be that one of these cases had to do with the school sites? I want to ask the minister what he saw at that time as his role in protecting those sites — that resource — so that there would be the availability of schools in that area, without us having to go back and pay an inflated price to get those kinds of services.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, that member has used the guise of my estimates to make his standard political speech. I think I would rather deal with my estimates. It's amazing the opportunities the member uses to play the same political violin repeatedly. Then he tries to relate it to education — somehow or other — when it's just a standard political tirade. How do you respond to that? He doesn't even know the difference between raw land and serviced land.

MR. CASHORE: The minister's comments are going to make very interesting reading for the people of School District 43. He makes statements like that and claims there's no connection between his Education estimates, the stewardship of that land and the need for adequate school sites on that land.

Obviously, this minister is just reverting to the same role that he has followed through so much of these estimates, where he is not really dealing with the legitimate questions we're putting forward. I think this is very close to abuse of this House.

[11:30]

The fact is that in this deal, this government has shown its business stupidity. It has gone a long way to putting the final coffin-nail into the myth that these people know anything at all about how to handle business in a fair and equitable manner — apart from it being fairer for their friends.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on in the auditor-general's report. The auditor-general says: "In such a large real estate undertaking, we expected that detailed financial analyses of all the sales options would have been prepared ... the committee would have been prudent to prepare such analyses for each of the options at the time the decision was made to sell the land in one parcel."

All the sales options, Mr. Minister — where were you? You have to take responsibility for this dim-witted business decision. What happens next as a result of the failure of your government to protect the public interest on this land? I can tell you, I've talked to a lot of people in all parts of the political spectrum in that area, and they are disgusted. I have not found one person who would approve of the way in which this government handled that deal.

So what next? I'll tell you what next. The trustees of School District 43 now have to return, cap in hand, to ask this minister if he will please come through and help them find the dollars so that they can purchase this land back from that developer at an inflated price. What a humiliating process to have go through, and so unnecessary.

At the very time when the government is trying to put forward rhetoric that would indicate that the school wars are over, here we find that he is putting these elected representatives in this type of a situation. It boggles the mind. The fact is that irreparable damage has been done to what little reputation Social Credit has for fiscal capability. As I said before, my constituents are aghast.

I'd like to move on to the situation with regard to Walton and Mountain Meadows Elementary Schools. One year after those schools opened, it was very obvious that there was a need for portables to be erected on the school site. Obviously, the ministry formula for projecting the need for facilities was not functioning well in that situation, and the planning process was not working. Obviously, again it was a situation of being not penny wise but certainly pound foolish.

What happens when that sort of thing happens? There goes the playground. A portable has to be brought in and put on the playground. The size of the playground that is supposed to serve those children has diminished. How can you defend that, Mr. Minister? Then more staff time has to be tied up in planning and doing damage control. Why? Because the formula, as I understand it, is based on the three previous years to establish block funding — not on projections, not on demographics, but looking into history to try to predict the future. It shows something of the mind-set of this government. Again, it's a foolish way to manage our resources.

I would like to hear if the minister has a comment on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I said earlier, how do you answer a standard political, socialist tirade with facts? The member has used the estimates, again, to attack the way land is disposed of and all those sorts of things. Because a school site is involved, he chooses to attack this ministry.

I have tried to answer legitimate questions dealing with my ministry. In that member's own words, I have not tried to answer factually dim-witted tirades that have come forward from that side — the same standard socialist tirades. How do you answer that?

If the member would come to the House other than after everybody else has asked the questions and I've answered them, and would pay some attention to what goes on, then we wouldn't have to keep repeating. I've answered some of those questions, and I have suggested that, with a little innovative thinking, you don't need to put a portable on the playground.

[ Page 9634 ]

I think the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) responded with: "If you want some innovative thinking out there, you legislate it from Victoria." If you put that one together, how do you create innovative thinking by legislating it from Victoria? That's the socialist answer to anything: legislate it centrally, and then we'll have innovative thought. Whose?

It's ridiculous for that member to be berating us with our funding practices when his leader and several of the other members are still under the illusion that if we spend more money on education, it doesn't come from the taxpayers. That's the illusion that you try to create. Your leader says the taxpayers can't afford any more and that the government should provide extra money. You try and defend him, because I certainly won't.

MR. CASHORE: You talk about illusion and you talk about funding, but what about fairness? What about a situation where District 43 received $600 per pupil below the provincial average? How about talking about fairness for a change?

Why don't you go back and read the Blues? I just did. I heard what the member for Oak Bay had to say, and she didn't say what you said she said. She was calling for a creative approach to planning that would enable us to resolve these problems, and yet you denigrate that by putting it in the context of a very narrow interpretation of what was said. That's not helping the process.

All this minister has to do is start to change his attitude. As my colleague for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Rose) reminds him from time to time, just sit down and have some milk and cookies, and take your time and think about it. If you think about it, you might find that there's a better way.

In education, as McLuhan has said, the medium is the message. When we get this cantankerous rant all the time, that is an educational message in itself which is far more indelible than any of the verbiage that comes out of this minister's mouth.

The fact is that the school trustees in District 43 have done a good job of managing the educational dollar. They've done a good job, going back a good many years, right into the time of the restraint practices of a previous government; and due to the fact that they've done a good job, they're punished. They're punished in not having a fair shake in terms of the dollars available per student.

One of the things that I find quite shocking, when we look at the recent referendum, is that a reasonable request to have funds to do a structural survey of the schools for earthquake preparedness had to be left to referendum in order to find out if this government was going to be able to put the tax dollars in, to find out if there was going to be support for that type of survey, because this government had decided to leave the safety and protection of our children to the vagaries of that kind of destructive process. It says a great deal, apart from whatever words this minister uses, about the attitude of this minister and this ministry towards the protection of our children.

The fact of the matter is that we live in an earthquake zone. The fact of the matter is that this government has not participated in federal-provincial plans to arrange for funding assistance on a costshared basis for emergency preparedness. The fact is that they now look upon earthquake preparedness as something to be left to those districts where it can be afforded; and those children who live in districts where it can't be afforded.... Well, we'll just hope there isn't an earthquake. Mr. Chairman, I find this appalling and I find it disgusting.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, once again, you wonder what the member is dealing with here: his own political agenda, or is he actually interested in some information?

There was a minor capital allowance of $837,000 for the Coquitlam district last year, but no, they couldn't spend any of it on studying the schools for earthquake preparedness. A million dollars in local capital: none of it on earthquake preparedness — not a priority.

It seems strange that it's only a priority for political purposes for those members. And if the government — not the taxpayers; the government — puts up the money.... But we get the money from the taxpayers. Maybe the member should be aware of that.

He keeps accusing me of reacting. Ask me some factual questions, and I'll give you factual answers. If you want to do nothing but play stupid politics, then don't expect me to sit here and not respond at all. Yes, I get exasperated, because I would like to get on with education. It's possible, but I'm faced with nothing but the type of thing that that member has come up with: a tirade, a philosophical approach — politics, politics, politics. It would be kind of nice if my staff and I could answer intelligent questions, but it's pretty hard to expect any intelligent questions from that side, because they're so indoctrinated or captured by their socialist philosophy that they somehow or other want to assume control. I can tell you one thing, since we're touching on the political: there may be absolutely.... If that member had his way and an NDP government got elected in this province, there would be absolutely no need for more school sites in Coquitlam, because there would be no more development.

MR. PERRY: I won't be so presumptuous as to promise questions that the minister will recognize as intelligent. But I'll try to keep them polite, and I assure you that they will be healthy.

I'd simply like to raise a couple of questions for the minister's comment on where we're going in the future and where his ministry's philosophical stance is — perhaps where his philosophical stance would lie — in the field of health education. My colleague the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has told me from her conversations that the "Learning For Living" package in curriculum has received some very favourable comments. I've heard some favourable comment about it myself. I can't pretend to be

[ Page 9635 ]

intimately familiar with it, but I would like to raise the general question of where the ministry's commitment is in terms of future health education goals for the province and where the minister stands. I'd like to raise a few examples. I can break them up if you wish, or perhaps in the interest of time, I'll just list them, and maybe he will respond generically to these concerns.

I don't think we're talking about money here. I don't know whether we're talking about increases in spending; hopefully we're talking about decreases in provincial spending on health care in the long term, as a result of setting and achieving health education goals.

[11:45]

Let me give you a few examples of the problems I have in mind. Let's start with family life education, as it's now called, or sex education. Are the ministry and the minister committed to ensuring that on leaving high school — be it with grade 12 or grade 10 or whatever level the student leaves high school with — students in British Columbia will be equipped to understand basic human biology and reproductive biology, and equipped with the tools for contraception and the knowledge necessary to ensure effective contraception and effective prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, not just AIDS — although obviously it's the most important — but chlamydia, herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, venereal warts and various other sexually transmitted diseases, including hepatitis? Does the minister see this as a long-term goal to ensure that we reach a higher standard? Parenthetically, I certainly do, although my party is frequently erroneously portrayed as somehow in favour of abortion. In fact, one of my goals as a physician — and I'm sure it's shared by all of my colleagues on this side of the House — is that the number of abortions in British Columbia be reduced through the application of effective contraception practice. We know that there are major gaps in public knowledge in that area.

Let me give you a few other examples. I would raise the example of preventive practices known to be efficacious, such as breast self-examination in young women and testicular self-examination in young men. Does the minister foresee instruction in breast self-examination and testicular self-examination as an integral part of education in this province at the public school level? If not, how does he propose to achieve that knowledge in our young people?

What about the understanding of immunization? We have a fairly good record on immunization in British Columbia and Canada, but not nearly as good as our public health authorities would like it to be. Some of this is inadvertent; some of this is due to religious or other objections to the practice of immunization, which potentially threaten other children through laying the foundations for epidemics of diseases such as measles. Does the minister see it as important that on leaving public school, a young British Columbian should be familiar with the basic goals and types of immunization: polio, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, measles, rubella, Hemophilus, hepatitis B, etc.

What about tobacco and alcohol education? This is an area that has troubled me for years, because I've seen in my experience as a general practitioner in remote towns — including Hudson's Hope, which, I guess, may be in the minister's own riding — the difference which can be achieved between an effective health education for students and one which is ineffective. I contrast, as an example, the students of Topley, British Columbia, on Highway 16, who at the grade 5 level, because of an excellent science teacher, knew more about the health effects of smoking than the average medical student. I'm speaking of 1980, when I was working there, compared to the students in Hudson's Hope in 1981, who had had virtually no exposure to anti-tobacco education. Hopefully the situation has changed, at least in Hudson's Hope, since then, but I sometimes wonder when I see — as I described in the Legislature last year — students in my own neighbourhood who don't seem to get a very thorough exposure to health education in such a crucial field as the risks of tobacco addiction. Alcohol and drugs would be other examples.

Breast-feeding would be another excellent example of a field where.... We know that the cultural determinants of breast-feeding are set early in life, often in the family, often in high-school children's attitudes. We also know from the Canadian Paediatric Society that universal breast-feeding would reduce health costs in Canada, would improve the health of young babies and would reduce the cost to mothers and make life for the average mother more convenient. Yet we have a modest rate of success in breast-feeding compared with countries which are either older than ours or perhaps more advanced in the field of public health.

Another recent example I raise for the minister's consideration is the management of routine illnesses such as childhood fevers. A member of the staff of the Legislature the other day asked me what the normal temperature was for a child. I find it surprising, as a physician and health educator, to find that a university graduate would not be familiar with the normal temperature for a human body. Does the minister see that kind of knowledge as integral to the success of our children in the future?

I will leave you with one final example. It may sound esoteric, but I'll try to explain why it's not and why I find this failure in our education system so frustrating. I sometimes wonder, if we were to test our own membership in this House, how many of us would be familiar with the difference between a bacterium and a virus. I raise that example because I've encountered people with....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The viruses are on that side.

MR. PERRY: The viruses are on this side and the bacteria on that side, according to the minister. I'm not sure whether I am prepared to agree. I think the implications of that remark are so profound that I'd

[ Page 9636 ]

want to consider before I would pronounce an opinion. But it's an original response; I'll grant that.

I've encountered many people with second university degrees in this province who aren't familiar with the difference. There is a practical difference, Mr. Chairman, which is that much of the almost compulsive seeking after antibiotics which Canadians display to their physicians is based on the mistaken belief that antibiotics may cure minor diseases caused by viruses.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, are we on my estimates?

MR. PERRY: The minister asks whether or not we're debating his estimates. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, the point is highly relevant to the question I began with.

I'm asking the minister: does he see a role for the Ministry of Education or does he undertake any commitment toward the goal, for example, that we might expect our high-school-leavers to understand the basic biological difference between an illness or a disease caused by a virus and one caused by bacteria, for which antibiotics might be useful? This area runs up, probably literally, hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to the provincial treasury; I say hundreds of millions of dollars advisedly. Some of those costs to the taxpayer and to the health of British Columbians might be improved if we could improve the level of biological knowledge of our young people.

I leave those examples, and I look forward eagerly to hearing the minister's response.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to take on the role of Health minister in addition to Education minister. Perhaps I could answer the member very briefly.

He got up and said: "In the interest of time, I'm just going to give you a list of a few things." Then he expanded; he couldn't resist. A learned man must learn somebody something, I believe. He had to learn us all about viruses and what have you.

Our mission statement is: "The purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy." Note the emphasis on a healthy society.

A "Learning for Living" curriculum has been developed in a coordinated effort and will be there for the K-to-12 level, so that students will learn about healthy living, biological knowledge — "knowledge, skills and attitudes"; I could keep repeating that — about sexual practices, about social responsibility, about how society operates. The "Learning for Living" curriculum has been put together by a team of educators, health professionals, nurses, doctors — a lot of people. That has been revised as a result of input; it is now out there and will now be coordinated into the new curriculum. I would refer the member to our document, "Year 2000: A Framework for Learning," which is the philosophical basis. I would suggest that the member familiarize himself with the "Learning for Living" curriculum.

I'd also perhaps suggest — and it's one of the things that Sullivan pointed out — that the schools can't do it all by themselves. Schools have to be an integral part, but it has to involve the community, the home and other professions — and that includes the input of the medical profession — in order to provide what the system needs. Schools can't do it all and shouldn't be expected to do it all.

MR. PERRY: I'll just briefly explore that point further. Perhaps I didn't learn my lesson yesterday. Does the minister feel that our present health education system is generally adequate? Or does he see room for significant improvement? Does he have any long-term vision of how we're going to make sure we achieve improvements in our health education standards? For example, does he foresee periodic health-knowledge surveys of high-school-leavers to find out whether we're getting somewhere and whether, for example, the findings of the Youth and AIDS Study, which were interpreted last year, have changed? Do more students know more than they did in the past? Are we getting somewhere on the great virus-bacteria divide? Do high-school-leavers have a more enlightened attitude towards breast-feeding than they might have had in the 1950s? Or are we going in the wrong direction?

I see the minister scowling again, but a major epidemic of smokers is fomenting in our schools.

Thirty percent of the young school-age girls, or women, in British Columbia are smoking now. This is a catastrophe happening right under our eyes now. I don't think anyone pretends to have the miraculous solution to it. I just would like to see a bit more enthusiasm from the minister that this is a serious problem that his ministry will be addressing.

Vote 17 approved.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $209,265,079 — approved.

Vote 19: public schools education, $2,750,168,812 — approved.

Vote 20: independent schools, $62,047,612 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.