[ Page 12483 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proccedings

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12483

Hon. S. Hagen

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Cull

Mr. Jones

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

MR. ROSE: A brief point of order. In the past when we've dealt with the estimates, during debate and questions, we have been able to roam freely beyond the minister's office into other parts of that particular set of estimates. I take it that we'll have similar freedom and encouragement to do that this time. I think it saves time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The opposition House Leader is quite correct, Mr. Chairman. We have always roamed quite freely within the minister's purview on the minister's office vote and then have passed the other votes very quickly. I don't see any reason why we should deviate from the norm, and I have trouble understanding the question. But he has my assurance that we will proceed. I can't understand the question, I guess. I see no reason why we shouldn't just proceed as in past years, if that's okay with the opposition House Leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair has historically permitted a fairly wide range of debate on the minister's office vote, provided the debate on the sub-votes is limited. The committee shall come to order on vote 21.

HON. S. HAGEN: In introducing my estimates for debate, I would like to point out at the outset that, through this budget, government continues to emphasize that education is an investment not only in the individual personal development of students but also in the economic development and future prosperity of our province.

The Ministry of Education's budget has increased by $232 million, bringing the total to $3,286,151,000, an increase of 7.6 percent. This amount represents 20 percent of the total 1991-92 provincial government expenditures. This government is continuing to put a significant portion of its resources towards education.

If we look at the total expenditures on education between K to 12, and also the post-secondary ministry, this province spends a larger percentage of its total budget on education than any other province in Canada. I wish, for the record, to list these statistics: in British Columbia the percentage of the budget that we spend on education is 27.4 percent; Quebec is 26.3 percent; Nova Scotia is 24.3 percent; Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island are 22.5 percent; Alberta is 21.4 percent; New Brunswick is 20.5 percent; Saskatchewan is 19.1 percent; and Ontario and Manitoba are 18.4 percent. These statistics come from the Dominion Bond Rating Service Ltd., dated February 25, 1991.

It's also interesting to note that since 1987, the expenditures on education in British Columbia have continually increased. In 1987 B.C. was at 23.3 percent, and it has increased this year to 27.4 percent. As a comparison, in Ontario the expenditure in 1987 was 21.9 percent and has decreased each year to 18.4 percent.

I want to talk about block funding. Members of this House may recall that a new block funding system was introduced by this government in the 1990-91 school year. The block funding system is a direct result of one of the recommendations of the royal commission and was endorsed by the major educational stakeholders. It is a predictable, stable provincial funding system which contains provisions for an annual adjustment that recognizes any organizational change, change in enrolment and change in economic conditions.

One of the objectives of the new funding system is to ensure that local taxpayers have input into any supplementary funding, by way of a referendum. Boards now require the approval of local taxpayers for any new or additional services proposed. The entire block allocation is now funded through the consolidated revenue fund.

I am pleased to say that there is funding in my budget to provide an average of $5,500 per pupil in the province. This is compared to the 1990-91 per pupil block amount of $5,259. This increase of $241 per pupil includes a provision for a 3.75 percent economic adjustment and provision for recognition of an increased number of English-as-a-second-language students and special-needs students.

I want to emphasize that in addition to the per pupil increase, my budget includes an allowance for a projected enrolment increase of 3 percent. This growth in enrolment is a change from the declining enrolments seen during the mid-eighties. It is expected that this trend of increasing enrolments will continue as children of the baby boomers enter the school system, combined with the reality that immigration and interprovincial migration will continue to increase the population of British Columbia.

[10:15]

It is important to note that the per pupil amount ranges from just under $5,000 in some districts to over $10,000 in other districts. The amount varies between districts in order to ensure that there are equitable levels of educational opportunity in all regions of the province, based on the relative cost differences in delivering educational programs. The formulas to recognize these relative cost differences are developed in a co-managed process involving the ministry and school districts. These allocations will ensure that all students, regardless of where they live in the province, will have access to a high-quality education.

I'd like now to move to special-purpose contributions. Prior to the implementation of block funding, supplementary spending approved by local boards varied widely across the province. In order to address

[ Page 12484 ]

these wide variations, my budget provides for school districts which have shown that with careful management and finite resources, it is possible to improve the quality of public education. These districts had supplementary budgets lower than the provincial average. These grants provide additional funds to bring these financially responsible districts up to the levels determined through a fiscal framework formula distribution. This eliminates the penalty that would be imposed on these districts by only recognizing their lower- than-average historical spending levels.

The royal commission funding. For 1991-92 the royal commission initiatives have been integrated into the appropriate program areas of the Ministry of Education's estimates. As the programs become part of the ministry's ongoing operations, it becomes more difficult to differentiate between royal commission and ongoing operating costs.

An example would be activities related to the development of curriculum for the primary, intermediate and graduation programs. My ministry is continually updating the curriculum taught in the education system. For 1990-91, $140 million was isolated in the Ministry of Education's estimates related to the activities of the royal commission. For 1991-92 the Ministry of Education's base budget has been adjusted by reallocating $15.3 million to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and the Ministry of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors.

These transferred funds are to support programs resulting from the recommendations of the royal commission — for example, teacher education programs administered by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. The remaining $124.7 million for 1990-91 has been blended into Education's vote structure.

In 1991-92 funding targeted for royal commission initiatives is approximately $185 million. Some of the programs included in my budget relating to the royal commission include development and implementation of the primary curriculum, gender equity initiatives, funding for increased contribution rates for independent schools, home schooling, native language and culture grants, student testing and student-level data collection. It is this government's intention to continue its commitment to implement the majority of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education. As part of this ongoing process, my ministry will continue to work with the major educational groups and others, and will also continue to examine the practicality of implementing the various components.

Independent schools. The budget contains support levels established by the Royal Commission on Education and allows for a per pupil funding increase parallelling that recognized for public schools. My budget estimate also allows for a 5 percent September 1991 increase in enrolment. The independent school system provides a viable alternative to the public school system at one-third to one-half of the cost of public schools. Through the evaluation process managed by my ministry, I can also assure you that the funded independent schools are meeting rigorous provincial educational standards.

Capital. My budget provides for debt-servicing of all school district projects approved. It also supports a 1991-92 schools capital construction program budget of $650 million. This is the third year of a six-year capital program approved as part of the royal commission initiative. The first year's approval was $250 million, and the second year's plan was for $350 million. The third year's amount of $650 million is more than the first two years combined and brings capital construction over the three years to $1.25 billion. The 1991-92 $650 million capital program is directed at addressing enrolment growth, seismic resistance of buildings, rejuvenation and renovation of the current 1,600 schools inventory, and new school site acquisitions. These projects will not only directly benefit the education system but will provide a tremendous stimulus to the economy, the benefits of which will be felt across the entire province. Schools not only provide immediate benefits to the current school population but represent a long-term investment in our communities.

Taxation. Property taxation levels are determined by the province and are one of the components of the revenue considerations that the Ministry of Finance deals with as part of their budget review. In the preparation of the 1991-92 estimates, the Ministry of Education participated in the development of the new residential school property tax framework. The revenues received from taxation are included as part of the revenues managed by my colleague the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and, I am sure, will be discussed as part of his estimates. This framework is based on submissions received from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Royal Commission on Education and the "Financing Local Government" study completed in 1989.

The objective of this new taxation system is to more equitably distribute residential school taxation, to reduce the effects of the dramatic differences in assessed property values and to reduce the penalty for districts with higher costs per pupil. In 1991-92 residential property taxes will be less than 10 percent of the total cost of public school education.

My estimates also include statutory funding for the homeowner grant program. In 1990 the homeowner grant was supplemented, so that homeowners received an additional grant equal to 25 percent of school property taxes in excess of the basic grant, subject to a maximum of $1,000. This year the homeowner grant will be further supplemented, so that homeowners will receive a grant of 50 percent of school property taxes in excess of the basic grant, to a maximum of $1,000.

It is my view that with the block funding system in place, school district budgets have been increased to allow for a quality education system, while at the same time ensuring that the cost of education is affordable to the local residential property taxpayer.

In conclusion, an indication of the priority that this government places on education is evidenced by the overall increase in educational funding for 1991-92. This year's operating budget is increased by approximately 7.6 percent, or $232 million, and this year's

[ Page 12485 ]

capital budget has increased by approximately 85 percent, or $300 million. These increases have been put in place despite the government being confronted with difficult decisions as a result of reduced revenue growth.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the dedication and commitment of my staff within the ministry. I would also like to acknowledge the work and commitment of all teachers, trustees, superintendents, secretary-treasurers, and school and district administrators for their support of the education system. It is my sincere hope that the spirit of cooperation and support will be maintained to ensure that our students continue to have the opportunity 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.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to introduce my deputy minister, Mr. Wayne Desharnais, and one of my assistant deputy ministers, Mr. Doug Hibbins.

It is truly a pleasure to present a budget which recognizes the importance of placing our young people's education as such an important issue within the overall priorities of government. I would now be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to begin by noting that in the substance of the minister's remarks there was a great deal of material that we will in fact be canvassing over the next period of time during the Ministry of Education estimates.

It's always a little difficult when one makes a list, but the minister did neglect to mention support staff in his list of people to be thanked for contributing to the system. On his and my behalf I'd just like to add that group of people to the list of people we acknowledge as contributing greatly to the education endeavour and to the well-being of children within the province.

It's a rather interesting day in terms of the serendipity, the timing of the beginning of the estimates, because for the first time in this administration a new Minister of Education is representing his government during this debate, and last night the man who had been in that portfolio since 1986, when this current administration was elected, chose to resign his seat prior to the end of this parliament and the calling of an election. I will simply note for the record that the reasons he gave for his resignation were his concern and consternation over the cancellation of one of the programs of the Year 2000, the education reform movement — dual entry. He was concerned about that cancellation and about the future of that program.

It's not appropriate for me to comment on the reasons for the decision of a member of this Legislature to leave the House, but I believe — a factual comment — that it has only happened on one or two occasions that there have been actual resignations from the House on what you might call matters of fundamental difference. Perhaps the issue over which the member for North Peace River, Mr. Brummet, resigned makes a good topic for us to begin these estimates.

I would like to comment, too, for the record, since the minister has not chosen to do so, that although I've had many differences with the member for North Peace River, and sometimes we've have had some spirited debates in this House, there is one thing I don't think I've ever had any doubt about. It's important to take this opportunity to acknowledge that that member, I believe, was very personally concerned for children in the province in all he did; it was a fundamental motivator in his actions. I think it is appropriate for us, as members of this assembly, to acknowledge a member who has chosen to leave us for one of the guiding principles that has been a part of his stewardship on behalf of his constituency and his ministry. It's perhaps sad that the Minister of Education made no reference to his predecessor, because much of the work we're going to be discussing has the stamp of his predecessor's endeavours.

[10:30]

Let me now move to a couple of specific issues, Mr. Chairman. For the minister and his officials — whom I too would like to welcome and acknowledge for their work — I would note that this is going to be a wide-ranging debate. Because we are covering such a huge area of endeavour and so many issues of importance to my colleagues on this side of the House, although there will be some themes, we will be moving back and forth across a number of issues. I'm sure the minister and his officials will be ready and able to accommodate us in that regard.

I want to start this morning with a further discussion of a decision that the minister announced last Thursday, May 30. After a two-week review — and I might say from my own point of view, quite predictably — he told the education community in the province that he was cancelling outright the dual-entry program. I know that about 70 percent of the people in the province have no children and the number of people affected by dual entry is small, but it became, and was, a hallmark of the changes that were a part of the Royal Commission on Education. Its cancellation, I believe, though welcome, is indicative of some of the confusion and uncertainty that have very often prevailed in the province about the whole reform initiative.

The decision about dual entry was made in the ministry It was founded on no recommendation of the royal commission. It was questioned from the very beginning by a large number of people. There were questions about how it would work organizationally and educationally There were questions about the wisdom of making it a compulsory program in every school district early in the process of change. For example, many people said: "Yes, the issue of entry into school is something we should look at, but we're into major changes starting in the primary program. Let's get those changes well established — the philosophy, the program and the curriculum — so that we are secure in that reform. Then let's look perhaps at a change in entry initiatives."

In all of the discussion the ministry worked with zeal and, it seemed to us, a closed ear about the genuine concerns being raised. It also said: "It's this

[ Page 12486 ]

program or no program. We're not prepared to look at any other models of entry; we're not prepared to do any other piloting." So in 1990-91 the government put into place a dual-entry program which left the option for parents to enrol children in September or January. It affected something like 14,000 to 15,000 youngsters within the system, and that program had to be in place in every district in the province, regardless of space, educational concerns or organizational concerns.

Moreover, the program was emerging and evolving as it developed. The program enrolled children in January in a half-day program that they would continue with after the summer break and into the fall and into the following January.

It became clear to all that the program was presenting many problems to districts. The problems were affecting kids, and I know the minister has a large stack of letters, because I have a large stack of letters that came to him and were copied to me, around how it was working for youngsters. It was affecting teachers in their ability to serve the individual needs of these very special children coming into kindergarten, and it was affecting districts, in spite of the minister's glowing terms of the resources available to schools, in that it was costing them over and above the funding they received for the actual enrolment of those children.

Quite candidly, I, like most people, was relieved to see some decision about the continuation of the program, but I don't think that view is shared by everyone. There are two issues that I particularly want to explore at this stage of the game.

One of them is the fallout of the cancellation, because we still have 14,000 children within the system in a now non-existent program. As the minister has said: dual entry is cancelled. We have 14,000 five-year olds who are still in the dual-entry system, in terms of having started in January and being January-entry children, who will be going through their primary years with that date and the ramifications of that date as part of their educational experience. The first time they're going to run up against that program in its ongoing nature will be next September, when those 14,000 children will still be, according to the program presently in place, in a half-day of school and moving into a full-day program next January

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As the minister and, I think, many people in the public know, we on this side of the House have said that situation is not acceptable. First of all, the confidence of parents about the program into which they have enrolled their children is badly shaken. These parents, as they have said to me, didn't know they were involved in an experimental program that could be gone with the stroke of a pen and the decision of a single minister. They didn't know that their children were in fact guinea pigs and experimental tools in a program that had no future. They didn't know that there was no plan for their children after June, and those parents are now feeling confused, angry and frustrated about the fact that their youngsters — the most important people in their lives — are now left high and dry by a ministry that has gone halfway on the dual-entry issue, but has not really told those parents what's going to be happening in the fall.

We need to have some answers. School districts need to have some answers about what is going to happen to those children, and those answers, given the lateness of the cancellation of the program, need to be available immediately. We are three weeks away from the last day of school.

As I have talked to school principals, teachers and parents, the classes for next year are already in the planning stage, with most districts assuming certain things are going to be in place. Parents, administrators, teachers and school boards are looking for the ministry to follow through on the announcement of last week and to tell us there is going to be some accommodation that doesn't leave these 14,000 youngsters somewhere in a residual four-month program, with more changes and more difficulties around their educational program, their sense of security and belonging, and the organization of school districts. Yesterday I asked the minister if he had decided to make some firm commitment and announcement about those children.

Given that his estimates are before us today and this is an opportunity for him to tell the parents and teachers of those children what their future will be, I would invite him, at this stage, to advise us what plans he has for those children for September of this year.

HON. S. HAGEN: Just going back to the member opposite's speech, I too want to recognize the importance of the support staff in the system. I apologize for leaving the support staff off the list of people I thanked. As an individual who served six years on a school board, I'm very aware of the important function they bring to the school system and the very good job they do in looking after our school facilities.

Just prior to commencing the estimates today, I also made public statements with regard to the former Minister of Education, and I would like to repeat them for the record. I want to say categorically that the former member for North Peace River served this province extremely well. He was a dedicated individual. His first priority was always the children and the students in the school system. He served extremely well as Minister of Education. He played a major role in bringing in the reforms we all know are necessary from time to time in an education system. He was a first-class MLA who served his constituents well and served the entire province of British Columbia extremely well, and we thank him for that.

I want to move to the member's comments about dual entry. I know, after four and a half years, that I shouldn't be amazed at the way facts are stretched and innuendos are placed in statements by members from the opposite side, but it always amazes me. She made a statement that the deliberation on dual entry took place over a two-week period. Now I have absolutely no idea where she got that information from, whether she just pulled it out of her hat or pulled it out of the air, but I want to assure the public of British Columbia, and particularly the parents, there was a great deal of consideration given to this decision. It did not take

[ Page 12487 ]

place over a period of weeks but rather a period of months.

It was not an easy decision to make, but when you're on this side of the House you can't ride both sides of an issue. You have to make a decision, and that's what I did. I believe that it's the right decision.

It should also be made clear also that the decision taken on dual entry included one where I talked about the developmental process and continuing to look at entry. While from an educational philosophy standpoint dual entry or even continuous entry is great, the reason I made the decision was that if you don't have a system that can cope with that, you can't impose it on the system.

The member for New Westminster is quite correct when she referred to the teachers and administrators who were having incredible difficulties dealing with this issue. It's not because they don't believe in the flexibility of the system; it's that from an organizational standpoint, it was difficult.

The member for New Westminster made the comment that because the resources weren't there, that's one of the reasons it didn't work. It's amazing and humorous to me, particularly over the last year or so when the opposition started talking about fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and all of these terms that they've had to learn as new words because they've never paid any attention to them before, that at the same time they say: "But you have to pour more money into the system to make it work." It's important for the taxpayers out there to understand that, in fact, the funding was provided for dual entry to the extent that for every 22 students a district had, it received an extra $70,000 to deal with that issue. So it was not a funding issue.

I think that to use terms like "experimental" or "guinea pigs," in dealing with young students particularly, is not up to the general level of comments that the member for New Westminster usually makes. I think it's very unfortunate that she decided to use those terms. She is underrating the professionals that we have out there in the system who deal with and help students learn every hour of the day that they have them — and every day of the week and every day of the month. So I'm very disappointed that she would choose that terminology. I have a great deal of faith in the teachers out there in the system. They do a tremendous job, and I think that it's a disservice to them to underrate them.

As I said yesterday in answer to a question in question period, we will be taking a decision and making a firm announcement in a very short time, but in due course, to deal with the students entering in September. I'm not about to make that statement during my estimates, but I can tell the member opposite that it will be made very shortly.

[10:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: One of the concerns that I have about "very shortly" is reflected in a situation last year, when "very shortly" around another dual-entry issue — the issue of whether November and December children would have the option of a September or January entry was left in abeyance until the very end of the school year — actually, I think, until after all the parents and teachers had finished with the last day of school and all the things that are a part of it. So I'm disappointed that the minister has not recognized these children and that their future was not a part of the same announcement, especially since he has acknowledged that this matter has been under review in his ministry for some time.

I can't imagine anything worse — I was a parent of a January-born child 25 years ago — than finding out that he'd gone into a school program in January that I understood the ministry was committed to, but all of a sudden learning on June 1 that the program had simply disappeared. We're hearing things like: "In the next three years the children will be back in the mainstream. We only have funding for half a day. Those children will be accommodated somehow next September in their half-day program, and they will be accommodated somehow in January." Those are the very issues that the minister just acknowledged were the fundamental problems with the administration of dual entry; in fact, it wasn't possible for schools to provide those services without them being a cost to them.

Let me just look at one district. The Greater Victoria School District is the only district where I happened to see a full list of all the elementary schools, and there are something like 25 to 30 elementary schools in that district. In those schools there were anywhere from five, six or seven January-entry children going into full classes. Now those children are going to have to be accommodated in a half-day program and then into a full-day program. And let's face it, the problem districts have is that they either have to try to find a full class that can start in January for those youngsters on a full-day basis, or they have to set up a class for which they're funded for some of the students for only half a day for four months of the year, and that's a direct cost to those districts.

The minister says they're fully resourced. They're resourced when they're there in January, but not before — we've got to have space for them to go in — and they're resourced after they're there, but only for half a day this fall. We have to have the space and teachers for them to go into a full-day program in January. So we have cost and administration implications, and parents who are not certain what kind of class their kids are going to be in next year — half a year from September to January or perhaps a full-day program.

Let me note, too, that this is the only program I know that is deemed to be flexible and rigid. Again, that is based in large measure on the resources that are available. This program says that children can come in in January on a continuous-progress stream, but in June they are still earmarked for four months at half a day even though, in terms of progress, they may very well be ready for a full-day program. So we have a totally untenable situation. Districts are faced with a failed and discredited program that hasn't worked; yet they're faced with having to live with that program for another year. That simply doesn't make any sense.

It seems to me that the minister should put those schools into his mainstream thinking and recognize

[ Page 12488 ]

that they must have some flexibility next year and the resources for that flexibility — not something that says no matter what's right for the child or for the school, you will be funded for half a day for that youngster.

Later on in these estimates, we're going to be looking at some of the difficulties schools are having in providing a full range of services for kids. That is an issue out there. It is an issue in many districts which are struggling to provide the mandated full range of services for youngsters with the resources available. This small group of students –– 14,000 in the total of 520,000 youngsters — should have some flexibility in the system, and the minister should give boards assurances that they can plan with that flexibility. We're asking for that, and we're asking for it without delay. I'm disappointed that the minister has not chosen to make a total announcement but a series of announcements that compound an already difficult situation and make parents, who already feel very upset about this decision, uncertain about the future for their children.

Perhaps the minister can assure us that before these estimates are over the announcement will be made; that before we have finished debating these estimates he will be prepared to give to school districts and all the people affected by this announcement and the changes that he is now putting into place Perhaps he will be prepared to make an announcement so that they will know what flexibility they have to plan with the resources available, if they are wanting to plan a full-day program for those kindergarten children, in terms of that ten months that we designate as kindergarten.

I might just note, Mr. Chairman, that there is within the School Act and within the administration of that act a full-day kindergarten available to many children That is a part of the kindergarten program. It's not at all inconsistent for us to be looking at that full day being available to these children.

Could the minister now give us an assurance that before these estimates are over he will in fact make an announcement that will make clear to parents, to teachers and to school districts what he is going to provide in the way of flexibility and resources for the children who are still dual-entry children in this cancelled program?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll reiterate my answer: I will make an announcement in due course.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's small reassurance to people in the communities that are concerned. I'm sure if the minister makes the announcement today, they will be relieved. But he's playing games with those children He's adding to the confusion and the consternation.

Mr. Chairman, this minister made an announcement on Thursday that a mandated program within the School Act was cancelled. He noted that he was going to review other entry options, but he did not at that time make a commitment to deal with the 14,000 children within the system. It is important for the minister to act on the phone calls that are going into his office. When no one returns those calls, they are coming to me and my colleagues, and we are saying that we will press the minister for an answer. It is important for him to make those decisions.

Let me back up a little bit, Mr. Chairman, and see if we can get some additional information from the minister on this issue. Could the minister please provide us with these facts: what amount of money was allocated in the budget for the coming year for dual entry?

HON. S. HAGEN: I want to correct the member for New Westminster on another point: the announcement that I made last week was that I intend to introduce legislation on this matter. I cannot cancel the program without introducing legislation, and I will be introducing that legislation in this sitting of the House.

The amount of money budgeted for dual entry in this fiscal year is $29.3 million.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister please advise us when he introduces the legislation, which has to be approved before the program can be formally cancelled, how much money will be left in that budget for the 14,000 students who are still within the dual-entry program in terms of their normal kindergarten year?

HON. S. HAGEN: The answer that I'm given by my staff is $25 million.

MS. A. HAGEN: Would it be correct to presume that that $25 million is for the children who are going into school in September, those who entered in January, and will start their full year in school without any new dual-entry children in January?

HON. S. HAGEN: That will be part of the announcement that I'll be making in due course.

MS. A. HAGEN: One of the problems that we have with this program is that it has been entirely administered and centralized within the ministry. The program was introduced by the ministry. It was put into legislation in which there was no route other than what was defined by legislation. There has been very little flexibility in the program. In fact, the way children move in and out of that program has been very serendipitous. For example, we do have children who are in full-day kindergarten. That full-day kindergarten was introduced, we understand, to assist youngsters who needed additional language development — and had other developmental weaknesses — so that they would be better able to work into year one. In fact, the ability of school districts to provide that full-day program has had much more to do with organizational arrangements than it has had to do with needs.

[11:00]

It's important that we explore this so we have some idea of where we're going. With his newfound understanding of some of the problems of early childhood education, is he considering the introduction of more flexibility for school districts in how they provide for those children? Coming out of this failed program of ten months and half a day — the only resources avail-

[ Page 12489 ]

able regardless of the situation in a school, the needs of children or in this instance a program that has now suddenly been abandoned — has he recognized that it would be useful to have some flexibility in the system and, indeed, carry out the mandate of the royal commission, which is that we should be dealing with the needs of children and that school districts should have the opportunity and resources to plan best for those youngsters?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to re-inform the member for New Westminster that we probably have the most flexible primary system of any province in Canada. I think the credit for that flexibility goes to the groups who were consulted and the input from the public, but also to the teachers in the system.

I also want to correct a misunderstanding on her part about full-day kindergarten. We do have full-day kindergarten for special needs students, ESL students and native education students.

On the other issue she referred to, flexibility, we have said that we will continue to examine entry into the school system. I don't have any magic answers just as she doesn't have any magic answers. But these are not ideas. The ideas that are implemented don't just come out of the ministry or the minister's office. It should be quite clear that dual entry and school entry were discussed by the Education Advisory Council in 1988-89. Dual entry was discussed in light of the need to find more than one way for schools to accept children. The advisory council could not reach a consensus on the subject.

We had input on the program from many areas. We did some surveys ourselves. The B.C. Teachers' Federation, as I'm sure she knows, conducted a survey, and I received a copy of that survey from the B.C. Primary Teachers' Association and have had further discussions with that group. Also there was a resolution passed at the recent AGM of the BCSTA with regard to dual entry. So to give any indication to the people of British Columbia that these things are done without consultation is totally false.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the most interesting comment of the minister is that the Education Advisory Council was not able to reach consensus, yet the ministry plowed ahead with a program about which there was obviously a lot of concern from the very beginning.

Let me just ask this question. Since the minister has said that he's not prepared to indicate in concrete terms what he plans to do about the residual dual entry program that exists, and he is in the long term looking at entry issues, perhaps he could advise us if he is actively consulting at this point, prior to bringing in changes in his legislation, with representatives of the school trustees, teachers, administrators and parents' organizations around the needs of the 14,000 children still in the dual-entry program. Is his delay perhaps related to the fact that he is formally consulting with representatives of those bodies before he brings in the change?

HON. S. HAGEN: That's a very interesting question, and it delineates the difference between this side of the House and the opposition. The opposition would consult every issue to death but never make a decision. We have consulted and have made the decision, and we will be announcing the second part of that decision, as I've said numerous times in this House and on the record, very shortly.

MS. CULL: I want to continue this discussion about dual entry and talk about what's happening here in greater Victoria. I want to start by going back to where we were a year ago when I participated in the Education estimates debate for the first time and when the royal commission was new and being implemented. There was a lot of discussion about the principles coming out of the royal commission report. Those principles related to things like the need for predictability and stability in the system. Everybody agreed that change was needed, but we needed to do it in a predictable fashion so that the schools and the teachers could adjust and families and children could get on board.

They were sound principles. What disturbs me so much about the dual-entry program is that it came out of nowhere. It wasn't a recommendation from the royal commission. It was put into place against almost universal protest by school trustees, teachers, parents and principals. There were very few people outside the Ministry of Education who actually supported the notion of dual entry.

It was piloted and then was mandated last September for the first time. Every school in British Columbia had to abide by the dual-entry system. Families discovered for the first time last September that their November- and December-born children were not going to be able to attend school in September. That created a lot of confusion and upset for those families. I know that members on both sides of the House heard from those families, who were upset, angry and disturbed to discover that these changes had been made and that there was very little they could do about it.

We haven't even had the full ten months of this mandated program — and it's gone. The minister announced that he's going to bring in legislation to wipe it out.

Last year in greater Victoria this school district spent $2 million on dual-entry in excess of the costs they would have spent for students if that program hadn't been there. This is $2 million that, if this program had never been forced upon them, could have been used in other ways to enhance learning for students, to expand special education, arts and culture — many programs that parents in this district want to see for their children but are unable to be funded, because we can't fund everything and there has to be a priority decision made. But that was a mandated decision — a mandated priority — from the ministry that had to be in place last September. It had to be there. This September the ministry has gone 180 degrees, and it's no longer valid. That's one of the major concerns, that we would go into a process like this and have such an on-again, off-again situation.

[ Page 12490 ]

I recognize that whenever you're making changes in a system, there are going to be difficulties at the beginning of those changes, that people are going to have some complaints and that there are adjustments to be made. But one of the principles we have to adhere to if we're going to have some success with the Year 2000 is that we have to make those changes carefully, with full knowledge, with full understanding and then carry through with them in a fashion that's predictable for parents; not try out an idea and mandate it one September and then change their minds the next September. The on-and-off-again nature of this change is what is most disturbing to families and their children in the schools.

The other point the minister makes is about the flexibility and the whole.... We were told that dual entry was a good idea, because there would be continuous progress. I have a son in kindergarten this year, and fortunately for me, my son was a September entry. I'm glad, because I would not want to be in the situation that the parents of those 14,000 children are in right now trying to figure out what's going to happen to their kid next year.

I know that the difficulty we have with dual entry on one hand and the notion of continuous progress on the other is that continuous progress is a myth for kindergarten children, for those children in primary 1 — what we now call kindergarten — because they are only funded for a half-day for the first ten months of their time in school. It doesn't matter whether they start in September or in January, they cannot progress at any point to a full-day program no matter how well they're moving along until they've been there a mandatory ten months. That is the fallacy of this continuous progress — it just isn't there.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The reason it isn't there is because the Ministry of Education's decision to only fund those children for a half-day — regardless of their abilities, regardless of their needs, regardless of their progress — until they've put in their ten months, and that's what makes the difficulty with this sudden change, because at this point, the minister has not said that he is willing to change that for next September.

It's irresponsible of the government to make an announcement at this date — here we are, June 4 — three to four weeks before the end of school. To say that there's going to be a major change for children going to school, for the 14,000 who are already in the system, and I assume another equally large group who are entering the system next year, and not have the details to reassure parents about what is going to happen to their children.... How can you make an announcement and say that you are going to change the system, but stay tuned for details, three weeks before the end of the school year?

Again, let's come back and have a look at this district. There are about 800 students affected in greater Victoria by this change in the dual entry. Some of them will be coming earlier than expected; some of them will not show up now for another year. As a result of those students who will not be coming this January, the Greater Victoria School District estimates there's going to be a loss — a shortfall in revenue — of $600,000. Here they are, three months before September where they have already tried to set up their schedules for next year, when they are already well into, if not have completed, their staffing for next year, having to scramble around and figure out what is going to happen. They are having to completely rework their kindergarten enrolment, look at whether they have sufficient classrooms and maybe scramble around to grab a portable so that they can accommodate those children who weren't expected until January but now are going to be coming in September. They're going to be scrambling around with schedules and teachers. They've already got a lot of these things worked out. I think it's irresponsible to be doing this at this point, to be making these changes without telling the schools what's going to happen.

The effects go well beyond just the school system. There are day cares, after-school cares, programs in place and ready to meet the needs of schoolchildren that now have to rework enrolment lists and staffing requirements. They may have to turn parents away who were assured they were going to have a position for their child in September and who now are not going to have it.

Families — particularly women with young children — make decisions about when they're going to move into the workforce and whether they're going to take full-time employment. Families will have made decisions based on whether their child was going to be going to school in September or January. Now they don't know what they should do, because they don't know what's going to happen to their child. The Minister of Education is saying: "Soon, sometime in the future, maybe next week." Who knows? It may be the end of June, maybe not until we get to September, that we will actually know what is going to happen to those children. I think it's absolutely irresponsible for the government to do that.

What we need to hear from the minister is that the money budgeted this year which would have been budgeted by his ministry for the dual-entry program is going to be shifted to assist those 14,000 students, so that they can go to school in September full-time if they are ready to do so, or progress into full-time as soon as possible, so that it isn't two or three years down the line before they somehow become magically integrated into the system. I don't want to see these children as a lost group of children — I was going to say a lost generation, but that's a bit much — who are going to find themselves out of step because of an experiment that was not well thought out by the minister.

So Id like to hear from the minister whether the money budgeted this year could not in fact be shifted to ensure that those children will be able to attend school full-time come September, so that they will not be out of step and so that parents will be able to get on with making the necessary arrangements for their children.

[ Page 12491 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I have to rise on a point of order. The minister has announced discontinuation of a program, which the opposition obviously cannot accept. So we've had an hour now of tedious, repetitious, redundant argument on an issue that no longer exists.

Secondly, the minister has indicated that the resulting changes will require legislation. Sir Erskine May advises us that we cannot discuss the necessity for legislation during estimates debate; that's discussed when the legislation is introduced. So we have another point of order there in that the opposition is continuing to discuss legislation during estimates debates.

I would think that with a budget of $3.2 billion and half a million students in the system the opposition could find other arguments that could prevail and be appropriate and relevant to these estimates.

MR. ROSE: It seems to me very hard to justify tedium and repetition about a debate that hasn't even lasted for an hour yet. I haven't been here for all of the debate, but I'm quite sure that it has been neither tedious nor repetitious, because of the kind of people taking part in it. Now if it were to come from the other side, it would be more convincing. So I don't think that's the case at all.

While I'm on my feet — not on the point of order, because I'm quite sure that with the acuity and perception of our Chairman, he would have no difficulty in deciding in favour of the opposition on this matter — I wonder if I could give notice to the minister, having to do with a request for information from the officials — not available here, but I would like to have this information if they are able to get it for me. I've mentioned it privately in the hall, but Id like to have it on the record. I'm interested to know the enrolment trends in the specialty subjects over the last ten years. I'm thinking mainly of the cultural subjects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You were recognized on the point of order, not on the debate. By the way, hon. opposition House Leader, flattery will get you nowhere.

The Minister of Health has a good point of order relative to the legislation. As for the "tedious and repetitious": a little bit, not much.

The Minister of Health on the point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The opposition House Leader has indicated that the opposition has spent an hour debating an issue that no longer exists. By his own admission and his own statements he has indicated and agreed to the fact that this is tedious and repetitious and clearly redundant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair finds that the matter has been well brought to the House, and debate will continue on vote 21.

HON. S. HAGEN: I want to respond briefly to the comments that were raised. The question was: "Where will the children be?" Obviously the children will be in school. I'm sure that that's a revelation to the member.

It depends where the teachers place them, where they are; that's the way they move through the system.

MS. CULL: Will they be funded...?

HON. S. HAGEN: I will make that announcement in due course, which I've said. If you want to read the Blues, I'm sure you'll see it several times.

I want to make a comment with regard to the allegations of lack of funding. These are again totally untrue and founded on incorrect information. The boards don't have their dual-entry budgets yet; they don't know what their budget will be. They come later in January, just as they did this year, and if there are no January entrants, the boards don't need any money, because there are no students.

MS. CULL: I find that an absolutely incredible comment. Is the minister telling us that school boards just sit around till the end of December and then suddenly when the enrolment comes, that's when they start to plan for the portables, teachers and materials they need? Of course not. Planning happens much earlier than that, and that's why boards have to make estimates of what they think is going to transpire in September and January. They have to make estimates, and now they have to make estimates about what may happen now that the minister has changed the program.

The minister is also misrepresenting what's been said about lack of funding. Please answer me if this is not the case. When a child is starting in primary 1, whether they start in September or January, as they could have this year, they are funded. The school district only receives half-day funding for that child for ten full months unless that child is in one of those special categories that the minister mentioned earlier of native education or special education. That means that it doesn't matter whether that child is available to move ahead. Continuous progress is a myth; and that is a case where there is a lack of funding for the continuous progress at that point.

HON. S. HAGEN: The boards receive $110,000 for every 22 FTEs on a full-year program. If the students are there six months, they receive $70,000.

MS. A. HAGEN: It is obvious that the minister is not going to acknowledge one of the problems that caused the cancellation of the dual-entry program: namely, that it was a cost to districts. It's a very simple fact: districts either had to have extra space for those youngsters or they had to hold spaces, and the holding of spaces was one of the major difficulties. Where they knew that a group of children was coming in January, where spaces were held for those children with a cost for four months, it wasn't picked up by any funding that comes from this ministry. Those were the realities of the program, and those will continue to be the realities of trying to get it readjusted.

But it's clear that this minister is not going to immediately provide an answer to the parents of 14,000 children, their teachers and their school dis-

[ Page 12492 ]

tricts. All we can say on this side of the House is that those youngsters are not irrelevant; they are not tedious or repetitious. They are important kids, and we need to know what is going to be happening for them in the year ahead. Given that they have been a part of an experiment that has not worked, I think it's very important for the minister to act quickly.

However, I want to switch the perspective on this whole issue for a moment. It's not something that we've had an opportunity to canvass, but I think it is an important aspect of the minister's announcement to look at. Not everywhere have school districts found that this program hasn't been working for the children or their parents and teachers. I think that is one of the strengths of a system, that there should be flexibility rather than something that is centrally mandated so that everybody has to walk lock-step.

I would gather, though, from the minister's announcement that we're going into another lock-step, and that until some future time when there may be some review of entry programs, there will be no option for school districts to continue with any form of dual entry. I know that in some districts and schools — perhaps not many; perhaps more in rural districts where the small and family-oriented school is still around, as a part of the kind of schools that make up the multiplicity of environments in the province — there is a keen sense of disappointment that this program which has worked for kids and their parents and teachers may simply go altogether.

I'd like to ask the minister whether there might be in his thinking any flexibility to allow those districts where the program has worked and where it suits the community, families, teachers, administrators and all the people involved.... Might that program, in fact, be an option and continue as a useful program around the needs of those particular communities? That's very much consistent with the kind of things my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head was talking about — where there is some flexibility in the system, where it does acknowledge not only the principles that we've talked about but the different ways in which those principles can be put in place in schools in this vast province of ours.

Has the minister any comment about the absoluteness of his decision versus some kind of flexibility that recognizes that in certain areas this dual-entry program has been received and worked well for all those involved?

HON. S. HAGEN: I first want to respond to the comments with regard to funding. I think it's important that people understand — and I'm sure the member does — that the province, in fact, picks up the entire cost of the educational funding. There is no unfunded portion. All boards' blocks are paid for by the province. All the costs are paid.

With regard to flexibility and the optional aspect, yes, I considered that. Where I got the loudest response on not making it optional was from the primary teachers, who said that any consideration of making it optional would be a disaster, because of the mobility of the population. We looked at making it optional between school districts and even within school districts. The response that I got, particularly from the primary schoolteachers, was: don't even consider it. That added to my decision to take the decision that I did.

MS. A. HAGEN: I appreciate that comment, because there certainly have been some representations.

Before we leave this issue, I want to just make a couple of comments around what the future policy is. I think that all of us on both sides of the House would agree that how a child comes into the school system is how that child will progress through that system. I want to echo very strongly the comments of my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head around stability and predictability.

A number of interesting ideas certainly have been discussed throughout this whole exercise around the mandated dual-entry program. I think it would be useful if this minister could give some signals around his government's perspectives on this, as I have certainly tried to do on behalf of people on this side of the House. The issue of more than one entry date could have been piloted in different ways. I know that at least two school districts were interested in piloting a fifth-birthday entitlement.

[11:30]

I know that many kindergarten teachers are strongly in favour of not hurrying the introduction of children into formal programs. I know that the whole concept of kindergarten is one that seems to have been lost by this kind of labelling of primary 1, 2 3 and 4. A whole range of issues relate to the first year in school, which is a very different year from any other year.

I have a letter from one of the people with whom I've been corresponding and talking ever since the whole idea of primary 1, dual entry and the removal of the kindergarten label from any part of the school program came in. She's a teacher with 25 years in kindergarten work and is very highly trained, very committed and dedicated.

There are two points that she makes over and over again: one is that we must not lose the concept of kindergarten; the second is that entry should be at a time that is appropriate for children's development, and that parents as well as teachers need to have some information that would help them in making those decisions.

She also notes, as do many kindergarten teachers, that perhaps one of the issues that we should be considering, while still maintaining that kindergarten focus — and, I would hope, at some time restoring that very honourable and worthy descriptive name to the first year of children's formal education — is a full-day kindergarten program as something that would in many ways provide opportunities for children to be in a more continuous program stream, to be in classes where there might be grade I students as well as kindergarten students.

At this time, before we conclude this discussion around the dual-entry issue, I want to put some of those matters on the record and to encourage the minister to engage in some dialogue around some of

[ Page 12493 ]

those fundamental principles that have gotten lost in the frustration, concern and rigidity of the dual-entry debate: full-day kindergarten; the possibility of other entry dates; and advice to parents around that whole developmental concept; and when children are probably most ready to enter school. If the minister has any comments, it might be interesting to hear them.

HON. S. HAGEN: Prior to being the minister, I had five children who all went through kindergarten. As a matter of fact, they all had the same teacher in kindergarten — a very good teacher, at Courtenay Elementary School.

In response to the question — and I get such a kick out of the term "rigidity" and some of the other adjectives — the reality is that dual entry and full- or half-day kindergarten are both under review in working plan No. 3 and working plan No. 4, which I know the member for New Westminster has a copy of and, I'm sure, has read in great detail.

I have asked the Education Advisory Council — which, as the member well knows, represents a broad cross-section of not only the education community but the entire provincial community — to deal with the subject of dual entry and continuous entry, and also to give me advice on the full-day or half-day kindergarten. You know, this process was put in place by the former minister and is probably one of the most consultative processes anywhere in the country, and I appreciate it. I appreciate the members who sit on the minister's Education Advisory Council, because they put a great deal of their own time and effort, with no pay, into advising me. We will continue to look at the flexibility of the system and to get advice from a broad cross-section of the community.

MS. CULL: For the record, I want to put out one other difficulty that some schools in my riding and probably throughout the province experienced as a result of this one-year experiment with dual entry In Oak Bay there is a Montessori school — Pacific Montessori Society — and a number of schools like the Montessori school which offer kindergarten to parents who choose to have their child go to a private school as opposed to a public school. Very often these decisions are made for child care purposes, because they do offer more than a full-day program — an eight in the morning until five or 5:30 in the afternoon — to children, which encompasses within it the kindergarten program as well as the day care, which many working parents need.

One of the impacts felt in my riding last year by the Pacific Montessori Society was that there is a criteria with the Ministry of Education that to be eligible as a school that can receive kindergarten funding, you have to have a certain number of kindergarten students registered. I believe the number is ten. This school went ahead doing its planning in advance, as all schools do. In the spring of 1990, in anticipation of getting money for their kindergarten program in September 1990, they discovered they didn't have that magical number of ten, because some of the children who had been accepted prior to fully understanding the implications of dual entry had the misfortune to be born in November and December. They lost their funding last year. They went to considerable lengths to try to recapture that funding. I hope the ministry has not placed them in the same situation again by changing the rules on them one more time, and that they will not find that the students they've accepted this year for their kindergarten program do not meet all the criteria again.

I raise that as a problem. In terms of the overall costs, in the scheme of things it probably wasn't an awful lot of money, but to a small, struggling school in my riding, it was a major problem to deal with. That is one of the implications we don't hear about that happens when you have a program that switches backwards and forwards so close to the September start-up, with very little consultation with the schools affected. I just wanted to put that one out for the record.

MR. JONES: The minister mentioned consultation. I think consultation is very important, particularly in education, because it affects the most precious resource we have: our children. I'd like to ask the minister about consultation on his significant decision to end the dual-entry program. He mentioned the Education Advisory Council, the broad-based committee that I'm sure is a very valuable resource to the minister in terms of consultation. I'd like to ask the minister whether that group was consulted and the degree of consultation. Also, I understand the former minister has a difference of opinion on whether he was consulted on this decision or not. I'd like the minister to comment on who was consulted and on the degree of that consultation.

HON. S. HAGEN: Indeed there was a great deal of consultation. I got input from the Education Advisory Council. I spoke to the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, and I spoke to the B.C. Primary Teachers' Association. As I travelled the province, I spoke to many primary teachers individually and in groups. I got input from the superintendents' association and the principals' and vice-principals' association. I spoke to the former minister prior to my announcement. I may have missed one or two groups, but those groups come to mind.

MR. JONES: I have no doubt, because education is such an important issue in this province, that the minister had the occasion to talk to very many people and got significant input from very many people. Did the Education Advisory Council have a recommendation for you? Did the former minister have a recommendation for you? And if so, what were those recommendations?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not sure that it's fair to say what individuals or groups recommended to me. I can say that we had a good discussion with the minister's Education Advisory Council, and certainly I had a good discussion with the former minister. But I'm not

[ Page 12494 ]

sure that question is relevant to the discussion around estimates.

MR. JONES: Let me try to clarify what the minister has just indicated. Clearly if the former minister makes a recommendation and it's something you talk about that could be considered a private matter. Is the minister also saying that recommendations of the Education Advisory Council, which is made up of public bodies — many of whom are publicly funded — are also private information? If they make a recommendation on an important issue like this one, does the minister not feel obliged to make the public aware of that recommendation?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to see that the member for Burnaby North has backed off on his question, and I'm quite prepared to say that the discussion we had at the advisory council level concluded with some mixed views leaning towards cancelling the program definitely. There are 23 members in the group, and I would say it was a 75-25 percent split, or maybe a little greater, in favour of cancelling the program.

MR. JONES: just to assure the minister that I haven't backed off in my question, we now have a constituency in this province that is no longer represented by an MLA — based on his belief that, in his experience in piloting the Sullivan royal commission and implementation, this program that was cancelled was an integral part of the whole plan and that he was not appropriately consulted on it. So we no longer have an MLA from the Peace River area, based on this minister's behaviour.

It's not that it was particularly a wrong decision, but certainly the perception of the former minister is that it would have been appropriate that he be fully consulted. I understand he feels that he was not consulted. Does the minister have a reaction to the fact that because of his behaviour, we do not have an MLA representing Peace River?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I had a good discussion with the former minister both before and after the announcement, and I was saddened by the former minister's decision, as I said publicly earlier today However, in politics we all make personal decisions from to time to time, and the member who represented North Peace River extremely well, as I said earlier, took that decision.

[11:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to move into another area for the few minutes we have left in this morning's debate of the Ministry of Education's estimates. I want to ask the minister to help us ascertain some facts, not around the block funding per se but the dollars which are now, it appears, in a number of places, as he has noted in his estimates — dollars allocated for the Royal Commission on Education.

Just to briefly pursue some comments the minister made in his opening remarks, the minister noted that approximately $15 million has gone from his budget to the budgets of Social Services and Housing, Advanced Education and Health. Could the minister please advise us quite specifically how those dollars relate to the royal commission and its implementation, and what each of those ministries has received — and for what purpose?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, $3 million has gone to Social Services and $3 million to Health to support the interministry protocol agreements. The other moneys went to the expansion of the teacher education program and the rural teacher education programs.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister please define "supporting protocol agreements" in some concrete terms? What services are going to be directed to children out of that $3 million for Social Services and that $3 million for Health?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sorry. Could I ask the member to restate the question?

MS. A. HAGEN: Yes, I will. Could the minister please define more specifically what services for children will be provided through those dollars that are flowing from his ministry to Social Services and to Health? What specific services for children will those dollars purchase?

HON. S. HAGEN: They are for the health care services for all students in the school system and additional services for special-needs students in the school system.

MS. A. HAGEN: The public would be very interested in knowing something about what those services are. I'm really asking the minister to be a little bit more descriptive in his response. I might ask while he's having some of that information made available to him by his officials.... One of the things we'll be interested in knowing is whether these dollars are going to be a permanent part of the funding of those ministries — whether there is, then, some long-term commitment to resources for those ministries for these services — because we are talking here about services to special needs children now fully participating in education under the mainstreaming of all children into the public school system.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN: As the member well knows, we only deal with budgets on a year-to-year basis. The member has asked for a long-term commitment that I am by law unable to make to her.

I would like to take some of the remaining time to describe the services described in the protocol agreement, but I would remind the member that there is a booklet published. Do you still want me to list the services provided, when they are listed in the booklet?

[ Page 12495 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, what we really want is not a lot of fancy language about coordination. We're trying to find some information about specific services that go to children. The question I asked the minister requested him not to read us matters from the protocol agreement but to tell us in his own words about some of the ways those dollars are going to provide direct services to kids. I would hope that the minister, since we're talking about a very important part of the school programs, can tell us something about what happens in the classroom that relates to those dollars providing services to children.

He might want to comment, too, about who is responsible for delivering those services, since the dollars are not in the Education budget for teachers or assistants working with children in the classroom. They are in some other ministry — Social Services or Health — and are somehow supposedly having an effect on what's happening to special-needs children in the classroom. Can the minister give us some very concrete pictures of how the dollars from those other ministries serve kids in the classrooms of British Columbia?

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to describe those services and would indicate that of course those services are mandated in either the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Social Services. The obligations of each ministry are described very concisely. The Ministry of Education will continue to fund schools boards for the provision of personal care to those students for whom such services are essential to their attendance in school.

The funding for paraprofessionals will continue to be provided through the fiscal framework at an entrance level, to enable staff to carry out specialized routines. These routines include, but are not limited to, feeding and related care, the administration of pre-established and prescribed routine oxygen, the administration of premeasured and prescribed medication, seizure management and ostomy care.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would ask the member for Victoria whether or not he's interested in this. I'm sure your constituents are. So if I may continue.

Educational assistants hired for children with special health needs will be required to have basic skills and competencies equivalent to those provided in home support or community support worker programs offered by community colleges. Teachers and assistants will also be required to have child-specific training from a health professional in order to carry out the specialized procedures. Resources will be made available to school boards on a shared-funding basis through the fiscal framework to pay for assessment, development of care plans, and training and supervision.

The Ministry of Education will require school boards to be responsible for obtaining appropriate training of staff and for monitoring and quality control from the local health unit or other appropriate sources

The Ministry of Education requires school boards to provide adequate space to allow for the safe care of special-needs students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, with planning time allowed to the extent possible.

The Ministry of Health will make health staff available to provide training and supervision of paraprofessionals to carry out the routines of level 2 and level 3, which they would be permitted to do under this agreement. The Ministry of Health will also make health personnel available to assess and determine the level of care, the health professional required and the supervision required for each special-needs child.

In addition, the Minister of Health will make health personnel available to be responsible for developing or approving each level 2 or level 3 special-needs child's health care plan for the period of their school day This plan would be developed jointly with parents or guardians and school personnel, and would become a part of the child's individualized educational plan.

Based on a formula for the school district size and the reported number of students in selected categories of function 3, this would involve training and supervision of approximately 500 attendants, together serving about 650 students at a cost of approximately $350,000. In addition, some children's needs are more complex, requiring professional health personnel to perform procedures which include but are not limited to tracheostomy care, ventilator care and suctioning. These procedures will be carried out by nurses holding an active licence to practice in British Columbia or rehabilitative personnel working under written instructions from the child's physician. Arranging for and providing these level 2 and 3 services will be the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Health will be responsible for ensuring that legally qualified health professionals are employed or contracted for care, consultation and supervision. The Ministry of Health will work towards ensuring sufficient availability of qualified health professionals to work in schools, to serve the needs of an estimated 200 level 3 children currently in the school system.

As a matter of fact, on the weekend I met with the parents of one of those level 3 children who lives in my community. This is very significant and very important, and especially to those people.

The Ministry of Health, through the school medical officer or designate, will provide advice to the Ministry of Education as to the extent and need for personal care assistance for students identified by school boards as requiring such services.

For the Ministries of Education and Health, if shared funding can be jointly arranged the ministries will undertake in the 1989-90 fiscal year — which is past — a joint assessment of special-needs students in the school system who require in-school support as defined above to improve their capability to project needs. Included will be the identification of the number of students who are currently receiving health-related services while in school through settlements with ICBC.

[ Page 12496 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, if those are the minister's own words I will accept them as the minister's own words. I heard $350,000 referred to out of $6 million, and I heard a lot about what is required for the many people who are working with these special-needs children in the schools. At this stage of the game we are just beginning to unveil the issue of providing services for special-needs youngsters within our districts.

I think, looking at the hour, it would be appropriate if we rise, report some very limited progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. COUVELIER: Before we conduct that very important piece of business that you have before you, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. COUVELIER: In the precinct we have a group of senior students from Spectrum high school in greater Victoria. Insofar as Spectrum is one of those progressive schools that have a very active program for their students in terms of participation in the community, they have an interest in our proceedings here today. Id ask the House to join me in welcoming these senior students from Spectrum high school.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.