[ Page 12497 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Tiananmen Square anniversary. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 12497

Mr. Barnes

The Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund Act (Bill M204). Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading –– 12498

Oral Questions

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Mr. Sihota –– 12498

Relocation of Toronto companies to B.C. Mr. Peterson –– 12498

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Mr. Sihota –– 12499

CMHC mortgage coverage. Mrs. McCarthy –– 12499

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Ms. Edwards –– 12499

Census appointment. Mr. Reid –– 12500

Mr. Rose

Ministerial Statements

Seniors' Week and Long-Term Care Week. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12500

Ms. A. Hagen

Census Day. Hon. J. Jansen –– 12501

Environment Week. Hon. Mr. Mercier –– 12502

Ms. Cull

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12502

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Fraser

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. MILLER: I'm pleased to note that a good friend of mine from Prince Rupert and Port Edward, Charles — better known as "Wakey" — Clifton, is in the gallery today. Wakey is one of many people who earn their living as cannery workers in Prince Rupert, and he is the volunteer fire chief of the village of Port Edward. I would say he's made a significant contribution in terms of training volunteer fire departments in the surrounding native Indian villages on the north coast. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him to Victoria today.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, later today in our Legislature we will be recognizing this date as the anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square in Beijing two years ago today. I'm proud to introduce to this House Maureen and Raymond Chan, who are in the Legislature today. Raymond Chan is the chairman of the Vancouver society in support of the democratic movement. Would the House please welcome them on this day.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like the House to welcome the chief and delegation from the Ulkatcho band: Chief Cassidy Sill, Michael Holte and Ms. Dester. Also, my sister and brother-in-law, Marg and Don Ferrier, and their daughter Richelle are here from Prince George.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's my pleasure today to introduce to this Legislature a very successful entrepreneur from Tumbler Ridge, Mr. Scott La Prairie, and a business associate of his from Prince George, Jim Feragen. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. CLARK: On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I too join with the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain in welcoming Mr. Chan and associates from the democracy movement. They're doing outstanding work in keeping that issue before the people in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have two friends in the gallery I'd like to introduce: Paul and Jyoti Gill from South Vancouver. Accompanying them today are Parvinder and Avtar Samran from Livingston, California. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This week is Seniors' Week in British Columbia, and to mark the occasion we have a number of senior citizens' counsellors in the gallery today. I'd like to introduce Mr. Harry Burrow from Crofton, Mr. Harold Cooper from Youbou, Mrs. Helen Cousineau from Victoria, Mrs. Pernille Cunningham from Victoria, Mrs. Louise Foulis from Saltspring Island, Mrs. Dorothy Jenkins from Victoria, Mrs. Irene MacAdams from Duncan, Mrs. Marj McPherson from Victoria, Mrs. Monty Ramsfield from Victoria, Mrs. Ellen Ratcliffe from Victoria, Mrs. Dorothy Scoular from Duncan, Mr. Joe Sharples from Victoria, Mrs. Edith Smith from Sidney, Mr. John P. Travis from Victoria and, finally, Mr. George Williams from Duncan. They are part of a group of 157 senior citizens' counsellors in British Columbia who serve thousands of seniors each week helping them in various ways. I'd like to congratulate and thank those people for the very good and important work they do for seniors in British Columbia, and I'd ask you to give them a good round of applause.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the second member for Delta and myself, I'd like to welcome to the precincts today 50 grades 5 to 7 students who are from Devon Gardens Elementary School, along with their teacher Mr. George Andres and some adults. Would this House please make them welcome.

Also, I would ask this House to please welcome Mr. Harry Nyce from the Nisga'a Tribal Council, who is visiting the precincts today.

MR. COUVELIER: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming 53 grade 5 students from Lochside Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Rheta Steer. They've had a tour of the gallery, and they are looking forward to question period this afternoon. Would you please help me welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Government House Leader. Is this by way of an introduction?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. SPEAKER: If we could just get to the next order of business, then your remarks will be televised, and I think that's the nature of the game.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The thought hadn't crossed my mind, but I'm glad that you pointed it out.

Ministerial Statement

TIANANMEN SQUARE ANNIVERSARY

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on behalf of the Premier and my colleagues on the government side of the House, and I'm sure I speak for most, if not all, British Columbians.

It was two years ago today that the violent deaths of many hundreds of pro-democracy students in China shocked the world. Today we look back on that black day in history as a moment that diminished all of us who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of worship. We are privileged in this country of Canada to enjoy all of these freedoms that are not available to people who live in totalitarian states.

Today we have before us a replica of the Goddess of Democracy that was erected by the students in Tiananmen Square two years ago. The original statue was destroyed by tanks, and many students were killed in the bloodbath that followed. Such actions can never be justified. Today we remember those heroic students.

MR. BARNES: It is indeed a pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the official opposition in support of the remarks made by the government House Leader.

[ Page 12498 ]

However, I must say that it is not with great pleasure that we have to reflect upon those tragic events that occurred two years ago in Tiananmen Square.

[2:15]

Looking back to the early 1970s, I can recall when then Premier Dave Barrett, myself and a contingent of members visited Peking. I recall the enthusiasm in that country for a more democratic or more sharing society that recognized the hopes of those people who were struggling for their freedoms. However, history has a way of repeating itself, and sometimes, because of politics, we are afraid to come forward. Finally we get a statue being honoured today in this House. I am very pleased about that because it was not very easy finding a home for this statue. The city of Vancouver, the parks board and some of the Chinese community had difficulties with it because of our fear of interfering in other sovereign nations when it comes to their internal affairs. The issue is not whether there is going to be democracy in China but whether there is going to be respect for fundamental human rights, freedoms, justice, equality, equal opportunities. These things should be worldwide and, I would like to feel, of common concern everywhere in the world.

It's about time all of us found our way to be concerned about the atrocities that are affecting human beings everywhere in the world regardless of race, creed or colour, nationality or language, or whatever. Unless we find that common ground, that common reason for caring about one another, then it really is a bit of a charade when we talk about justice and freedom and democracy.

I'm very pleased that this is happening, and it is with great honour that I stand here and say that maybe there is some hope if we can look beyond the politics and concern ourselves with the fundamental rights of people, no matter where they are in the world.

Introduction of Bills

THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
LEGACY FUND ACT

Mrs. McCarthy presented a bill intituled The Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund Act.

MRS. McCARTHY: The Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund Act establishes two principles for the citizens of British Columbia for the twenty-first century. It seeks to keep a commitment to the true legacy of the 1961 Columbia River Treaty negotiated for this province by a master builder, a creative genius and true visionary, W.A.C. Bennett.

At the same time as it recognizes the birthright of British Columbians, it maintains an educational future for the children of tomorrow, an historic legacy for every child of our province. According to the terms of the Columbia River Treaty, beginning in 1998 the people of British Columbia, through their government, are to begin receiving a minimum $250 million in actual returns from the downstream benefits of our Columbia River dams. This bill creates in the provincial treasury a special Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund and mandates the creation of another separate and special fund entitled the British Columbia Twenty-First Century Educational Opportunities Fund to support the post-secondary education of children of British Columbia for the first two generations in the twenty-first century. This separate fund will provide opportunities for every child born in the term of the next government, and in every year thereafter for 20 years, an opportunity to be among the brightest and the best in the competitive world of international trade, commerce, service and the sciences. It provides for a one-time grant of $1,000 to the account of every child entering kindergarten for a 20-year period beginning in the year 1999. With cumulative interest, every child's account will eventually mature so that on high-school graduation approximately....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Unfortunately, hon. member, the rest of your explanation will have to proceed when the bill is called for second reading.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Environment. On several occasions when I've asked him questions relating to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, he's indicated: "This minister did not enter into any arrangements." Could he advise the House which of his predecessors entered into the arrangement with the former chairman along the lines that I've outlined in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise the House the quantum of severance payments made to the former CEO of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I refer the member to my earlier responses on this subject; they are all recorded in Hansard. I've already answered all that I can, and I will take on notice further questions on the subject.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise the House whether or not the recommendations of Mr. Justice Nemetz with respect to severance payments were followed with respect to the payments made to the former chief executive officer of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation?

RELOCATION OF
TORONTO COMPANIES TO B.C.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and Corporation Relations. Today's Financial Post headline reads on page 1: "NDP 'scaring off jobs, investors'." The report goes on to state that the

[ Page 12499 ]

Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association believes Ontario legislation with respect to directors' liability will have a major negative impact on investment in the province. I'd like to know what steps the minister has taken to encourage Toronto-based Canadian companies to relocate to British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's a good question. Given today's economic climate and the need to be as competitive as possible, industries are going to seek the best business environment possible to ensure they remain competitive. We will, through my colleague the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism through his Ottawa office, put significant effort into soliciting business from the Toronto downtown business community and encourage them to come to British Columbia where there's good government and a good business environment.

HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: After Mr. David Poole left the employment of the provincial government, there was a report and recommendations with respect to severance payments. My question to the Minister of Environment is this: with respect to the severance payment made to the former chief executive officer of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, can the minister advise the House whether or not those recommendations of Mr. Justice Nemetz were followed in arriving at the quantum of severance payments paid to that former chief executive officer?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's questions, the point I was trying to make earlier was that he can refer to Hansard for my responses, and I have nothing further to add to those. Anything further on this I would just take on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister understands the question. I'm not asking about the former chairman; I'm asking about the former CEO of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. With that in mind, will the minister advise this Legislature — and through this Legislature, the taxpayers of the province — how much was paid out to that individual in severance payments?

CMHC MORTGAGE COVERAGE

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the minister responsible for housing. The federal administration is considering increasing mortgage coverage from 90 percent to 95 percent of the home value through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Will the minister communicate to the national government our desire to see an affirmative answer to these deliberations?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd like to confirm that we are very supportive of the policy to increase mortgages to 95 percent. We recognize that one of the great difficulties, particularly for first-time homebuyers, is to get the down payment together. So this would certainly help in that regard.

A federal meeting on housing will be held very shortly in eastern Canada. I'll be attending that meeting and certainly advocating that Canada Mortgage and Housing pursue that course, because it would do much to address our housing needs.

VANCOUVER ISLAND
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The minister has confirmed that the Vancouver Island pipeline will be 25 percent over budget. That's a $70 million overrun so far. Will the minister also confirm that Island gas consumers will be asked to pay for the overrun?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: In a continuance of the estimates debate of last Friday, I would first like to suggest that the projected overrun of $70 million is for the project in completion. So you are incorrect when you say $70 million to date. It's projected at $70 million over the completed project.

As I stated during our debates on estimates, the overrun costs will be dealt with in three ways. First, an independent person will look at all the expenditures to make sure they were appropriate for the project; most of them probably will be considered to be so. It will then have to be determined whether those approved expenses will be considered as equity or debt, which affects the formula as it develops the rates. Ultimately, consumers on Vancouver Island will have to pay for the cost of the pipeline. It will be managed in a way that will see the cost of natural gas on the Island capped at 85 percent of the cost of heating oil or its equivalent. If the expenditure for the pipeline is larger, then that capped price of 85 percent of fuel prices will probably be extended for a further period of time than had originally been anticipated under the formula that was set up. The government expects to provide a fund to cushion the effect of the rate, but at the end of the day the consumers will bear all of the associated costs. The government will not, at the end of the day, put any indirect subsidy into the program.

MS. EDWARDS: Will the minister confirm that Pacific Coast Energy, the utility building the pipeline, is able to get the $70 million or whatever — the overrun and the approved amount — from the government, until such time as it can recoup that amount from consumers?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Obviously you haven't grasped the nature of what's happening here. The proponents will pay all of the costs for the pipeline, regardless of what they are. The Utilities Commission and the way utilities are regulated in this province allow utilities to recoup their capital expenditures through their rate structure, whether it be for powerlines or gas pipelines. I'm sure the utility is no happier than anyone else to see cost overruns. At the end of the day, they will extend the period of time to

[ Page 12500 ]

recoup their costs at a capped rate of 85 percent of heating oil.

[2:30]

MS. EDWARDS: I have a supplementary. I would like to ask the minister if he is not willing to declare today that not one penny of that overrun should be paid by the consumers on Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I don't know if the member is suggesting that the taxpayers of British Columbia should pay the costs of the overrun. I think it more appropriate, obviously, that with this utility as with other utilities, the.... First of all, I should explain to you again that the Utilities Commission will decide how much of that overrun is appropriate to be considered in the rate base. So it won't be this government nor this opposition that decides which of the $70 million is built into the rate base. It will be the Utilities Commission deciding this issue, as it decides issues of a similar nature every day.

CENSUS APPOINTMENT

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance on this census data collection date. On Friday I raised the matter of the census appointment of the provincial NDP candidate Bill Hartley upon recommendation of the federal NDP Member of Parliament Joy Langan. On Saturday the census supervisor wasn't puzzled about why the matter had been brought up, and the supervisor fired the NDP candidate. Will the Finance minister ask Canada to ensure no other....

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member take his seat. There will be a five-minute recess.

The House recessed at 2:31 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:37 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: At the moment of recess the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale had the floor. Would the member please conclude his question.

MR. REID: On Saturday the census supervisor wasn't puzzled about why the matter had been brought up. The supervisor then fired the NDP candidate. Will the Finance minister ask Canada to ensure that no other political party candidate is in a similar position, and will he investigate to determine that no public resources are being used to subsidize that NDP candidate?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question is timely in two aspects: firstly, today is census day; and secondly, the concern about privacy of information. The public is certainly concerned that the information they give on census day should be kept private. We have seen some of the violations of privacy that have happened recently, in particular in this House. I find it somewhat astounding that the NDP candidate for that particular area would take a position as a census-taker and that the Leader of the Opposition would find it puzzling that the public would have some concern about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Once again we go back to the same problem: the scope of the answer must remain within the scope of the question. The question isn't just a prompt to get the minister going on a ramble into other areas. There was a specific question. I know you want to have a nice chat about something else, but I'd just ask you to answer the question.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for bureaucracy, and thank goodness for proud civil servants who are able to distinguish between right and wrong.

I will ask the federal minister to ensure that this type of procedure does not happen in the future respecting the census-taker being a candidate for the NDP. I will also take the second question on notice respecting whether or not government funds were used to subsidize his salary.

MR. ROSE: I was really shocked when the minister suggested that anybody who was employed as a census-taker would somehow break his oath and go into the privacy of the answers given to him.

A supplementary. While the minister is investigating — and I'm not critical about this — would he also confirm that the part-time constituency assistant for the Socred member from Dewdney is also employed as a census canvasser?

HON. J. JANSEN: I think there's a far-sight difference between an NDP candidate....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, members. Time is limited in question period.

HON. J. JANSEN: What I said was that although I did not accuse the NDP candidate of a violation of privacy, I think the public found it offensive that an NDP candidate would also be a census-taker. That was corrected by the census supervisor — not by the Leader of the Opposition, who didn't see any problem with it, but by the census supervisor. That's important to note.

I'm surprised at the sensitivity over there. I understand it and am sure that this House will continue to ensure that right is done.

Ministerial Statements

SENIORS' WEEK AND
LONG-TERM CARE WEEK

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As Minister of Health and as the Minister Responsible for Seniors, it is my pleasure to bring to the attention of the House that this week is designated as both Seniors' Week and as Long-Term Care Week throughout the province.

One of the challenges in our society today is coming to terms with the aging of our population, particularly our individual and collective ideas about seniors and

[ Page 12501 ]

the process of aging. Many of our attitudes towards aging may be outdated and should be reviewed, which is why this year's theme for Seniors' Week — "Aging: Time for a New Attitude" — is in itself an important message.

It is true that most seniors lead fulfilling, rewarding lives and in that respect provide both an example and a challenge to all of us who follow them. The key point, though, is that the way people approach aging does indeed determine the state of their physical and emotional well-being in their senior years.

During Seniors' Week events will be held throughout the province that will bring people of all ages together and serve to demonstrate how dynamic, fulfilling and challenging seniors' lives continue to be. However, it is important for us not to refer to seniors in sweeping generalizations and to remember that seniors, like you and me, are not all the same. Their interests and abilities are just as diversified as those of any age group.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that this is also Long Term Care Week. The philosophy of our long-term care programs, or what we now call continuing care, is to promote the well-being, dignity and independence of clients and their families. To this end, seniors and people with disabilities require continuing care provided with community based programs such as adult day care, homemaker services, home nursing care, Meals on Wheels and occupational therapy as well as physiotherapy.

To help people receive the information they need about these and other services, the Ministry of Health has just completed an invaluable resource kit simply and effectively entitled "Continuing Care." This kit contains two general information booklets — one aimed at people seeking continuing care services for themselves and another for families caring for seniors.

There are also seven brochures providing more specific information on topics such as homemaker and rehab services, residential care, home nursing care, group homes and choosing a care home. These brochures are available at continuing care offices and health units throughout our province.

The two designations made for this week give all of us in British Columbia an opportunity to re-examine our individual and collective ideas about continuing care needs and about seniors. In this context, it gives me great pleasure to announce the proclamation of Seniors' Week and of Long-Term Care Week.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am pleased to join in the recognition of these two important occasions in the coming week-Seniors' Week and Long-Term Care Week — and to wish to people who will be participating in special events a joyous and happy time in their communities.

I want to take a brief moment to acknowledge the seniors' counsellors who were recognized by a government minister earlier today. They represent literally thousands of people who work in our communities in support of older people in voluntary and community agencies.

[2:45]

It is self-evident, I believe, that seniors bring to their communities much in the way of experience, activity and contributions. Those are very essential ingredients in the lives of all of our communities. I know that many older people contribute to their own groups, but they also contribute in many organizations and are particularly interested in the lives of children — many of them their grandchildren.

There are a couple of special accolades which I think should go out at this particular time. I think we should recognize and commend the staffs who work in long-term-care facilities and home support programs. Many of these people are women. Many of them are still working for wages that are less than wages paid to men, and many of them are working at jobs that take a tremendous amount of emotional and physical energy and commitment. I want to acknowledge those people who work in support of our older people.

I want to note also that it is important for governments to provide dollars and resources in support of independence. I note in this year's budget that although we have increases in numbers of seniors, we don't necessarily have increases in some of the programs that support independence. I hope seniors, through the advisory council and their own organizations, will make representation around these issues to government. In our society there are many active and needy people. To both those groups of people we accord at this time a recognition of their role in our society, and welcome this week that recognizes that role.

CENSUS DAY

HON. J. JANSEN: Today is census day in Canada. Census-taking has a long tradition in this country and other countries. The first census in British Columbia was taken in 1851 and counted 55,000 people. The 1991 census is expected to count 3.25 million people. Census details are important for a number of reasons. They provide information on employment, income levels, migration and other matters that every jurisdiction needs to make informed policy decisions as well as to determine future amounts of money transferred from the federal government under the established programs financing agreement.

In British Columbia we have a relatively higher number of people, compared to other provinces, who are missed or do not participate in that census count. This undercount costs British Columbia tens of millions of dollars annually in lost transfer payments.

Concerns have been expressed about the quality and confidentiality of the census information. I want to assure this House that all personal information collected in the census is guaranteed by law to be unconditionally confidential, and that census-takers are well trained and committed to accurate results.

I note in passing that the long form of the census talks about ethnic origins and outlines a number of different origins — French, English, German, and so on. It misses Canadian, which is interesting, because my colleague the Attorney-General's ancestors date back to 1832 in Canada. Truly he could be called a Canadian. I would ask that this box be added.

[ Page 12502 ]

In closing, I am sure that the House will join me in urging all British Columbians to ensure that they are counted in the census, in order that this province receives its fair share of federal transfer payments.

ENVIRONMENT WEEK

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this week British Columbians are joining with their fellow Canadians and with concerned people around the world in focusing their thoughts and actions on the environment and in observing World Environment Day on June 5 as designated by the United Nations. Quite fittingly, the celebration of Environment Week coincides with the launching of a number of major initiatives by our government on behalf of the environment.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of announcing the commencement of the third year of operations for the Environment Youth Corps, which provides employment and training in worthwhile environmental projects for young people all over the province. Approximately 700 young people will be working in that area this summer.

Tomorrow I will be announcing new measures to protect important wildlife habitat in two key areas of the province: one in the Fraser River estuary, the other on Vancouver Island.

This week-long celebration provides people, especially young people, with special opportunities to work together on behalf of our beautiful province and its environment. It also makes it clear that we share a strong concern with the rest of the international community for the future of our planet.

To choose a dramatic example of an issue from which we cannot isolate ourselves, in the Persian Gulf an environmental disaster is taking place in the form of oil fires still burning as a result of the recent war. In light of the enormous amount of effort that was spent on the war itself, I will suggest to my federal counterpart that we need an equivalent effort in terms of resources, people and equipment to be dedicated to fighting those fires and the disastrous air pollution they are causing.

The plain truth is that we are all citizens of this planet and, ultimately, what affects one part affects every other part. That is the main message of Environment Week. I'm sure that every member of the House endorses this message, and I urge them to take every opportunity to recognize and encourage the Environment Week activities taking place in their constituencies.

MS. CULL: I'm pleased to join with the minister in recognizing Environment Week and particularly to recognize the contribution of the Environment Youth Corps. I also look forward to hearing his future announcements on the Fraser River estuary and on wildlife habitat protection on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, we need more than a week-long celebration of the environment; we need a year-long commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Page 51 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia comes from New South Wales, as a matter of fact. On responding to ministerial statements, Mr. Speaker Ellis stated: "The Leader of the Opposition" — who happened to be the person speaking at the time — "will confine himself specifically to the points raised by the minister." Unfortunately, that's the guiding rule we have for all ministerial statements. So you can go as long as he has, but you have to stay within the scope.

MS. CULL: The minister was announcing a week long celebration, and I just suggested that we needed a little more than a week on this.

The minister talked about the Persian Gulf. I think the environmental slogan that we need to think about here is: "Think globally, act locally." We need to act locally. Instead of talking about the Persian Gulf, what I would have rather heard the minister announce was the government's commitment to sewage treatment in greater Victoria. I would have rather heard him say that the government has now decided to participate....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, all of the things that you wish to discuss during his estimates, we should discuss during estimates. Your response to the ministerial statement really has to be within the scope of the things the minister discussed, not what he might have wanted to discuss. You may continue.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your advice on this.

In announcing action on the environment, and in announcing Environment Week, the minister is, I think, in talking about the Persian Gulf, ignoring British Columbia. I think that is what we want to hear in terms of Environment Week. There are many issues that need to be addressed here in this province.

The government prefers to talk about almost any other jurisdiction than British Columbia and it is now time that we turn our attention not to the Persian Gulf but to the issues in British Columbia like sewage treatment, implementing the oil spill task force recommendations and getting serious with pulp mill polluters.

I'm glad that we have a week to recognize the environment, but it's going to take more than a week to clean up the environment in British Columbia. It's going to take a change in government.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

MR. ROSE: I'm really raising this not necessarily just for the benefit of the minister but for his officials. I mentioned earlier this morning, both in here and out in the hall, that I was interested in some of the trend lines going back perhaps five to ten years, depending on how big the job would be, of what's happening in the elementary and secondary schools to those options and

[ Page 12503 ]

special subjects such as arts, drama, phys ed, choral band, stage band — all that stuff.

I was in this field for many years and have two daughters who are both teachers in those same fields. We naturally have a special interest in them. I don't know how much difficulty there will be for the officials, but to have the trend lines in various subject areas — enrolment and what, where and when; that kind of thing — would be very useful. It's not the kind of question I can ask directly, although I have reason to believe that over the last ten years there has been, at least in some areas, a marked decline. I think a lot of people interested in the arts and culture field would be interested in the response to this because they may feel the same way. Because they're vitally interested, they might want to encourage the government to change its ways on these subjects if the trend lines are down, as I have reason to believe they are.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to respond to the opposition House Leader. Before I do specifically, as a point of interest for him, I had the privilege of being in Penticton last week at the secretary-treasurers' convention, and the stage band from Pen High played. I'll tell you, you would have loved to have been there because it was exceptional. They must have a very good music program in that school district.

I've been informed by my officials that you will have an answer to your question by tomorrow morning in your office.

MS. A. HAGEN: As we were finishing our first session this morning on the education estimates, I asked the minister to provide us with some personal perspectives on a very important aspect of education — what we usually call special education. This is education for children who for some reason require some special services and support from not only the Education ministry but perhaps from other jurisdictions as well, such as Health and Social Services.

I was a little disappointed when, after asking me if I wanted to have read some of the protocols and I having said, "No, Mr. Minister, I would much prefer to have you talk about this from your own experience and give us concrete word-pictures and information about this field of work in our schools," he persisted and read us the whole protocol or a part of it. He having set that model, I may come back to it a little later on, because there certainly are a lot of words out there about providing services to youngsters.

[3:00]

What we want to try to get at in the first part of our discussion this afternoon is how that translates into real, live services and how the teachers, aides and principals in our schools are managing with what is fundamentally one of the newest mandates of the education system. That mandate says that students will be educated within our regular school classes — we call it mainstreaming or integration — and it means that every child, regardless of physical, mental or emotional difficulties they may bring to the classroom, will be integrated with students who do not have handicaps. It's a very challenging and very significant policy and program initiative. We on this side of the House are supportive of that initiative. But it is not an activity that can take place without careful planning, resources and training. We know from talking and listening to every district in the province that it has been a challenge for students, teachers, assistants, parents and all people who work in the system.

I know that the advocacy groups who are very interested in children who fit under that broad rubric of special-education children are very concerned about the level of commitment of the government to fulfilling that mandate. We have funding programs in place that say that this government, taking up the minister's own words, will take responsibility for the full cost of education through its block funding program. I want to examine this afternoon some of the initiatives regarding special-education children and whether the ministry is living up to that mandate.

Let me ask a series of questions of the minister. Although I will try to group some of them, I want to have some answers in order to proceed with the next question, because the next question is dependent on the answer that the minister provides.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: No, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, from across the floor there's a little bit of banter going on with the minister, who hopes that perhaps we're going to ask just one or two questions here. On Friday, as the hour was getting late and I found that this minister was not going to tell us anything until his estimates arrived on the floor of this House, I asked him very few questions. He won't get off so easily during the next period of time. We intend to examine his ministry quite exhaustively, as well we should, because it is a ministry that provides a very important service. He and I would probably agree that from the point of view of the future of our province it is the most important ministry in government, and what this government is doing needs to be called to account.

I want to ask the minister first of all why his government has placed a ceiling on funding for special education.

HON. S. HAGEN: Interesting question again, coming from across the floor of the House, where one day they're talking about balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility and all of those other key phrases, and then the question is why government has placed a ceiling. I don't know if the member for New Westminster calls a budget a ceiling, or whether it's the budget for the year.

It should be noted that this year we will be spending something in the order of $255 million on special-education programs in the province. It's a very serious commitment by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. This covers, of course, the whole range of programs.

The question was posed as to the challenge out in the system. Yes, it's a challenge; I think we all recognize that. But I believe that the teachers of the province are up to that challenge. In the visits that I have had around the province, the teachers that I've talked to are indeed up to that challenge. I have not received a

[ Page 12504 ]

complaint from a teacher with regard to special-needs programs. They are all very anxious to assist the students they are responsible for in any way, shape or form. So while there is a budget amount — which has increased every year, I might add — I wouldn't call that a ceiling.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the minister has just acknowledged that there is a finite amount of money within the block distributed for special education to all the districts of the province. It's quite irrelevant to me that we're talking here about fiscal responsibility I believe that what we're talking about is the government's commitment to providing the kinds of resources necessary to meet the needs of children within the province of British Columbia. So he has not answered the question of why there is a ceiling or why there is that finite amount.

Let me ask another question and see if he can provide us with a bit more information. Does the ministry have, as a matter of the records available to it, figures on the number of children within the school system who qualify for some special education funding?

How is that determined? Is that determined by the ministry? Is it determined by school districts? What are the parameters for determining that in addition to the resources that are available' to every child within a school district? There may be some additional resources required — possibly a teaching aide, somebody who is providing itinerant support for a visually impaired student or somebody who provides specific health services.

Does the ministry keep or have any kind of number on children who require those additional services? How does the minister, using that number then, arrive at this ceiling or this amount of money available for special education?

HON. S. HAGEN: The number of students for each district is determined by the school district. The school districts then submit the numbers of students to my ministry, and we fund based on those numbers.

MS. A. HAGEN: So let me explore that for a moment. If my district or the districts of the member for Boundary-Similkameen or the member for Vancouver–Point Grey submit a number in September of children requiring special needs, is the block of funding available to those districts adjusted to reflect the number of students and presumably some categories in which they might be placed by the school district? Is more money added then, if the numbers of children are in excess of what has been predicted or what was originally determined when the block was established for that district?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll just run through some examples here of the funding so that maybe it will help the member understand. The funding varies according to the needs of the student. Some examples are: a dependent handicapped student qualifies for $18,200 on average. A severe mental handicap qualifies for an average of $13,700, and a visually handicapped person qualifies for $13,700.

MS. A. HAGEN: Then I think the minister is saying that if there is a visually impaired or a severely mentally handicapped child in a district, dollars track that child, and regardless of the number of children in that district there will be dollars and additional money available within the block to provide those dollar resources for the district. Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, that is the case, except for three categories: the severe learning disabled, rehabilitation and the severe behavioural.

MS. A. HAGEN: Would the minister care to indicate how those students are accommodated with resources?

HON. S. HAGEN: Last year those three were funded on the basis of 3.25 percent of their total district population. We raised that this year to 3.6 percent.

MS. A. HAGEN: Are those figures consistent with the numbers school districts are providing, or are they lower than the number that school districts are indicating are to be found within their community of students?

HON. S. HAGEN: I understand the districts submit the numbers, the numbers are analyzed by my ministry and then funded on the basis of the analysis.

MS. A. HAGEN: Special education is an issue in school districts, because in many instances school districts are either finding the dollars allocated are not sufficient for their needs or there is no recognition, according to the ministry, of the needs of their students.

Let me just take some instances. A moment ago the minister spoke about figures of $18,000 and $13,000 being available for particular students. We all know some of those students require one-on-one aides to remain within the system — a full-time worker for time the child is in school, plus training for staff assistants, all of those kinds of things — and in many instances the figures the minister quoted are not adequate for the actual services which are provided for children by caregivers who are essential in order to remain in the school.

If that is the case, could the minister please advise how school districts provide for those students without trading off dollars? In order to provide for special needs students, there will be fewer dollars available for other students within the district, or alternately, the district is forced to cut back on the extent of services available for those special-needs students within the system. Neither of those solutions is satisfactory for school districts, teachers and aides struggling to find a good working arrangement to look after this challenging mandate of integrating special-needs students into classes.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to respond to that question. First of all, let it be clear — and it is under-

[ Page 12505 ]

stood across this country — that British Columbia is the leading province for dealing with special-needs children in the school system. In addition to the extra funding we talked about, this year the provincial block was increased by $28, which, times the number of students, comes to an extra $14 million that was injected into the system, because there is a higher proportion of low-incidence high-cost students.

I'm trying to figure out what the member for New Westminster is leading up to in her line of questioning. I suspect she may be working towards the issue in a couple of school districts where boards have threatened to cut special-education programs because they say that they don't have enough money. I'm not sure if that's where she's leading, but I would be curious to know.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to let that minister across the floor know that I'm not leading anywhere except to try to get some enlightenment on how special-education funding flows into school districts. Let me move into a couple of other domains to see if we can get any guidance from the ministry.

[3:15]

There is a ministerial order, No. 149 of 1989, which does relate a bit to support services for schools in respect to special-needs students. It speaks about auditory systems, speech and language services, medical assessments, specialized health services and, finally, the relationship with the medical health officer.

Let me just take one of these domains: speech and language services. "A board of a school district shall provide speech and language therapy for students of school age who attend a school in the district and whose education is adversely affected by oral communication difficulties." Does the ministry have any standard by which it measures whether that order is in fact being carried out? Is there any standard whereby the ministry has to say one speech pathologist for 500 students or one speech pathologist for 2,500 students? I just want to get some idea of how the measure is there, while I'm speaking about that particular domain. It's a very common need in school districts, because there are many students who need some help with speech pathology, not necessarily students who might even fall into the special-education category, but those who for some reason or other need some help with speech development. How does the ministry judge what level of speech pathologist services might be a standard or guideline for the districts of the province?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm really pleased at this line of questioning, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about the first-rate programs that we have in the B.C. school system that we should all be very proud of.

We have a book called the "red book," and if the member opposite doesn't have a copy, I'm sure we'd be pleased to provide one. It contains the special-education guidelines, and it deals with policies, procedures and guidelines. The programs are defined in that book — and I'm having a copy brought down. If you want to deal with specific questions, we can; you're welcome to the book. The criteria are then set out, and then of course the funding eligibility is set.

MS. A. HAGEN: I gather from the minister's answer that there are specific guidelines for a number of services. Can the minister elaborate a bit, or does he want to wait until that book is brought down so that he has it as a reference point?

In the field of speech pathology, for example, I've seen some figures. I think they're commonly referred to, and I understand that in many districts they are providing speech pathologist services if they're able to find qualified personnel — another challenge, I might note. If they're able to find qualified personnel, they are providing services in excess of the guidelines, and in some instances decisions that have been taken locally by school districts to enhance level of service are having to be cut back because of funding shortfalls. That is, of course, a matter of great concern to parents whose children may be accessing those services. Perhaps the minister can just comment, or does he want to wait until he has the guidebook? I suspect from his body language that he wants to wait until he has some concrete figures.

But let me just ask this question. In school districts that have been providing the very best of services that those school boards have been able to devise, school boards that have in fact established through taxation — before taxation was removed as one of their rights as a school board — a calibre of service in special needs superior to what is available in other districts.... What accommodation does the ministry make for those school districts? Is it his intent to bring all school districts down to the average, to the lowest level of service that his ministry is prepared to accept? Or is there within the funding system an accommodation and a recognition that school districts have made local decisions to provide a better level of service based on their local decision-making around the needs of children in their district?

Perhaps the minister could comment on whether it is his government's philosophy and practice to bring all the funding down to that fundamental level and therefore create the kinds of situations we have seen in some districts where boards that have been providing a higher level of service are seeing that they can no longer do so with the funding this government has determined they would have — a funding that has come entirely from decisions of government and that has taken away the right of local boards to make those decisions about the quality of education in their districts.

HON. S. HAGEN: It should be made clear that the boards don't pay anything extra for the services they're providing; the block funding provides that. Any of the extra programs in place prior to the implementation of the block were rolled into the block. We still have, though, the challenge of the ability to pay. If the boards have taken it upon themselves to make decisions that are affecting their ability to pay, by making other decisions, they may have to look at other areas in their budget. I should also make clear that there's a difference between funding needs and funding wants. My impression of the system is that boards are capable of dealing with the needs out there. There has been some politics played by some boards, where they have

[ Page 12506 ]

threatened to cut services. I've noticed in the media today that one particular board has backed off on that and are now reassessing their budget. So I guess we are still working through the process where they come to grips with the final amounts.

The system in place provides funding for a first-class delivery system in special-needs education. If a board decides in a particular community that they want to spend extra money on a new program, they of course do have the ability to go to referendum for that extra funding, and they have the support of the taxpayers in doing that.

MS. A. HAGEN: We could get into the "rolled into the block," and I want to save some of that discussion for later on. But just let me comment that it's entirely specious to say that what was rolled into the block stayed in the block, because although what was in the block was all totalled up.... All the districts' budgets were totalled up to make that block. Then the ministry proceeded to redistribute it, and didn't redistribute back to each district what in fact had been in the original block. It proceeded to redistribute it around that very thesis that I was talking about-bringing boards into an average.

I want to pursue this issue of special education because I think it's extremely important, because it is a new program, because it is a newly mandated program, because the challenge of providing an adequate education for the children who come under a special umbrella rubric is one of learning and trying to provide in a classroom setting for very challenged children.

Let's look at the high-incidence low-cost group that the minister spoke about a moment ago. This is the group of children who need some help in schools. I think the minister said that the cap on that group of children was something in the order of 3 percent. Now I don't know about the minister, but I know that in many districts of the province that level of incidence is well below the actual level of incidence of children who need some special assistance. It may be that they need a learning assistant; it may be that they need to have some speech pathology; it may that they are — I think the category is — a severe-behaviour student who needs to be in a special class for a time where there's a child-care worker and an aide and where there's the help of a psychologist in order to help that child learn how to modify his or her behaviour in a way that allows him or her to work in a classroom situation.

Those children have to be accommodated. They have to have a program and services that will enable them to learn. Nothing is more important than dealing with those issues on a preventive basis. One of the minister's colleagues, the Minister of Environment, has done some work on severely learning-disabled children and the desirability of assessing and servicing those children early on to prevent the sense of failure and frustration and difficulty that they have if their needs are not met when they first come into the school system.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that without question there are in many instances higher levels than the minister has spoken about and a desperate need on the part of some districts — particularly districts whose block of funding has been squeezed downward by the policies of this government — to find ways and means of meeting the needs of those children. No question we're dealing with a block, but that block gets allocated in a lot of ways within a school district, and there are services and programs that are more costly than others but are extremely important to have available, particularly as we identify children with needs and begin to work with providing them with the support and services necessary to enable them to learn, to enable them to overcome any of the challenges that are a part of their physical or mental or social or emotional beings. I believe that what is happening in our system is that the ministry is failing to recognize the extent of that and failing to accommodate and provide the flexibility that boards need to have in order for those services to be delivered.

Let me stress again that if we are going to mandate the integration of students, and if we're going to look at prevention and providing for the needs of all students according to their potential, then one of the most important things for us to do is to ensure that boards have those resources. Indeed, those should be resources that are a part of the block. They should not be something that we have to go to referendum on. Because remember, referenda are for one year. The board has to go back next year and ask for the same resources to be approved by the taxpayer and then back the next year to ask again for the same resources, even if the needs remain the same.

So the minister is fudging. He's suggesting that all of the resources are there. He's suggesting that he does not acknowledge that there are difficulties in the system. I would hope that he would frankly acknowledge that there are some problems with this new funding system and with providing the level of service that is consistent with the needs of children, and then make some commitments about how he would seek to deal with that.

I recognize what he said about demands on government, but there's nothing more important in the role government fills than meeting the needs of special education children and those people providing services. I believe those needs are not being adequately met at this time.

HON. S. HAGEN: Let me remind the member opposite that this government has increased funding to education in the K to 12 system over the last four years by 39.6 percent, while the cost of living in British Columbia has gone up 17.6. If that isn't a commitment to funding in education, I don't know what is.

At the same time as we are recognized as a province having one of the best funding levels for special education in the entire country, we are one of the few provinces that has learning assistance programs as well as all other special education categories. The number of specialty education kids with severe learning disabilities in our province is very similar to everyone else.

As I stated previously, we have also increased the funding in this category, on the advice of the superintendents' association and the secretary-treasurers' as-

[ Page 12507 ]

sociation, from 3.25 percent last year to 3.6 percent this year. This year boards hired 700 teachers to reduce their pupil-teacher ratio, which was a choice they made. If you're telling me that the board should be able to make all the choices they make and disregard the needs of special-needs students and then the government should come in afterwards and bail them out, then you are very wrong.

If there is a problem with boards funding special ed or any other programs, there's only one reason, and that is that the collective agreements they have arrived at with their trade unions are more than they can afford. I'm reading some comments made here a couple of months ago where one of the radio broadcasters in Vancouver asked the question: "Can you afford to pay teachers 7 percent in a time of declining revenue?" The answer was: "Well, you can't." The person who said that was the leader of the official opposition. Apparently he also agrees the boards can't afford to pay 7 percent.

[3:30]

It wouldn't be bad if we were only talking about 7 percent, but when you look at all other contractual arrangements made, the cost in one year to the education budget in British Columbia varies between 9 and 13 percent, depending on which district you're looking at. With a one-year cost impact on those negotiated settlements of between 9 to 13 percent, while our economy is growing somewhere between minus 1 and plus 1 percent, depending on which economist you talk to, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the system is not sustainable on that basis.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

While you're sitting there saying that the government isn't putting enough money into this particular program or that particular program, what we're saying is that increasing funding over the last four years to education by almost 40 percent is acceptable to any taxpayer out there who is looking at his or her tax notice and paying taxes every year.

Sure, everyone is concerned about education. I'm concerned about education, and you're concerned about education. But there isn't a bottomless pit of money. When you look at the results of the education system, which is what I'm interested in.... I'm not in a spending contest with other Ministers of Education from across this country. The trick is not to see who can spend the most money. The challenge is to see whether or not when the students graduate from grade 12, they're ready to proceed into the next stage of their life.

We're doing some fine things in education. For instance, there is a report in the media today about the Euclid Mathematics Contest. I think that parents and students can be very proud of these results. It stated that 20 students from British Columbia were among the top 50 out of a total of 9, 400 who competed. I think that's something to be very proud of. Not only that, 24 British Columbia schools placed among the top 50. In the country out of 1,000 schools. I think we've got a lot to be proud of.

I understand that your job is to be the critic of the Minister of Education of the province, and I encourage you to go your best lick. But you can't argue results like this. You can't argue the results that I've seen as I travel around the province to speak to graduation classes, to meet graduating students and to talk to students. I'm not saying the system is perfect; we have some improvements that can be made. We're working on them, and we'll make those improvements. But you can't argue success.

MS. CULL: I think it's interesting that the minister points to the students who are achieving at the top end of the scale. Certainly we're proud of those students, and we're very pleased to have such good results in British Columbia. I'm pleased to notice that both of the top two schools in B.C. are in my riding.

But we're not talking about those students who will go through the system and who will probably shine in any event; we're talking about the special-needs students who need assistance just to be able to participate in the system to even get through to graduate. While we recognize that all students have needs and those needs have to be addressed, I think that when we're talking about the students that my colleague from New Westminster has been talking about, we're talking about a very special category.

I would like to ask the minister what school districts are expected to do when their incidence of a particular special education population exceeds 3.6 percent. What is the expectation of the ministry in that situation?

HON. S. HAGEN: By the way, I have the "red book" now, so whenever you're ready to ask me specific questions on the red book, this gives the answers. It's a manual of policies, procedures and guidelines. I understand it's very well laid out and has very specific details and guidelines on a number of programs, which are listed: the moderately mentally handicapped, severely and profoundly mentally handicapped, physically handicapped — the whole list of them here. They have guidelines for each of those. If you want to ask specifically for the guidelines, please do.

With regard to the question on school districts that had a higher percentage than 3.6 percent, this is an average, I agree. It's an average of all the districts. If there are specific boards that have a higher percentage than that, then they will have to find that money in their budget.

MS. CULL: That's precisely the problem, Mr. Chair. The minister says that a district that has a higher incidence than 3.6 percent must take money from somewhere else in its budget, from perhaps these students that he was talking so proudly about a few minutes ago — the ones that are excelling in the mathematics competition — and from average students in the classroom. That creates a very difficult situation for school districts that do have more than that magical average number of 3.6 percent — districts like greater Victoria that have a higher incidence because of the services that are available here to those families outside the school system. Whether it is specialized health services or counselling services, the metropolitan areas

[ Page 12508 ]

of the province, particularly the larger cities, do attract families because of their services.

Those school districts have a larger than average percent. The school districts in which that occurs are faced with a couple of very difficult choices. I don't think any of them are really acceptable. They can do what that did in the past in greater Victoria for children requiring special education in the severe behaviour category: put them on a waiting-list and tell the family and the child that they can wait until a space has become available in one of the classes because only 3.6 percent is actually funded. I don't think that's acceptable. They can go into their budget and cut from other students and reduce the money that is available through regular programs. I don't think that's acceptable either. That pits one class of parents against another. We've seen enough parents being really concerned that the child who isn't exceptionally bright and doesn't have a disability is somehow getting lost in the overall system through this way of assigning funding to districts.

The other choice that used to be available to school districts was to use the supplementary budget and to make statements and political decisions about the value of special education and about the value of providing for the needs of all students adequately in their district, and then see whether the taxpayers of that community were willing to support them. That's what my colleague mentioned when she talked about the supplemental budgets that used to exist. The block funding recognized all the supplemental budgets. Implicit in that was a recognition that districts like greater Victoria were providing a level of service that was needed at that time. It included the regular funding up to 3.25 percent — or whatever the minister said used to be in effect — plus additional moneys that people in this community said they were willing to pay as part of the cost of education. That was recognized in the block funding.

Now that block funding is being redistributed. The supplementary budgets are being redistributed in such a way that that money is no longer available to school districts like Victoria. You're telling those school districts that because this cap has been set at 3.6 percent, they should look elsewhere in their budget. That's the answer: go and cut — I don't know; what are we going to cut? — music programs, physical education programs or maybe.... What unfortunately seems to be happening — going back to these top students — is cutting the programs to those special-education students who are at the top end of the scale and need additional resources or programming to assist them to excel, because children who are gifted in our school system can also be seen to have a handicap, in a way.

I don't think it's acceptable, Mr. Minister, to say there's an average in the province. I would like to know what statistics this ministry has with respect to the average. What is the range? What kinds of figures are you keeping on the incidence of these programs throughout British Columbia? How far do they extend on each side from 3.6? I would like to hear some answers to those questions.

HON. S. HAGEN: As usual, the members of the opposition take quantum leaps, move from issue to issue and expand on an issue when it isn't really the case.

Let me remind the member opposite that out of the over 20 categories of special-education students, we're talking about three categories that are capped. In the Victoria school district, for instance, we have additional funding for those categories. One is the program like the Victoria hospital program, the Eric Martin program or the Queen Alexandra Hospital program, which are provincial special-resource programs.

That is in addition to the funding under the block and the special-education funding under the block; it's in addition to all of the special-ed funding that we provide.

So let's not go running off and talking about capping of special-needs students when you know that the only three that have any sort of cap on them are the three I talked about previously: the severe learning-disabled, the severe behavioural and the rehabilitation program. Those are the only ones that are limited; the rest we fund on the reported-number basis. You might find these figures interesting specifically with regard to the Greater Victoria School District.

The special funding that we provide to special programs and learning assistance.... We funded $3,547,458 for the last fiscal year. The amount the school board had in their budget was $2,903,905, so the Victoria school board in fact received half a million dollars more from the government than they spent on learning assistance programs. In this fiscal year the money provided by the ministry in special programs for learning assistance is just under $3.4 million, and the budget the board has is $2.9 million. So again this year, the board is provided with half a million dollars more than they have budgeted for learning assistance.

[3:45]

MS. CULL: Mr. Chairman, one of the most frustrating things in dealing with this minister is the way he selectively uses statistics to argue these situations. He talks about the amount of money allocated by the ministry and the amount that's budgeted, and this minister knows full well that because of the almost crisis situation that his ministry has left many districts in, this school district has not yet finalized its budget. It still has $2.3 million to cut from its budget, and it is waiting for the decision from Mr. Lien before it makes any further decisions along that line. But even with the cuts that they have made to date, they are still funding special education at or beyond all of the standards that the ministry has established. There are more children in special education in this district than the ministry funds them for.

Your own figures are very interesting. Last year, $3.547 million; this year, somewhat less. Has the number of students decreased? Has the cost of education decreased? Why is less money being allocated this year? Certainly it's not because there are fewer students who require these kinds of services. I find this extremely frustrating.

The minister talks about the fact that we start off talking about a capped program and get into all kinds

[ Page 12509 ]

of other issues. I want to say to the minister that these issues are linked. They are complicated, and they are tied to one another. The funding that is received under the capped program affects the funding that is received and spent on special-education students throughout all of the programs.

He mentions the funding that's available through the Queen Alexandra Hospital, the provincial resource program and a number of others. The cap still applies to the students who are not funded through that program, and the students who are right there in the district exceed that 3.6 percent. The minister still hasn't answered where that money is going to come from, except from other students. The examples that he gives of what is allocated and what is spent perhaps is an indication of what a district has to do to keep constantly juggling the figures so that it can meet the needs of its students.

I still haven't heard any answer from the minister as to what figures the ministry has on the incidence of special-needs students within the district. Do you have those figures for any of the districts? Do you have the range, or do you know what...?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, I'd like to correct the member in a statement she made. She made the statement that the Victoria school board has not yet finalized its budget. May I remind her that they must finalize the budget and have in fact passed a bylaw that says, by law, they have finalized their budget. They have submitted it to the ministry according to the act. If they had not done that, they would have been in violation of the act.

I'd like to just give the member some additional facts that she may find interesting. This is from the Greater Victoria School District, School District 61. The moneys provided for special health services by the government from the taxpayer, $899,544; the amount of money budgeted by the Greater Victoria School District, $714, 280. The amount provided by the taxpayer through the government for high-incidence low-cost students, $7.5 million; the amount budget by the Greater Victoria School District, $7.2 million. The amount provided by the taxpayer through the government for low-incidence high-cost students is $3.1 million. So if you look at those, you can see that the money provided by the government to the Victoria school board is higher than what they've actually budgeted, and they're the ones who set the budget figure for the special-ed expenditures.

MS. CULL: If the minister adds up all of the special-education programs, instead of just selecting those ones there, he will find that those figures don't jibe.

HON. S. HAGEN: With all due respect, you talk about being selective and you picked three programs out of over 20. So don't accuse me of being selective.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think one of the things that we need to remember here is that we are looking at a block of funds and we are looking at boards seeking ways to achieve a quality education in each of their districts.

I want to ask the minister a couple of global questions. Last year, from the government's own records, I have a figure of $228.7 million for special education under the various categories that the minister has been talking about. I want to ask him if that figure was set at the time that budgets and the estimates were developed or whether that figure was changed over the year because of increased incidence. So last year the amount available, according to the government's records, for special education was $228.7 million. If, as the minister has stated, we are dealing with actual incidence of students in school districts, with certain dollars allocated for each of those students, it would seem that that figure might in fact be variable. This might be the figure we started with; it might be the figure we ended with. I want to have some idea of what that figure represents in terms of the government's support of special education.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to inform the member that I was able to go back to Treasury Board and get an extra $14 per student, which is a $7 million increase to the amount that she spoke of for last year. This year I got $28 a student, which is an additional $14 to the block.

MS. A. HAGEN: Was that $14 a student based on the demand for service? Was it in fact an upgrading of the level of funding based on there being more students than perhaps had first been estimated by the ministry when the $228.7 million was established?

HON. S. HAGEN: That amount was established to meet the needs of the districts as they established them under the guidelines.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let's turn to some of the guidelines for a moment. I note in this year's program that there has been some adjustment in categories. Although there are no dollars going with the special-education program, the minister has noted that the total amount intended to be spent is $255 million.

I am interested to have the minister comment on the omission of the category "gifted" from the 1991-92 program. Does this mean that there are no funds in this year's special — education budget for gifted children? If there are such funds, where might we find them, if they're not in the list of categories that are to receive funds under this particular budget item?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to refer the member for New Westminster to the fiscal framework program 1.32, entitled "Gifted."

MS. A. HAGEN: I note that in the document I'm working with that category is not listed, but the minister is assuring me that there is still such a category under special education for gifted children. The document I'm referring to — it's not sourced — is called Fiscal Framework: Special Education Summary, and it may, in fact, not be a document of your ministry. I did want to be reassured that gifted children are still in the special-education category, and I take it that the minister has assured us of that.

[ Page 12510 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, this is the fiscal framework and service levels document, the official one from my ministry. I can only assume that you got your document from a reliable government source.

MS. A. HAGEN: Regrettably, even ministry documents come sometimes without the necessary attribution, and I don't know whether they're coming from the ministry and are reliable or not. I remember commenting on that earlier in the House, when we would sometimes get things from ministries with neither date nor attribution. I knew they came from the ministry, because they came in a ministry envelope and I'd asked for them. However, we won't belabour that. I did want to reassure myself that there wasn't an exclusion of that category, because that would really be upsetting.

There's a new addition that I'd just like to make note of: job training. The minister might want to comment on whether there is a new emphasis on job training for special education. It seems to be more and more an aspect that the ministry is dealing with.

Before I sit down, let me ask another couple of questions. I'm also perceiving that there's a very extensive increase in testing programs for special needs categories, and I wonder what the ministry is trying to get at there. Are there some new initiatives in special education which may be producing costs for school districts for student testing, developing district tests and utilization of evaluation and student assessment data? There is a whole range of categories here that would suggest an emphasis on testing, and I want the minister to give us some indication of what's going on in that regard.

HON. S. HAGEN: I really hope the member for New Westminster stays on this for a while, because it gives us a chance to talk about the fiscal framework and the extra programs and extra funding. We talked earlier about funding. This year, for the severely learning-disabled and the mildly mentally handicapped — severe behaviour rehabilitation — we are providing extra funding for job training as an additional part of that. In the low-incidence high-cost — the moderately mentally handicapped, severely handicapped, physically handicapped, visually impaired, hearing-impaired and autistic — we are also providing, under a new category, additional money for job training in those areas. I happen to think that's a very good and important move, which I'm sure will be appreciated by young students who fall into those categories.

[4:00]

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps the minister will comment a bit later on the emphasis on testing.

Still on this whole matter of special education, I want to turn now to a couple of categories. There are so many that we might speak of, Mr. Chairman, but, as I'm sure occurs with the minister at various times, we have opportunities to talk with groups of people who are working towards ensuring that children with special challenges receive the quality of education that will enable them to be the best they can be in terms of their educational and life goals.

One of these groups is a group of visually impaired children who until, I guess, about ten years ago might have been educated at Jericho. I think it was around 1978 that the program at Jericho ceased to provide for children with visual impairments. This is a relatively small group of children in the total number of special education children, but there are increasing numbers of these children and increasing challenges in providing for their needs. I know, for example, that as a result of advances in medical procedures, preemie babies may very well come out of that very difficult early time in their lives with visual impairments — some of them with absolute impairments and some of them with ones that certainly do cause difficulty.

When we're looking at these children, very often we're also looking at children who have other handicaps as well, especially if they're coming out of birth traumas that complicate their early lives. It's my understanding that there are probably about 50 Braille reading children in the province and about 450 youngsters who have visual impairments that may be combined with other handicaps. There are real concerns about the kind of services available for these children.

We were talking earlier about trying to bring this discussion about special needs down to the needs of special children. I want to spend a moment now just describing a special child whose mother spent some time with me this week and has taken a very strong advocacy role for visually impaired students on behalf of AVIS, the organization that works for that group. The child we're speaking of is about nine. She is a Braille child. She has an itinerant teacher for one hour a day who teaches her to read and communicate through her Braille skills. Because of her needs, she has full-time aide available to her for the rest of the day.

But, Mr. Chairman, that aide is not able to use Braille, although she has managed to acquire a modest amount of Braille skills. So that student, during the rest of the day when she's integrated into a regular classroom, is in many instances not fully integrated and not able to participate fully in the education program taking place in her classroom.

In the listing of dollars that follow "child," the minister noted approximately $13,000 for a visually impaired child, which this young girl certainly is. That $13,000 has to provide, within her school district, a 20 percent — one hour out of five — itinerant teacher and a full-time aide. It also has to provide for the training of her teacher to assist in providing special services for that girl, and the training, too, of her special aide. It has to provide for equipment that this young lady may require: a reading machine, perhaps a typewriter, perhaps a computer, perhaps a Braille computer, perhaps a voice synthesizer — a variety of equipment to enable her to fully participate.

It doesn't take much of an imagination to say that in order for this youngster to get a good start, she probably needs more dollars. The interesting thing about this little girl is that once she gets those skills, once she becomes a proficient Braille reader, once she learns how to function within her integrated classroom, she should — and will — grow in independence, with, perhaps, less demand for special resources. We know that people can eventually manage to work

[ Page 12511 ]

because they have acquired those skills. But the important thing is that she have the resources available to her during the early days of her schooling. For this little girl that kind of resource is clearly not available.

It's really manifest in the outcomes of a lot of the visually impaired students who are now integrated into our education system. It's my understanding that approximately 80 percent of blind children getting their K to 12 education in Jericho Hill School were going on to university. That says a lot for the calibre of education they received — education from trained personnel, where there was equipment, where there were resources available to ensure that those youngsters were able to achieve at their very highest level.

The figure now — since Jericho is no more and these children are being educated within the public school system — says that only 20 percent of them are going on to university. That tells us that in many instances these children are not getting — particularly in their early days of schooling — the kind of skilled, one-on-one, highly technical education and supportive education that they need to become more independent and to be able to achieve to the maximum of their intellectual and emotional capacity.

There is a real concern on the part of this group of parents — and it simply mirrors the concern of many parents of special-needs children — that those fundamental resources are not available at critical times to provide for their children to move as completely and effectively through the system as we would all like.

It's really upsetting to hear a parent say that in spite of the work of teachers, in spite of the commitment of teachers, in spite of the support of an aide who is doing her best, this youngster is really marking time for a good deal of her school day — that there's a concern that she's falling behind, and that once she falls behind it will be the harder for her to keep up.

This is a challenged little girl, a little girl who has a lot of strikes against her, a little girl who has a very supportive mother who has herself learned Braille and can accommodate some of the lack within the system. But this real-life story of a little girl who has a very significant learning deficit by virtue of not being able to see tells us of the kinds of challenges facing school districts. They have to provide over and above the level of funding you have just acknowledged. Is the level of funding in the block for a little girl like this? That is very short-sighted. That is putting school boards in a very difficult situation. They have to decide how they can provide at least the basic service knowing it is not meeting the needs of a child like the one just described. Those are the problems faced by school districts over and over again as they struggle to meet the needs of these children.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In terms of training for the people who work with the visually impaired, it's interesting that much of the training has been stimulated by a parent organization. The ministry is getting more involved. But they have actually had to fund-raise; they've actually put on programs and advertised them in order to provide opportunities for teachers and aides to be more aware of the needs of the visually impaired child and more able to provide for those needs. Good for them. But those initiatives have to come from the ministry, in terms of funding to school districts, so that school districts can put on those programs. They should be part of a larger budget the ministry has available to provide for that specialized training on a global basis.

Perhaps the minister, having now had a concrete story — and we've been talking more in terms of global budgets — would care to comment about circumstances where boards are not, with the funding being made available, able to provide the quality and level of service so essential for a little girl like this nine-year-old who needs the kind of start that will enable her to go on to university or be well prepared for a job, whatever she should choose to be when she leaves school.

HON. S. HAGEN: Again, I'm afraid I have to say that my critic opposite is incorrect in her assessment of the programs and services we provide as a government and as a ministry. I too met with the individuals from AVIS, the Association for Visually Impaired Students, and found, again, that British Columbia is far ahead of any other province in the country. For the member for New Westminster to compare the services available at Jericho with the services that are available now.... They are totally different. There has been a 1,000 percent — or maybe a 2,000 percent — improvement.

I want to list the special programs for visually impaired students. By the way, Jericho, as you know, was primarily for deaf students. A small group of visually impaired students were shuffled off to the side, and they certainly did not have the facilities and assets now provided. There are approximately 450 visually impaired students in the province. We have the special-service level in the fiscal framework, which for the visually impaired includes a 0.5 special-teaching unit plus a 0.5 teaching assistant unit for each of the first four students in a district; plus for each of the next eight students a 0.25 special-teaching unit plus a 0,5 teacher assistant unit; plus for each of the remaining students a 0.125 special- teaching unit plus a one third teaching assistant unit. In addition, we have the Provincial Resource Centre for the Visually Impaired, where they can obtain Braille books and special equipment, such as an optigon.

There is also a special capital allowance to districts of $2,000 per student. We have the SETBC centre, Special Education Technology of B.C., which is a leader in Canada for special computer adaptation. We provide additional funds for orientation and mobility training through the CNIB. We fund that as a province. We also fund the University of British Columbia course on Braille teaching.

[4:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister makes my point. Many of these students are single students in a classroom, and I'm not quite sure what 1.25 of a teaching unit does for that child in a classroom of another 20 or 25 "normal" students. If we're looking at the needs, we're looking at full-time people very often being required.

[ Page 12512 ]

As far as the technological amount of $2,000, I gather that's a one-time amount for a student. If it's an annual amount, then I think that is probably a figure. But I understand that's not an annual amount; it's just an amount that goes with the student over his or her schooling life.

There's no question that the minister is proud of the work that's going on in the province. We are asking questions because we are concerned about making certain that if we are integrating students into the system, they are getting the services they require.

I want to move into one other area. I know that some of my colleagues are eager to get into a discussion on some issues that are of importance in their ridings or in their critic areas. I want to look for just a moment at the very severely disabled person, the person who I think the ministry calls "low-incidence, high-cost." There are not that many of these children within our school system. Because their needs are multiple and very often involve health, there's a very extensive protocol. We spent a little bit of time talking about that this morning.

It's rather interesting to look at the service-delivery model that has been developed in a protocol I received from the ministry on school support for special-needs students, which is co-signed by the Deputy Ministers of Education and Health. One of the points I've been making off and on in this discussion on special-needs is that very often the classroom teacher, the person who has to try to develop an appropriate educational program for a student, and the special assistant who works with that student — very often one-on-one or maybe a little less in terms of time — are not getting the resources and help that they need.

Nothing could demonstrate that better than this service-delivery model. I wish we could hold it up so that people could see it. If I could just have people try to visualize this — I will hold it up — there are two sectors. One relates to the school: the parent, the school, the teacher, the teaching assistant and the student.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, to interrupt you, but it's verboten to use....

MS. A. HAGEN: I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your advice, but I was being prompted by the Minister of Education. Both of us were....

At any rate, I can use my hands. One side deals with the school, another side deals with the health system, and in the middle there is a school health team. Presumably that school health team is going to make the liaison between the school district and the kid in the classroom and the health team that's supporting this youngster.

The kinds of support that we're looking at are pretty extensive, and I want to name some of them. I think most of us — if we were untrained assistants or teacher-trained to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, phys ed and all that sort of thing — would be somewhat intimidated by the challenge of providing for these health needs.

Here are some of the needs that we're talking about of children in classrooms. This is something called level 2, and these are the skills that people have to have in working with these children: assisting with ambulation, transferring and positioning — these are people in wheelchairs, who may not have the ability to use their limbs and who may be spastic; exercise programs; application of splints and braces; oral feeding when precautions are required — such as against choking; emptying, changing and cleaning urinary drainage bags; chest care; postural drainage; administration of respiratory aerosols; bladder catheterization, using clean technique; management of frequent and severe seizures; administration of medication; monitoring of medication pumps; gastrostomy care, feeding; nasogastric tube care, feeding; installation of eye drops.

Those are all services that paraprofessionals can be trained to deliver. Those are the kinds of services that we are now asking ordinary folk, who are aides in classrooms, to deliver to special-needs children in classrooms: pretty difficult and challenging training, and pretty difficult activities. It gives us some idea, just thinking about those things, of the needs of children who are now in regular classrooms in Victoria, New Westminster, Comox or Vancouver centre. The interesting thing about the model that has been devised by bureaucrats — who like to develop models that tell us how things are going to work — is that the school health team has a link to the school principal, but there's nothing to suggest that the school health team has a link to the teacher assistant or the teacher — the two people who need to have the support, training and knowledge to provide for those special-education services.

A few minutes ago the minister was talking about the issue of class size. But when you have students with these needs in a classroom — and you might have a couple or even three of them — the demands on a teacher or an assistant are great. It's really important for us to recognize that these are changes that have been mandated by government, and which must be supported with dollars, with support for teachers and teacher assistants and with genuine integration in the classroom.

I guess my point — and I want to wrap up on this discussion very soon — is that we still have a long way to go. My point is that districts are struggling with the training, education and funding needs that go along with providing for these children. More and more children — and we're going to talk about them in the course of our estimates — may not have the label "special-needs" and may not be categorized with identifiable needs but still have real needs because of their social, economic or family backgrounds. People who come here as immigrants have had traumatic experiences. Children in difficult homes come with the overburden of trying to sort out in their young lives what's going on at home and how they can learn effectively.

We've been concentrating on the special-education category. The point that I've been making throughout our discussion over the last little bit of time is that although much has been accomplished — and we don't want to fail to give credit for how much has been accomplished — there are real problems. I'd be much happier if the minister, instead of being just the booster

[ Page 12513 ]

— and I know that comes naturally to him and that he does quite well with a smile.... He's actually modelling it across the floor.

I'd be much happier if he were prepared to acknowledge some of those challenges, so that in this debate we could have some discussion about those challenges. The districts that don't have a forum here, who are not part of this discussion, unfortunately, and can't be here to state their case, which they know very well, would have acknowledged some of the trials and tribulations which they're experiencing on the ground.

A few moments ago the minister acknowledged the work of teachers — and I believe implicitly in that — and of aides. He says he has never heard from a teacher or an aide about the great challenge of providing an educational program for these students. I'm surprised. I walk down my street in New Westminster and have discussions with the women who work as aides in those programs. I meet with teachers, and they talk about the challenges. I talk to parents who are committed to integration and mainstreaming, but they talk about this being an idea in name because we have not really managed to work out a lot of the challenges that truly go with integration. We ask questions, too, that we must ask about how to provide the best education for these children. Is it best to have them in a classroom full-time? Are there other programs that we should be considering?

I would like to hear a minister of education who, instead of just saying that there's lots of money there, there are no problems and it's just a question of districts managing their money, acknowledges that a program of this magnitude is creating difficulties, that there are shortfalls, and that districts are experiencing difficulties. Such an acknowledgement would enhance his stature as a minister, because it would reflect the reality out there.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of taking the advice of an opposition member on enhancing my stature, I'd like to make a few comments. It disturbs me when I hear my opposition critic referring to only one group of kids as special. We believe — and I believe as the minister — that all kids in the system are special. Every student out there — 531,000-odd of them — are special. Every one of them has a need. Some of them have different needs, but certainly all kids are special. That's how I look at them, and that's how I expect school boards to look upon the students they are responsible for in their districts.

The comments made by the opposition critic were taken from the protocol agreement under the heading "Health," and questions on that point should be raised with the Health minister during his estimates. But I want to make the point that the guidelines in those protocol agreements are broad. Some of the details that she is talking about are worked out every day by the professionals, who sit down at the table with the parents, the teacher, the aide, and say: "Let's discuss this child's progress. What else can we do to help?" That's the basis on which the guidelines are developed. We want to give the professionals the ability to work within those guidelines and not restrict them.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to respond to a question that was really glossed over by the member for New Westminster. It was about standards and accountability. This is not something that I, as minister, want to gloss over, because I take it very seriously. I believe that the people of British Columbia take this subject very seriously and that the parents certainly take it very seriously I want to refer to some of the suggestions that came out of the Sullivan royal commission report and to some of the steps we are taking as a ministry to ensure that there are standards and accountability in the system.

We now have provincewide examinations for all grade 12 students. We have a school accreditation process through which schools must provide evidence of the performance of their students and publish plans to improve service delivery. There are new and more frequent report cards, which describe what the student is capable of doing, in addition to assigning letter grades.

[4:30]

The Ministry of Education's annual report, which has been complimented by many jurisdictions as being the best educational report they have ever seen, provides clear evidence of student and system performance. Each school board is required to prepare an annual report outlining the quality of education programs being offered in the district, generally using the ministry's guidelines as a model.

There is the development, through the ministry, of indicators of quality for B.C. students. We participate in a national assessment program, the national school achievement indicators project and literacy and numeracy testing program — which I know my colleague the former Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology wants to talk about. But I want the people of British Columbia to understand that every province in Canada except Ontario is participating in this program. Far be it from me to be political during these discussions — and I apologize to people who might see it as a political statement — but it's interesting to me that prior to the NDP being elected in Ontario, Ontario was part of this national program to test literacy and numeracy skills for students across the country. The program will allow us to start looking at national standards, something that people across the country are asking for. Ontario withdrew from the process. But I know my colleague will want to speak shortly about participating in and reporting results of international assessments.

I just talked about the very successful results of our young people in the province with regard to the Euclid math tests, which we can all be proud of. Parents should be very proud; taxpayers should be proud; we can all be proud of that.

For the first time, the School Act provides for the parent advisory councils, which guarantee the ability of parents to participate in determining their children's education programs. The School Act also provides for an appeal process for parents and students to appeal decisions of school board employees. We also have the establishment of a policy standards and communications department within the ministry, which has as a major objective the setting of program and operating

[ Page 12514 ]

standards towards which many students, the ministry and the system must strive. So yes, standards and accountability are key. They're very, very important.

I wonder now if possibly my colleague who served in the role of Advanced Education minister might want to make a few additional comments on the school achievement indicators program that this province is participating in, takes very seriously and is contributing towards.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I do appreciate the entrée afforded to me by the Minister of Education, and as the minister indicated earlier in his comments, I do want to talk about this, having sat on the Council of Ministers of Education as the Minister of Advanced Education. My colleague is now the chair of the council, and I guess our colleague from the Central Fraser Valley is now the vice-chair of the post-secondary side, because I think it goes by provinces.

A lot of credit has to go to the development of the school achievement indicators program as formulated by a group of hard-working ministers and hard-working staff of the Council of Ministers of Education (Canada). The work began some years ago. As a matter of fact, our colleague from North Peace River was involved in that in a very large way, along with one of the outstanding Education ministers of our time in Canada, Claude Ryan, from the province of Quebec.

What this school achievement indicators program was designed to do was to test numeracy and literacy skills for 13-year-olds and 15-year-olds across Canada — a pan-Canadian snapshot of all 13-year-olds so we could, as provincial jurisdictions, understand how our students were doing. The wisdom of not saying grade 8 or grade 7 but in fact all 13-year-olds was to test them at that age of maturity, recognizing that there would be many differences in their level of numeracy and literacy skills, but nevertheless to get a good snapshot of that age group and how the various provinces and jurisdictions were doing in terms of the learning outcomes in literacy and numeracy.

A very dedicated group of individuals — ministers and staff — worked on this for some time. The province of Quebec was putting together the French-language literacy program that would apply, of course, in the French-speaking schools in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia as well as Newfoundland — all the French-speaking school districts and school boards and schools. The province of Alberta had taken on the responsibility of the English-language curriculum and the English-language achievement indicators program, and they were working very diligently on this.

It's interesting in terms of Confederation and our quest for national unity that the Quebec participation in this school achievement indicators program is currently the only program the province of Quebec is involved in on a Canadian basis. They felt it was that important that they had made the obligation to their development of the French language program, and they felt it was that important to their students, the country and to the understanding of French language education that they continued on as leaders in the French language side on the literacy exams. Presumably, they're putting together the numeracy exams in the French language as well.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Everything went very well until last fall when, regrettably and tragically, the people of Ontario elected a government that really didn't have the best interests of students at heart. This is a tragic story, and you can read about it in the Globe and Mail every day. It really is sad that the NDP was elected in Ontario. Totally jerked around by the teachers' federation — that became obvious to my colleague and me and also to the member for North Peace.

When we first met with the Ontario Minister of Education, we could see.... As a matter of fact, I sat next to her and watched her read a script — obviously prepared by the teachers' federation — in presenting her argument, when she said that Ontario would not participate in the school achievement indicators program. Those of us at the table who had worked so hard on this, and the ministers who had worked before us, were shocked to hear of Ontario's position on this, because it really was a total sellout of the education system in Ontario to the teachers' federation, to big labour and to the big vested interested in education. There was absolutely no regard whatsoever for the students of Ontario or for the hard and diligent work that had been put into this school achievement indicators program.

That's what I wanted to share with this committee today. It would be interesting to hear the members opposite attempt to defend that. It would also be interesting to hear what they would do if they were government. Would they be led around by the BCTF? What is their policy? Would they withdraw from a first-class substantial Canadian program? Would they sell out the students of British Columbia the way the Ontario government has sold out the students of Ontario, and literally doom them to a second-class education? They are committed to a second-class education in Ontario.

You can shake, smile and grin and try to duck, weave and dance away from that one, but, in fact, they have committed their students to a certifiably, verifiably second-class education in Ontario. You can smile all you want, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, but it's true. Big labour dominated in Ontario at the expense of the Ontario students. It's clear....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. As my colleague said, it'll go with their second-class economy.

It's going to be interesting to hear the New Democrats opposite try to defend the despicable move by the NDP government and the way they have sold out their schoolchildren and their education system. It's going to be interesting to see if they have the courage to say they endorse the NDP policy in Ontario or if they would stay with the rest of Canada in terms of the school achievement indicators program.

[ Page 12515 ]

It's going to be interesting, as well, to understand if this Ontario position came from the B.C. transition team which visited the province in the fall of 1990. Some of the members say it didn't happen, yet the Leader of the Opposition says it did happen. I think we'll accept the word of the Leader of the Opposition. He seems like a reasonably truthful fellow most of the time — all of the time, Mr. Chairman. We have to presume that the New Democrats in British Columbia did send their transition team to Ontario to, among other things, help them ruin the economy, but more importantly for this debate, to shoot down this excellent school achievement indicators program and really commit Ontario's schoolchildren to a second-class education. It's a profound change in policy and really a despicable and very poor move. With that said, I'll take my place and expect the members opposite to talk about that indicators program and advise us whether or not they would continue that NDP Ontario policy

MS. A. HAGEN: It's interesting that the government is now talking about a policy that we're hearing about for the first time. There has been no information about this program in any of the minister's publications or statements. The public doesn't know anything about this program, and now at this stage of the game, the two ministers are taking an opportunity to talk about another jurisdiction.

I think the people of British Columbia would welcome an opportunity to know about this program and to have the details out there so they could make some judgment about it. Since this is not something this government has brought to the fore as a public policy debate at this stage of the game, I think that the government has its own act to look after. Let's recognize that the government has failed once again, in a matter of important public policy, to bring this out into the public domain. There has been no mention of it in this House until this moment. Bring it out into the public domain; let us have the documentation.

I would note, Mr. Chairman, that in the last two or three days I have made a request to get some of this material. It hasn't come from this government to me as the opposition critic; I've had to request it. They've been holding this under a barrel and not allowing it to see the light of day or to have a public debate so we, as the public, can make a decision.

At some point, if they want to provide us with all of the background for this, it would be useful to have a debate. This government has failed once again, on a matter of important public policy, to inform the public about its intentions or its ideas. Now it stands up and tries once again to be the government of another jurisdiction. I'm much more interested in them being the government of this jurisdiction. I know that my colleague from Vancouver East, who has a lot of issues related to his riding and to the very special children in his riding, has some comments and contributions to make in this debate at this time.

[4:45]

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, I can see we hit another nerve. You can always tell when we hit a nerve, because all of a sudden the members opposite wake up, and there are lots of catcalls. I think the critic from New Westminster — my old hometown, great spot; they just don't vote right yet, but they're going to change this next election, I understand — mentioned that we haven't made the school achievement indicators program part of our debate. There's no debate; we support this program as a government. The people of British Columbia want to know what you feel about it. The NDP in Ontario withdrew from the program, as my colleague said, under pressure by the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Federation of Labour.

This is a very important and significant program. The member for New Westminster said there's no information out there. Mr. Chairman, you and the members of this House should be aware that every school district in the province has received the school achievement indicators kit from the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada, of which I'm the Chair.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to send you one.

What I want to know is, and what the people of British Columbia have a right to know, is: where does the NDP stand on this issue in British Columbia? Do they disagree or agree with the position of the NDP in Ontario on withdrawing from this program?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get some clarification on whether or not the minister received a piece of correspondence about two or three weeks ago dealing with the Studies Centre in my constituency. I am very concerned about the future of that facility. As the minister knows, it's a special-needs program addressing the concerns of youngsters who have, for one reason or another, been unable to complete their studies in the conventional sense and in the conventional school system. This is not an unusual or irregular type of program. It's something that is happening more and more: the need for facilities of an outreach nature that address youngsters who have had a pretty hard time growing up in this society.

I won't attempt to describe all the types of problems, but they run the gamut from youngsters who have been neglected, to those who are from broken homes or single-parent families, where they've been sexually abused in some instances or exploited by adults in one way or another. There are large numbers of them on the streets. They make up part of the dropout rate of three out of ten youngsters across this country who are dropping out of the school system. It's a very serious problem, and I would like to get right to the point with respect to what the government's going to do.

Maybe what I should do is give you an opportunity to respond to the specific problem at the studies centre in Vancouver Centre.

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciated the letter I got from the member for Vancouver Centre. I also had a meeting with the Vancouver School Board, and they raised the issue with me. I assured them at the meeting — and you will be getting confirmation of this as an answer to your letter — that the program is being reinstituted

[ Page 12516 ]

under the provincial resource program, so your program is secure.

MR. BARNES: Maybe you could elaborate on what that means in terms of the tenure of the program. It's been in operation about ten years. Apparently it was reclassified, which meant that the Solicitor-General's ministry and the Ministry of Education did not see it as falling under their purview. I'm not sure in what category.... How is it being situated in terms of the budgeting in the future? Will there be...?

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure the member opposite that as long as there are kids in the program, the program will be funded. They have been notified of this. All they have to do is file an application with the Ministry of Education.

MR. BARNES: This having been one of the things that was on my mind, I'm quite satisfied. I don't intend to be in the debate too long at this point, but I would just like to suggest to the minister that we have heard quite a bit about the government's awareness of the problems of young people on the streets who are falling out of the system and who lack a means by which they can fit into the system of developing themselves and becoming productive young adults.

The ombudsman's report talked about some of the faults in the interministerial network of services to young people. I know that your government has suggested, at least in response to these difficulties, that it would have a child and youth secretariat of some sort. That sounds great, but judging from some of the comments made just yesterday by the Premier, it may be more philosophic than it is happening. Certainly there is a need — in fact, quite a critical need — to begin to address the situation of young people who are not really effectively being serviced and are having to fend for themselves in one way or another, which most of them are not doing very well. What I'm concerned about is a comprehensive strategy that deals with the fundamental needs of young people at risk in the system and that is under the purview of a central authority, at least to the extent that we can monitor and effectively gauge where the problems are, so that there isn't this bureaucratic problem of where we go next, how we refer, how we assess and how we achieve our objective of meeting the needs of the resource people in the community — street workers, youth workers, social workers — who need to have resources in place to address these serious concerns.

Of course, the main problem is trying to be proactive in dealing with these concerns. I guess this is really the main thing I want to suggest. We can't be operating in a crisis situation. This is what's missing. The government certainly responded. Finally, after years of prodding.... I know the former Minister of Social Services and Housing next to you, Mr. Minister, will recall this side of the House trying to raise the issue, for instance, of young children hungry in the schools. We know that these young people, through no fault of their own, are unable to learn, to comprehend and to function effectively in classes, if they're hungry The debate in those days a few years ago was whose responsibility it was, and we were attempting to lay the blame someplace, perhaps on errant parents. I think this is where we failed: we were getting into dealing with the problem or trying to suggest where the problem was or who was at fault, instead of dealing with the fact that these young people are paying a heavy price if they're not able to benefit from the time they're in a classroom.

This is a very complex problem that hasn't been understood. I believe that we're getting close to it. I believe that the government, perhaps more for political reasons than philosophic, still basically believes that there are no free lunches — and there aren't. But there has to be a system in place that effectively addresses these serious shortfalls or problems within the system. The reality is that families are breaking up; youngsters are at risk. Adults in many cases are the perpetrators of many of their problems; they themselves have come from environments of abuse, and on and on it goes.

We need to take a more positive approach to trying to at least assist the young generation of people to fulfil some of their basic needs without having to deal with these handicaps. I don't think we have anything like that right now in this province. The kinds of things that the ombudsman was talking about are really raising the level — raising the priority of services to young people from where it has been. It can't be seen as a junior jurisdictional thing; it's got to be up front. As I've said time and time again, we are talking about youth as a most important resource, but we're still treating it from a more political response.

If there's pressure on us — if the press decides to talk about youth gangs robbing or abusing or committing some heinous crime — then we go out and say we're going to do something. We had the Solicitor-General suggesting that we're going to deport some visible minority people from some of the Third World countries. You know: "We'll deport them" or "We'll hold forums and we'll talk about it."

All these things get headlines, but we don't need headlines. In fact, we don't even need kudos. We don't need to talk in terms of campaigns. What I'm saying is that I don't see an effective program in place that is dealing with the young people who are sleeping under the bridges and in vacant lots, who are going hungry and don't have an opportunity to upgrade themselves with proper education. We know that they're going to be handicapped.

What I would like the minister to do is give some indication that there is a moral resolve, in addition to the political considerations, to deal with this problem. It should be the number one issue. The stories that I read and hear day in and day out of what's happening with young people are horrifying.

I hear there was a story on "W-5" — I didn't see it — on television the other day that emphasized how youngsters are arming themselves with guns; how even the young women are beginning to fight for their fair break — equal opportunities within the gangs — because of the chauvinism within the minds of these young male gang leaders.

We talk about gangs as though they were all violent and vicious. Many of these young people are striving to survive: they're surviving in groups, they're hanging

[ Page 12517 ]

out in groups. It's like this is the only place where they feel accepted, where they feel there is a fulfilment in their developmental stages.

I'm saying that both sides of this House are going to have to come together so that we can perhaps reinstil some confidence in the political process — to begin to say that the public school system is not only going to address some of those concerns from the Sullivan report and the recommendations about where we would like to go in meeting the needs of the Year 2000 and beyond. It has to involve those young people as partners in the process.

I feel that there is something dramatic yet to happen if we are seriously going to do something about those young people. In that letter that I wrote you, I gave four case histories or profiles of young people. I'm sure that if you read those carefully you must have found it very disturbing. They're just a very small example of the kinds of things that are happening to these people.

They're going back to school; they go back and try to upgrade themselves, try to finish their grade 10 or grade 11, because they know they've got to do something. But you know, even when they finish there isn't really very much they can do. The Minister of Environment talked earlier in his statement about programs that might be available for these people in terms of some level, some degree of employment for the young people. But who really has access to such programs that the government proposes?

[5:00]

Where is the commitment in terms of recognizing...? For instance, at the end of June, after the graduation period ends and youngsters are going into the workforce for three months or so, do we know from an intelligent planning approach how many youngsters there will be and to what extent they will be employed? How many of them will be able to fit into the system? How many of them are just going to be drifting? This is what we should be planning for. We should be committed to it. We should be in a position to talk in terms of guaranteeing that there are options. It is not sufficient to say we can't afford it, because we've doubled the police force, and we've doubled all kinds of investigation machinery in order to chase out the people who are behaving in some anti-social way. We will continue to do this because it makes it sound as though we're doing something.

I would like to turn that around, on the one hand, but also to be proactive and to engage the young people for a change in some of those solutions, and to begin to commit ourselves to some of the needs that are there.

So it's with some concern that I enter the debate to talk about one little facility in my riding, the studies centre, which really only deals with half a dozen or so students at a time. But it's symbolic. It means that we are actually helping a few young people. But we should have this wherever possible, wherever available. I don't think a tax dollar could be better spent than in a constructive way that anticipates the problem and gives some options so that when a youngster comes to my office or a social worker comes to me and complains, I'm able to say, "Look, there are options, they are available," and not to have to say: "Go to the bureaucracy and see if you can find somebody responsible." This has been going on and on.

I would really like to see this dealt with in a more enthusiastic way. I just don't feel that we're communicating to young people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the sense that we are just not in touch. Am I wrong?

HON. S. HAGEN: I want to say very sincerely that I appreciate the comments of the member for Vancouver Centre. This is not the first dialogue that we've had on this subject. In my previous portfolio, when I was Minister of Advanced Education and responsible for youth, we had many discussions not only in the House but privately. I am convinced of your sincere concern for these young people, and I share your concern.

I know that in the riding that you represent it's a very real and serious issue. It's not always the easiest thing for government to react to those very specific, very real issues. But I want to tell you what we've done besides reconfirming the fact that we are providing funding for that centre.

One of the very real concerns that I have as far as our whole education system is concerned — not just dealing with those specific problems but with the whole education system — is that we have a 30 percent dropout rate. That happens to be the Canadian average, but it's extremely high for an industrialized country like Canada. Thirty percent of students who enter school through kindergarten drop out before they complete grade 12. To me, that is the most serious issue we deal with. What you're talking about is a part of that group, which has probably got a much higher rate than 30 percent, and about trying to come to grips with that and to deal with that.

One of the things we're involved with is the Stay-in School program, which is a federal program. The federal government is actually using British Columbia as a pilot project: 13 of the 75 school districts in B.C. are serving as pilots in that project. As you know, that's a fairly new project. It's designed to try to cut down on the dropout rate or to bring those people back in — in other words, to reduce the dropout rate or to bring the people who have dropped out back into the system.

We have now established a child and youth secretariat; it is operational. Because of your interest, I would be pleased to update you on a regular basis on the operation of that secretariat. It's at the assistant deputy minister level, so it's a very high level. Four ADMs from Health, Education, Social Services and Solicitor General meet regularly, and they have support staff assigned to make it function. They are working on bringing life back into the regional and local children's committees that are spread around the province. They're coordinating services and resources, and examining provincial policy on the issue of youth. Information on the secretariat has gone out to all school districts and regions of the province, so they all are aware of it.

As you know, I would love to stand up here and say to you that the problems have been solved, but I'm not able to do that. The problems are severe. They involve real people — people who live in your riding and in other ridings. We are seriously trying to deal with the challenges, and there are some big ones. Who knows

[ Page 12518 ]

what reasons are behind why these young people are in the situation they are in. But we've made a commitment to try to deal with that issue.

MS. MARZARI: I find what the minister's saying to be very interesting, as I have not stumbled across this information before. The minister's bringing new information into this chamber by the minute.

When he talked about his child and youth secretariat, did he mention Advanced Education as one of the ministries involved at the ADM level? Did he mention Labour and apprenticeship training programs when he talked about how we keep these kids from quitting school and how we attract them back? I don't believe he did. I think he talked about Social Services and Solicitor-General, agencies that deal with welfare and with jail.

I would be very interested in knowing why Advanced Education and the transfer from high school into post-secondary institutions wouldn't be a natural part of this secretariat. Why wouldn't the Ministry of Labour and the apprenticeship programs be a natural part of this secretariat? Surely one of the reasons the kids drop out of school is that they don't see any reason to stay in school. If there's not going to be a decent, logical and relevant transfer from what they're doing in high school to what they might be doing later on in life why stay?

I'd also ask the minister to comment on the fact that throughout the Sullivan commission process and then into the Year 2000, notice was given — never spelled out in detail — that a goodly amount of education, especially in the vocational end of the spectrum, would increasingly be dealt out to the private sector, and that from grade 10 on there was an increasing likelihood that kids could find in the private sector their upholstery training, their hairdresser training and training in everything that is low-tech in our society.

How can the minister reconcile that with a youth secretariat designed to bring kids back into the formal training network of the formal school system, when everything we've been told — and parents and teachers — for the last three years, through the Sullivan commission and onward, suggests that we're throwing our kids onto an open market with very little licensing, very little supervision, uncontrolled tuition and very little student financial aid available? You have basically told our kids that they might well be out there in one of 450 private schools to do their training.

In fact, word came to me that some of these private schools were relying heavily on government grants to get them off the ground — whether in the form of student loans or direct grants. None of these schools have anything to do with the public education system, nor are they properly supervised and monitored by the public education system. Does the minister want to make a few comments about those incompatible remarks that just don't seem to jibe with the patterns that have emerged over the last three years?

HON. S. HAGEN: Certainly there is a challenge in the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey's remarks. I would like to remind her that I am the Minister of Education, which means both the public and the private sector of the education spectrum — not just the public sector.

I want to correct an impression which I incorrectly gave her: that only four ADMs serve on that committee — the secretariat. In fact, if you look at the list of ministries participating in the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, all of their ADMs serve on that secretariat. So it's even better than the description I gave your colleague from Vancouver Centre.

This committee, by the way — or secretariat — has been in operation for four to five months. That information has been out in the system and in the school districts in all regions of the province. Sometimes, I know, it's hard to get information about good government out there, but we just have to keep on trying. We know you will assist us in getting the information out to groups that you deal with. I thank you in anticipation for that assistance; I'm very appreciative of it.

I just want to talk briefly about the whole Year 2000 initiative, because I think it's important for you and for all of us to appreciate that the program is directed at helping students learn to stay in school. That's one of the real thrusts behind the Year 2000 program. It's directed at helping students learn to stay in school, to continue learning and to remain in programs — not to drop out: dropping out is the easy way; remain in programs. It's a total relook at secondary schooling. The stay-in-school initiatives are enthusiastic and committed, and they are in, fact real. That is why the reform taking place is very necessary. You have to go through these changes four times a century, and it's very significant that we carry on with these improvements and with these changes to the system.

[5:15]

MS. MARZARI: I'm sure we'll be more than happy to assist you in carrying your message out, but I have a fear — and a hope — that by September you'll by carrying our message out, Mr. Minister.

The question is that when you talk about being responsible for the public and the private schools, this ministry might have a lot of work to do looking at some of these private schools that have developed. A few years ago my colleague from Vancouver Centre basically blew the whistle on one fly-by-night organization that was supposedly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education at the time. I know we're treading into the area of post-secondary here, but it seems to me that if you're talking post-grade 10, and sending kids out to the labour market or to a private school as one technique of keeping a kid in school, then there's a lot to be done inside the existing framework of the existing school system.

Putting kids out to the private market to go into costly, private programs which all our information tells us are not being properly monitored is not an option for British Columbia. It's more expensive, it's not guaranteed to give the kids anything, and there's no possible way of tracking those kids from high school into drop-out, into a private school setting. You have an obligation to those kids to make sure the public setting is appropriate for them and meets their needs. These and many other concerns are the concerns that

[ Page 12519 ]

have been coming to me from parents, teachers and kids in my constituency.

I've tried to visit each high school and elementary school over the last few months to ask them what their opinions are of the Year 2000 and what is happening now. Things have not changed much for parents and teachers in my constituency over the last few years. In fact, it's probably remarkably similar to the reactions you received from your own members. Our parents and teachers were heartened by the Sullivan commission. They felt good about what the Sullivan commission had to recommend. They had a lot of questions, most notably around this grade 10 privatization of education, but they were heartened by it. Year 2000 brought certain visions with it, including more flexible elementary education.

However, when you stand and say that you have a lot of hope for the Year 2000 still, I have to ask you why, for the board of education in Vancouver, who submitted a price tag of $11 million for transition towards the Year 2000, the ministry came up with $600,000 for the whole transition process. What kind of hope does that hold out for parents and teachers in the Vancouver area? What kind of promise does that give them that you're willing to stand behind the process of the Year 2000? I dare say, now that we watch you back-pedaling into the far distance on the Year 2000, it's an admission that, you couldn't put the money where your mouth was. I'd like the minister to comment on the discrepancy between what he says he wants, what he says he promised and what he delivered to the city of Vancouver's board of education when he threw $600,000 on the table.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm very pleased to respond to those incorrect statements. I find it interesting when the member opposite accuses me, the minister, of back-pedaling, when we have been unable to get a comment out of the NDP as to where they stand on our school achievement indicators program, when their colleagues in Ontario have withdrawn participation, probably on the advice of the transition team that went from here to Ontario. I find it really incredible that nine provinces and two territories.... Every jurisdiction in this country is participating except the NDP in Ontario, which withdrew under the orders of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Federation of Labour. Where are your guts? Stand up and be counted, and say: "Sure, we'll participate in that."

However, let me deal specifically with the Vancouver School Board — School District 39.

HON. MR. FRASER: Tell us about the Ontario NDP budget first.

HON. S. HAGEN: We could get into that. You know, when we talk about educational funding in this country, do you know which province has committed the largest investment to education funding as a percentage of its budget? British Columbia. We recognize the importance of investing in our young people's education: 27.4 percent of the budget in this province is committed to education. Do you know what it is in Ontario? It's 18.4 percent, and it has gone down for the last five years, while ours has gone up. So who is recognizing the importance of education?

Let me move now to the Vancouver School District. The point was raised that we — as if it's the government's money.... It's not the government's money; it's the taxpayers' money. It's the people of British Columbia who provide the money. Let's see how much has gone into the Vancouver School District for royal commission initiatives. Let me remind the members opposite that last year we put $140 million into Sullivan royal commission initiatives. Don't forget that the statement was made that we put in $600,000. Let me tell you what really happened: for the provincial resource program, a recommendation under Sullivan, $1,468,220; for adult English as a second language, $165,175; for languages, $198,257; for education innovation, $663,353; for computers in education, $992,005; for learning resources, $727,631; and for dual entry, for the students who entered in January, $3.5 million.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let me also add that for a district that said not that many months ago, "The government doesn't give us enough money; we are unable to do the programs," it might interest you to know that at the end of its fiscal year, the Vancouver School District ended up with a surplus of $8.2 million, which they are allowed to keep and spend on programs this year. This is a district that was all over the media saying: "We don't have enough money to deliver the programs to our students." Well, not only did they have enough money to deliver quality education programs to the students of Vancouver but by good management and fiscal responsibility they ended up with an $8.2 million surplus.

MS. MARZARI: Very fancy footwork, Mr. Minister. But I did hear you say: "Innovations, $600,000." That was my point in the first place: $600,000 for the actual implementation of project 2000.

I did hear you mention English as a second language for adults. What was the number beside that? One hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars. Did I hear English as a second language for one-third of the children in the Vancouver school system? Did I hear English as a second language as a top priority? Did I hear one of the numbers that you came across with address the effort and the dollars required to address the Vancouver urban children who need English as a second language — money that would be delivered to them above and beyond what you would have ordinarily delivered under the normal framework?

While you're at it and now that you've got a new piece of paper with new truths on it, might you read from that the special programs and initiatives which are being taken for native students in the K-to-12 system? Does the minister have those numbers?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, I do, and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present these numbers to you, because I think you're going to enjoy them.

I would encourage any members here from Vancouver to pay attention to this, because it's pretty significant. Over the last two years, funding to School District

[ Page 12520 ]

39 has increased by 17.9 percent, which is just under $45 million. That is the increase in funding to the Vancouver School Board.

Now let's look at some of the special initiatives of the Vancouver School Board such as special health services. We as a government — the taxpayers — provided School District 39 with just over $2 million. What did they spend? Their commitment for their budget this year is $1.2 million.

In the area of native education, very important. I think the members opposite know my commitment to native education. Maybe I should talk about my commitment to native education. The Vancouver School District received from the taxpayers, through the government, $6,215,000 for native education initiatives. The budget for '91-92 is $1.5 million.

The question was raised for ESL. I'd appreciate if the member would write this down. For English as a second language, in '91-92 the Vancouver School District are receiving $76,311,000. Now what have they budgeted in their budget for ESL programs? They have budgeted $18,031,000. The rest they have rolled into their regular programs.

[5:30]

I am sure the members opposite are finding these numbers very interesting. May I also disclose another interesting statistic: the pupil-teacher ratio. The board of school trustees of the city of Vancouver have elected to go to a pupil-teacher ratio of 15.62, while the provincial average is 16.12, and while only five years ago they were at 17.75. Now these are individual decisions that individual boards make, but I want the people of British Columbia to know that there is a significant cost to those kinds of initiatives. To reduce the pupil-teacher ratio by one, provincewide, has a cost well in excess of $100 million. When boards debate these decisions and take these decisions, these are very serious decisions that they're dealing with and have a horrendous cost impact on the taxpayer. I don't have to tell you — I'm sure you've read the studies just as I have — that for every study you find that states that lowering the pupil-teacher ratio by 0.1 or 0.5 or 1.0 is good for education, another study will tell you that it doesn't matter.

HON. MR. FRASER: There's no consensus on that, that's for sure.

HON. S. HAGEN: There is no consensus. However, it is significant that in a period of five years the pupil-teacher ratio in the city of Vancouver, District 39, has been reduced by over two students. They are significantly below the provincial average.

Some of these figures are very significant. Let's look at the dependent handicapped. I know you're anxious to respond, but I just want to give you a few more statistics. I want to give you these numbers. Dependent handicapped.... I'm trying to capture your attention. The board received just about $1.6 million — I'm rounding these off now, because I know you're tired of writing. What are they spending on dependent handicapped? Just under a million, so there are some very significant low-incidence, high-cost. Low-incidence, high-cost has received $7.5 million and spent $6.6 million. They have rolled the rest of the money into their general programs. Don't forget the $8.2 million surplus last year, which they get to keep. Under the old system they would have had to return that to the government. They get to keep that this year.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: They're not allowed to get behind. They're not allowed to run a deficit.

MS. MARZARI: I challenge the minister to lay these documents before the House as evidence. I would like the undertaking right now from the minister that the documents will be tabled with this committee and with this House, post-haste, immediately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, we can't table documents in committee.

MS. MARZARI: Then I would ask the minister to table these documents with the House, or make them available to members of this House, so that we can study them. What you have done, Mr. Minister.... I've sat around here for five years and listened to your government fed-bash. What you're doing right now is bashing school boards. You're bashing the Vancouver School Board. You're suggesting that somewhere along the line the Vancouver School Board is salting away dollars and misappropriating them — taking them under one vote and sliding them into another vote for their own selfish and greedy needs. Well, you tell that to my friends and my colleagues, my parents and my teachers at my son's school, as we fork out the dollars to send our kids on field trips, and fork out the dollars to make sure our kids get a decent education, and fork out the dollars to buy the computers, and have bingos and hot-dog days and potluck dinners. You tell that to the parents and teachers in Vancouver, as they try to make ends meet, and as they talk to each other about how they are going to be able to meet the needs for English-as-a-second-language children and adults.

You try to tell me that you're giving $76 million for ESL in 1991-92 and the school board is only budgeting $18 million for it. Somewhere along the line things are very badly askew. They do not reflect badly on the Vancouver School Board. They reflect very badly on your system of funding. I would ask you to please put these documents before the House, in some way, so we can take a careful look at them and make some sense out of this ridiculous discrepancy between what you say you're doing and what we have to deal with at the local level when we're trying to make sure our kids get educated.

On to another topic, very briefly. In the budget speech, you talked about making special programs and special moneys available for young women and girls.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Oh yes, if you want to respond to whether or not you're going to table these documents, I will let you have the floor.

[ Page 12521 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: I can tell we struck another tender nerve. I find that very interesting: a member representing a riding in Vancouver, where the school board gets a 17.9 percent increase in budget over two years. Mr. Chairman, $45 million dollars of taxpayers' money ends up — and this is commendable — an $8.2 million surplus even after reducing the pupil-teacher ratio by over two over a period of five years, which is tremendously costly.

I want to point out to the House — and to you, Mr. Chairman, because I know this is a question on your lips — that there is no need for me to table this document. The Vancouver budget is a public document. Anybody can walk in and have a look at it. The member for Point Grey can walk into the board office in Vancouver and ask for a copy of the budget and get it. It's not a problem. But it's always interesting when you can tell you've struck that tender nerve.

We could not get a response with regard to the national school achievement indicators program. They don't even know what it is. Can you believe that? They don't know what it is. The NDP in Ontario know what it is. Even though a previous government made a commitment, they said: "No, no, we're not going to participate, because we made a promise to the Ontario Teachers' Federation and to the Ontario Federation of Labour in the campaign that we weren't going to participate in any sort of national assessment programs. We made that commitment." I want to know what you are going to do.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Are you? I'm not finished yet, please. I'm just getting into the flow of things here. I must have struck another nerve; that's right.

For this side of the House, for this government, let there be no mistake: we agree with student assessment, we agree with accountability and we agree with credibility, because that's good for the student. The parents want it; the public of British Columbia wants it; indeed, the public of Canada wants it. I'll be very interested in your response.

MS. MARZARI: No, Mr. Minister did not strike a nerve over some federal assessment standardization procedure and cookie-stamping all of our kids. He struck a nerve over here because he was attacking the Vancouver School Board and Vancouver teachers and parents.

Interjections.

MS. MARZARI: I have perhaps struck a nerd on the other side of the House, is what I think.

I would like the minister, if he's talking about accountability and being honest and laying the books open, to present that document and table it with the House, because he's got a set of numbers that nobody else has. In fact, the numbers that we operate from on this side of the House are Ministry of Education numbers. Those numbers tell us that this year the Vancouver School Board has received a 4.4 percent increase, that last year they received an 11 percent increase, and that over two years the Vancouver School Board has received a 15 percent increase — contrary to what the minister said. On top of that, the minister should be reminded that during that time Vancouver has had a 5 percent increase in the number of students. Of that 5 percent increase, 50 percent are ESL, needing enriched language skills and special programs.

The minister is operating with a different set of books and a different set of numbers. He's dealing with different and new programs that he's been hiding under bushels. The minister has been dealing with numbers that this side of the House has not yet seen. Is the minister prepared to table them? Will he table them directly and forthwith, so that we can properly do our numbers on this side of the House and see why your numbers don't jibe with the ones we've been working with from your very own ministry?

HON. MR. FRASER: I can see why the opposition is very apprehensive. Really, if the minister has to table a public document, I guess he probably has to. All you have to do is go to your school board and talk.

I would like to end the day with a positive message about how good the education system is in this great province, and how hard we've worked at it to make it good, and how well the kids are performing in the high schools and grade schools of British Columbia, and about all the awards they're winning all over the country. Wouldn't it be nice if the province of Ontario had decided to give the kids a chance to see how they'd measure up across the land?

I'd like to talk about the teachers I see when I go around the riding of Vancouver South — soon to be Vancouver-Langara. What a good job they do, and what a great commitment they have. I'm always pleased to see them in this chamber when they can get over here, Mr. Chairman. It's terrific. I wonder where else in the world would you get a community, a nation, a province, that commits so much to people who come to this country? When you hear the kind of money we spend trying to teach immigrants who are going to make this country great the language of the land.... What a nice idea! What a sensible idea!

I'm appalled to be reminded of the fact that a difference of one pupil in the classrooms across the province costs us $100 million. That seems to me to be a very large number, Mr. Chairman. For us to spend $100 million going from 15 students in a classroom to 14, or from 16 to 15.... I wonder if it wouldn't be possible for us all to look at that number and see if it really is important.

Is it not possible to have classes that are a little larger? I've read the research on class size. I've read a lot of it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Because I'm interested in it, and I started reading it when I first got elected in 1983.

HON. MR. MESSMER: How many were in your school?

[ Page 12522 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, actually in our class I think there were over 30 at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty.

HON. MR. FRASER: Maybe 40. And in some of the schools in Vancouver, there are more than 30 students in the class. When you get teachers like we have who can really perform, what is the sense of spending hundreds of millions of dollars you don't have to spend? The kids are working at it; making the students work at their subjects is a good idea, and we should do that.

We encourage them to think and to work, and surely if we want to do anything in the school system in British Columbia, it's teaching the kids how to think and giving them a reason to think and work and a will to reason as well — to get out there and change from career to career like I did.

[5:45]

The interesting problem is that some of the opposition feel that once you're trained to do a job, you have to do that job forever. The government's idea of education is that when you learn how to do something because you've learned how to think, you can change from career to career to career. You don't have to be rammed into one job if you don't want to, and you should never be afraid to move from one career to another.

With the great education you get in this province, the good teachers we've got and the parents who are committed to their children, this is a good system and I'm proud to support it. I'm glad we have a minister like this who can give us the kind of performance we want: lead the province and the nation.

Mr. Chairman, I hate to stop when I'm in the middle a run up here, but I don't want to hurt the opposition too much. So I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind the members that the House will sit tomorrow at 14 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: At 1400 hours.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, 14 o'clock; that's railroad term, Mr. Speaker. Having said that, I wish everyone a very pleasant good evening and move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.