[ Page 12523 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

AIDS. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12523

Mrs. Boone

Oral Questions

Free trade with Mexico. Mrs. Boone –– 12524

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 12524

B.C. post-secondary institutions and global competition. Mr. Michael 12524

Bible Fellowship Housing Society Mr. Sihota –– 12525

Silviculture funding. Mr. Miller –– 12525

Presenting Petitions I –– 12526

Tabling Documents –– 12526

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12526

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Vant

Mr. Cashore

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we proceed to introductions, hon. members, I would like to take the opportunity to ask you to welcome two gentlemen to our Legislature this afternoon: the Hon. John Johnson, who is President of the Legislative Council, State Senate, of the Parliament of New South Wales, Australia; and John Evans, the Clerk of the Legislative Council. Would you welcome them, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery are three very close relatives of mine — as a matter of fact, four. My three colourful and beautiful granddaughters are Ebony Rose, Ashley Rose and Emily White, and they're accompanied by their beautiful grandmother.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two gentlemen I would like to introduce to the House: Nobunori Kanazawa, managing director of Ricoh Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; and Hachiro Okazaki, manager of the Ricoh BP campaign promotion department. Ricoh, as the House knows, is one of the world's leading companies in office automation machinery, and 1,400 Ricoh dealer couples and 150 staff will come to British Columbia to participate in the Ricoh Better Presentation tour for two weeks in mid-June. They're the first Japanese incentive group of this size to visit our province, so I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would ask this assembly to join the second member for Delta and myself today in welcoming 38 grades 5 and 6 pupils from Richardson Elementary School, along with their teacher Mrs. Gilmour and a number of adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the first member for Richmond and myself, it is indeed a pleasure to welcome 61 grade 7 students from Walter Lee Elementary School. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Bussey. I would ask the House to please make then welcome.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Would members please join me in extending a special warm welcome to Bill Robertson, a teacher from 100 Mile House who's here doing some firsthand research on our political system.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Visiting us today is a former deputy minister with this government, Mr. Jim Carter. He has visiting with him 14 Japanese businessmen and businesswomen who are management trainers with a company from Japan called Presstime. I'd ask everyone to welcome Jim back to the precincts and to welcome these 14 Japanese business people.

Ministerial Statement

AIDS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I would normally do this following question period, as is our practice, but I have an appointment at Oak Bay Lodge shortly to do with an accreditation award.

On a more serious topic, I'd like to bring to the Legislative Assembly's attention, by way of a ministerial statement, that it has been ten years today since the first cases of AIDS were discovered. Over those ten years we have seen the incidence of AIDS in our province increase to the point where it is among the top 12 causes of death in British Columbia.

In response to the advances of this still incurable disease, I think I can say that British Columbia has been a leader in developing programs to help persons with AIDS cope in a variety of ways with this devastating illness. I'd like to review briefly for the House a dozen of the most significant steps that our government has taken and is taking in our continuing efforts to deal with AIDS in British Columbia.

Firstly, we have AIDS virus antibody testing. This provincewide testing and counselling, free of charge through physicians, health units and the Vancouver ATEC clinic, began on October 7, 1985. By the end of 1989, over 100,000 tests were performed, with over 3,500 positives. About 2,500 samples are tested by the provincial lab each month.

We also have the AIDS pamphlet series, seven information pamphlets which have been produced for various segments of the public. This began in September 1985; six of these are still being used with the regular revisions. Their target audience consists of the general public, health care providers, parents, children, antibody test-takers and first aid providers.

On September 14, the province kicked off an extensive AIDS public education program. This provincewide campaign included television announcements, bus shelter posters and the mailing of two AIDS information pamphlets to every household in British Columbia; that's 1.2 million homes. In March 1988 an "AIDS in the Workplace" package was released. This consists of a manager's manual, a pamphlet for workers and a booklet for first aid providers. This package is in continuous revision and reprinting. It is popular not only provincially but throughout Canada.

There is much more that could be said, but I did want to bring to the House the fact that it has been ten years since we discovered this devastating illness. We're working. We're leading Canada in terms of our research and public information processes. With that said, I take my place.

MRS. BOONE: It has been ten years since this devastating disease became known in this world we live in. It's unfortunate that it's only in recent years this government has acknowledged the disease for the tremendous problem it is and started to take some action. It would be easy to stand here and make comments about some of the cheap shots taken by

[ Page 12524 ]

members opposite, but at this point in time I will not do that, because this is a very serious situation and one that should not be taken lightly.

[2:15]

There are lives in this province and this country that have been devastated by this disease, people who have undergone conditions that none of us could even understand and who have sat by and watched friends and family members die from this disease, and watched this government virtually sit on its hands over many years.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the future years are better, and that those working so hard to find a cure for this disease and to find some means of making lives better for those suffering from this disease will find their future much better. I also hope that the men, women and children who are suffering will find some hope in the future.

Oral Questions

FREE TRADE WITH MEXICO

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism. I'd almost forgotten your title; you've changed it so often.

Eleven months ago the former minister of trade told this House it was too early for the government to take a real stand on the proposed Mexico free trade agreement. The trilateral negotiations on this deal begin in Toronto next week. Can the minister table in the House today his government's real position on the Mexico free trade negotiations?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to send her a card so that she won't forget what the title is.

We are consulting with the various stakeholders and certainly trying to see what the effects would be of possible free trade between the United States and Mexico — the various sectors that it would impact, how it would impact and how we could mitigate that.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the minister. You put out a discussion paper in January and asked for a very short six-week period for input. You have not put out an official position paper on that yet. Will you table in this Legislature a written position from this government on the free trade deal with Mexico?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Although she's been here for four and a half years, the member opposite obviously doesn't realize that we don't discuss future policy.

MRS. BOONE: Have you decided to present to this Legislature a written paper stating your position on free trade with Mexico prior to the negotiations that take place in one week's time? I think the people of this province have a right to know what the position of this government is on something that is going to affect jobs in many sectors of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question affects future policy. The minister can proceed to answer if he so desires.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment. I'm very pleased to see that they are concerned about this whole issue. Certainly in the fullness of time it will come to this House.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday at an emergency meeting Richmond council unanimously passed a bylaw prohibiting the dumping of industrial-grade contaminated soil from the Expo site in the municipality. Since the Premier is well versed in municipal affairs, I am directing my question to her in the absence of the minister. Has her government decided to honour Richmond council's decision to prohibit the dumping of industrial-grade contaminated soils in that municipality?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I want to thank the member for the question. I would be pleased to take it on notice for the minister and get back to you with a response.

MR. CASHORE: Since the government ultimately has the power to override this bylaw, has the Premier decided that her government will not use this power to overturn the decision of the Richmond council?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The subject matter has been taken on notice, and we'll get back to the member.

B.C. POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS
AND GLOBAL COMPETITION

MR. MICHAEL: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. In view of the comments by Prof. Alan Rugman of the University of Toronto that Canadian universities are failing to prepare students for the new competitive challenges of the global economy, will the minister convene a conference of key educators and business and technological experts to assess and report on the priorities of our post-secondary institutions and their adequacy in preparing British Columbians for the rapidly changing job market?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Like the previous question asked, this concerns future policy. If the minister wishes to respond, he can.

HON. MR. DUECK: I think a conference might serve a good purpose, but I think it has to be done in light of activities already ongoing in this area. For example, the ministry currently maintains an ongoing dialogue with key educators, business leaders and technological experts on a variety of subjects. The people involved, if the House would like to know....

MR. ROSE: Point of order. Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to make any point of order during

[ Page 12525 ]

question period. I'm not alone in that, and we don't usually do it. But clearly the question, in my opinion — and it's no reflection on the Chair — is one of future policy. It was clearly out of order as was the case of yesterday when we had three planted questions. All we have today is one — up to now. I would hope there's no more of this, because it was definitely future policy, definitely a representation and definitely out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just point out to the hon. opposition House Leader that, as I'm sure he's aware, although it is a matter of future policy and normally would not be responded to — and it's not necessary to respond to it and not a normal thing to respond to it — if the minister so desires he may respond.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like to respond. Since it's future policy, I will gladly answer it some other time.

BIBLE FELLOWSHIP HOUSING SOCIETY

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. Was it the Premier's intention, when introducing legislation providing tax-free status to the Bible Fellowship Housing Society under the Pacific Bible College act, to provide tax-free status to the entire 53-acre site?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The subject matter falls under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, and I suggest that the question would be better put there.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Yesterday the minister indicated that he has a practice of contacting municipalities when projects may be "impeded." What circumstances existed with respect to this matter which would lead him to conclude that there were impediments to the development?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: May I begin by making it clear that I lobby a lot of people when it comes to housing. I lobby for the poor that they will have decent housing; I lobby for the handicapped that they may have suitable accommodation; I lobby for young couples that they may have the opportunity to own their own home; I lobby for children and families that they will have proper accommodation; and finally, I lobby vigorously for seniors that they may have comfort in their senior years.

I want to make it very clear what I do not do. I do not lobby for my own interests; I do not lobby for the interests of a friend of mine or anyone I know; I do not lobby for any political purposes. I lobby simple to meet the needs of the needy in this province.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the same minister. In this case you lobbied on behalf of a friend. I want to ask the minister again...

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: ... if he may answer the question this time. You have indicated that it is your practice to phone municipalities when there are impediments to these types of projects. What circumstances, with respect to this project, led you to believe that there were impediments?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member opposite says that I lobbied for a friend. In the press yesterday he was quoted as having said that I lobbied for a constituent. As far as I know, the individual he's referring to is neither a constituent nor a personal friend. As a matter of fact, if my recollection is correct, I have met the individual once in my lifetime. That was about one year ago, when my ministry staff took me to visit different low-cost housing accommodations to show some of the best being developed in the province — and his happened to be one of them. Since that time — I want to make it very clear — I have not met this person; I have not phoned this person; I have had no contact with this person at all.

Again, I go back to my previous statement that there's a need for housing for people in British Columbia, and municipalities have to cooperate with us.

SILVICULTURE FUNDING

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Forests. Would the minister confirm that the silviculture budget of his ministry will be underspent by $16 million this year because of the lateness in bringing in this year's budget?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this member asked that question of me about three or four times last week. He asked the question on Friday during the mini-estimates while I was away, and I don't think it could have been put more clearly to him. It's unfortunate that he only has one question to ask. When they run out on the other side, they go to him and he repeats the same question. I would urge him to come up with a new question or, if he's willing, to maybe let me ask him a question on where he stands on some of the forestry practices in some of the areas that are contentious. Maybe he should explain to the people where he and his party stand when it comes to the forest industry and to preserving the environment, which we on this side of the House are endeavouring to do.

MR. MILLER: Further to the minister, who's had so much advance notice but, I notice, didn't answer the question: would the minister confirm that that $16 million could have been used right now to treat approximately 6,700 hectares of forest land, plant 15 million seedlings and create 264 jobs, particularly in forest-dependent communities? That money could have been at work right now, but for the incompetence of your government in bringing in a late budget.

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member forgets — I guess conveniently — the answer that he was given last week on the subject. Just on one item

[ Page 12526 ]

alone, when we were unable to conclude a satisfactory FRDA II with the federal government, we put more money into the program than the amount he's questioning in order to keep it going, whether or not we had an agreement, to provide jobs, to plant trees and to keep our commitment to the forest. The $16 million that he is so worried about will be invested in the forests of British Columbia. We have committed to $1.4 billion over the next five years, and it will be invested. If, for whatever reason, we cannot hire staff and get them trained soon enough, and we cannot spend $16 million of it this year, the province need not worry. As long as this government is in power, that $1.4 billion will be invested.

But the members opposite refuse to state their policy on what they would do with such a magnificent program and what they would do in some of the areas of this province that are dependent on forest jobs. We don't hear them stating what their policy is in the forest; all we hear is criticism.

MR. MILLER: We are all familiar with the government's promises. My questions are aimed at trying to get at the facts. Why did you break those promises, and why isn't that $16 million...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member couldn't have heard me. I said that the bell ended question period.

Presenting Petitions

MR. JONES: I rise to present a petition today This petition is signed by a majority of residents in a neighbourhood in North Burnaby whose quality of life will be negatively impacted by a highway project — the Hastings-Gaglardi connector part of the Barnet-Hastings people-mover project.

I request leave to submit this petition to the table for approval.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the five-year forest and range resource program for 1991 to 1996.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

MS. A. HAGEN: Several times yesterday afternoon the Minister of Education stated that school boards were not spending money allocated by his government on special-needs students. Would the minister like to repeat and confirm his statement at this time regarding the Vancouver School Board — namely, that the provincial government gives the Vancouver School Board $76.3 million for English as a second language and that the board budgets $18 million for those students? I want to be sure the minister has heard the question. I believe he has.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, the amount provided by the province for ESL to the Vancouver School District is $76,311,736. The amount that the Vancouver School District has as a specific line budget for ESL is $18,031,531.

MS. A. HAGEN: I believe the statements of the Minister of Education seem calculated to mislead the public. I'm going to make some comments at this stage of the game that I think will make it possible for the public to decide whether the minister has in fact been deliberately leading people away from the truth in respect of the budgeting for....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must remind you that using the terms that you did a while ago, and getting back to them, is unparliamentary. I would suggest that you phrase your question in a different manner.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me repeat that I believe his statements seem calculated to mislead the public.

HON. S. HAGEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the member for New Westminster to withdraw the previous statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for New Westminster please withdraw the statements made.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me withdraw that particular comment, and note that I believe the statements of the minister have the effect of misleading the public. Id like to provide some information that will enable the public to make its own judgment about how accurately and well the minister has presented information.

I would note that the minister is well supported by his ministry in the statements he made. As the Education critic, I am attempting to ensure that we have a frank, honest and candid debate on the public's concerns about education. It has always been — as I believe people will attest to — my goal to ensure that this debate is constructive and that it supports our mutual goal with respect to children's education. So I am profoundly concerned when there are matters conveyed and portrayed by the minister that do not help in the process of people understanding the facts of the case.

Let me now review the information the minister has repeated today — namely, that in its funding, the ministry provides $76 million, in round figures, for English as a second language for students in Vancouver. What the minister failed to say is that the ministry allocates funding based on a total education program for those children. This is the funding formula the government uses. What the school board does is provide an educational program for each of those English-as-a-second-language students. It also allocates dollars for special services to assist young people in acquiring the language skills they need; that figure is

[ Page 12527 ]

$18 million. That figure is a special services budget that is quite separate from the educational program budget the minister has used.

Let me state that both figures are correct, but they are not comparable. One figure is the figure the ministry uses to determine the funding that will go to the Vancouver School Board for the 21,000 students who attend school in Vancouver. The second figure — the $18 million — is the special service budget of the Vancouver School Board: approximately $800 per child to assist them in acquiring language skills so they can get on with their education in the Vancouver school system.

I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to clarify his statement so that we can know both statements are correct but that they are not comparable; that we are not comparing what the schools have available for the total education program of those students and the many special services provided in the Vancouver School District for those students.

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, the member opposite knows well that I never said the figures were comparable. However, they are correct. If you recall back to your discussions and questions of yesterday, this whole issue came up on whether or not the government was providing proper and adequate funding to the school district for special education. I listed the amounts of money paid to school districts and the amounts that they line-budgeted for those items. If you recall, in all cases the amounts provided by government were greater than the amounts the school boards were budgeting. That's where the issue came up.

Your insinuation is quite incorrect, and you know it's quite incorrect. You're trying to make something out of something that really isn't there. However, the figures are correct. At no time did I insinuate that this was all the Vancouver School Board.... It's interesting that you're only dealing with Vancouver when there are 75 school districts in the province. However, at no time did I insinuate that that was all that was being spent on ESL. Anybody in your position knows money is also being spent in regular classes when these children are in regular classes for ESL.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm a great believer that the public is the final decision-maker about the integrity of statements, and I would like to read into the record the statement that the minister made yesterday and leave it to the public to decide. The minister said yesterday: "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 is receiving" — and this is intended to be from the government — "$76, 311,000. Now what have they budgeted in their budget for ESL programs? They have budgeted $18,031,000." I believe that the case rests very well in terms of the implication, if not the statement, that the minister intended there be a comparison which would suggest that the Vancouver School Board was not spending the money allocated by the government on ESL programs. He has just acknowledged that, in fact, the figures are not comparable — but he never said that yesterday.

Let's look at what the Vancouver School Board is spending on ESL children. I can do this by straight arithmetic. There are 21,000 ESL students in Vancouver, and the cost per child is slightly in excess of $5,800. Multiply that out, and it's $123,207,000 for regular programs for ESL children in Vancouver — well in excess of the money that the minister spoke about. In addition to those regular programs, the board provides, as the minister has allocated, $800 per student to assist with those programs.

Let me note further that last year the ministry audited the ESL program in Vancouver. A government auditor went in, because there had been a lot of new students and there were many needs within the district. The government auditor matched dollar for dollar, 100 percent, the resources coming from government and the programs available for those students.

[2:45]

Mr. Chairman, it is not acceptable on this side of the House, when the minister — who has briefing books this thick and figures coming out of page after page — uses those figures to make suggestions that would leave people thinking that boards are not spending the dollars that this government provides for education. It is not acceptable to me or my colleagues, and I don't believe, Mr. Minister, that it's acceptable to your colleagues. It certainly wouldn't have been acceptable to your predecessor that such a statement would have been made. He would have argued vigorously in support of education, but he would not, by virtue of the juxtaposition of those figures, have left a false impression. I believe that the public will see quite clearly that you intended to leave a false impression.

I've used this example because it is the most dramatic of a number of examples yesterday. I want to conclude my comments about this incident by noting that yesterday the minister peppered his comments with references suggesting that boards are in some way not using the dollars available to them for the best interests and the best programs they can provide for children in their district. I happen to believe that that minister and that government has a partner in education, and that partner is each school board in this province. And each school board is not, as I've noted in a recent speech, a middle manager. Each school board is a creative, dynamic, elected group of people who have the job of trying to provide the students in their districts with the best quality education possible. It is important for this minister not to undermine the credibility and the integrity of those boards, as this minister did yesterday.

I want to proceed on some matters relating to funding. We're into a new system of funding within our province. It's a system that requires a great deal of predictability, stability and integrity. Over the last few days we've had some demonstration that the decisions of government on major policy issues have more to do with the whims or the positions of ministers. Dual entry was strongly supported by a Minister of Education who stepped down expecting an election, and who has now resigned on principle because he was very

[ Page 12528 ]

unhappy about a decision to cancel dual entry. This minister was making a personal decision about education.

There are some messages there about the stability and predictability of education programs that I don't think are lost to the public. That stability and predictability was promised with the block funding system. Indeed, if there was anything in the recommendations of the royal commission, it was that the block funding system they recommended should be stable and predictable and that the fiscal framework should not be used to manipulate those figures.

If we have some people watching, I want them to know that what I'm going to talk about for a moment is not always easy to follow, but I'm going to try to make it as simple as I can. I'll go back to some of my teaching time, which is a long time ago. I know that it's a complex issue and that sometimes we have a hard job figuring out what's happening in education finance. This is why honesty, integrity and freedom of information are so important.

A couple of years ago the government introduced block funding. It said: "We will put into the block the sum of all of the budgets of every school board in the province at this particular time. Whatever the source of that funding was, from local taxation or from government, we'll put it all together and that will be the block." Implicit in this commitment was that this block, which was made up of government decisions and local taxpayers' decisions, would remain the basis for future funding.

Many people interested in education and concerned about the education of their kids are hearing that school districts are having difficulty managing and that the block funding system is not working. What's not working is the way this government is managing the block funding system. What they have done is to take the block from each district. Let's take Cowichan, from where my colleague from Nanaimo is going to be the candidate in Cowichan-Malahat in the next election, or Nanaimo, or Atlin or Boundary-Similkameen or Vancouver or Burnaby North — looking at colleagues around. They've taken that block, and they have said that they are going to adjust that block to bring everybody down toward an average and more slowly up toward an average.

The problem with that is the speed with which they have been doing those changes. If you can imagine that three years ago — let's say in Lake Cowichan — there was a block made up of decisions that local trustees and the government had taken to fund that school system. Both those sums of money were in the block. So very important decisions were taken about the quality of education in Cowichan. That block is taken and it becomes the base, but each year, if that block happens to be any different from the block in other districts, government has taken away a good chunk of that difference — 70 percent of the difference over the last two years. The result is that boards are trying to fund the same level of services with significantly reduced dollars in constant dollars.

If that was the government's intention, that should have been announced when the block funding was announced. But it wasn't. The block was seen to be the base from which funding would flow. The impact of this on the system — the adjustments that have been required — are very extensive, and in many districts they have caused great difficulty.

The minister has rightly said that there is more money in education, but the distribution of that money to boards across the province is creating real, demonstrable hardships that are entirely tied to the ministry's policies.

I believe that what we should have had in this move to a new system is one that allowed for some of the accommodation that needs to take place over time. It may be in fact that we should all be seeing funding per student moving more toward the middle, but if you do that so fast, boards can't accommodate without major disruption.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note your own district, Abbotsford, which has one of the lowest fundings per pupil in the province, based on the fact that its boards in the past have not gone to the taxpayers for additional moneys. The amount of additional dollars flowing into your district is painfully, dribblingly slow, and the result is that students are dealing with education programs being delivered for a cost that is $400 or $500 less per student than in neighbouring districts. We have on the one hand a real squeeze on districts whose funding is over an average, and we have a really slow adjustment for the members from Langley, the member from Abbotsford and members from Surrey.

The block funding system is basically sound, I believe, but the distribution system used by this minister and this government has created severe dislocations in many districts of the province. I don't mean to name them. The minister well knows them. The people of the province know them because they are front-page stories in their districts. Once again, the minister is not providing the information so that people understand the basis for that and that it is a deliberate decision of the government to squeeze those boards and make it difficult for them to maintain services and programs.

That's the reason we have the problems we have in certain school districts and not all school districts, Mr. Chairman. It is a reason that goes against the royal commission and that again makes me question whether this government, which has pretended that it is in support of the initiatives of the royal commission and demonstrated in many instances that it is moving in a direction of change.... I question whether that commitment is deeper than a changing minister and deeper than a government which is not being truthful and up front about the means by which it is making it very difficult for certain school districts to maintain the quality of educational services.

One last point on this issue. It is interesting that the decisions of local taxpayers to fund a certain quality of education have in fact been confounded and avoided by a government that is taking central control of funding. Boards have no means of making any decisions about enriching their programs without going to a referendum on an annual basis to seek the funds. At the time same, the dollars that those boards decided

[ Page 12529 ]

with their taxpayers to make available for programs in various districts like Creston, Vernon, Cowichan or Vancouver are now being distributed to other boards. The central government has co-opted the dollars that those taxpayers decided in their own wisdom they wanted to have available for their districts, and it is distributing them to other districts in the province.

I don't believe that when the block funding system went into place anybody believed that that was the intent of the system. It certainly wasn't the intent indicated by Sullivan and the other people who worked on the royal commission. I believe that these are the sources of some of the problems that certain districts are having. These are the issues that need to be addressed so that we can indeed ensure that boards are able to maintain the quality of service within their districts. The minister may want to comment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.

HON. S. HAGEN: The comments of the member for New Westminster are providing a tremendous education for the minister. I wish that she would continue.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am prepared at this time to have the minister comment. I would just like to note to the minister and to the Chairman that I do then need to be out of the chamber for about half an hour. I will be back after that time, and a number of my colleagues will continue with issues that are important to them in their concerns about education.

HON. S. HAGEN: I do hope that the member for New Westminster will be able to stay and listen to my reply. It's going to be very important for her, because I think, notwithstanding the fact that she used to be a teacher — and probably a fair teacher; a fairly good teacher — that again, as was so often the case yesterday, she's incorrect. It's really very difficult for me to keep doing this to the member for New Westminster, because I'm not — please believe me — trying to embarrass her and to put her down. But I think it's very important that the record be set straight.

I want to talk about equalization. The member for New Westminster is insinuating that equalization is not a good thing to do; she also insinuated that it was something that came up after the block announcement. I want to remind the member for New Westminster that equalization was announced at the same time as block funding.

I wish that she would listen to this, because it's very important for her to understand it. Equalization was announced at the same time as block funding. The reason it was announced was that there was a recognition that in some districts of the province it was easier to raise supplementary funds. It was easier to go to the taxpayer in some areas, because of the makeup of the community, to get those extra dollars. The purpose of block funding is to ensure that children and students throughout the province will all have equal opportunity to get the best quality education, and that's fair and important. But it's very significant, and it's important that you understand that.

[3:00]

The next criticism was that the distribution system — the fiscal framework — was some connived formula devised by ministry staff, and that there was some personal implication here. I can assure the member and all members that the distribution system that we use was recommended by the royal commission. It came out of the royal commission.

The member said that she was sure this wasn't from the royal commission. It, in fact, was from the royal commission. The distribution system — and it is important for you to listen to this — is endorsed by the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the superintendents' association and the secretary-treasurers' association. It's very important for her to understand that.

The fiscal framework review committee is made up of four superintendents and four secretary-treasurers appointed not by us but by their associations, and they review the recommended changes to the fiscal framework and to the distribution of the block on an annual basis. Again the member for New Westminster is either not clear on how the fiscal framework works or is not willing to admit that equalization is important. It's important to me, as the minister, that students in Fort St. John, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Williams Lake, the Okanagan, the Kootenays, Vancouver, Victoria, Courtenay, Campbell River or Langley have the same and equal opportunities for a first-class education. That's what my job is, and that's what this government is providing.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me start off by saying that quite often when we're in this debate, members, of course, come in and out of the House. I was out of the House for most of the day yesterday, so some of those issues...

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: "I'm glad the minister hasn't noticed," he says.

...that I want to flag may have been addressed in some way in the past. If that's the case, I'm sure the minister will advise me of that, and if it hasn't been, I'm sure I will get thorough and concrete answers from the minister.

I want to start by asking the minister about an announcement he made earlier this year with respect to additional moneys being made available with respect to capital projects and requirements for school districts around British Columbia. Is there a timetable in place as to when one can expect to hear from the ministry regarding announcements governing that additional money?

HON. S. HAGEN: That is a very good question. I assume that you're asking that on the basis of your MLA duties, and I think that that's very appropriate, obviously.

[ Page 12530 ]

This year we have tried to move the capital announcements up a little earlier than before. I know that you may think there's another reason for that, but I want to tell you my reason. I believe that we should start announcing the capital programs as early as we can, in April, May or June. Actually, I guess we maybe did do one in April. I would like to do them in April, but we are doing them in May and June, because in many areas of the province, the construction season is not as long as it is in the Victoria or Vancouver areas. So that's why I'm trying to get the announcements made.

The announcements are presently being made district by district, as you may know, and they will continue to be made over a period of probably the next month. But I would think that within the month, all the districts will be announced.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd like leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's my pleasure today, on behalf of the first member for Dewdney and myself, to welcome about 50 grade 7 students visiting us from the Mission community, along with Mr. Huth, a teacher from Fraserview Elementary School, Mr. Dunham, a teacher from Ferndale Elementary School, and some adults who are escorting. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I agree with the minister that it always makes sense to make the announcements as early as possible. He's right. It makes it very difficult to plan for construction. I know he didn't say it, but I would agree with him that none of these announcements have anything to do with the fact that we will definitely be into an election some time between now and next fall.

You have indicated that the announcements have been made in some instances, and others are anticipated over the course of the next month. Will the minister confirm that announcements with respect to the funding for capital projects in the greater Victoria area will be made some time after next Monday, June 10?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not sure of the significance of June 10, except that it's next Monday. But, yes, that's the case.

MR. SIHOTA: The question I'm trying to ask is: has the schedule actually been set? Does the minister know with some certainty as to when the announcements will be made with respect to the greater Victoria area?

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I don't have that schedule here, and I'm not even sure if there is a schedule. I know "guarantee" is a strong word to use, but I can assure the member that most announcements will be made in the next month.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll put my wager on June 11. How is that?

I want to ask the minister if he could advise the House as to what decisions have been made by the ministry with respect to capital allocations — and I'm not talking about new money; I'm talking about pre-existing money, if I can put it that way — to Esquimalt high school and the Lampson Street school.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm afraid I can't answer that question. But the question with regard to capital announcements will be answered when the announcements are made in the various districts.

MR. SIHOTA: Like I said, Mr. Minister, I will assure you that June 11 will be the date for the greater Victoria area, or at least for some of the announcements for the greater Victoria area. And I will assure you that you won't even invite me to the press conference that you will be having. But that's neither here nor there. It's not absolutely essential that I be there.

The reason I want to raise this issue of capital requirements.... I think it's fairly obvious that there are pressing needs in my riding with respect to Esquimalt high school, Lampson Street school and View Royal Elementary and the site acquisition there. In January of this year the ministry confirmed that there would be money set aside for View Royal Elementary. The necessary improvements to Lampson Street school were announced last year, in terms of the planning moneys. I want to get assurance from the minister as to what other construction moneys would be forthcoming with respect to those two projects this year.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sure the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew appreciates that in my position as the Minister of Education, it would be common courtesy for me to talk to the school board — I'm not sure whether he agrees with me on this — even before I let the MLA know. But because of the process we use, the board makes the requests, the ministry addresses the requests and adjudicates them, and then we make the announcement.

MR. SIHOTA: As I understand the process, you made some announcements in January in terms of preliminary approvals. In that regard, I know that the View Royal elementary site acquisition was one announcement the ministry made. Is there any reason to believe that will not — I see staff is discussing with the minister — fall within the coverage for capital requirements?

HON. S. HAGEN: We don't announce projects on that basis. We give the board a list which shows what category they've placed the project in and what category the ministry has placed the project in. That should not be taken as an announcement.

[ Page 12531 ]

MR. SIHOTA: No, I don't mean to take it as an announcement. I would expect that in normal practice there's not much deviation from that. You indicate what priority you accord it, and the school board indicates what priority it accords it. You can then determine what may well get funded. Generally speaking, the minister would agree with me that there's very little deviation from the list. Is that basically how it works?

HON. S. HAGEN: I think it's a bit dangerous to make a general statement like that because, in fact, there may be some deviation.

At that time of the year, we are not aware of the funding envelope we will receive from Treasury Board. At my press conference earlier this year when I dealt with the entire envelope, which is $650 million as you know, I made a comment that the high priority requests from around the province totalled in excess of that, which it does every year.

This year I think the high priority requests totalled something like $687 million, and we were able to get $650 million out of Treasury Board. I know that our budget amount last year was $350 million, and I think the high priorities totalled over $500 million. So the high priorities that are discussed on the list with the board are not — and it should not be assumed that they will be — automatically funded.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not assuming that they will automatically be funded. Generally speaking, if one takes a look at the practice that has occurred over the past few years — with minor deviations; only minor at that — basically what comes out in January is what is ultimately approved when you get your envelope, depending on the size of the envelope. There may be some changes with respect to some of the projects in terms of timing and whether or not they can proceed at that time or within that year.

But generally speaking, that's the way it has worked, and I don't think there are any changes anticipated from that practice this year. If I am wrong, I'm sure the minister will correct me. But with respect to some of the projects announced in that regard this year, I hope there will not be any deviation as it relates to the west side of the Greater Victoria School District. I make that case to the minister right now. I'm sure he will agree with me that there won't be much in the area of changes. If there are, I'm sure he will hear the wrath not only in my comments, but from the school board and from the parents as well.

The reason I raise this is that the minister must understand that there are some pressing needs for capital improvements in areas in my riding, particularly as they relate to areas such as Esquimalt Senior Secondary.

[3:15]

Recently the parents in the area, together with local officials, the school board and municipal officials, took a tour of the site there. I want to read to the minister very quickly one of the reports that came that sort of captures what was said in all of the other reports. There's a letter written to me by a constituent of mine which, interestingly enough, was written back on April 26. She was indicating to me yesterday when I was talking to her on the phone that she's yet to receive a reply from the minister. There may be a message there to the minister that you're a little bit slow in responding to your correspondence.

Here's what the letter says with respect to the state of Esquimalt Senior Secondary.

"All of the science labs are inadequate to the extent that significant parts of the lab component of the curriculum are not offered. The library was built to service 500 to 600 students, not 900. The lack of books and computers also restricts its use. The cafeteria accommodates 40 to 50 students, so the rest sit on the floor in the halls to eat. Study periods for students take place in the hallways. Change rooms underneath the gymnasium are unsafe due to their isolated location and proximity to the outside. Three math classes take place in one woodworking shop while saws, hammers and power tools in another woodworking shop across the hall make it almost impossible for them to hear, let alone think. Toilet facilities are inadequate both for staff and for the student population. The medical room consists of two cots in the photocopying storage room in the administration office; there is no washroom. The staff room was built for 32, but it's now being used by a staff of 70, many of whom have no permanent desk or locker and must carry their student records and supplies around with them in a cardboard box.

"We hope this letter will prompt more than a formal letter of response from the ministry, and like many other Esquimalt parents feel desperate at the prospects of our child and for the future of our municipality, who rely on these children for years to come. We will pay for education now or welfare later. One cannot help but feel that blue-collar workers are all that's expected to emanate from Esquimalt by the Greater Victoria School District. If that is the case, it explains the inequity in their funding to the western sector schools.

"My vote in the upcoming election will go to those who not only promise but deliver what we the constituents want in the way of quality education for our children."

Does the minister find that description of the state of the facilities at Esquimalt Senior Secondary to be satisfactory?

HON. S. HAGEN: I find it a little troublesome — and a little disappointing I might say — that now that the capital budget has been set and now that we are ready to make the announcements, school board by school board around the province, this is the first time that I've heard personally from the MLA from Esquimalt with regard to his priorities for his school. This is the first that you have talked to me personally and said: "These are my priorities."

However, the list has been made. I want to go back to the member's comments where he was trying to lead me into saying that there would be no deviations. I cannot agree with that, nor can I guarantee that. The member will have to wait until the announcement is made to see which schools and which projects are included on the list for funding in his area.

With regard to the specifics of the letter that he was reading from, I'm not able to comment on those because I have not yet had an opportunity to visit

[ Page 12532 ]

Esquimalt school. However, I really appreciated the last paragraph in the letter. I can assure the writer of the letter that if she votes for the Social Credit Party, she will be voting for the party that delivers, because $650 million capital this year is the largest capital allocation ever made to schools in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member, I should indicate that the discussions that have occurred over the last little while have become a private debate rather than a debate for the House. I would suggest that all members recognize the Chair in the debate and that all debate zeros in on vote 21.

MR. SIHOTA: It does, and the minister knows that as well. People don't want rhetoric; they want action. Let me also say this to the minister: this is not the first occasion the issue has been raised with you by myself. Albeit, it's the first time it's been raised on the floor of the Legislature, because it's the first opportunity we've had to debate Education in the House. I wouldn't want people to be misled in that regard.

The minister should know this letter was directed to his attention on April 26, 1991. There's been no reply. A copy of my letter of May 10, 1991 and reply was forwarded to him. There's been no reply for me. I don't have my entire correspondence file here, but I will bring to the minister's attention that there was a letter written by myself to your predecessor on November 5, 1990, asking for confirmation of capital allocations for Esquimalt Senior Secondary School funding and the Lampson Street school. If it would satisfy the minister, I would be happy to table that letter. I would be happy to go back to March 28, 1990, where I asked a similar question of his predecessor and....

HON. S. HAGEN: What year was that?

MR. SIHOTA: March 28, 1990. I've indicated to the minister that there have been letters. In fact, I could pull my correspondence file and go back from 1987 through to this year, when these requests have come for the minister. When he came into this House, I assumed the minister would have familiarized himself with the problems at Esquimalt Senior Secondary School. He would have been briefed on them, knowing that I was going to speak on them. If he had done either or had read Hansard for the last few years, he would have realized that I've been asking the government for several years now to take action with respect to these problems.

Mr. Minister, I take considerable umbrage with your comment that this is the first you've heard of them. It would cause great grief to all of the parents from Esquimalt who have written to you. In fact, I have a copy of a letter here from January 23, 1991, another letter of April 11, 1991, one of February 1, 1991, written to the minister, again raising all of these issues, another one on January 23, 1991, and another one on December 7, 1990.

You've received more than your share of letters with respect to this matter. You should be more informed about it than you suggest you are. If you wish to visit Esquimalt Senior Secondary School, go ahead and do that. I'd be happy to take you down there anytime after these estimates get finished. We'll hop in my car, we'll go down there and take a look at it.

HON. S. HAGEN: Let's do it this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA: I can't guarantee that your estimates will be finished this afternoon, nor should they be.

My question to the minister was this.... I have described the state of the schools in the area, and I would have expected him to say that he finds a state of that type and those conditions to be unacceptable to him as a minister and to admit it is those problems that ought to be attended to by his ministry as a priority. Given the fact there are funding requests for Esquimalt Senior Secondary School in that regard, then clearly the ministry should respond to remedying the situation, which really, quite frankly, is deplorable and unacceptable.

The school board has asked for funding for several years, and I hope the ministry, in its allocations this year, will see fit to provide the funding. I look forward to the announcement next week in that regard.

I would also like to indicate to the minister that my area — the Greater Victoria School District — has substantial and significant growth. There are problems with overcrowding in the entire region. For example, we have a problem at Rockheights Elementary, which has a number of portables and an annex. The school is now being used by 560 students. It has a library built to accommodate significantly less than that. In fact, it was designed to accommodate about 250 students.

The Rockheights annex at Lampson Street school has two unplumbed portable classes, no library and no gymnasium. It is has a current enrolment of 130 students. Toilet facilities for these young children are isolated in the basement of the annex. I think that the minister would find those kinds of conditions unacceptable.

Could the minister tell the House first of all whether his ministry finds that to be satisfactory, and secondly whether it has any allocations this year designed to attend to that problem of portables?

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to correct the member from Esquimalt on his statement that greater Victoria has a growing school district. The enrolment in 1989-90 was 22,289; in 1990-91 it declined to 22,157; this year they have estimated a growth to 22,764 students. Because of that pattern of either static population or a slight drop, the Greater Victoria School Board has been reticent to concentrate much on capital and therefore have not in past years brought in many requests for capital. They have brought in requests that will be addressed in future announcements. I just wouldn't want to leave an impression that this is one of the fast-growing districts, because it isn't if you compare it to other districts in the province. There are many districts that have real growth problems.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the minister heard me. I was talking about the west side of the Greater Victoria

[ Page 12533 ]

School District, and I don't think he has figures in relation to that. In fact, if I may go further west to the Sooke School District, where they've got 53 portables at last count, there have been significant problems. I don't think the minister would doubt at all that there's been significant growth on the west side of the Greater Victoria School District — in View Royal and Esquimalt and in the Sooke School District. I am sure his figures would show — at least for Sooke because he'd have them broken down — that there has been growth.

The minister doesn't quite understand the geography and the demographics of the area. That's fine. I didn't want to get into debate on the extent of the growth. I don't think the minister in any way doubts my words when I say that at Rockheights we have 560 students at a school built for far fewer, annexes, portables and obvious emerging needs.

It is because of those obvious emerging needs that the ministry has recognized in the past the need to put in capital improvements at Esquimalt High and Lampson Street School. Had it not been for recognition of that emerging growth in the west side of that school district, the ministry would not have made a commitment to proceed with site acquisition for another school in View Royal, nor would it have proceeded with the expansion at View Royal Elementary.

Mr. Minister, I know you're new to the portfolio, which is perhaps part of the problem, but if you had been familiar with the pattern of history in terms of development in View Royal and Esquimalt, I don't think you would take issue with the fact that there has been significant growth on the west side of the Greater Victoria School District, which covers the constituency that I represent.

The minister never did answer my question. I asked him whether or not he found that state of affairs as it relates to Rockheights to be satisfactory. Now, having dealt with the issue that he raised about growth, would he concur with me that the situation is not satisfactory in terms of the condition of those schools?

HON. S. HAGEN: When I made the announcement a short while ago on the capital envelope of $650 million — the largest amount of capital ever spent on schools in British Columbia — I described what that money would be used for. It will be used for new school construction, site acquisition, repairs or rebuilding of schools, earthquake preparedness for school buildings...

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: There'll be some in Victoria as well.

...and the replacement of portables. So the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is right on this point that the minister is addressing the needs of school construction, and all of those areas are included in the deliberations that take place on focusing in on the areas of greatest need.

[3:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I acknowledge, therefore, that the minister and I both agree that that situation is unsatisfactory, and I think we both agree that it needs to be attended to. I think we both agree that one has to allocate priorities around the province. I'm saying to you, Mr. Minister, that when you take a look at some of the problems in an area of the school district that has been ignored or, in the case of Sooke, underfunded by the ministry.... I don't want to get into the dynamics of the block funding, but it was significantly underfunded historically. I would encourage the minister to read Hansard in the past with respect to the Sooke School District, and see that even his predecessor and I agreed on the fact that the block funding was underfunded for the Sooke area because of anomalies in the area.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I think he did. You should read Hansard, Mr. Minister, in that regard.

Given the priorities that you've allocated, Mr. Minister, and given the needs in this area, I have no doubt that when you draft your final list, you will have no difficulty in concluding with me that the projects requested by the school board with respect to the west side of that school district ought to be accorded priority. I look forward to your press conference on June 11 with your two colleagues from Saanich, wherein you'll make those announcements. I would hope and expect, in fact, that the parents would demand that the funding be in place for these capital projects. Let me make them clear to the minister: Esquimalt high school, the Rockheights situation and the matter of the Lampson Street School, to deal with some of the overcrowding that we've got there.

There is another issue with respect to Harbour View, and that will be best dealt with, in my mind, by the school board as opposed to the provincial government.

I want to ask another question of the minister with respect to this issue. Am I correct in assuming that the matter of lunch programs is something that you do not consider to be part of your mandate? Is that funded through another ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN: The lead ministry for school lunch programs is the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services and Minister Responsible for Families.

MR. CLARK: Just briefly, I would appreciate if the minister could explain how the decisions are made on which schools get built and which don't. Presumably each school board presents a list of projects for which they ask for funding. Obviously every school board — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew spoke eloquently on behalf of his district, and I'm sure I could speak on behalf of Vancouver East — needs money for capital, and I know there's money there. I'm interested in what procedure the ministry goes through to authorize which schools get built when or which projects get approved when.

[ Page 12534 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: That's actually an excellent question, and I'm quite amazed. It's a good question because it relates back to the reason we were able to announce $650 million for this year. The cynics out there would have said: "The reason you announced $650 million is because maybe this is an election year." But the real reason is that if the planning money hadn't been allocated last year, which, if you recall, was supposed to have been an election year, we wouldn't have been able to announce the capital for this year.

So all cynicism aside, the planning process works. The planning money was allocated last year; therefore the construction can take place this year. The planning money that we allocate this year will spawn construction projects in future years.

But when a school board submits a list of their construction requests, we ask them to prioritize them as high, medium or low priority. In some cases if there are a number of projects, we've even asked them to prioritize their high priorities — in other words, give them a grading. I don't think it's right for our ministry staff.... Let's say a large district comes in with 15 high priority items. If they're all listed as high priority, and we can fund only 13 of them, I would rather have the school board prioritize which of the 13 would be funded.

I have here a document which describes how we determine a high priority. The school board submits their listing with high, medium and low priorities. Then the ministry staff assesses those projects and also grades them high, medium and low priority. So when the process is finished, you may have some high priority school board projects that the ministry grades as medium, or you may have a vice-versa situation. I'll just read you the definition of high priority; this is called "Ministry Project-Ranking Criteria."

"Projects necessary to maintain the educational and support services required to accommodate prescribed educational programs, including the following..." — and there are not that many here — "projects required to correct unsafe conditions or to prevent major deterioration of the facility; new instruction space when September 1993 enrolment projections exceed present school capacity by 50 or more students; additions and/or alterations required to accommodate prescribed educational programs; additions and/or alterations required to accommodate supplementary special-education needs; equipment allowance for approved visually and/or hearing impaired students; new bus requirements; major sprinkler or alarm projects recommended in the most recent inspection report; site acquisitions supported by September 1995 enrolment projections."

Those are high priority; there are medium and low as well. I'm not sure if you want me to read them into the record.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: No, I appreciate the minister's answer; that's exactly what I wanted to know. Obviously when you get into the high, low and medium priorities, they are subjective to some extent. I appreciate the qualifications you've made for high priority. But presumably there is a role at some point for the minister with the advice of his ministry staff to make some judgments, because I assume it's like anything in government. You could spend $2 billion or $3 billion and still have projects that people might request funding for. So you have to weigh them, and I see that objective criteria.

Are there also subjective criteria that the minister has to use to make those tough decisions between school districts as to what gets funded and what doesn't? Where does the ministerial role come in?

HON. S. HAGEN: That's a good question. Fortunately, this year, my first year as the minister, I haven't had to make those choices. I'm not sure whether you were here, but I'll just repeat that the envelope is $650 million, and the high-priority requests were $687 million — not a whole lot of difference there. I can see where there would be a difficulty last year, for instance, where there was a considerable difference between the high-priority requests and the funding.

MR. SIHOTA: Judging from that response, Mr. Chairman, it's obvious to me that the requirements for my area will get covered, because that high-priority definition captures them all. Secondly, given your earlier answer, I'm assuming that you will be making your decisions on the August 1990 submissions by the school board to your ministry. Am I correct in that assumption?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, that's correct.

MR. SIHOTA: If that's the case, then you've answered my earlier questions, because most of the projects in my riding were listed as high-priority on that list. So I would expect that the bulk of the announcements, as they relate to my riding, which will be made next week by the minister, will confirm that the projects will be funded in that order, and most of them are in my riding. I'm happy to hear that.

I want to ask the minister a couple of other questions on issues that may be canvassed in the future or may already have been canvassed by my colleagues. I want to be very quick in dealing with two other issues. The first is on the capital side, the middle school in Sooke. I don't think I need to make a pitch in that regard. The school board has allocated high priority and, given the minister's answer, I would suspect that that will be attended to as well.

The other area that I want to touch on — and it's really the final area that I want to touch on today — is the matter of special-needs children. Mr. Chairman, I want to convey to the minister the frustration that the parents feel who come to my office and talk to me about the difficulties they're having with respect to the dispute between the province and the school boards as to the quantum of moneys that have been allocated to school boards. There's a difference of opinion. If one reads the statistics that the ministry puts out and the minister articulates, it sounds like school boards are getting all sorts of money for all sorts of programs. If one reads the statistics that you get from the school boards, it sounds like they're getting significantly less money than inflation. There's obviously a dispute

[ Page 12535 ]

between the minister and the school boards as to how much money in real terms is coming to school boards.

I don't want to get involved in that dispute, but I'll tell you who does get involved in that dispute: the parents of special-needs kids. They go to the school board and find that the programs aren't there. They go to the minister, and the minister scratches his head and says: "I don't know what's going on. I provided enough money. Believe you me, it is my view that special needs is a priority and these kids should be attended to."

They're caught in a game of political ping-pong between the school board and the Minister of Education. They're victims as a result of that political ping-pong. I can appreciate that there are games going on. I can appreciate that in order to buttress his position the minister says he's going to put out an investigator. I can appreciate that the school board says: "Come and investigate us, because we're putting the money wherever we can." But the parents get caught. A number of them came to see me the other day in my constituency office and here at the Legislature, expressing their sheer frustration over their children not being provided with the services they need as special-needs children, and expressing their wish that the ministry would fund the program.

One of the parents gave an analogy which is perhaps not the best analogy, but it is an interesting one. She said: "Look, if there was an oil spill tomorrow off the west coast of Vancouver Island, people would not be arguing over whether the federal government or the provincial government should be paying for it. We'd be solving the problem, and we'd argue later on as to who should pay and if necessary litigate one another over it."

There is a dispute in this regard. The only appeal that I can make to the minister is to provide the supplementary funds now to provide the services and work it out with the school boards later, in terms of whether you think that they've been appropriately funded or not. I think that approach would solve the problem now and would provide greater comfort to those parents.

I make that pitch to the minister. I would hope I would not hear what I've been reading in the paper in terms of what he says versus what the school boards say in Sooke and in Victoria. I'm just saying that you've got some real problems that you're causing, or someone's causing, as a consequence of insufficient funds being allocated to special-needs children. I think you should tend to the problem directly by providing the funding and then resolve your political fight with the school boards later on.

HON. S. HAGEN: The member from Esquimalt raises an important and significant issue. But first I want to go back to his discussion with regard to capital.

I want the member to understand that with regard to Esquimalt Senior Secondary I may have a real or perceived conflict of interest in that situation. I would hope that I would not be called on that if the project gets funded, for instance. I have a relative with the same name as mine who teaches at the school. Mind you, I guess the assumption might also be made that she might be related to the member for New Westminster. But I hope you wouldn't take advantage of that situation.

[3:45]

With regard to the more serious question about special-education funding, I can appreciate that you meet with the parents of special-ed children, as I and, I'm sure, all members of this House do. But I want you to understand the situation that the minister is in.

In the case of the Greater Victoria School Board — the closest one to you, I guess — what happens first of all is that the school board chairperson, after signing an agreement with the staff, calls a press conference and says: "Yes, we've signed a collective agreement, but we can't afford it." That's step one, and that statement is a matter of public record.

A following statement then comes out — not necessarily the next statement but certainly over the next couple of weeks — that "in order to balance the budget, the first cut we're going to have to make is to special-education programs." The first cut that's even mentioned is to special-education programs. I'll leave it to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to judge whether that may be a political statement.

What I said after that was that I will not see school boards balancing their budgets on the backs of special-needs kids. I was very serious when I made that statement, and I'm still serious. I can assure the member that in districts where they want to play politics — if they're playing politics — I won't hesitate to send in an auditor to audit their programs, because I know that we, the government and the taxpayers, do fund the special-ed programs in those school districts. They get the dollars. If they cut programs, they lose the dollars. So there's no advantage to them to cut special-ed programs. I get tired of.... It's certainly not all boards who play this game; as a matter of fact, it's very few boards — one or two or three. But I will not see the game played on the backs of special-needs kids.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it's important for you to understand what my job and my position are as the Minister of Education. With regard to your suggestion that we as government just put the money in and then discuss or debate it later, it doesn't work that way. As soon as we put money out there — whatever the funding announcement is — it goes into teachers' pockets through agreements. Unless you have an open-chequebook policy — and I'm not sure whether you would support that — we must operate within the fiscal framework. By operating within the fiscal framework, we give to the districts the ability to provide high-quality education at something that's affordable to the taxpayers — because, after all, the taxpayers provide the money for the services of the people of the province.

MR. SIHOTA: This is my last note. I really do promise to end on this, because we could go on and on over this dispute.

The answer you've given me is a good debating point, quite frankly, and it is consistent with what you've been saying publicly. I would congratulate

[ Page 12536 ]

anybody who maintains consistency around an argument. I think both the minister and I agree that there's an important need here, and the minister and I both agree, in terms of what he's had to say, that it is a priority need.

The way you've worded it, Mr. Minister, reflects your frustration from your desk, and I've expressed my frustration from my desk. Yet it doesn't solve the problem. That's the unfortunate aspect of it in terms of dealing with the immediacy of the problem on our hands. As much as we can clash in this House and articulate the frustrations, this is a real problem that needs immediate attention. If the minister does not agree with the proposal I've put forward, which I should say is not an open-cheque proposal, I would hope that between him and his staff he can work out something that attends to the immediate concern while he works out and tries to resolve the political dispute that's going on.

I want to make it clear that maybe all sides in this dispute — the boards and the minister — are playing politics. They may not be, but there's a real problem out there that I think needs attention right now.

In any event, I've taken up a little bit more than my time. I thank the minister for his candour. I look forward to the capital announcements that will happen next week, and I'm sure that the appropriate allocations will be made to the schools that I've asked for.

MR. BARLEE: This is a specific case. I have four separate school districts in my new constituency, and this really concerns the smallest of these, School District 13, which employs several dozen teachers. Like all MLAs, I'm quite aware that the school boards in the various districts in British Columbia operate under the School Act, but that act sometimes allows them perhaps more latitude than they should have. A case has been drawn to my attention in the last few months that I think deserves further examination by the ministry than has been given this particular case. I think that the school board — who are elected representatives, as I'm well aware — passed judgment on an individual, with monetary ramifications for this school district and perhaps considerable legal costs to the people of the district.

This is the case. A maintenance supervisor by the name of Mr. Murry Setzer was dismissed by the board — a difficult case, I know — after 14 months' service. I don't know Mr. Setzer personally. He was given no reasons for his dismissal and was advised by the board that it was not because of his work. He was then offered a $33,000 severance package, which seems to me rather extraordinary, and he was essentially allowed to write his own letter of recommendation, which I think is rather unusual.

Here is some more background, which the minister may or may not be aware of. There were no grievances against this maintenance supervisor from CUPE or any members of CUPE in that district. His work record was upgraded in those 14 months from average to good, yet less than three months later he was dismissed by a newly elected school board. Concerning the dismissal of this individual, two members of the board abstained in that decision and two who voted to dismiss him had never even met him.

Evidently, according to the information I get from a number of sources, both the superintendent of the district and the secretary-treasurer advised against taking this action. They were essentially overruled by the board. I think most of the individuals in this area view this as kind of an arbitrary dismissal. A number of local people were concerned. They wrote the minister, and they received a reply in fairly short order from the minister saying that these complaints should really be pursued through the appropriate legal processes. I don't believe that is a satisfactory answer. Although the school board operates under the School Act, there should be more accountability taken by the ministry, and I don't think that accountability was taken. Has the minister launched an investigation into this particular case?

HON. S. HAGEN: I thank the member for the question. I think the member understands that this is a dispute — if there is a dispute — between an employee and an employer. I will not — and I cannot, in fact, by law — intervene. There are provisions for either party to seek resolution. The school board is the employer in this case. The employer or the employee has the responsibility to deal with the issue, but as the minister I am not able under law to intervene in any way.

MR. BARLEE: I assumed that might be the response. I don't think the response is adequate. It throws accountability back onto the local taxpayers and the individual who was aggrieved. They have to go through the various legal processes, and if they hire a lawyer at $160 an hour, it could be many thousands of dollars.

Does the minister not think that the act is flawed in this case? Should there be more accountability by the ministry — which I don't see in this case even from his response?

HON. S. HAGEN: Is the member suggesting that I break the law in dealing with this issue?

MR. BARLEE: No, of course not, Mr. Minister; I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that perhaps the School Act has a wide variance. Something should be written into that act to allow an appeal rather than having the appeal of the individual go to a lawyer to carry out something that I think should be properly done under the ministry. Yet the minister is telling me that the ministry cannot intervene in a case like this, where it has significant ramifications upon the individual involved. The chairperson of that particular board mentioned at a public meeting that she didn't want to give the reasons, because they didn't want to air their dirty laundry. This indicates that she is casting certain moral doubt upon this person's integrity. He has to take it through the various avenues of the legal process, and that can be extremely costly for an individual.

I think the ministry should have something in the act so that they could intervene in a case like that and send in a trouble-shooter to hear both sides of the case

[ Page 12537 ]

and advise both parties. That has not been done. Again, you fall back on the law, and I don't think the law is good enough in this case.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to use this opportunity to deal with some smaller items in terms of board budgets — items that reflect on the difficulties some boards are having in balancing their budgets. I hope the minister gives us some information about how funding allocations are made for costs that are not usual education program costs but obligatory expenditures on the part of boards.

I think it would be helpful for us to get some sense of the implications, for example, of decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board around worker safety and occupational safety. We have issues around asbestos, which is, I think, probably one of the biggest ones, since so many of our schools in British Columbia are old buildings and would have been built with asbestos as part of the construction.

I well remember when I was a school trustee during the early eighties. We were struggling very hard to maintain programs within our district. We were compelled to spend, in a small district like New Westminster, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy ICBC requirements around fire upgrading. I must say that as a trustee, if I had to look at the risk to children and workers in respect to a fire versus the dollars that we needed for a quality education, I would have opted for dollars for programs at that stage of the game.

[4:00]

I don't mean to underestimate the importance of health and safety and fire standards, but I'm not entirely certain that the funding formula acknowledges that these are in fact costs that boards don't have a choice about putting into their budgets. When we're balancing a block — and the minister has said that the block is a fund that the board is responsible for using in the wisest and best way it can — then expenses directly affect services to kids' programs in our schools.

Could the minister give us some indication of how the ministry deals with those obligatory programs that relate to school board costs? Is it a little bit like special-needs children, where there's an amount of money that recognizes the actual costs and where there's a balancing-out of the cost of upgrading the health and safety environment in which people work with the dollars that come into the system?

My sense is that very often boards are having to skim off some of those health and safety dollars from other purposes, just as we had to skim off some of those fire-upgrading dollars from programs in the last four or five years that I was a school trustee. Those are tough decisions and, again, because the province is the funding agency — as the minister has said over and over again — the province determines entirely what the budget is. Therefore I believe it needs to be in touch with these issues, to have some policies that are clear and fair to the districts that face these costs.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure the member for New Westminster that things have changed since both she and I were school trustees on different boards in different communities. In fact, funding is now provided in the operating part of the budget as part of the block for district administration and operations for maintenance. We have "minor capital," which boards can apply for if it's a case of insulation replacement or that sort of thing. There's a relatively new program called "minor capital allowance" that is also available for this sort of requirement.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I then confirm that the actual costs of, let's say, health and safety upgrading — such as the removal of asbestos — is covered entirely by some allocation in the block for that purpose, through an application process?

HON. S. HAGEN: Everything the boards fund gets its money from the taxpayers, from the government. It comes in their budget, and it either comes as operating or capital.

Just for your information, I will list off the projects that were funded in New Westminster last year. This may help you understand. These are minor capital projects that were all approved: Lord Tweedsmuir Elementary, alterations to provide computer room and relocate staff room; access for handicapped, various schools; loss prevention, various schools; install emergency lighting, which may be a WCB requirement; roof replacement, various schools; renovations, various schools; upgrade electrical breaker panels; seismic upgrading, Lord Kelvin Elementary — I went to Lord Kelvin school for one year; add reinforcement to meet earthquake resistance standards, Lord Kelvin Elementary; Herbert Spencer Elementary, plan the replacement of this school's seismic; seismic assessment, various schools; equipment allowance for hearing and visually impaired students.... The total funding provided was $683,200.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm going to have to rely on my memory for this, because I can't find my self-prepared briefing note. One issue that has come up again and again from school boards is new costs that boards must incur as a result of policies of either the provincial or the federal governments, and how those are tracked into the funding that comes to them. The most recent one comes out of this government's budget. With the increases in Medical Services Plan premiums and the fact that in most collective agreements the cost of those premiums is, at least in part, paid for as a benefit under the collective agreement, boards are faced with significantly increased costs.

I've actually got figures for a couple of districts. In a relatively small district with a lot of young families, the actual additional cost to them for the Medical Services Plan premium lift — the increase in this year's budget — is in the order of $50,000. With a good-sized board — one of the larger boards; older teachers, fewer families — their estimated cost is $75,000. In the scheme of large budgets, those are not huge amounts of money, but when every dollar is going to have an

[ Page 12538 ]

effect on a teacher or an aide in a classroom, those unexpected costs as a result of government's budgetary decisions have an effect on the educational quality of the district.

I could indicate other decisions, but perhaps the minister could give us an indication of what you do when a block is in place and your government, in its budget, makes a decision that has a direct impact on the cost of providing service in a district — an impact that wasn't known when you decided on the block and when boards were developing their budgets? As I say, this one is of sufficient magnitude that boards, who are scrambling for every cent to deliver programs, are concerned about having to pay that cost and to diminish programs as a result. If there's an answer that says that those dollars are flowing into the districts, then people would be very pleased to hear that.

HON. S. HAGEN: You certainly used somewhat correct terminology when you said: "If dollars are flowing into those districts...." I can tell you that over the last two years, $459 million in additional moneys has flowed into school districts around this province. That's an increase over that two-year period of 19 percent to the block amount.

I want to restate that if boards are spending the money, then the government — through the taxpayers — is funding that money. All the money they spend comes from the government. We get our money from the taxpayers, which is a different system than what was in place when the member for New Westminster was a trustee.

Through the fiscal framework and the work done each year by the fiscal framework committee.... As you know, there's an economic adjustment made to the block each year based on a lot of things, like inflation. If her question is, "Every time the feds raise their UI rates or percentage, do we fund that extra money?" the answer is no. However, when you look at the 19 percent increase boards have received over the last two years, I think that boards will be able to deal with an increase in UI expenses.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chair, I don't intend to read the increases that have gone to specific boards through the distribution process, but looking over two years, there aren't very many boards that have got a 19 percent increase. Every one of these decisions costs in terms of educational programs.

Let me just take one district that now has an additional cost of $75,000 because of the Medical Services Plan premium lift in the budget. That board also faces a $300,000 lift because of the GST. I think the UI premium is in the order of $125,000 in terms of the increased cost to that particular district.

We know that the overall lift was 3.75 percent, even though the cost of living increase is now around 6 percent. Just looking at this particular district, it has a 3.8 percent increase in enrolment and a 6.8 percent increase in its funding. Now I recognize that you don't subtract 3.8 from 6.8 to get the real lift — that every youngster doesn't cost 100-cent dollars. But we're looking at additional costs to that district, as a result of just these kinds of decisions, in the magnitude of — let me just add correctly here; $375,000 and $125,000 — another $500,000. That board is already getting a lift that is significantly less than the inflationary lift. The point I'm making on behalf of those school districts that are not here to represent themselves is that those kinds of decisions by governments have an effect on their ability to deliver services to children in their districts.

The minister is simply saying that this is all part of the overall lift. I could buy that if the lift genuinely reflected the cost-of-living increases. But the increase in Medical Services Plan premiums is something that affects the cost of living. We all know that every time we go out and buy anything, the GST certainly affects the cost of living. For any business person and any person who's paying salaries, UIC affects their cost of living.

These are the kinds of small amounts, if you like, that compound the fact that the lift which has gone to school districts is nowhere near the 19 percent the minister is talking about. This district is looking at a lift in the order of 3 percent to 4 percent, when you factor out the fact that it has new children whom it must provide for. I might note that this is an urban district and that quite a number of those new children are ESL children. In the Vancouver area, we're seeing that many of the new people who are coming into the community are first of all settled in Vancouver. Now, as we look into the greater Vancouver area, we're seeing larger numbers of ESL children living in communities like mine, Coquitlam, Burnaby or Surrey.

[4:15]

The fundamental issue here is that when the block is not increased realistically related to the cost of living, these factors loom all the larger. In this district, $500,000 is the equivalent of at least ten teachers and something like 20 aides. That's a very significant loss in terms of services to kids. I would hope that government fits this into its planning.

I just wanted to make those points, because they demonstrate in small ways that most of us can understand — because they're similar to the kinds of things we deal with in our budgets — the kinds of challenges and problems school districts are experiencing at this time.

HON. S. HAGEN: I must warn the member for New Westminster that she's straying away from her party's new policy of fiscal restraint and management. I wouldn't want her to get in trouble with her leader.

I know that the other side doesn't understand this concept, so I want to go on record with a few facts and figures. The member mentioned the announcing of a 3.75 percent lift to school board budgets. I would remind the member that when you take everything into consideration for this year, the lift is in fact just under 8 percent.

Because she questioned the rate of 19 percent being the average lift to school districts over the last two years, I would like to mention some of some of the school districts and the percentages they've received over the last two years: Grand Forks, 22.3 percent;

[ Page 12539 ]

Kettle Valley, 21.7 percent; South Okanagan, 23.5 percent; Penticton, 25.2 percent; Keremeos, 34.2 percent; Princeton, 19.1 percent — remember, I'm just listing the ones at 19 percent or over, which I understand would be about half; Armstrong, 35.9 percent; Central Okanagan, 29.7 percent over two years; Kamloops, 22.3 percent; Merritt, 32.3 percent; Chilliwack; 28.8 percent; Abbotsford, 31.3 percent; Surrey, 23.8 percent; Richmond, 20.6 percent; Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, 22.5 percent; Coquitlam, 22.1 percent; Sunshine Coast, 26.3 percent; Central Coast, 22.4 percent; Nechako, 19.5 percent; Sooke, 19.9 percent — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew forgot to thank me for that; Nanaimo, 23.4 percent; Qualicum, 22.1 percent; Courtenay, 26.4 percent; Campbell River, 20.6 percent; Mission, 22.4 percent; Agassiz-Harrison, 31.9 percent; Summerland, 26.7 percent; Kitimat, 28.7 percent; Fort Nelson, 22.9 percent; Terrace, 19.9 percent; Shuswap, 24.7 percent; and Nisga'a, 20.8 percent.

What's interesting about those numbers is this. I wonder how the people who live and work in those communities — the men and women who work in the sawmills in those resource-based communities, who drive trucks and do other jobs.... I wonder how many of those received those kinds of increases over the last two years.

There is a reality here. The opposition keeps on saying: "You're not putting enough money into education. You should be funding that small extra percentage for UI increases. You should be funding this. You should be adding funding in here. You're not putting enough money in." Mr. Chairman, the money isn't ours; the money comes from the taxpayers of this province, and the taxpayers of this province work very hard to earn that money, and they want to see it spent well. Nobody argues the significance and the importance of education, but that does not give us a right as politicians to pour money into something just because we think money is the answer.

Money is not the answer; it's people who are the answer. It's the people who are in the system; they are the answer. I really get tired of the opposition continually focusing on money. What I'm interested in is the students, the quality of the students; I'm interested in the teachers, the quality of the teachers; upgrading. Certainly I'm interested in buildings, but, you know, we wouldn't even have an education system, we wouldn't even have buildings, we wouldn't even have teachers, without the students. It's important to focus on the important aspect of the system, and the most important aspect of the system is the student.

Yesterday the opposition was referring to special kids. I said: "All kids are special." Every one out there is special. We can't say one is more special than the other.

I just want to reiterate that this government has made the largest commitment, as a percentage of budget, to the education system from K to 12 and including the universities and colleges — the post-secondary system — of any province in this country. No province has made a larger commitment to education. Well, NDP provinces like Ontario, who refuse to participate in assessment programs — if you can believe that, Mr. Chairman.... The NDP in Ontario has backed out of the assessment program for testing numeracy and literacy. They've backed out of it, and at the same time they've reduced the amount of money that they put into education. They spend more money in Ontario on social welfare than they do on education. That is a major concern to this nation and to its future. This government will never allow that to happen. We will continue to fund education as a priority, but we also expect school boards to be fiscally responsible. When I have school board chairpersons say to me, "We've signed a collective agreement that we can't afford, so you have to give us more money now, " I say: "The taxpayers don't have any more money. You've got ample." Nineteen percent over two years is more than ample to fund the system.

MS. A. HAGEN: I just want to make a brief comment. I know the member for Cariboo has some questions that he's been waiting to ask the minister. We began the session this afternoon with a discussion of honesty in terms of figures and comparability. Once again the minister patronizes us with a large list of numbers that are in his hands alone. There are public documents which deal with the increases the school boards have had and the increases in enrolment. I would just encourage the minister not to patronize us, not to patronize schools boards and not to just list off a set of meaningless figures. It doesn't really help our debate.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN: Talk about patronizing, Mr. Chairman! The reason I read that list was that the member for New Westminster insinuated that there weren't many school boards that got over 19 percent. It was a patronizing insinuation on her part.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm talking about public documents. The minister has documents in his hands which do not conform with documents in the public domain about increases in funding. I think that's the issue. We're looking for freedom of information, which this government makes quite difficult for us to achieve.

HON. S. HAGEN: They are in the public domain. I just read them into the public domain.

MR. VANT: As most members of the chamber know, I represent a very rural riding in the centre of British Columbia. It's about 39,000 square miles, and it comprises School District 28, Quesnel; School District 27, Williams Lake; and School District 30, in the south Cariboo. For the sake of brevity in these estimates, I will focus my questions to the minister on School District 27, Cariboo-Chilcotin.

First of all, as I said, it's a very rural constituency. Indeed, no less than 92 school buses take well over half of the students to school every day. Out of a total population of 7,787 students, no less than 5,500 take a school bus to and from school every day. The buses travel over two million kilometres per year.

[ Page 12540 ]

My initial question to the minister is: why has the dispersion factor, as your ministry calls it, been reduced for School District 27? That tends to emphasize that we're less rural and more urban. But if there is any school district that is widespread and rural, it is School District 27 — the Cariboo-Chilcotin School District. So why is our dispersion factor in School District 27 being reduced? I understand it's also being reduced for School District 28 in Quesnel, and I can assure the minister that well over two-thirds of my constituents live out in the unincorporated areas of the Cariboo.

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the question from the member of that great constituency of Cariboo. It's beautiful country; I was just up there within the last couple of weeks, and it was a bright, sunny day. There are very free enterprise people in that great part of the province.

The question is a very appropriate one and probably one of the best ones I've had during my estimates. I want to give a bit of background to the member with regard to the changes in the fiscal framework. This is a very complex...

[4:30]

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Pay attention.

... calculation. Here are changes to the fiscal framework which occurred in School District 27. New service levels were implemented to achieve greater equity and changes in relative costs, and the number of students in different programs was recognized. These changes did result in a reduction to the district's block.

This did not happen just in School District 27; it was an across-the-province calculation that took place. The calculation is part of the job of the fiscal framework committee, which is made up of four superintendents and four secretary-treasurers. They are appointed by their associations and not by us. They take all of the information in hand, make the calculation and then make the recommendation to the ministry.

MR. VANT: That brings me to my next question. I understand that this year the enrolment in School District 27, for example — and I'll just stick to the one school district for the sake of brevity — increased by a total of about 80 students. In the forthcoming year they have projected a decrease of about 14 students. It's a very slight decrease in enrolment, yet in terms of calculating the block funding I understand the weighting factor has for some reason been reduced.

I would certainly like the minister to explain to me why the weighting factor was reduced, because there's no significant change that I'm aware of in the operation of that school district. I am aware that over the last two years, while a school district like Keremeos got a whopping 34.2 percent increase, the increase for Cariboo-Chilcotin, which is a very rural riding with a huge dispersion factor, is only a paltry 12.7 percent. I must admit, Mr. Minister, that I and many of my constituents are a little envious of the block funding increase over the last two years which some of the other school districts have received.

Now I realize there are different variables, but I did receive some information about the pupil-teacher ratio of school districts similar to School District 27. But unfortunately, it compared similar-sized districts, and they were all what I would call, with all due respect, postage-stamp districts. For example, they gave Courtenay, Sooke, Chilliwack, Vernon, Cowichan and Saanich districts, which are much smaller than Cariboo-Chilcotin School District. We're a very rural area, so I would like to know why the weighting factor under these circumstances has been reduced.

HON. S. HAGEN: I again thank the first member for Cariboo for those very relevant questions. In the districts with a population of 7,000 to 9,000 that we compared, if you look at the Cariboo-Chilcotin School District, their pupil-teacher ratio is 15.75; Courtenay's, which is at the top of that group, is 16.99. There's a considerable cost impact difference there. The other district you compared was Keremeos.

Let me go back to the establishment of block funding. When the block was established, some districts were below the average, and some were above the average in the cost of services they were providing. Keremeos was way down below the average. They had had very low supplementary budgets.

As you know, to assist the districts that weren't providing the services that some of the other districts were, we ratcheted them up. We ratcheted the higher spenders down. We ratcheted the low spenders up more quickly. In other words, we've done that over a period of two years. We are ratcheting the other ones down over a period of three years to make it a little easier, because it poses some difficulty for them. That's the reason for the differentiation between Keremeos and Williams Lake.

MR. VANT: Finally, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the block funding, School District 27 was very grateful to get a special-purpose grant for this coming year of $492,545. I have been led to believe that this was due to the fact that in the past they didn't have what you'd call a supplementary budget, because nobody seems to know exactly what the special-purpose grant is for. It certainly is very gratefully received, and it does increase the block funding; this one-time-only special purpose grant is about 1 percent. I'm just wondering if there is another explanation for this special-purpose grant.

HON. S. HAGEN: If you go back to my previous discussion about the average and the districts that were below-the-line spenders and the ones that were above.... The special-purpose grant was an extra grant this year so that we could bring the lower-spending districts — the poorer districts — up to the line in two years instead of waiting three years. That was the purpose of the special-purpose grant,

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to hear this minister's selective way of responding to questions coming from our side of the House and to those coming from the Social Credit side of the House.

[ Page 12541 ]

Had the questions the minister just received been put by a member of the opposition, I'm sure we would have had an answer very similar to the answers that the minister was giving to our critic a few moments ago, when he was accusing her of simply wanting more money. Obviously the member who just asked the question was raising appropriate questions, as we are raising appropriate questions. I would also like to point out to the minister that as an MLA representing my constituency, as is the first member for Cariboo, I don't have access to all the information that this minister has. I'm standing in my place now to raise some issues that have been raised by school trustees in Coquitlam, and some of these questions are in keeping with the questions that have recently been asked by the Education critic, the hon. member for New Westminster.

I'd like to put the question in this context, Mr. Chairman. The minister used the phrase that there seems to be some sort of expectation that money will be poured in — to use his words. I think that what is being asked for here, first of all, is the opportunity to do effective and reasonable planning; and secondly, to be able to do so on the basis of no surprises. The fact is that when school districts are hit with a fiscal framework process that results in surprises, then it makes it extremely difficult to do the planning that those school districts, regardless of what part of the political spectrum the members come from, have to do.

Some of the things that are chipping away at the ability of school districts to plan and do their job have to do with something that I don't blame the minister for: the goods and services tax. For the record, I want to point out that Mrs. Louella Hollington, who is the chairperson of the School District 43 board of trustees, wrote to the minister on April 16 pointing out that although the block funding was lifted by 3.75 percent, the cost of the GST amounts to 2.25 percent, and having to absorb the cost of the GST leaves very little room in the budgets to cover the true cost of inflation on goods and services. She also acknowledges in her letter that she realizes that this minister has been expressing his concern about the same issue. Given that this impact was apparently not taken into consideration in developing the fiscal framework, it makes it very difficult for school trustees to do the appropriate planning.

I would turn to another issue that was raised by the member for New Westminster. She referred to the increase in UIC premiums. Again, Louella Hollington, the chairperson of the School District 43 trustees, wrote to the minister on April 16, and she says: "Because our operating budget is 87.5 percent salaries and wages, the increase in the employer's UIC benefit costs is significant. For this district the annual cost is estimated at $613,000, based on the information currently at hand." This is another impact that is made difficult to deal with, in view of its having been realized after the setting of the fiscal framework. Mr. Chairman, I have written a similar letter to the minister, asking him to deal with that issue.

Then there's the issue in the budget of the increase in the medical services premiums, which again is an additional cost, an additional impact on school districts for which they were not able to plan because of the timing vis-à-vis the GST. In that context, I want to ask the minister how he expects school districts to be able to plan, given the time line in which these formulas are set and have to function.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm delighted to reply to that excellent question, because it gives me an opportunity to outline some of the things that have been going on in Coquitlam.

First of all, let me say that there are no surprises. There is predictability, and there is stability. But just because you have predictability and stability doesn't mean you stand still. It doesn't mean you don't make changes when changes are needed. My predecessor, the member for North Peace, sent a ministerial statement out to school boards last October cautioning boards about the economy and predicted growth for this year, and asking them to be careful in their negotiations with their employees. I sent out a letter very soon after I became the minister in January, cautioned the boards again and provided each board with all the information we had as a ministry with regard to what was happening with the economy and the economic indicators.

It is little surprise to me that the Coquitlam School Board might be having some difficulty dealing with UI-increased expenditures or GST expenditures, when you look at the collective agreement they settled. The collective agreement settled between the board and the teachers provides for an 8.52 percent increase July 1, and a 1.59 percent increase on January 1 - a 10.6 percent increase in one year. It is little wonder that boards are having difficulty with some minor expenditures like UI and GST.

What bothers me about the increases is that they're going to take it out of the student programs which, as I said before, is the only reason we have an education system. We do not have an education system so we can build buildings. We do not have an education system to employ teachers, custodians or other employees. We have an education system to educate kids. When I look at information like this, I have to wonder.

Over a two-year period the Coquitlam School District has received very large increases. How large, you ask? Over two years, 22.1 percent. Now I ask you and the taxpayers of Coquitlam, how many of you received wage increases of 22 percent over the last two years? How many? I suspect not many.

[4:45]

Many people are now taking reductions in wages in order to keep the company going so that it can keep on paying the wages. Don't talk to me about problems in paying GST or UI payments, Mr. Member from Coquitlam. Look at the money that the taxpayers have provided to your school district: 22.1 percent — $22 million over the last two years. I think you should find something else to ask about.

MR. CASHORE: I do have other things to ask about, but again the minister did not answer my question. My question was about the planning process. How can school districts do their planning when they base it on

[ Page 12542 ]

a fiscal framework? That is the process that has been accepted by this government and put into place to enable school districts to do their planning. How does this minister expect them to do their planning, when the basic process keeps changing in midstream?

With regard to what the minister chooses to read into the record from a very limited document that he has before him and presents to the House, I would just remind him that once we have an access-to-information act in this province, we will be able to see the numbers that lie behind those numbers and to assess in a much more appropriate manner what really is going on there, because there is very little relationship between some of these statements and what appears to be the actual fact.

HON. S. HAGEN: Are you calling me a liar?

MR. CASHORE: No, I am not in any way, Mr. Chairman, using that word — which I will not repeat — with regard to this minister. While he is usually not testy in this House, he certainly is showing flashes of testiness today. I don't know if it has to do with some of his future plans or not, but anyway, I'm glad to see that he's smiling now.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move on to another question, and I'd like to ask the minister to stop babbling and listen to my question, so that he may give an equally erudite answer. I'll ask him to pretend that I'm the first member for Cariboo, so that he will respond in a reasonable way. If you can just suspend your sense of critical judgment for a moment and assume that it's somebody you consider a friend asking this question, then maybe I can count on you to give an erudite and reasonable answer.

The question has to do with French immersion funding. In the 1991 fiscal year $375,000 was budgeted for School District 43. As I understand it, under the normal process that amount of money would be received in total by March 1991, the conclusion of that fiscal year. In March 1991, when School District 43 received its payment for French immersion, it was not $375,000. It was $357,000, which means that it was down $18,000 from the budgeted amount. I understand that the adjustment was due to an enrolment change. So I want the minister to know that I understand why that amount of money was less, even though I think it's difficult for planning when amounts of money are lost as a result of that kind of formula. I understand why that $18,000 was not there.

Now let's move on to the 1991-92 fiscal year. The board was told that as a result of the fiscal framework, only $196,808 would be received during that fiscal year. That amount is in spite of the increased enrolment in the program. We expect that that money, which will come in total by March 1992, is going to be $161,000 less than the 1990-91 amount of $357,000 — and that is happening at a time when there's actually an increased enrolment. The board has written and phoned the Ministry of Education, asking why the fiscal framework is so much lower than in 1990-91. They've received no answer or recommendation. I'd like to ask the minister to explain why there's been that incredible change in funding for French immersion between those two years, when the enrolment actually increased. Mr. Minister, we're talking about a loss of $161,000, which is a lot of money.

I would also point out to the minister that I wrote to him on May 23.... I don't expect that he's had time to respond to that yet, so I'm not criticizing that. I just point out that in my letter I said that it was a shortfall of $179,000; for the record, I'm correcting that to a shortfall of $161,000.

But the point still remains that given that the district of Coquitlam is the pioneer French immersion district in British Columbia, with the only francophone community in British Columbia, this is a tremendous blow to that community and to those school trustees. And to use the words of the minister — his oft-repeated words, in lecturing our members — it's also a tremendous blow to the students of Coquitlam. Would the minister please explain.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to go back to the member's discussion on planning. "How do we plan?" was his question. "How do school districts plan?" I can understand his asking that question, because he's probably never had to plan. We expect school districts to plan just like we have to plan. School districts are privy to the same information we're privy to with regard to where the economy is going, Mr. Chairman. It's not difficult to get that information, to find out whether there's going to be an economic downturn or economic growth, or what the prediction is with regard to the economy. There is no excuse for boards not doing proper planning.

I want to point out that boards have never received their financial information at an earlier date than they now receive it. I can remember that when I was a school trustee, we didn't know until April or May, after our fiscal year had started — or until the government's fiscal year had started — what the amount was going to be. Now it's legislated for February 1; they know for that year. With regard to the future year's planning, boards should be planning just like everybody else has to. There's no excuse for not planning.

I also want to reply to this stuff about access to information. The collective agreements for the Coquitlam School District are available to that member, just like they're available to any member of the public. The budget is available to that member, just like it's available to any member of the public. The lines that I was reading from are from the budget of the district of Coquitlam. It's public information. Go to the school board meeting and ask for it. Or phone the chairman of the board. I know you know the chairman very well. Ask for a copy, and I'm sure you'll receive it.

I want to make another point too, because I think the member is a little confused about fiscal years. The provincial government fiscal year, as you know, is April 1 to March 31. The school district fiscal year goes

[ Page 12543 ]

from July 1 to June 30. Of course, the property taxation year goes from January 1 to December 31.

Now that everybody's clear on that, I'll move into the answer on French immersion funding. As the member well knows, all provinces have been suffering cutbacks by the federal government on transfer payments. The provincial taxpayers have had to pick up that difference. Funding goes out to the school districts on the basis of how many students are enrolled. I'm reading now from a document called Fiscal Framework Educational Service Levels: "French immersion is funded on the following basis: in addition to the cost of regular instruction provided in program 1.02, 1.0 provincial growth grant per growth in FTE student, plus 1.0 federal growth grant per growth in FTE student — funded by the federal government — plus 1.0 immersion supply unit per FTE student — funded by the federal government."

MR. CASHORE: It looks like this debate about planning could go on ad nauseam, but I just want to say this last word. If the government raises UIC premiums and if the government raises medical premiums after the fiscal framework is set and the budgets are struck, then it does play havoc with planning. Let's accept that as a fact. The minister cannot argue with that. If you are given surprises, it is very difficult to deal with those surprises after planning has been done.

With regard to the response to the question about French immersion, the minister read off some figures at the end of his comment about what sounds to be a new formula for.... I'll just wait, Mr. Chairman, until the minister is able to hear me. I know that he's undertaking a very important consultation there, but I want him to hear what I'm raising.

The minister read at the end of his comments something about a formula to deal with the new funding process for French immersion. That still does not satisfy the fact that this is an enormous decrease for School District 43, which is one of the most significant areas for French immersion in the entire province. It simply does not address the fact that one year the funds were there to deal with that program and the next year there is a whopping decrease. All the minister is able to come forward with is some kind of a formula. Where did that formula come from and how does it relate to the formula of the previous year? How can this minister justify that kind of a shortfall? We're talking $161,000 out of an $357,000 budget. That's simply not acceptable. The minister knows that, and he should recognize in this House that this is simply not appropriate.

I'd like to move on to give the minister some time to collect his arguments. I don't know why he needs time to collect his arguments; he's just going to stand up there and say the same things over again that he's been saying.

[5:00]

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: The minister says it's the truth, and I get quite concerned when governments feel that they have that kind of corner on the truth. But be that as it may, I'll move onto another question, and that has to do with the funding for English as a second language.

Again, the Coquitlam school trustees have written to the minister — in a cooperative vein, I might add — recognizing that the minister in dealing with the council of ministers committee has tried to raise the point that given that ESL has to do with federal immigration policy, there should be more of an acceptance of responsibility for the funding of ESL on the part of the federal government. I want to recognize that the minister has made efforts towards that end. I would like to encourage him to continue to make those efforts to have the federal government recognize that it has a greater responsibility in this field.

I would like to ask the minister a very specific question. In view of the importance of new Canadians being able to have the benefit of learning English as their second language and therefore more effectively taking their place in Canadian society as part of our economy and part of our commerce, would the minister agree to raise with his colleagues the possibility of asking that this subject be placed on the agenda of the first ministers' conference which is to take place in the near future? Would the minister consider raising that as an agenda item, given that it is an important federal-provincial issue?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm wondering if the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is just trying to make political points or whether he knows the answer to this, but that issue is in fact already on the agenda for that meeting and has been there for quite some time.

I want you to know that I do take ESL funding very seriously, and as the child of two immigrant parents I recognize the significance of that program. With regard to the funding, this year I was able to get from cabinet and Treasury Board an additional $14 million for ESL.

You may be interested in knowing that in the Coquitlam School District the amount received from the taxpayers through the provincial government for ESL is $2.9 million. The amount budgeted in the line item budget in the Coquitlam School District is $2.99 million — very close. That's quite a dramatic increase; as a matter of fact, they received 42 percent more in 1991-92 than they did in 1990-91.

MS. A. HAGEN: In this last hour of our debate today I would like to advise the minister that I want to turn to another theme. I had actually asked through the deputy minister whether the minister might be prepared to make available at this time some details regarding royal commission funding in the budget. I understand that there are perhaps some parliamentary constraints on those figures being in the hands of even the MLA servants of the people until we have finished with the minister's estimates. I had hoped that I might have some of those figures to facilitate our debate a little bit, so I'm going to first of all ask some questions of the minister that will, hopefully, provide us with some information that then can be the basis for some analysis on this very important aspect of the minister's funding.

[ Page 12544 ]

Let me just ask if incorporated in the figures that the minister provided a little bit earlier — increases to boards' budgets over the last two years — were amounts specifically for the royal commission that might have gone to those school districts. Could he let us know whether any of those royal commission funds that were allocated to districts — for anything; programs, hardware, innovations, and so on — are included in the lifts to the districts that he read out a little bit earlier today?

HON. S. HAGEN: If the royal commission initiatives are the ones included in the block, they're included in those percentages that I gave earlier.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's a useful answer, and perhaps gives me my next question, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister list the royal commission initiatives that actually are included in the block?

While the minister is having his advisers help to provide him with the information associated with that question, I could just add.... I think you may have the information for another question: what's included in the block, and a listing of what kinds of programs are outside the block — presumably applications for special projects that are not within the block.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to outline to the member for New Westminster the royal commission initiatives that are included in the block, including provincial support contributions for the public schools, the 1991-92 operating block of $2.908 billion, and support for other public school costs. These funds are in addition to base levels of funding and represent increases for enrolment and programs arising from the royal commission. It includes any costs associated with dual entry, full-day first-year primary, teacher assistants, transportation, program implementation, equipment support, a portion of non-teaching days, parent advisory councils, testing, assessment and accreditation, and a portion of learning resources; it also includes grants to public schools registering homeschool students.

I'll give you the ones that aren't included in the block: operating of the Education Advisory Council; royal commission communication and implementation activities, including communications and advertising costs for public information on royal commission activities; meeting expenses, printing costs, and contributions to organizations and professional services as required; grants to school districts directed at teacher activities to develop parent support and participation, and to foster leadership and innovative ways of implementing the Year 2000 plan; expansion of teacher education programs.... I'll just read you the headings: rural teacher education program; forgivable loan program — these are for teachers, not students; provincial teaching awards; native language and culture programs; independent school curriculums; independent school monitoring; research and development grants; and support services to schools.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to just check dollars. Oh, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll wait.

HON. S. HAGEN: Please add to that list curriculum development and resource materials — that's fairly important; assessment and accountability, which is also fairly important; and gender equity and sexual abuse programs.

MS. A. HAGEN: Now you appreciate why it would have been helpful to have some of this in my hands, but I'll try to make my questions as orderly as possible so people follow it with me. The amounts in each of those two categories, in the block and outside the block.... I believe I heard the minister say that $2.908 billion is the amount in the block. Perhaps the minister might want to put on the record the amount not in the block. The minister is suggesting that the $2.908 billion....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's the entire block amount — okay. It's five o'clock, and I'm beginning to get a little bit mesmerized by figures.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: We won't talk about that. That's next week, and we're just dealing with this week. One week at a time is all most of us can manage in this House, especially if we're in the midst of estimates.

Let me be clear. What we're beginning to deal with is the amount in the Ministry of Education's budget for royal commission funding. Yesterday the minister began to give us some information. He said there wasn't a line item, but there were amounts within various parts of the budget: $140 million or so, plus some other amounts. If my memory serves me right, he used the figure of a $185 million. I'm really asking for the two columns, if you like. What funds are in the block? What funds are for activities not in the block?

HON. S. HAGEN: Good question. The amount in the block is, in round figures, $115 million. The amount that isn't in the block is $71 million, rounded off. That totals $185,589,000.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to try to do a little bit of comparability and then move to some specific issues. Last year we were dealing with $140 million in a line item, but I remember the minister saying that there was money in the block. I didn't ask the questions this way last year, but is there some kind of comparability? Is there any way we can look at what was in the block last year and what was out of the block, in terms of the money the minister would be able to account for as royal commission funding?

He's shaking his head that the information is not available today. Is it information that would be available if people had some time to take the question on notice?

[ Page 12545 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: When I release the royal commission documentation, which would include the paper I just read from listing out those headings, maybe I can solve this dilemma. You can compare that against the one you had last year. That will give you the comparability answer that you're looking for.

MS. A. HAGEN: There are any number of questions that would be helpful. I wonder if I could ask the minister to very quickly go through any of the votes associated with his ministry — vote 21, which is his own office; vote 22, ministry operations; vote 23, public schools education — and divide up this pie, this pot of money if you like, into the various categories.

Last year we had $140 million earmarked for a royal commission. We've got this government's commitment to a ten-year plan — what I call the only long-term plan this government seems to have — for royal commission implementation. We don't have a line item saying that those dollars are committed. I certainly accept that the ministry is advising us that they have been rolled into other parts of the various votes. But because the commitment is there and because the public wants to know that the government is living up to that commitment, it's helpful for us to know where those dollars are in the various votes.

Again, I don't really like to spend the time of the committee with this, but because the information wasn't available to me in any other way, I need to get some of that information in order to be able to proceed. Perhaps taking any one of the votes of the ministry, he can simply advise what amount is in each of those votes so I'll know something about where that $185 million is.

[5:15]

I might note, for example, that there's going to be some of it in the deputy minister's office; obviously, there should be some of it in policy standards and evaluation. If the minister can help us track it, then we will be able to ask some questions about the specifics.

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, I'd like to clarify a point. I know what you are getting at: can the $140 million of last year be equated to the $185 million this year? The answer is: yes, it can be. When you look at the list, they're the same.

I'm not prepared to release either the individual numbers or the information on the royal commission. I will be releasing that in the next week or so, and the information will then be available.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would invite the minister to advise us why, when we're in committee on his estimates and dealing with a very large item in his estimates, he is not prepared to release that information as we discuss those estimates. I believe he owes us an explanation about why that information can't be made available at this time.

HON. S. HAGEN: After my estimates are through the House, I will be sending a letter to all school boards in the province with that detailed information. I have not released the information to anyone yet, because I don't have my estimates through the House. I don't think it's appropriate to release it before I release it to the school boards, who are in fact charged with the expenditure of that money.

MS. A. HAGEN: I find that answer difficult to accept. While I cogitate about it a little bit in my head, let me ask another question. Ministry operations have nothing to do with school district operations. In some of the descriptions of vote 22, there are quite a number of references to royal commission activities. These are activities under the purview of the minister. If I look at the list that he read to me a few minutes ago, they clearly involve activities that are not directly associated with school boards and funding and that sort of thing. Is the minister prepared to advise us about the amount of royal commission funding in ministry operations? I would note that last year that's where the $140 million in a line item was. It wasn't anywhere to be found in the block, and I guess some of it goes into the block with dual-entry children and various other items. Is the minister prepared to advise us what amounts of money are in ministry operations, which is vote 22?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's a total of $185 million. It's difficult to break it down into ministry operations, so I will give you the headings again that I read out, with the dollars applicable to those headings. Okay? I'll give you the list that I read out before — the royal commission summary and the dollars applicable to each of those headings.

For operation of the Education Advisory Council, $100,000; royal commission communication and implementation activities, $10,953,000; expansion of teacher-training programs and the rural teacher education program, $10,580,000; the forgivable loan program, $690,000; provincial teaching awards, $150,000; native language and culture programs, $1.3 million; independent school contributions, $23.3 million; independent school monitoring, $193,000; research and development grants, $175,000; support services to schools, $6 million; curriculum development and resource materials, $7.8 million rounded up to $7.9 million; assessment and accountability, $8.2 million; the gender equity program, $405,000; and sexual abuse program, $600,000.

MS. A. HAGEN: I appreciate that list. There are just a couple that the minister missed; I don't know whether they're significant. Grants to parents are very modest items, probably something in the order of $300,000.

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the largest amount here by a very large margin is to independent schools, both in direct grants — $23.3 million — and other resources. About one-third of those grants not in the block are going to independent schools. It's worth noting that, because I don't believe everyone recognizes that part of the royal commission education funding is for the additional funds available to independent schools.

While I'm on that subject, I want to get another piece of information clarified. Last year under vote 20 — independent schools — the estimates were $62 mil-

[ Page 12546 ]

lion, rounded. In the revised estimates, in our new set of figures, that figure has risen by $20 million to $82 million. The estimates for this year are $91 million. If we look at the estimates for independent schools this year over the estimates we were actually dealing with a year ago, they have increased by 48 percent. I wonder if the minister can advise us the reason for that very significant increase in funding for independent schools. The actual increase is around 12 percent, but over what we were told last year when we were debating these estimates, it is 48 percent. That's a very significant increase, especially when we're looking at about a third of the royal commission funding outside the block going to independent schools at this time.

HON. S. HAGEN: The increase in that account is due to several factors. One is the increase in the number of independent schools. The second is the increase in the number of students in independent schools. I think the independent schools are growing at about the rate of 5 percent, which is 2 percent more than the public schools. The other and major reason is putting the royal commission funding into the more appropriate account. In other words, this year we put it into the independent school account instead of leaving it separate as it was last year.

MS. A. HAGEN: One of the problems that we have in looking at all of this is that almost every year we run into changes in terms of trying to track. Could the minister advise us of the increase in the number of independent schools this year over last year?

HON. S. HAGEN: The increase in the number of schools is 11, from 267 last year to 278 this year.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to turn to the amount of money in the block, because I think one of the challenges we face in this whole question of educational change is in providing resources for school districts to deal with implementation, with the work that needs to go on with school districts in order for teachers, support staff and administrators to contend with, particularly now, the intermediate and graduate programs — those initiatives.

In the block funding, where there's $115 million of the $185 million, most of the dollars are directly for services to kids. Dual entry, for example, is funding those children who are in school for a half-day from January 1. We don't know what they're going to be doing in September, because the minister hasn't told us yet. We keep urging him to do so, and I'll just remind him today that he said the answer will be soon, and I hope it will be.

Full-day kindergarten is also a direct program where we're funding kids, and I'm presuming that teaching assistance is a direct program of providing assistance for certain kinds of royal commission activities. This is a question rather than a rhetorical one, as it started out to be: is it correct to say that those dollars simply stay in the block? Why do we continue to account for them as royal commission dollars? It gets to be a question in my mind where those dollars are allocated during the transition from implementation to an ongoing program. I wonder if the minister can help us with that.

If these kids are now in the system, why is it royal commission funding? To put it another way, when does it cease to be royal commission funding and become, in fact, part of the regular program? We have a full-day program in place now. Is full-day kindergarten going to be part of royal commission implementation forever and a day? Or is it part of royal commission implementation for ten years, and then it becomes part of the regular program? It would be helpful if the minister could advise us of when something ceases to be innovative and just becomes part of the regular program in terms of costing. The point is: if all that money is now going to what is really everyday activities in school, it means that we don't really have $185 million for education innovation and change; we just continue to call it change even after it's become part of the regular program. I'm not sure that that's what we understood would be the case when we began to deal with this.

I remember the former minister saying that there would be relatively large amounts at the beginning of the royal commission implementation and then, as we got further along, those amounts might decline. I wait for the minister's comment.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's an interesting philosophical question. She must have got it from her friend from Nanaimo sitting next to her. But it's not factual. I suppose that if you extend this ten years into the future with the....

Interjections.

HON. S. HAGEN: All of you.

MS. A. HAGEN: Aren't we allowed to be philosophical?

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, I know that you're always being philosophical. The question asked me by the member for New Westminster was: "Are we not allowed to be philosophical?" Of course, the great trait of the socialists is to be philosophical and never make any decisions. Never do anything; just be philosophical.

If you extend this ten or 15 years from now with the full implementation of the Year 2000 program, I suppose you'll then be arguing that the budget shouldn't be referred to as a Year 2000 royal commission implementation, which of course it will be. The issues that have been identified have all come out of the royal commission. All of the issues that are listed in the block amount that add up to the $115 million relate specifically to the Royal Commission on Education. So you can philosophize all you want, but the fact is that this year there is $185 million in the Ministry of Education budget to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education.

[ Page 12547 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Methinks the minister believes that that wonderful, large amount of money is salient and saleable all by itself. What we want to do is find out a little bit more about what's in it. Let me just ask a couple more questions, then. It's going to cost $115 million to continue with dual entry — in whatever way we're going to continue with a program that's cancelled; I am leaving it to the minister to enlighten us at some time — full-day kindergarten and teacher assistants. Unless I got slow in my shorthand, that's what he said was in the block.

[5:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll read this again, Mr. Chairman, because she missed some of it.

MR. ROSE: Be gallant.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm always gallant.

It includes any cost associated with dual entry, full-day first-year primary, teacher assistants, transportation, program implementation, equipment support, a portion of non-teaching days, parent advisory committees, testing, assessment, accreditation and a portion of learning resources.

Mr. Chairman, while we were on testing assessment and accreditation, we did not get an answer yesterday from that side of the House as to why they do not support the school achievement indicators program. I don't understand the reluctance of the NDP. I know that their cousins in Ontario, led by the implementation team from B.C. — the Mike Harcourt implementation team — went down to Ontario and said: "Why should we participate in this program when we have promised the teachers of Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Labour that we will not participate in testing?" I think the people of British Columbia are interested in knowing that the only province that is not participating in the school achievement indicators program, a national program.... It's a national program, with all nine provinces and two territories, except....

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: You bet your life I've checked it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the reason?

HON. S. HAGEN: You know the reason as well as I do, A commitment was made to the Ontario teachers' federation and the Ontario Federation of Labour that they would not participate if the NDP were elected. Unfortunately for Canada, the NDP got elected in Ontario, so they have carried out their promise: they're not going to let their kids participate in these tests. They're not going to participate in the assessment program. Every other province is, and the parents of Canada want their kids tested. The assessment programs are in numeracy and literacy, which are very significant and important. The NDP in Ontario has said: "No we're not going to participate. We don't believe in this." That's what they're saying. They don't care about kids; that's very sad. It's a project led by the provinces of Alberta and Quebec, and all provinces are participating except the NDP province of Ontario. That is very frightening.

However, I want to reiterate the other items included in the $115 million. There are teacher assistants, primary transportation.... All of these items are identified in the Sullivan Royal Commission on Education and are being funded for the second year. Last year the funding was $140 million; this year it's $185.589 million. They are listed here, and as soon as I get my estimates through the House and write my letters to the board, I will be pleased to make those specific figures available to you.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister attempts a number of responses; let me give him one. If he would like a discussion on the program indicators, I would suggest he refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. It would be the very first question this government has ever referred to that body in the four and a half years I have sat here. I note that it is the first time this minister has made any reference to that particular program.

I would also suggest that he might like to talk to some of his colleagues in Alberta who have headed up the program, and where I think they are having many discussions about it. It is an issue that deserves a good public policy debate. I would encourage the minister to accept that particular request, if he wants to have a policy debate and not something where we are dealing across the floor with questions to him. You are the only people who can make that reference, and we have a very good vehicle for that discussion to take place. If the minister is not prepared to have it take place in a venue where we can have opportunities to review the material and look at it from a public policy perspective, then I would say this is all politics and has nothing to do with this minister's concerns about the kids of this province.

Getting back to the dollars and cents of the ministry's estimates, it's interesting how broadly we are able to range. Let's look at a couple of the other items in the few minutes we have left this afternoon, around some of the issues that he has listed.

Can the minister advise us if any dollars not in the block will be going to school districts. They're not there as dollars available to districts now, but I'm sure that the minister would agree with me that education innovation and royal commission education happen in the schools of the province and not in the hallowed halls of this place or in the ministry offices.

Could the ministry advise us what amount of the $71 million that's left after we have money allocated in the block, as he says, for royal commission implementation is going to be available to school districts? And by what process will school districts be able to access those funds? I would imagine that there should be, in the dollars that he has listed, money for curriculum development resources, possibly for assess-

[ Page 12548 ]

ment and accountability and possibly for native language education — just to mention three. What amount of money and by what means do boards access any of the $71 million that's not already allocated in a paper that the minister will reveal after we've finished these estimates?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not prepared to reveal that, because I just don't think it's fair. That information is going out to the boards. As far as I'm concerned, all of this money is going into education. I'm not prepared to reveal that.

I want to go back to a point raised earlier by the member for New Westminster with regard to the cost of education in this province. The people of the province would be very interested to know that the cost of operating the average classroom in British Columbia, prior to the last wage negotiations, is $125,000 a year. Let's break that down, because this is very significant. It points out the importance placed on the negotiating process between boards and their employees. It's very interesting to look at the cost of salaries and the costs of other items.

The cost of a classroom is $125,217 a year. Of that, to fund the classroom teacher — and this is an average in the province; it differs a little from district to district — is $51,466. That's the average teacher's salary in the province, plus benefits. It's a large benefit package. Other instructional staff — librarians, counsellors — costs $30,700, part of that classroom. You have to add the two of them together, which adds up to 65 percent of the total cost of operating the classroom. Then you've got building operation and maintenance — $17,000 per classroom per year. Student transportation is another cost to contend with — $3,126 per classroom per year. School administration — $10,093 per classroom per year.

I want to remind you who allocates these expenses. The school boards make the allocations of these expenditures.

Let's move to the next category. Please pay attention. District administration costs per classroom per year are $6,500. These are decisions that boards have made.

Now we come to the important one. We've covered the rest of them. Instructional supplies and learning materials....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's for the kids.

HON. S. HAGEN: That's for the kids — $6,200 a year.

If you add up the salary portion of all of those expenses, it comes to $110,000 a year per classroom. The non-salary items total just under $16,000 a year. So the significance and importance of bargaining is critical. Bargaining is very critical to the whole process, because $110,000 out of the $125,000 that it costs to operate a classroom goes to salaries.

I'm asked the question from the other side of the House: "Why don't you provide more money for this, for UI increases and for all of these things?" The only reason that some boards are having any difficulty in balancing their budgets and are having to look at cutting programs to kids is that the settlements they reached — this is by their own admission — are higher than they can afford.

You know, it's interesting. There was a question asked of a person on the Bill Good show on CKNW: "Can you afford to pay teachers 7 percent in a time of declining revenues?" Now the question might be asked: "Who was the question posed to?" The question was posed to some guy named Harcourt.

[5:45]

Interjections.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm just reading the paper.

Interjections.

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't know who it was.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, I don't think any of us on this side worry very much about the silliness of the member opposite violating the rules, but we are concerned that the Chair is apparently prepared to turn a blind eye and ear. I would suggest that you remind that member of the rules of this chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's attacking the Chair.

MR. LOVICK: If he doesn't do his job, he should be attacked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for his point of order, and I'm sure that the minister will oblige.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's with deep apologies to the Chair that I withdraw the use of the name, and I will change that to the Leader of the Opposition. I also apologize for the member opposite, who was really chastising the Chair. I don't think that's necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: No. It's totally out of order.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's totally out of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. minister.

HON. S. HAGEN: I think we're touching a nerve again.

I want to go back to the question, because I want to make it clear who's asking the question and who's going to answer. The question posed to the Leader of the Opposition was: "Can you afford to pay teachers 7 percent?" I talked about Coquitlam School District, where they're paying them an increase of over 10.6 percent in a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Increase?

[ Page 12549 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: Increase in a year. Isn't that the district you used to work in?

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's 10.1 percent in one year.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes. That was the settlement.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll be glad to pull that out for you. But can I just stay with it? If you just would not interrupt me, please — the opposition House Leader. Could you bring him to order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, members.

HON. S. HAGEN: Just before I carry on with the discussion with regard to the salaries, let me make it clear that the opposition House Leader, who used to be a schoolteacher, was arguing the settlement. Okay? The settlement in School District 43 — Coquitlam — was 8.52 percent July 1 and 1.59 percent January 1. That's in less than 12 months — that's a six-month period. That adds up to 10.1. Just so we're clear on that.

However, I want to make this case. The question was asked: "Can we afford to pay teachers 7 percent in a time of declining revenues?" The answer from — and I won't use his name — the Leader of the Opposition was: "Well, you can't."

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

HON. S. HAGEN: The answer was: "Well, you can't, " which is a shortened form of "you cannot." Very interesting.

MS. A. HAGEN: I note the minister is wildly amused by his last exposé. It might be worthwhile noting that the percentage of school board budgets captured by teachers' salaries has remained constant for about the last ten years, and the minister is making....

MR. LOVICK: What was all this fuss from him, then?

MS. A. HAGEN: As he has done from the beginning of this session, the minister has tried to use and obfuscate figures. He's not prepared to talk about education innovation. He's not prepared to give an account in this Legislative Assembly of the dollars that he says are in this budget for the Royal Commission on Education. He's not prepared to give us any indication of how those dollars are going to get to the districts where education innovation really does take place and needs to take place in the classrooms and with those teachers whom this minister, directly and indirectly, loves to malign just as he does school boards. I'm sorry to find that the minister feels he can't make any other comment about at least the manner in which funds might get to school districts.

Perhaps what we should do, Mr. Chairman, is rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and we may be able to then deal with some of these matters tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.