[ Page 12551 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12551

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Reid

Ms. Cull

Mr. Clark

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a familiar number.

MS. A. HAGEN: It is a familiar number. But, as we all agree, the estimates we have been debating over these last few days are certainly among the most important in the debates we are going to have during this session — however long it lasts.

I want to begin this morning by talking for a few minutes about a government initiative which is not specifically a matter of this minister but which is having a very significant effect on his ministry. Mr. Chairman, for the interest of the committee, perhaps we could ask for some order in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, the Chair agrees. Can we have order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: As I was just noting, the matter we are first going to canvass this morning for a short time has to do with an issue not specifically under the direction of this minister, but it is an initiative of his government. It is a matter that affects not only this ministry but many people in the province. It is the Compensation Fairness Act, which was introduced and passed in the short session of this Legislature in March. It was an initiative of the Premier of the day — a disgraced Premier — who brought this legislation, as has so often been the case, into various ministries without fully thinking through the implications on those ministries.

Bill 82 has become an infamous piece of legislation in British Columbia in the short period of time that it has been part of the law of the land, and its effects on education have been catastrophic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you're discussing Bill 82, and that is not permitted. It's out of order within the parameters of Committee of Supply.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, then let me make some comments about matters that affect the minister, school boards and their staffs in the province, which clearly are of importance as we look at the estimates.

Presently, school districts, whose funding comes from and is determined entirely by this government, are attempting to establish their budgets for the coming year. In particular, teachers who work in those districts are attempting to deal with the matter of collective agreements between themselves and their boards. I should say that teachers and boards are dealing with collective agreements that are of great significance in terms of the morale, the climate and the working conditions in the school districts of the province.

Not all boards are affected. Because of the nature of the legislation that is affecting boards, their teacher relationships and their budgeting, some boards are captured and some boards are not by a bill that is affecting boards' ability to plan for the future.

If you'll indulge me for a moment, I know the minister would like to call this issue out of order, but I do intend to make it germane to the Education estimates which we are discussing. We are talking about matters that are entirely within the purview of this ministry — namely, the funds that are available to boards, which is the basis for boards' budgeting.

As a result of legislation affecting this ministry, we now have a situation where school boards are in a state of chaos and confusion. Let me be very specific about events of the last few weeks that are having their impact on boards and employees. Presently, boards are in a state of absolute limbo as a result of Bill 82 being in a state of limbo. We have boards who are being requested to provide information over and over again by an independent bureaucrat who has extreme powers to deal with the affairs of school boards, and at present, there's been no action by that commissioner to give any indication of what his ruling will be. Therefore boards are left with a law of the land that everyone — employers, economic advisory groups, workers' groups — has agreed is unnecessary and flawed; it defies the basic principles of parliamentary democracy, the basic principles of collective agreement and the basic rules this government has set for school boards and their employees to conduct their affairs. That law has thrown all of those fundamental rules into a state of chaos — some boards affected, some boards not affected, and we have a situation....

[10:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm terribly sorry, but I'm listening most closely and a rose by any other name smells as sweet. I notice you're trying desperately to bring this matter up without involving the legislation, but it's there. Sir Erskine May states: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in supply on a substantive motion."

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, recognizing your ruling and the rules which we abide by in this debate, let me again turn to the issue of the situation being experienced by school boards in the province whose funding comes entirely from this ministry and whose operating rules come entirely from this government.

As we know, in these debates over the last few days we have ranged far and wide. The minister has often discussed, for example, what is happening in the

[ Page 12552 ]

school districts of the province — quite appropriately, because this is the senior ministry, it funds those school boards, and the ministry and its government set the rules by which these boards function.

Unfortunately, what is happening in this province is that the centralizing of power in the hands of the Ministry of Education and the government is beginning to cast boards and their staff in the role of middle managers rather than co-partners in education. Nothing exemplifies that more than the situation they face in trying to deal with a government that has put in place a set of rules which, at this point, are fundamentally flawed and are making it impossible for boards to do their business. I believe that is very much an issue of concern to this committee.

Let's take a look at boards that are affected by government policies which inevitably impact on a variety of ministries. They impact very significantly on the Ministry of Education, because we have 30,000 teachers, about 15,000 support staff and 75 boards carrying out their mandate under this ministry, with rules that are not workable and that are unfair and unnecessary. The result is that boards are in total confusion and chaos. Boards are not able to function as they should, because this minister and this government have put in place rules that make it impossible for them to do their work. It has defied the fundamental principles under which those boards carry out their business; it has changed the rules in midstream and left boards in a position where collective agreements and board budgets are up in the air.

Now the effect of this has been that those boards cannot plan and cannot carry out their duties as they are sworn to do as trustees. Morale is very seriously undermined. We have next year's school year in a state of uncertainty. Quite fundamentally, 500,000 schoolchildren are being affected by this ministry and this legislation.

It's interesting that over the past four years this government has consistently brought in legislation that has had a very serious impact on the Ministry of Education. This ministry has been ignored in the development of that legislation. We can look at Bill 19, the labour bill, and Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act. We can look at Bill 11, which brought in referendums and which the former Minister of Education, Tony Brummet, supported with a great deal of reluctance. And we can look at this bill, which most seriously impacts the way in which school boards are able to do their business and carry on their affairs.

Through all of this debate we have had three fundamental themes: (1) the importance of stability, predictability and fairness in the running of the school system....

HON. S. HAGEN: Yesterday, when I used the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the opposition benches went apoplectic. Today the member for New Westminster has used the name of the former Minister of Education. That's not a proper thing to do; his resignation is not effective until tomorrow. I would ask her to withdraw and identify the riding, which is North Peace River.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. It's not a matter of withdrawal; it's just a matter of following the normal customs.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I do recall now that the hon. member's resignation is not effective until tomorrow, and it is appropriate that I should refer to him by his riding. I'm glad the minister has now got his riding straight. Yesterday or the day before he referred to him as the minister from South Peace River; I think that member is in fact the Minister of Native Affairs.

This matter before us is probably, from the point of view of the issues that I was identifying as our key themes in our debate, the most significant. We have been talking about 520,000 schoolchildren in the schools of British Columbia. We have been talking about the means by which this government sets up a climate for the education enterprise to be entered into and carried out in the most effective way for those children. We have also been talking about the difficulties that districts have in planning and carrying out their duties with a government that keeps throwing unexpected and totally intolerable legislation into the scheme of things.

The idea that that legislation should continue to impact on the functioning of the Ministry of Education is something that we take very seriously. It is a matter that we believe deserves the attention of this session and this Legislature, because if we do not act and do something about this matter, we will....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has expired. Perhaps one of your colleagues would interject.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change the direction of this just a little. I was paying attention yesterday when the minister was responding to some questions that were asked relative to the direction given to school boards across the province by the previous Minister of Education in the fall of 1990. I think it's important that we point that out. I'd like the minister, if he can, to relay to this House the responses received from those school boards in late October of last year, subsequent to the request that the school boards give serious consideration to how they handled negotiations in the coming months relative to ability to pay. School boards responded to the ministry, indicating that they'd received the correspondence and that they would try as best as possible to administer within the numbers that were offered. Would the minister provide some details?

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the question from the hon. member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale — and everywhere else on the lower mainland. The question is a logical one and a good one. As I said yesterday, the former minister, the member for North Peace River, did send a very well written ministerial statement to all board chairpersons in the province, reminding them — and in many areas of the province they didn't need any reminding, especially in the resource-based communities — of the downturn in the economy.

[ Page 12553 ]

I also sent out a letter very shortly after I became minister. In my letter, I included the same basic type of information. I also included in the envelope the information that we receive as ministers from all of the data-collecting agencies across the country about where the economy is heading. Our concern is not only to continue to provide a high-quality education system, but is for the taxpayers who have to pay for that system.

I can tell you that the number of responses we received from school boards was nil. Unfortunately, it did not seem to have any impact on the level of collective agreements that were settled, I can refer to one example I have here which was quoted in the February 19 Times-Colonist, and this is in quotation marks from the chairperson of the Greater Victoria School Board: "We signed an agreement we feel we can't pay for."

MR. REID: Thank you for that answer. I'm surprised you had zero responses. I thought that maybe some would at least have given you some direction and would have looked seriously at the request from the former minister.

One other question I wanted to ask relative to your budget and estimates, Mr. Minister, is about independent schooling. I noticed in the discussions yesterday across the floor that the sum of $82 million was raised for independent schools. Could you advise the House how many students there are in the independent system? And if the number can by conveyed, could we also anticipate the cost to the public school system if they were to have to take over the number of independent schools and independent students within British Columbia?

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate that question. I can give you enrolment figures for the last two years: the '89-90 enrolment in the independent school system in British Columbia was 35,606; in '90-91, 38,561 students. You asked about the cost to the taxpayer if those students were in the public school system. While I don't have the exact figure, my estimate is that the independent school system saves the taxpayers of British Columbia about $75 million a year.

MR. REID: Does your ministry keep track of the dropout rate in the independent schools versus the public sector schools?

HON. S. HAGEN: We don't collect data on the dropout rate from the independent schools.

I want to correct the figure I gave you on the savings to the taxpayer; it's been a while since I've looked at this. I used to look at it when I was involved at the school board level. The savings to the taxpayers of British Columbia for the students presently enrolled in the independent school system is $123 million a year.

MR. REID: One final question, Mr. Minister. I don't think my colleagues and I are fully clear on the subject of referendums in each school district. I know you mentioned yesterday that our school district in Surrey received a 23.9 percent increase over previous funding. At what point can a school board decide that there is a shortfall in funding? This shortfall is determined by them, not by the ministry and not by block funding but by their own determination. I think it is evidenced in most school districts because of the settlements that have been made with staff. At what point do they have an option of going to the taxpayer for further funding?

[10:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to clarify one statistic that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale used when he referred to the funding to the Surrey School Board, which I indicated yesterday. The funding increase to the Surrey School Board was 23.8 percent over two years, not over one year — just so that's clear.

With regard to the question of referendums, yes, we have provided for referendums in the School Act. The reason for that is to provide democracy in the system so that school boards wanting to add additional programs that other districts might feel aren't necessary have the ability to go to the taxpayer — who after all is paying for it — and get the approval of the local taxpayers.

I'll remind the member again of the dates. The date under the legislation when we announce the block is February 1. So that's when the boards know what their block amounts are. They then have about two months, until the last Saturday in March, to decide whether they want to go to referendum. The referendum must be held by the second Saturday in April.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I have one last question about special-needs students in the school district in my constituency. Mr. Minister, I am constantly getting calls about the decision by our school board to — pardon the expression — hive off some of the special-needs programs. I was listening intently yesterday and heard the minister talk about block funding provided for special-needs students. If I can provide sufficient evidence for the minister that our school district has in fact "hived off" some of the special-needs programs in order to pay the incremental increases they have offered to the staff, will the minister provide an audit for my school district in relation to those programs which, in my opinion, have been shelved for obvious reasons? I would like him to clarify it one more time for my own edification and also for that of my constituents.

HON. S. HAGEN: There are two things I can do, and I'm prepared to do either one. I can — and I am prepared to — send in an auditor to see whether, in fact, those special-needs programs are being reduced; and secondly, I can direct the board by ministerial order not to reduce those programs.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, because of the growth of our school district — one of the fastest-growing in the province — and the special needs which revolve around that school district, I would recommend that you do either/or in relation to the audit of the Surrey

[ Page 12554 ]

School District regarding this problem that I see expanding almost daily. I have a real concern for it. My constituency office is inundated with calls from parents concerned about these programs for the coming year. So I would request that either of those initiatives you have at your disposal be implemented in the largest school district growth area in British Columbia in order to bring this thing to a conclusion.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, I will take that under strong advisement. Thank you.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just follow up briefly on some of the comments of the previous speaker. I wonder if the minister could provide us with the figures of the enrolment increase in Surrey over the last two years.

HON. S. HAGEN: Last year it was a 5 percent growth; this year I can give you the numbers.

MS. A. HAGEN: Is there a percentage in your block figures?

HON. S. HAGEN: The percentage in the block figures is related to dollars, not to growth in students. I can give you the FTEs: 1989-90, 38,335; 1990-91, 41,113; and estimated 1991-92, 43,164.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister to simply use his own tables — the ones that go to the boards — and tell us what percentage increase there was last year and what percentage increase in FTEs is predicted this year — not global figures, but the actual percentage of those increases. Those figures are in public documents, and I'm sure the minister, with two people to help him, can provide us with those percentages.

I'd also like to ask the minister to inform us of the net increase in Surrey's budget when one takes into account the fairly significant enrolment increases in that fast-growing district.

HON. S. HAGEN: The increase in students for the period of 1989-90 to 1990-91 is 7.2 percent. The projected increase is 5 percent for this year. I know what the member for New Westminster is trying to do: she wants me to subtract that number from the increase of 23 percent that they received in money. I'm surprised she would ask that. Obviously she wasn't a math teacher, because you can't take a percentage of students and deduct it from a percentage of dollars, because not all costs go up as you add students.

MS. A. HAGEN: This early in the morning, my patience is running a little thin. In previous discussions I've already estimated to the minister a factor for those additional students. The one I've used is 70 percent; perhaps the minister has another figure that they use I've asked him to provide us with his estimate of the net increase in budget to Surrey when the enrolment is taken into consideration. I didn't ask him to subtract one from the other. I'm quite prepared to hear him tell us what the real increase is when one factors out the 12-point-something increase in student population in that district.

I might note that that increase has meant that Surrey, which has 329 portables on school properties in its environs, has had to buy or lease portables to house those children. There are a lot of different factors that are a cost to the district, because of the very great growth in that rapidly growing and wonderful constituency. Perhaps the minister could tell us what their estimate is of the real increase, once we net out the cost of the 12.2 percent increase in enrolment for that district.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sorry if I struck a nerve so early today; usually that doesn't happen until the afternoon. I certainly apologize for that, and I don't wish the member for New Westminster to become upset or angry.

I have to clarify with her; I'm not sure what her meaning of "net" is. That's not how we calculate the block. The fact of the matter is that the Surrey School District received an increase in dollars of 23.8 percent over two years. On an entirely separate matter, they had an increase in students of 12.1 percent over that same two-year period.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The member for New Westminster mentioned the large number of portables in Surrey. I'm very aware of that. I visited several schools in Surrey, and it's because of that demand that this year we were able to announce in Surrey $135 million for capital, which will replace almost half of the portables in the Surrey School District in one year. It's absolutely astounding that we could accomplish that much in one year. It's because this government this year has committed $650 million to address the capital needs of the school districts throughout the province. Certainly, as you can tell, $135 million of that — a large percentage of the $650 million — has gone into Surrey, because Surrey is a large and fast-growing district. Those needs are being addressed, and they're being addressed well.

MS. CULL: I just might point out, while the minister is talking about $650 million for capital funds, that the Greater Victoria School District in its high-priority ranking for this year alone has $40 million on its list. We have 75 school districts, so before we get too excited about how wonderful we are, let's just remember that in having starved the capital funding budget of this district and this province for schools over the last decade, it's about time that we started to get rid of some of those portables in Surrey. I'm going to come back and talk about capital funding later.

I want to return to the point about the enrolment increases and the percentage increases. I think it's very misleading of the minister to talk about funding increases without acknowledging that a certain percentage of that increase is directly tied to increased enrolment.

[ Page 12555 ]

If you are serving 100 students this year and you get no more money from one year to the next and you get more students, you're going to have a cut in services. If your funding increases along with the number of students that you have, then you're going to be holding constant until we consider inflation and the additional costs of MSP premiums and all the other kinds of things that this government has imposed on boards.

I would like the minister to give us the figures for Surrey that deal with the actual increase in funding that is not tied to enrolment. I appreciate that you can't just simply subtract the 12 percent enrolment increase from a 23 percent funding increase, but surely with his staff here he can net out the costs that are attributable simply to the fact that they are serving 12 percent more students in the Surrey district. What is the real funding increase, or are we just holding constant? From my mathematics you have to add the per-pupil cost for that extra 12 percent, and you have to add inflation, which is running somewhere around 6 or 7 percent. Once you start adding those figures together, 23 percent doesn't sound like an awful lot over two years. Could the minister give us the figure that is net of those funding increases so that we can have a look at whether it's really dealing with inflation?

I might point out, just before the minister rises to answer, that Surrey has one of the lowest per-pupil amounts given to it by the province. Surrey is at the bottom or very close to the bottom of the list.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm very pleased with that question. I want to talk about the capital question that the member for Oak Bay spoke of earlier in her comments with regard to the request from the Greater Victoria School District. If you had been here yesterday you would have heard me say that the high-priority requests from the entire province this year totalled $687 million. We were able to fund $650 million of those high-priority requests. That's phenomenal.

Also, I am informed that she is incorrect in her facts of what the Victoria school board asked for and addressed as high-priority items. The member for Oak Bay said the school board asked for $40 million in high-priority items. That's incorrect. The actual amount is $28.7 million, so don't go throwing figures out unless you know they're correct.

[10:45]

The member from Oak Bay talked about netting out figures. It would be wonderful if the world was as simple as some of the members across the floor want to make it. I can tell you that there isn't another government in Canada that commits and spends as much of its total budget on education as British Columbia — not even close to it. And if you want to talk about comparisons, let's talk about Ontario where your friends got elected and are now attempting to destroy the province and the economy, which will have a ripple effect across this country. Let's talk about expenditures on education in Ontario compared to British Columbia. Let me clarify that, as the minister, I am not in a spending contest with anybody, because I don't believe that you necessarily affect the quality of education by throwing money at it. But the people across the floor — the NDP critics — are continually saying that we don't spend enough money on education. Well, let me tell you something: education is the number one priority for this government. This year the government committed 27.4 percent of our total expenditures to education — and I'm talking about education from K to 12, plus my colleague's advanced education section. What is it in Ontario? It's under 19 percent, and it has declined from last year. Ours has increased from last year. So don't talk to me about expenditures and commitment to kids in this province, because we are ahead of any other province in this country.

I'm going to give a little lesson here on school financing to the member for Oak Bay. Listen, please. The member for Prince George should pay attention, because then she doesn't have to keep interrupting. It's important to understand that, as you add children into the school system and as new children appear at the door, costs don't automatically go up by $5,500 — the average number. If you add one student to a class of 19, you don't have to add teachers, add another building or room or add all those things. Also, as more students appear at the school, board office expenses, administrative expenses and clerical expenses do not necessarily increase in proportion. That's why I'm saying....

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, please keep the member for New Westminster in control. She's being very vicious to the minister. I'm trying to answer the question of the member for Oak Bay — and it was a good question; I'm enjoying answering it.

It's important to recognize that the costs in the block are different for every school district. That's why we developed the block: to put fairness into the system. And for her to raise the point that Surrey is the lowest.... Well, why doesn't she talk about Nisga'a or one of the other districts that are the highest? They all have different costs, and we are recognizing those costs — not so the costs are the same, but so that the delivery to students is equitable. After all, isn't that what we're here for? We're here to address the needs of students. We want to make sure that students in Fort St. John, White Rock, Abbotsford, Quesnel or Courtenay all get the same high-quality education.

Thank goodness we've got a qualified teaching force out there working every day and helping those kids, so that by the time those students reach grade 12 and graduate, they'll be able to carry on with their lives, whether they go on to post-secondary or into apprenticeship training or whether they get a job or travel.

MS. CULL: I haven't had the privilege of being in this House for very long, but in the time that I've been here, I've listened to an awful lot of garbage coming across the floor. I don't think I've ever heard anything more sanctimonious than the speech we just heard from the Minister of Education.

You can stand up and talk about Ontario, about these global figures and about how wonderful it is. But, Mr. Minister, please go out into the school system

[ Page 12556 ]

and talk about it like that. When you are in schools which have been undermaintained and underfunded for almost a decade and in many cases are in serious need of maintenance; schools where they have the first-aid bed in the hallway, because that's the only space they can squeeze it into; schools where classrooms for kindergarten children are way over any acceptable limit; and schools where teachers are dealing with large classes with a number of children with special needs and behavioural problems and with English as a second language.... I think you would find it a lot more difficult to stand up and smile and make those statements in almost any school in this province.

I want to go back to the issue of the 23 percent. It's really interesting that in all of that discussion and in all of those fancy words that the minister gave out, he still did not answer the question. We accept the fact that when new students come into the system, they don't increase the total costs to the same extent as existing students. There may in fact be space within the system, and they may not require the addition of a portable. There are administrative costs and other kinds of costs that can cover additional students. But, Mr. Minister, will you please recognize — and not mislead people — that there is some additional cost resulting from enrolment.

People who are listening to you say there's a 23 percent increase in funding for the Surrey School District — or whatever you want to say for any district — are going to be impressed with that figure; it sounds very reasonable. I would like to make sure those people are not misled by the fact that that figure covers not only increased services and demands on the system through the Year 2000 curriculum, through the integration of special-needs children and through the incredible problems children are bringing to the school system everyday, but also having more bodies in the classroom, which means more teachers, desks, books and classrooms. Could he please let us know what figure he uses to show the actual cost of introducing new students into the system?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to respond very specifically to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, particularly with regard to her comments that the system has been underfunded over the last ten years. Some people might be interested in knowing the percentage increase in dollars put into the K-to-12 education system over the last ten years, 1981 to 1990. The increase in funding to the school system over that ten-year period was 75 percent. You may want to compare that to something, so let's compare it to the CPI — the cost of living. The cost of living in that same period has gone up 52.1 percent. For that member to stand up sanctimoniously and say that we have underfunded....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Please continue, Mr. Minister.

HON. S. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that intervention, and I appreciate your keeping the debate under control. That's very important.

For the member from Oak Bay — who, I'm sorry, has just walked out and won't be able to listen to my answer — to say that we have underfunded the system is ridiculous. In the last four years alone, since we became government in 1986, we have increased expenditures to education in the province by 39.6 percent. The cost of living in that period has gone up 17.6 percent. Then she has the nerve to talk about underfunding capital. Let's look at the capital budget over the last three years. Three years ago it was $250 million for buildings and repairs; last year it was $350 million; this year it's $650 million. That's $1.2 billion over the last three years. I know that all they do is live and dream about spending money. But for any member on that side of the House to insinuate that education has not been well addressed in this province is absolutely shameful.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to say to you that the increases provided to school boards every year are based on economic factors — in other words, the growth in the economy. They're based on the growth in the number of students and the increase in the costs of delivering services. May I remind you that those numbers are not set by me as the minister; those numbers are determined by a group of secretary-treasurers and superintendents, through the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework has been agreed upon by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the superintendents' association and the secretary-treasurers' association. It is a very fair method of funding education.

This year the average increase is $5,500. So for every student who appears at the door, there's an average of $5,500 to pay for the high-quality education costs of that student.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, I'm really interested in the numbers you're advancing here today. One of the questions asked by the members opposite was relative to enrolment since 1981. Would you indicate the actual net enrolment increase from 1981 to 1991?

Interjections.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, maybe I can read you the numbers.

Interjections.

MR. REID: Well, I want to make sure that the other members.... I can't convey to them directly.... I'm using some of your documents, Mr. Minister.

In 1980-81 it indicates that the full-time-equivalent enrolment in the province was 492,053. In 1989-90 the total enrolment was 492,642 — for a net increase over ten years of less than 600 students. The equivalent the other members would like to know is a 75 percent increase in the budget over a ten-year period equated to roughly 600 students. Divide that number into 75

[ Page 12557 ]

percent of the total budget, and that may be the number they're looking for.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister's own figures indicate that the enrolment projection for 1991-92 is 519,695. If we are going to be looking at accuracy, let's be sure that we are looking at enrolment.

Enrolment has increased significantly. When we look at Surrey, Kelowna, Langley and Abbotsford, those increases are significant. They are costing in terms of additional teachers and facilities. I'd like to explore this issue of facilities, because it has been one of the most challenging aspects for Kelowna, Abbotsford, Langley and for that member's riding of Surrey to find any kind of decent accommodation for these youngsters.

While we're looking at these figures — I don't happen to have them in front of me — we should look at the record of capital funding over the years. The last time we were, as the minister has described it, in an economic downturn, in 1984-85, $23 million was available to the school districts of this province at a time when the vast majority of our schools were old and in need of earthquake preparedness upgrading. Nearly all the schools in the province are of significant age and require constant work to remain decent places for our children. This government, over that period, had absolutely nothing in real dollar terms in a capital budget.

[11:00]

Over the last two years — last year when an election was expected and this year when an election was expected — those dollars have appeared. We are very glad to see them. Better late than not at all.

But let's look at the record, which is what this member has been doing, and at the way this government has planned for education. One of the themes of our discussion is this issue of planning, which enables boards over a long-term cycle — not just over a one- or two-year cycle and not just over the pre-election cycle — to plan for the needs of their children.

It is absolutely disgraceful that 329 portables sit on the school grounds in Surrey. At the school where I taught in 1962, there are more portables on the grounds than there were classrooms at that particular time.

HON. S. HAGEN: I thought you were a trustee.

MS. A. HAGEN: Yes, I was a schoolteacher until 1962, and then I was a trustee long after I was a schoolteacher — just in case you want to know something about my personal history.

We have a huge number of portables, but they come at a cost. Those portables have to be bought or leased, transported, hooked up and in some way connected to bathrooms and other basic amenities. Surrey has been looking at that situation growing, as the minister's own figures show, at the rate of 5 to 7 percent a year. It's one of the fastest-growing school districts in the province.

Let's look at the jurisdiction of the new Minister of Advanced Education — the district of Abbotsford. I was passing interested to see a press release right at the end of the fiscal year which said that, magically, the Ministry of Education had found the necessary dollars to build the Rick Hansen Secondary School out of last year's capital budget. The cost of that decision being delayed until the end of the fiscal year rather than being at the beginning, both to the children of Abbotsford and to the children of the province, is considerable. Let's remember that last May a lot of school districts were appalled that their high-priority applications for new schools were not accepted. The ministry had $350 million in a capital budget at that stage of the game, and it had a very much larger pool of high-priority needs which it was not prepared to address last year. It was prepared to leave those kids in portables and in those conditions for yet another year.

However, magically, having said every cent was allocated and gone, at the end of the fiscal year they found for your riding, Mr. Chairman, and for the Advanced Education minister's riding enough money to fund a school that I believe was costing something like $22 million. The actual additional cost to the taxpayers for the delay in that decision is something in the order of $3 million — almost 15 percent of the cost of that facility — in added costs for building it at this stage of the game. Multiply that by all the schools which this government has refused to build until two or three months before an election, and you have untold additional costs to districts, which they have tried to find in their budgets in order to accommodate the children. What we're talking about is planning. What we're talking about is informing and empowering boards to get on with their affairs.

I could go on. I could go back and look at the sale of the Westwood lands in Coquitlam, another rapidly growing district where there's not a covenant of any kind for school property. The former Minister of Education, the member for North Peace River, urged the government to take action to acquire some of those lands early, so that they could be acquired at a reasonable cost rather than at an inflated development cost. It was not so, not in the cards — not something that's a part of this ministry's planning.

We can talk all we like about the big picture, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of planning, of the wise use of our tax resources, of careful stewardship and working with boards towards long-term planning, this government's record simply does not stand up. That minister can baffle us with figures from now until the end of his estimates and beyond, but those are the facts.

While we're dealing with the facts, the minister might like to note that in terms of Ministry of Education funding as a percentage of the budget, one means of measuring the amount of money that goes into education.... The Ministry of Education's percentage of the budget is 19.1 percent, not 27 or 28 percent. I believe that since we are dealing with the ministry's estimates, it would be good for us to deal with that figure. There is no question that the percentage has increased, and it's long overdue, and we're glad that the ministry and the government have seen the need to invest in education and add dollars to the resources available. But that doesn't take away from the fact that

[ Page 12558 ]

in terms of the long-term planning of this government, it has been boom and bust, lobbing into the education community unexpected costs and unexpected problems.

I want to return just for a moment to the discussion that we started with this morning, the difficulties that school districts are having because of legislation that affects this ministry and affects schools boards — that is, the effects of Bill 82, which has created such chaos and confusion in the schools of the province.

I'd like to just read into the record a brief comment by a voter in the province about what he sees emerging for education in the province if legislation like this continues to stand. I would note, Mr. Chairman, that we on this side of the House have not only opposed that legislation but urged the government to repeal it. Let me just read into the record the comment about the effect on schools and the incidents that are occurring.

MR. REE: Point of order. The member for New Westminster has at least twice, if not more, been admonished by the Chairman for being out of order in bringing up the matter of legislation. Now the member persists in doing that, and I think she should be further admonished or asked to retire from this chamber. She's consistently out of order, and she knows better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Legislation of any kind cannot be discussed during Committee of Supply. I would urge the member to comply with the general rules of committee.

MR. CLARK: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the point raised by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. It's quite clear that the minister has repeatedly talked about teachers, wages and controls, and it's quite appropriate for us to raise the subject matter that is canvassed by the legislation as it pertains to this minister's estimates. It's absolutely critical to the arguments the minister has made. We can canvass the whole range of areas surrounding teacher morale, which has been affected by this minister and this legislation, and the areas of expenditure affected by other legislation as it pertains to this minister. The minister has had no hesitation in raising this subject, and we fully intend to canvass it here in this chamber with that minister and this ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I know that you well understand the regulations of committee. There is no way I can accept what you're saying. I have no jurisdiction to allow legislative matters to be discussed during Committee of Supply.

MR. REE: On the same point of order, to answer the member — the only member for Vancouver East — the legislation they're referring to is not directed specifically towards the teachers; it's dealing with the negotiations between teachers, school boards and other government employees. It has no direct bearing on the estimates of the Minister of Education. Because of that, it is further out of order in this debate.

MS. A. HAGEN: It is incredible to me and, I think, will be incredible to most people who have written and commented about this ministry and what's happening in education that we can suggest that there are not many factors that influence what goes on in the schools of our province. There is no question at all that among those factors are the relationships between boards and their teachers, and the rules that govern how our schools carry out their affairs, do their budgeting, bargain with their employees and plan for facilities and programs. All these factors are in the purview of the minister whose estimates we are dealing with today. No one outside this chamber fails to understand that the various aspects of government policy are having an effect on how the ministry is able to deliver on the necessary and very important commitment to children.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I feel very strongly that what has happened recently regarding the rules affecting boards is having a great impact on what's going to happen in our schools next year. On Friday, when we did the mini-estimates, this minister carefully made very certain that he had nothing to say during the debate on supply — we approved $5 billion that day — because nothing was going to happen until September. Well, what's going on right now affects what's going to happen in September. It affects staffing, morale, planning — all those issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has expired. Perhaps one of her colleagues....

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'm very interested in hearing the comments of the member for New Westminster. In dealing with the attack on teachers that we've heard relentlessly for four days in this chamber by the minister, undermining morale, and with the attacks on school boards that we've heard repeatedly by a minister who is practising for opposition.... He keeps wanting to ask us questions. Well, he'll get a chance in two or three months, if he's lucky enough to survive the next election campaign, to ask questions of the executive council. We're quite happy for him to make those remarks.

[11:15]

This minister has made some rather interesting remarks. He stood up here and attacked the collective bargaining process with teachers. He has complained about the results of collective bargaining, when this government set up the process they're now complaining about. Isn't that interesting? He stood up here and attacked school boards and teachers' unions for negotiating collective agreements, when the very process of negotiation was set up by this administration. He stands up here and asks questions of the members opposite, as if he's practising for opposition.

It's an interesting role-reversal. The minister has gone through and repeatedly attacked the very people he should be defending as the Minister of Education. If we want an education system that works, then we need to treat teachers and school boards with the dignity

[ Page 12559 ]

and respect they deserve. We need to work together in this important area, instead of taking cheap shots.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to defer to the member for New Westminster, for her to continue her very important and learned remarks. I'm sure teachers, if there are any watching, would be heartened that there some people in this province who are concerned about the education system and the people who work in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, in the gallery today we have some grade 5 and 6 students who are most interested in this debate, from Plymouth Elementary School in North Vancouver, under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Al Jarvis, and some of the other teachers, I believe. I regret I don't have the other teachers' names. I would ask this chamber to give them a very warm welcome to what probably is a most interesting debate. Welcome to Victoria.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to spend a moment reading briefly from a letter I recently received. I'm sure the minister has had, as I have, literally — well, he has probably had thousands; I've had hundreds — of letters over the last period of time from people who are engaged in the debate about education. I think we are in a very interesting time in our province, because people are very much involved in their communities in looking at what our education system should be and what it should provide for youngsters for the future.

I know that many elements go into making a fine education system — most of them human, most of them having to do with the interrelationships between teachers and parents, which is one of the reasons that we feel so strongly about any policy of government that has the effect of producing a decline in morale, chaotic circumstances and erosion of working relationships between boards and teachers.

This government has had a great deal to say about decentralization. Historically, the most significant decentralization in this province is the existence of school boards, which have been an alive and fundamental democratic process and organization since the 1860s. Those bodies of people elected by their communities work with parents and teachers to provide the best possible calibre of education. That decentralized system has in fact been centralized by this government, which has taken power unto itself and keeps changing the rules.

Let me just read what this person has to say about how he sees the situation at this time. He is writing because he is concerned about the future of education in the province. He quotes an interesting study; it's one I hadn't seen before, and I think it is an interesting one to put on the record.

"The Atlantic has recently published statistical findings showing a cause-effect relationship between improved teacher salaries and improved lifetime earnings for their students. The unmistakable conclusion is that to invest generously in teachers is to invest wisely in a society's economy. All of these matters should concern people who are genuinely imbued with a respect for the continuing welfare of this province. Such important considerations should surely be at the heart of your government's sober deliberations about the future."

I heard somebody hissing with that, but you know, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we must recognize is that the most important resources we have for children are first of all their parents, and secondly, the teachers who work with them in their classrooms. If we ever forget that, then we will have undermined and eroded everything else we may be doing, regardless of the dollars we put into that enterprise.

Let me quote a little further:

"Beyond that, the depredations caused by initiatives of government threaten to erode public confidence in your ability to preserve our democratic institutions. An administration whimsically granting and denying access to collective bargaining rights for large segments of its population is not one likely to enjoy enduring respect. The instability created by such a reckless approach to government bathes you and your cabinet colleagues in a most unflattering light."

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House cannot leave uncommented upon the effects on the children of the province of initiatives supported by this minister. I want to conclude my comments in this regard by noting that we have called on the government to take action to alleviate the situation. This side of the House doesn't have that power. That side of the House has set the rules. The rules are harmful to our children. We have urged and will continue to urge that government to make the necessary changes to provide some relief from that situation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to a discussion we were having yesterday afternoon around a very important initiative of government: the implementation of the royal commission recommendations. As I noted yesterday afternoon, I had requested of the minister figures around the dollars he claims are in his budget — not identified, but within his budget — for the royal commission. I had requested that those figures be available to me to help make the debate easier. He has noted, and I have accepted his comment, that because he has some information he wants to provide to school boards once his estimates are complete, he's not able to provide me with those figures.

I am trying to get some proof of this government's ongoing commitment — its real commitment — to the Royal Commission on Education through my questions. We know that dual entry, for example, has been cancelled. We know the former Minister of Education saw that as one of the cornerstones of the royal commission, even though it is not one of their recommendations. We know that there have been initiatives initiated by the Premier and by this minister to review the whole royal commission implementation program. The minister, I think just yesterday, announced that the timetable for that review was going to be extended a couple of weeks. We know that the minister made a commitment to specifically consult with teachers and trustees on that review — not the ongoing consulta-

[ Page 12560 ]

tion, which I agree has been going on through the Education Advisory Council and other methods, but specifically with those bodies. I'm going to ask the minister to take that as one of the questions to answer when I conclude my remarks.

I would like to know if the minister has engaged in any specific consultations with either trustees or teachers in respect to the current review. I know that I asked a question in the House a few days ago around that matter, and he said he'd been to an Education Advisory Council meeting and no one had brought it up. But it's important to note that neither had the minister put it on the agenda of that meeting. Since it is the minister's review, I think most of us would anticipate that he would set the framework — what is being reviewed and how it is being reviewed — and then set up the consultation process.

At the moment we are looking at a program that I'm concerned about. I'm worried that the thrust for reform and change, the only long-term plan this government has had, is indeed in some state of uncertainty. I think it's really important for us to have some discussion about that in this chamber.

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I noted that the select standing committee of this Legislature, which includes people from the government side and the opposition side of the House, has never met in the four and a half years I have been in this chamber. It's a committee that deals with health, education and social services. It deals with matters that cover 70 percent of the budget of this province. That committee has never met. It's interesting that that committee, for instance, has never looked at any of the aspects of education reform.

Right now the minister is engaged in some kind of review. Its nature, dimensions and intent is unknown to anyone but himself. At the same time, we are looking at items buried in the budget — not identified as royal commission — which are ostensibly for that reform. I would invite the minister to make some comment about that review. I would invite him to advise us what specific initiatives he has taken around the current review, the one requested by the interim Premier in April, with a deadline of June 1 for a response; what initiatives he has taken to carry through with his commitment to consult on that review.

I would like to ask him specifically, around the issue of dual entry, how much money is in the $115 million that he told us yesterday was in the block for dual entry, and what that money will be used for, given the fact that dual entry is cancelled.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the students in the gallery from North Vancouver. Welcome over to Victoria. You have arrived on a very good day to observe proceedings in the House, because we are in fact talking about your future. You've heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side, where they don't talk about kids very much, but I can tell you that the reason that we have an education system....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, minister, but to start out with, leave should have been granted for you to discuss this subject, and now we seem to be going a little bit beyond....

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll move back very quickly.

The reason the system is here, Mr. Chairman, is for the children. I don't think anybody can argue that. Would anybody argue that? I don't think so.

I want to take the member for New Westminster to task on several statements that she has made today. Because I haven't been able to....

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Just calm down. The member for Victoria can calm down. You just walked into the chamber; you haven't been here for the debate all morning.

The member for New Westminster has made several incorrect statements, Mr. Chairman, and I want to take her to task. She made the statement quite a while ago — I haven't had a chance to respond — that boards are having difficulty establishing their budgets. The member knows very well that school boards, under the act, submitted their budgets to the ministry by April 20 of this year. So how in the world can she stand there and say that boards are having difficulty establishing their budgets? Their budgets were all established prior to that date. As a matter of fact, they even passed bylaws to comply with the act, which they have submitted to me with their budgets.

[11:30]

The funds that are passed on to the boards to provide education for the students are passed through the block funding. As I've said many times before, the block is the fairest method that has ever been devised to fund education, because it's funded on a per-student basis.

She has made the statement that boards are prevented from carrying out their duties. Let me make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing preventing the boards from carrying out their duties.

She made a very derogatory comment with regard to the new Rick Hansen Secondary School in Abbotsford. I really had difficulty with that. Here is a project that the district has wanted. We were able to announce it at the end of the last fiscal year because other boards weren't able to get their projects in line soon enough, so we had that money. We put that money — $23 million — into a new senior secondary school in Abbotsford named after Rick Hansen, a great Canadian, who was there with me for the announcement. He has spent many months assisting the architects to design that school and put all kinds of new innovations into it in order to make it accessible to special-needs kids.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Rick Hansen for the time he spent in assisting us to design that school.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're hissing.

[ Page 12561 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: Are they?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. Shame!

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I don't think they're hissing about that.

I also want to comment on the member for New Westminster's comments with regard to planning — long-term planning and capital expenditures. She made the comment that we did not spend much capital in the early eighties. Maybe one of the reasons for that is that enrolment between 1983 and 1987 dropped by 5.1 percent in this province. There's not as much need to build new schools when there's a dropping enrolment.

She then said that we're on a boom-or-bust cycle. Let me draw the member's attention to our commitment to capital for new schools, upgrading schools and buying property for schools over the last seven years, I will let the members draw their own conclusions as to whether this is a boom-or-bust cycle. In 1985-86 the capital commitment was $54 million. That's just before the school population started increasing; we still had a declining school population. The next year we raised that to $76 million. So that's an increase. The next year we increased it to $101 million. I think that's still an increase. No boom or bust here. If you were to graph it, it would be going up. In 1988-89 it was $142.5 million. I think that's still going up. The member for Nanaimo would agree with me. Next year there was $250 million for school construction. I think that's still going up. Last year there was $350 million for school construction. We're still going up. There's no boom-or-bust cycle here. This year $650 million was committed for school renovations, new property acquisition and new school construction.

An item questioning the growth of budgets in the last ten years was raised earlier, and I made the point that there has been a 75 percent increase in funding over the last ten years in school budgets in this province. I related it to the growth in the CPI, which was 52.1 percent. The member for New Westminster shouted across the floor: "What about an increase in students?" I'm sure she would be interested in knowing that in this same ten-year period, when there was a 75 percent increase in funding, there was a 2.6 percent increase in student population. So the allegations that keep on coming across the floor — that we are not investing enough in education — are totally erroneous.

She then moved to criticizing the Year 2000 process, and I can't believe what I'm hearing. The commitments that have been made over the last two years in capital and in operating are tied directly to educational reforms and to the work that was done by the Sullivan royal commission — tied directly to the Royal Commission on Education. To question that is unbelievable I have met continually with bodies and advisory bodies. Two weeks ago I met with the Education Advisory Council, and one of the items I discussed was the Year 2000 program. It is an ongoing review that has been going on ever since the subject was introduced. If the member for New Westminster thinks that any government would introduce changes to a system and then just walk away and not continue to monitor it or look at it, then she's really dreaming, because that's not how you do it.

Over the last six- or eight-month period we have got advice and comments and, yes, some criticisms on the documentation of Year 2000 from a broad cross-section of British Columbians. Certainly we have invited input and have received a great deal from educators. Every school district, to my knowledge, has a committee dealing with the three parts of the Year 2000 program. They've been assessing the documentation, telling us where we can improve it and where we must change it. We receive input from parents who, after all, are major stakeholders in education. We receive input from the B.C. Federation of Labour — Ken Georgetti's group — which has an education committee. We receive information from other groups — COFI and mining associations — who all have education committees. We receive input from the superintendents' association and the secretary-treasurers' association. Anyone with an interest in education in British Columbia has been invited to make input and provide us with information and constructive comments on the Year 2000 process.

That is all being assimilated now; it's been categorized. We are now starting to go through it to see what the people out there are telling us — and that's what we're interested in. We're interested in what the people of British Columbia are telling us.

Recently, as you know, as the member for New Westminster did, I met with the trustees at their annual general meeting and spoke of the ongoing commitment of this government to educational reform. I recently spoke to the secretary-treasurers' association, with the same message — that there is that ongoing commitment. This process was started by the royal commission; it's being carried on by the Year 2000 program. Everything that we do in this province with regard to education is for the benefit of the students out there.

I know it's taken a bit of time, but I wanted to go through the question of capital funding, because what the member for New Westminster has said is just not correct. We have had a steady increase in capital commitments over the last seven years. As a matter of fact, from 1985 until 1991, the period of time for which I just described those numbers, we have spent or made commitments this year to $1.6 billion in new school construction, renovation, earthquake preparedness, property acquisition and all of those things.

MS. A. HAGEN: Graphs are interesting things, and I notice that the minister started in his graph at the point where things began to go up. He didn't go right down into the trough and didn't look at the other end of it. I don't want to say much more about the capital funding, because I, with school districts, am really glad to know that kids are going to be in decent schools and that the dollars are there for this to happen.

But the issue of planning is still a very important one. We had hundreds of schools in the earlier days that could have been very economically brought up to more contemporary and decent standards if we had been using some dollars in that trough when there

[ Page 12562 ]

were lots of workers available and when we could have bought capital services very reasonably.

This government failed to do that, and it's a part of the historical record now. We can't go back on it. As with the Rick Hansen school, by delaying it there's an extra cost, and that's the point I'm making. I'm really pleased that there are schools being built, but the delays are costly. That's something that I think means we don't have some of the dollars that we need for what the minister has just been discussing. I want to agree very strongly with the minister about the need for ongoing work with respect to education reform, renewal and continued development of the good practices that exist within our schools. The more the minister is able to clarify where the government is going with its policies, what the outcome of genuine consultations are and what resources are available for the change, the better off our children will be.

It is interesting that at this point — June — school districts don't know exactly what will be the outcome of the minister's review of royal commission implementation, nor do they know what resources they will have available to assist them in their districts with the important work that has to be done.

I believe very strongly that most of the innovation, most of the implementation work, is off the ground in the districts. I want to acknowledge the work of the teams that the ministry has set up to deal with the primary, intermediate and graduation programs. I believe the ministry has gathered first-class educators and that those people have worked incredibly hard and with great vision and great personal growth in developing a framework to take out into the districts.

[11:45]

But it's really important for there to be resources within the districts themselves. We have an aging teaching force. Let me put it another way: we have an older teaching force. Nobody ages, but we all get older. I think the average age of teachers is now 44 or 45. That means that many of our professionals have been in the field for 20 years. They were trained in the time after the Chant commission, a very different kind of approach to education. They've been working in their classrooms for a long time in the industrial mode of having some students not finishing school, others going directly into jobs and relatively few having the opportunity to go on to university.

We now know that our education system has to serve vastly different needs than the needs that were there earlier. We know that half the young people now are going to need four years of some kind of post-secondary training — whether university, technical or vocational — in order to qualify for future jobs. These are not my figures; these are the figures of people who are looking at the jobs of the future and what the training and experience needs are going to be — all of those issues — and recognizing the challenge that exists.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is not prepared, at this time, to tell us what is going to be available in the districts of the province for royal commission implementation. But I would like him, in this chamber, to give us some commitment about what's going to be there in the classrooms directly for teachers. In looking at the Vancouver School District, he acknowledged that in the previous year there was $663,000 for education innovation. Other things come under the royal commission, such as computers, ESL for adults, a provincial resource program, money for learning resources and a lot of money for dual entry. But in the largest district in the province, with 10 percent of the children, inner-city schools and a lot of English-as-a-second-language students, there was $600,000 from the Royal Commission on Education for education innovation. I think most of us would recognize that that's not going to go very far in providing opportunities for teachers to think about, work through and learn about new ways of teaching and working with kids.

From the figures he gave us yesterday, there are some very real questions about the dollars that will be available. Remember, dollars translate into the ability of districts to work on new programs, on retraining and on the many issues involved with reform.

I would ask the minister if he can give us, without revealing any of those things that I appreciate he does not want to indicate until he gives the full picture, some indication of whether we're going to see any change in the level of funding that goes directly to education innovation — not to dual-entry kids in the classroom, not to full-time kindergarten, not to independent schools, not to computers, not to what's going on in the ministry; but resources going directly, labelled and available, to education innovation. That has not yet filtered down into the school districts to the degree that it needs to for change to take place. I believe that there have to be dollars to follow those commitments. Could the minister give us some indication of what he is going to make available for innovation in the classrooms next year?

HON. S. HAGEN: All of those things will be made available and clear to each school board chairperson when I send the letter out, which will be as soon as my budget passes the House.

MS. A. HAGEN: I just want to inquire, because I believe there was some indication that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds had some questions that he wanted to ask now.... I know that there are other people who may want to participate in the debate.

Let me turn again to the matter of the amount of money outside the block, and some of the money in ministry operations. Yesterday the minister indicated that for communication and implementation activities there was an amount of about $11 million. I note, too, that in the deputy minister's operations there is a very large increase in the information, advertising and publications budget. It's moving from $140,000 up to $2,900,000 — a 2,000 percent increase. Perhaps the minister could give us some information about what his communication and advertising goals are for the year ahead and for either of those two sums of money: the $2,939,000 in the deputy minister's budget, up from $140,000, and the amount that he notes is somewhere in this budget — I don't know where because it's all buried — for communication and implementation activities around the royal commission of $10,953,000.

[ Page 12563 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: It was yesterday or the day before when you asked the same question. The increase in that part of the budget is due to placing all communications expenditures in the communications division, which is now part of the deputy's office. We're trying to coordinate things so that we can do a better job in communicating.

AN HON. MEMBER: Centralization.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, it's called organization. That's probably a new term to you. Organization is different, and organization is good.

Also, the Education Advisory Council activity and the royal commission Year 2000 communications are now part of the deputy minister's office. Finally, there has been an increase in communications activity to reflect the increased activities related to the Year 2000 program.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd invite the minister to describe those activities.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to describe those activities.

The publications, first of all: of the annual report; the household flyer about our future, dual entry and changes in education; the deputy's newsletter. Three items have been published on Year 2000: a response draft, a summary of responses and the final document. Also primary program draft; intermediate program draft; grad program draft; progress reports; and the newsletter on media relations. The media, of course, has to be kept up with the education changes. Then we have the informational ad campaigns; the special fax-net direct responses; and speakers' responses to the Year 2000 program under our consultation program. I described a few moments ago all the groups that we're getting input from. I want to make sure that everybody is in tune with what we're doing and has a chance to input — steering committees and all of those things.

MS. A. HAGEN: So those are last year's activities. I presume the minister is indicating a similar range of activities in the coming year.

Just one last question at this time on the royal commission. I spoke a moment ago about the curriculum development teams — people working with the ministry. Could the minister just advise us of the plans and status of those groups? There are the primary team, the intermediate team and the graduation team. Could he just give us some indication of what the plans are for them in terms of ongoing staffing and work in the year ahead?

HON. S. HAGEN: Before I answer that question, I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. S. HAGEN: Thank you very much for the kindness of the members opposite. I appreciate the respect with which I'm treated.

It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Bill Burns, the secretary-treasurer for School District 71, which happens to be one of the school districts in my riding and where my children attend school. I would appreciate it if you would all join me in bidding him welcome.

If I may address the question posed by the member for New Westminster, she's quite right in her assumption that those three committees will carry on. The work that they do is very valuable and important. It is also laid out in working plan 3, which I think you have a copy of. Rather than having me go through and list all that, I'm sure you've already had a look at it.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, because we're ready to move into some new themes at this point, rather than start those and have partial questions, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. S. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.