Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1992

[ Page 625 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m. 

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: I would like to acknowledge the presence in the precincts of Dr. Kenneth Strand, chairman of the British Columbia Task Force on Employment and Training, and members of the task force, Mrs. Thelma Plecas and Mr. Rob Sorenson; as well as Miss Susan Anderson of the B.C. Federation of Labour, representing their participation in this task force. I would ask members to make them welcome, as well as the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology staff who have worked with them.

R. Chisholm: Visiting with us today are approximately 40 students from the Chilliwack Christian Academy, ranging from grades 7 to 11. They are with Ms. Procée. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I wish to table the report of the British Columbia Task Force on Employment and Training. While it's being tabled, I would like to take just one minute to say what a great pleasure it is to table this report entitled Learning and Work: The Way Ahead for British Columbians

Earlier this morning I had the opportunity, along with the task force chair, Dr. Kenneth Strand, and his colleagues, to brief legislative colleagues from all parties on this report and its recommendations. The report contains 28 recommendations, including ones which focus on such areas as the development of client-oriented services for the labour force, the establishment of a multipartite structure to coordinate development and implementation of labour market policies, the strengthening of workplace training and cooperative education, enhancement of the apprenticeship system and the development of a training culture.

The task force, which was established in August 1989, is an excellent example of how labour, business and government can work together to develop solutions to issues such as employment, employability and structural unemployment. The task force has identified the structurally unemployed as those who are presently unemployed or about to be unemployed and those who are discouraged from seeking employment for whatever reason.

I take this opportunity to commend Dr. Strand and all members of the task force on a job well done, and to thank hon. members for their interest in this report.

D. Mitchell: In response to the minister's comments on tabling the report of the Strand task force, I'd like to thank the minister for providing the briefing that he did to all members of the House this morning. It was a useful briefing. The report is a very important report on labour market policy and training in the province of British Columbia, and I know that it's going to form the basis for some considerable discussion when we review the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. But I'd like to thank the minister for the briefing and for giving us some advance notice of the tabling of this report.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I ask leave of the House for the Special Committee of Selection to meet at 10:15 today in the Birch Room for the purpose of naming the Committee of Supply, Committee A.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: Second, I'd ask leave of the House for the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to meet today at 11 o'clock in the Cedar Room.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: Finally, hon. Speaker, by leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be permitted to examine and inquire into the public accounts of the province of British Columbia for 1989-90 and the 1991 report of the auditor general, both of which were previously tabled in this House.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; D. Streifel in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

On vote 24: minister's office, $398,558.

Hon. A. Hagen: It's a great pleasure for me this morning to be the first person to present the estimates of a ministry of our new government in this new Legislature. It is significant and important that we have chosen the estimates of the Ministry of Education, a very important ministry, to be the first point where we can engage in debate across the floor around initiatives that are important to our children and our future.

As is customary, I want to take the opportunity, in introducing this debate, to make some comments to all members of the Legislature, and from this place, also to the people of the province. I am going to begin with those comments, and I invite your participation and attention to them, because they provide a framework for the climate in education that we all believe is important for us to create and support.

My point of departure today is to recognize the important role of schools in our society. Our children spend much of their lives in classrooms, and in that place they're readying themselves for involvement in the world they will inherit. Their school experience 

[ Page 626 ]

helps form their adult abilities and attitudes. School also puts children in touch with their own interests and aptitudes, stimulating them to explore things they might otherwise not have discovered. We know, too, that we want school to awaken an appetite for learning in our children that will give them tools for lifelong learning. Given the scope of their influence on every child, schools are clearly one of our most vital social institutions. Yet as a society we haven't always tended to our school system as carefully as we might, nor have we fully realized the role that schools can play as a catalyst for innovation, resourcefulness and initiative, and the creation of wealth and opportunities. Perhaps least of all have we recognized the role of schools in preparing us to share fully and meaningfully in both the rights and the responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic society.

[10:15]

Our public school system serves over half a million children. It's a universal institution, and as such, it is obliged by our diverse social makeup to meet wide-ranging needs. Education is necessarily a comprehensive and an expensive undertaking. In the past there was often a temptation for government to turn against this institution and its practitioners and to focus solely on costs, to lose the larger vision of the role schools play in our society and its future. I believe we have come to recognize and acknowledge that confrontation and conflict are enemies of a quality education. They serve only to drain away the precious energies we need for the development of our education system and the changes that will always be inherent in a healthy and vibrant institution.

More recently, then, we have had an open airing of issues and concerns relating to education. We've talked and reflected on the directions that can best facilitate quality in our teaching and in the learning environment for our children.

From this discussion a broad consensus is emerging among all those who have a stake in education, and that is every one of us. That consensus? A fundamental understanding that good schools and a good school system revolve around a matrix of core values. We believe in the pursuit of personal excellence, the recognition of diverse needs, variety in learning experiences, equality of access and varied opportunities to shape programs that meet individual needs.

Cultivation of these core values in our schools relies heavily on relationships of cooperation and mutual respect among a vast array of people. Teachers and support staff, administrators and helping professionals, learners and their parents and guardians, and elected trustees and the communities they serve all have a stake in education. All of these people supply the local context and the consensus that translates ministerial initiatives into programs that work and serve our youngsters.

Improvements in education only occur if a government meets its full responsibility as the chief steward of the system. There are two aspects to this. One is ensuring that our actions contribute to a climate of stability and predictability in education, and the other is ensuring that the changes we propose are widely vetted and enjoy broad support as they are developed. By striving towards these goals, my ministry is contributing to the processes of institutional renewal and of assisting schools in their quest for greater relevance in the life of every learner in the classrooms of British Columbia.

This direction will continue the healthy process of sorting out that was begun by A Legacy for Learners: The Report of the Royal Commission on Education, which was tabled in 1989. I believe that this direction will deepen the reforms initiated, sometimes reluctantly, by the previous government.

While we often describe our public schools as a system -- a term that has overtones of permanence and rigidity -- the role of our schools in an evolving multicultural society demands an ongoing relationship with change. The things that we deem important for all learners, rightly become part of the system. But we know that needs change with the times, and our society is moving rapidly in the direction of greater diversity and greater complexity.

We increasingly understand new aspects of human learning. One of the most important is that the path to knowledge and competence varies with each individual, and our approach to learning and teaching must be adapted in response to this knowledge and understanding.

For a long time we tended to believe that success in education was dependent on our imparting a minimum competence in the basics to a majority of learners. But today we are trying to shape a system of learning which pursues broader notions of excellence and which opens new avenues for learners and educators alike. Rethinking our system along these lines, making it more responsive both to the needs and the potential of each individual, is creative renewal.

This process, which we are well embarked on in our primary schools, requires an ongoing collaborative effort among all those responsible for the system. Excellence in learning is attainable only if we work in true partnerships governed by honesty, cooperation and trust. Consultation and open discussion are not optional values if we are to achieve a consensus for change.

The Ministry of Education is unique among government agencies with respect to the number of partners it works with and through. Our working relationships are unique. Look at the picture: 75 school districts governed by 500 locally elected school trustees who guide local policies and directions; many thousands of professional support and administrative staff who deliver direct services to children; and the 560,000 children whose potential we strive to challenge and unleash. Additionally, there are all the parents and all the other taxpayers who finance the system and whose personal and collective futures are affected by our work. Even beyond the system proper, there are others with a passionate interest in public education, like the unheralded advocates who remind us of the significant knowledge that is excluded or imperfectly reflected in our curricula.

One of the things I've learned, as a new minister, is that letters and meetings provide me with an incredible 

[ Page 627 ]

array of briefs and perspectives from interested groups of citizens and parents, whose new ideas challenge us to stay always looking at the approach we have within our school system. These people, these letter writers, these organizations challenge our assumptions, and they promote new ways of unlocking the limitless potential of young minds.

To work successfully with so many partners requires an attitude of openness and accessibility on the part of this ministry. This attitude must be supported by the availability of reliable information. The public needs such information to have a sound basis for discussion and debate of ideas and issues. The concept of openness and accessibility becomes meaningful when government expands the opportunities for interested British Columbians to share in the planning and provision of education for children. If we are willing to discuss policy on a factual footing in a non-defensive manner, in a problem-solving way, if we practice the politics of inclusion, rather than reserving power to ourselves alone, if we work in every community of our province with the people who are interested and involved in education, we will achieve openness and move a long way to strengthening public confidence and involvement in the education of our children.

Our government's intentions are reflected in its program and its budgets. As government we have the unenviable task of meeting many needs in a time of dwindling resources and revenues. This has meant making tough decisions, but I believe we have demonstrated what we promised: education remains our highest priority.

So within this context of the financial realities we have all learned to face, I am pleased and proud to place this budget before the Legislature today. Because our government recognizes the importance of quality education to the future of our children and through them to the future of our society and our economy, we have maintained and improved provincial funding for education.

The provincial block of funds for public education has been increased by an economic adjustment of 2.4 percent -- that I announced in January -- which compares favourably with the projected rate of inflation in the year ahead. In addition, we are fully funding projected enrolment, anticipated at 3.5 percent in the year ahead. Our government has made further improvements, which include the addition of $10 million to support computer technology in classrooms and the addition of $5.8 million to assist with capital planning costs and the start-up costs associated with new schools, particularly in the rapidly growing school districts of the lower mainland and Fraser Valley, the Okanagan Valley and Vancouver Island. Target grants for enrolment growth which occur during the school year will also be available for the first time, which will help rapidly growing districts.

I want to highlight with pride the $8.2 million for the continuation of our new school meal program, which will serve over 100 schools where the need is greatest. Very simply, where there are school meal programs, principals and teachers tell us the children learn better and the school environment is improved.

As further steps to removing obstacles to learning, we are improving funding for the assessment and placement of new ESL students where school boards are dealing with a substantial influx. That is in addition to the regular funding for English-as-a-second-language students that is included in the block of funds which goes to each district where there are such youngsters.

This budget also addresses the pressing need to invest in classroom upgrading, building maintenance and new schools. Rapid growth in many of the urban areas of our province and the pattern of capital underfunding over the last decade have run down our older schools. We have developed an all too visible reliance on portable classrooms. If we travel around the province, the visual evidence is quite staggering. There are over 2,500 portable classrooms in use in British Columbia; 700 new ones were added last year alone.

[10:30]

Today I'm very pleased to announce the capital budget for school districts for next year. It will be $582 million for 1992-93 and will finance renovation of existing facilities -- to replace those portable classrooms with additions and to design and construct new schools. This represents a sound investment in our children's future, and it will also give a needed boost to the economy of many communities. Within the next two weeks I will be ensuring that every school district is informed in a most timely way of the projects that have been approved for their district, so that they can in the most efficient way begin their work in getting those schools and improvements on line for the children in their districts.

All of the funds I have just outlined go directly to operations and the serving of children in local school districts.

I'd like to turn now to the budget of my ministry and to tell the members of the Legislature something about our plans for the ministry in the year ahead. In the budget for the Ministry of Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights, $29.4 million has been allocated for education change activities in the coming year. These funds will continue the ministry's work in implementing the Royal Commission on Education, and they will be targeted to the ongoing work of the primary program, leading into the intermediate and graduation years. It is our intent in this year to work right across the system, in all grades, toward the implementation of education change. In this process, we will also undertake a thorough review of the role that secondary schools play in the educational system and in our larger society. In particular, we want to consider how schools can best assist youngsters to make the difficult transition from childhood to adolescence, and how they can best prepare for the challenging transition as they leave secondary school and go on either to higher education or to a rewarding job in the workplace.

Our objective is to prepare the ground for innovative and sustainable change, based on collaborative development and paced implementation of new programs. Guided by the Education Advisory Council, which represents a broad sector of the educational partners and the community, we will work with programs and 

[ Page 628 ]

refine materials and curricula that may ultimately be used across the system. We have identified prospective time-frames for the completion of this developmental work, but we are ready to make adjustments to these time-frames, based on results of research and pilot programs in our schools.

I have said that this ministry will pursue excellence in education. Proof of excellence is a system where every child has the opportunity and stimulus to excel as much as he or she can in areas of interest and strength. This requires forms of schooling that are more focused on individual learners and more responsive to their individual needs. It's a longstanding belief of educators and of parents that every child can be stimulated to achievement. As stewards of the public school system, it's our job -- every member of this Legislature -- to extend that possibility to every child in our province.

In closing this portion of my remarks, I would like to invite all members of this House to take part in the renewal that I am describing today. I sense that many members of the Legislature would prefer to discuss education issues in a non-partisan manner, and our deliberations will be most fruitful if we pursue that course. I invite members to join us in putting behind us the unproductive conflict of the past and getting on with the rejuvenation of this vital social institution. We will always have differences of approach and priority, but these should never lead us to act in ways that undermine the system's worth and purpose.

It's with great pleasure that I would like to comment on the other side of my ministry's program, which now includes multiculturalism, immigration and human rights. It is indeed an addition to our ministry. These agencies are part of a natural and desirable evolutionary development. They're small in budgetary terms, but they arrange and provide direct services that are essential for the successful integration of newcomers into our society, and they foster understanding between the diverse cultures that comprise the fabric of B.C. today. Through our branch and the Council of Human Rights, our multicultural and immigration programs also offer all British Columbians access to justice and the reinforcement of basic human rights.

Placing these new elements in the Ministry of Education achieves several important purposes. It ends their isolation as small programs in various ministries -- often moved around -- and gives them proximity to a major ministry whose programs dovetail with their responsibilities and vital roles in raising the status of minorities, promoting multicultural understanding and sensitizing all of us to the issues of human rights, equality of gender and culture, and justice. It offers these programs access to the ministry's resources and experience in program development. In turn, these programs enrich the Ministry of Education. They offer the ministry a ground-level community knowledge of the problems faced by client groups. I have the knowledge and an ongoing expectation that these additions to the ministry and our working relationships will provide a dynamic and beneficial result to all concerned.

Our relationship is still in its infancy, but I'd like to mention a few of the developments that have occurred. New appointments will soon be made to the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, whose job it is to keep the government in close touch with the needs of these communities and to assist us in developing policies and programs in our multicultural society.

In the area of immigration policy we have developed an immigrant settlement funding program for the first time in British Columbia. It was introduced in January and has already begun to assist community-based organizations provide effective adjustment services. That program is ongoing in our budget for this year.

As for the B.C. Council of Human Rights, we are increasing the staff complement by six in order to deal more promptly with the demand for mediation services and the handling of complaints. As announced in the throne speech, we will be introducing amendments to the Human Rights Act in this session, and we have begun a major review of our human rights legislation, which will take place over the coming year.

In closing, I want to say thank you to some people to whom I have been referring throughout my comments today -- first of all, to all of those who worked so diligently in preparing the budget and who also labour within the ministry across such a wide spectrum of service and program development and working relationships. I have found in my ministry a group of people of incredible commitment to the education system, and I value very much their dedication to children.

I've had the pleasure over the last four or five months of meeting with the Education Advisory Council, which I think most of you know is a council established under the School Act, and which is broadly representative of all of the partners and community people who have important roles to play in education. By working with them, sitting down rolling up our sleeves in a personal relationship, I think we have come to share information for us to gain some understanding of the perspectives and priorities of those groups, and to set the base for an improved and broadened responsibility.

I want also to commend the various groups throughout the province who have worked collaboratively with the change process around community development. They have taken initiatives that are extremely valuable and important to us. The teachers, the trustees, the superintendents, the secretary treasurers, the parents and advocacy groups for children have all been active and diligent in their efforts. A ministry, like a government, is a work of collaboration among a great many people, and I want to express my thanks to all those people with whom I have met, and with whom I will be meeting in the weeks and months ahead.

In the year ahead I have a perspective on my approach to my responsibilities. It's something that is deeply imbued in my own sense of values about the education system, and it says that a Minister of Education works in a spirit of cooperation with a willingness to listen, to understand, to change. I hope in that manner to elicit a similar response from you and from all others, and thus to gain new partners in the search for solutions to the problems we must seek to resolve in the work of providing challenge and oppor-

[ Page 629 ]

tunities for all our children as they grow and learn in our schools and communities.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward in the coming hours to an opportunity to share with all members of the House the budget and the plans of our ministry, and to the debate and dialogue in which we will now engage. I would like at this time to introduce members of my ministry who are here to assist me and members in that discussion: Valerie Mitchell, acting deputy minister, and Doug Hibbins, who is the assistant deputy minister for finance and administration. With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward then to beginning our discussion in this place.

J. Dalton: Mr. Chairman, through you to the hon. minister, I listened intently to your remarks, and certainly I will be making some particular comments on some of those remarks. I welcome your ministry officials to this committee session, and we're certainly looking forward to their input and their assistance in our discussions and in our debate.

Before I get to remark on some of your particular comments, hon. minister, I would like to make some more general comments of my own. Then I will also move on into some more specifics.

I know we all share.... When I say we all, I mean all members of this House and every British Columbian I've ever talked to. There's no question of that. Some of us have children in the system. I have three children in the elementary school system. Some of us have children who have gone through the public school system, and naturally we've all shared through that vicarious experience the circumstances of the importance of education. I would add an obvious statement: all of us, of course, have attended school at one time or another, and I guess some of us are still learning -- hopefully we're all still learning. The general commitment to education is well understood, and I don't think there's any question that this government has a sincere commitment to the whole process. I don't have any difficulty making those statements. I do feel comfortable in standing and saying that I feel we collectively and individually can work in a collaborative, cooperative manner to support the two most important social programs along with health -- that any government can offer.

[10:45]

There is a downside, however, and I will be making some other comments a little later on what I would describe as the downside. There is obviously a price tag attached. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but education does demand a high degree of financing. It is self-evident, but I will state it: education as such doesn't produce any money. It is, however, an investment that we all must recognize and that we all do share.

I'm looking forward, hon. minister, through our discussions and debate, to a cooperative model, but naturally it won't always be that we are in total agreement with anything that may come from the other side of the floor. Any discussion we have, whether it be totally in agreement or whether we have some differences of opinion, will still have a common and long-range objective: to improve the system wherever we can. Certainly we in opposition will be concentrating on that philosophy and general objective.

Education -- I believe I've already made the comment, but I'm going to restate it -- is an investment. It's an investment not only in our children now but in all of our futures. That perhaps could be called a motherhood statement, but I don't consider it to be motherhood; I consider that to be a very important statement. I don't just say it because it sounds nice or needs to be stated. It is certainly very significant to consider. Never forget the investment feature of education.

We must attend to immediate concerns and to future policy direction when we deal with education. When we consider the investment aspect, there's the immediate problems of funding and how to properly serve our children -- the 500,000-plus people who are the students in the system. We must also attend to future direction where the system can be improved or where changes are needed.

I know that the discussions in this committee, as to the immediate concerns -- particularly financial -- will be beneficial. They will certainly be of assistance to all of us to gain a better understanding of the system and where even in more immediate terms improvement can be made.

As for future direction, I am looking forward to serving on the Select Standing Committee on Education. I'm sure the other members who are part of that committee feel likewise. That's where, in a very productive manner, we can address future direction. Of course, we will not be discussing future direction as such in this committee, but the select standing committee will certainly be helpful in that regard.

I would like to give some sense of some of the issues we intend to raise in the estimates debate, and then I will move on to some other comments.

We certainly intend to raise questions on the block funding formula and the whole question of financing of the education system. We will be seeking information on the Year 2000 program. We're going to have to get into the district shortfalls for 1992-93, which are well documented and will become more and more documented as the final budgets come in. We feel that special education is important and should be addressed, and also independent school funding and any other topics that may be appropriate to bring up.

Hon. minister, I have spoken -- and I know you have as well -- with many people throughout British Columbia who are either directly involved in the system or who in some way have an interest in the system. I have met and spoken with trustees, school officials, parents, students, taxpayers and citizens in general. As stated earlier, everyone certainly has a vital interest in the education system. We all -- and when I say we all, I mean the people I've talked to and, I'm sure, everyone else -- want the best in education for our children and for future children. There's no question of that.

However, there are obvious concerns from some of the districts, and we will be addressing these in more detail in the debates that come up. Some districts are feeling the financial pinch, so we have to be realistic in our approach and in our discussions. If there are serious shortfalls, we have to address those now and 

[ Page 630 ]

hopefully find solutions of a fairly immediate nature, and not say that perhaps we can massage the funding formula and deal with it next year. Quite frankly, I don't think that will be sufficient. As we go through the estimates, we're going to have to address and readdress some of those very significant shortfalls.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I'll not pretend that it's going to be easy for us, even if we can agree in general on how to approach the shortfalls. Ideally, although this is somewhat of a facetious comment, we would open up the bank vaults, find the money and say to all districts that are facing financial difficulties: "We recognize your problems, and here's the solution." I know it's not that simple. That's why I say it's somewhat of a facetious remark, and it's not intended that way. However, I think we do have to recognize that the funding formula falls short in some areas. It is causing financial difficulties for many districts and, if not in the immediate sense, in the long term we have to give very serious thought as to where this funding formula falls short.

We do recognize the financial pressures put on your ministry, hon. minister. Yours and the Health ministry are the two most significant ministries as far as the budget impact is concerned. We are, however, going to argue and advance the proposition -- even though we recognize the financial constraints that this province is in -- that there should be money available to some of the districts that I've alluded to which have fallen short in their budgetary concerns. That will be a topic that we can address in more detail as we proceed.

I would add on that same theme that we feel the money available can be better apportioned. There are ways to divide that money and share it around that are going to better serve the system in general.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, I listened intently and certainly with great interest to the minister's statements, and I feel there are a few that are noteworthy of my particular comment. She made the comments that our schooling system is a vital social institution, and that is quite true. I would add in that connection that our schools are really part of our social structure, that they are, in effect, a community centre -- one thing I personally would like to see advance more and more, and I'm hoping that over the years, as we address the future direction of education, the community school system can be more significantly promoted and enhanced. I think it's an excellent concept. It's a very good use of the public buildings that are put up at our expense. Community schools perhaps fit within that concept that the minister was alluding to.

Though it will not come up in these debates, it may even be that in the long run we want to examine -- as is happening in other parts of North America -- the possibility of using the schools on a year-round basis and not restricting them to the traditional September-through-June concept. In fact, there is one school I am familiar with in the Williams Lake area that has gone into this model, and I applaud that. I'm going to look with interest at how that one functions, because I think the concept itself is an excellent one. It's going to be a cost-saver in the long run, and I think for many people it's going to be of more convenience than having to go with the traditional model that July and August are the two months of holiday. I don't think we need to be locked into that mind-set. There may be other ways to approach it.

The minister commented that the education system and our approach to it should be on a comprehensive and expansive basis, and that is true. Certainly we are all going to approach our discussion in debate and elsewhere with as cooperative a model as we can -- I don't think there's any question of that.

"Everyone has a stake in education" was another comment that the hon. minister made. I would add that not only does everyone have a stake in education, but everyone has an opinion about education, and of course we've all experienced those expressions of opinion. Why does everyone have an opinion? Because they've all been through the system; they all have children in the system; they all are taxpayers. There's a great range of reasons why everyone will be more than happy to express an opinion on the topic of education.

What we have to do, I feel, as members in this committee and in this House, is try and receive those opinions, sift through them and come up with some societal sense of what direction in education would be best for this province.

The hon. minister made particular reference to the government responsibility in education. She made two points that I will comment on briefly. Number one: stability in the system. I certainly both agree with and applaud that concept. We cannot properly operate an education system if there's no perceived stability in the funding, the planning, the approach that we take to it. Secondly, the minister also referred to any changes that may be contemplated being widely vetted. Well, I've made some earlier references to that, such as through the Select Standing Committee on Education. That is certainly one avenue, but only one of many, whereby any changes being contemplated must be widely vetted.

I think we also, as individual members, whether we are involved in a critic role for education, whether we are the minister responsible for education, or whether we are just a member of any particular riding, all have a responsibility to keep in touch with our school boards, our teacher associations, the parent groups and the students. We should never forget the students. I think sometimes in our planning approach we tend to think that the students are only the people who are being served by the system, and we will do the best we can for them. We also have to listen to their concerns. For example, on Tuesday -- the day when all those delegations were in Victoria -- I had lunch with a delegation of students from one of the high schools in my constituency. They had some very good viewpoints and interesting ideas on the whole question of education financing and planning. Even though they are soon to be out of the public school system -- they, of course, are planning to go on to university, and naturally they have younger brothers and sisters in the public school system -- they are also concerned about the future of the education process, as is everyone.

[ Page 631 ]

The minister made reference to the royal commission, the Legacy for Learners report. There are many good ideas in that, some of which have been implemented and others that are in an ongoing stage of being implemented. We will certainly support those programs that are worthy of such support.

The minister made a statement that I want to in particular.... This isn't necessarily the actual statement that she made, but I will paraphrase it. She talked about the politics of inclusion, and I take that to mean that we get away from the sort of locking-horns, combative aspect of politics and include everyone in the process. The planning of education is a political process as well as it is a financial and any other circumstance you may think of. So when we talk about the politics of inclusion, I'm sure the minister is inviting all members to cooperate as best as possible with regard to the planning process.

[11:00]

Later in the minister's remarks -- and I think this ties in to what I'm just commenting on -- she talked about the non-partisan manner in which we should all approach the planning and provision of education. I certainly applaud that. I think that concept is worthy of particular note and remarking on. Then the minister went on to comment on tough decisions that her ministry has had to make. Well, that is true, there are tough decisions.

I am going to suggest -- and we will be detailing this more through our questioning -- that even though you've made tough decisions, that doesn't necessarily mean you've always made the right decisions. I don't say that in an uncomplimentary manner. I say that in what I hope will be perceived as a constructive and meaningful manner. We will be coming back to the tough decisions that I know you've had to make. We feel that perhaps some of those decisions should be revisited. We will be more than happy to give you advice where we feel it's warranted.

The minister also mentioned the breakdown in the budget itself. I will be coming to that a little bit later in my remarks, so I needn't get into the lift in the budget and things like that. I will make those comments later.

The minister also pointed out -- and this is a very significant thing for some districts -- that the rapidly growing districts in this province are facing a particular problem which other districts are not facing. It's our opinion that the financing of these rapidly growing districts, such as Surrey, is not adequate. The formula does not take into account, even though it is presumably to do so, that rapidly growing districts are not being properly funded. So we have to address that issue.

One thing of note that we will certainly applaud and be cooperative on is the new school meal program -- $8 million. Providing extra money for ESL students is an excellent concept -- certainly of more significance.

I was very happy to hear the minister say that as far as school portables are concerned, of which there are 2,500 in this province, the problem is going to be addressed -- not fully, but at least in part -- by a capital funding of $582 million. Hon. Minister, I am certainly pleased to hear that.

However, I must point out to this committee that high-priority capital projects for 1992-93 were designated $720 million. So even though $582 million is going a long way to solving some of the portable and other capital-projects issues, obviously there is still a shortfall. Some districts will be very pleased when the minister advises them in the next week or two that they are on the list of approved projects; others, of course, are going to be disappointed. It wouldn't be correct to say that the ministry should have found the full $720 million, because in tight financial times it obviously wouldn't be realistic to think that every dollar of those projected $720 million would be realized. I'm hoping that the districts on the high-priority list will not be overly disappointed when they get the bad news, but I'm also eagerly looking forward to seeing the good news that is forthcoming. And quite frankly, if I can be a bit partisan here for a moment, I'm hoping that the two school districts within my constituency will be on that favoured list. But we will have to see, as this news comes out.

Those are the few comments that I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, on the minister's remarks. Most of them, I hope, were taken as either complimentary or at least supportive in the general sense. But there is a downside to the opening of our discussions, and it relates to the timing of this ministry. We in opposition have to speculate why the Education ministry came first. Perhaps we can say that it came first because of its importance. Perhaps we could speculate that this ministry was first because of the amount of dollars involved. But that wouldn't be quite true, because Health should be number one on the list if we're talking dollars. Or perhaps we should be looking at Social Services as being first. Or perhaps -- and we're talking education -- we should be thinking of an alphabetical treatment in which Advanced Education would have been first. However, we are dealing with Education, and I will suggest that Education is not being put first in the estimates debates because it's a flagship for government priorities and fair treatment for social programs. Given the evidence of some of the financial shortfalls, I suggest that this is not the case. Rather, Education is being put first on the debate list because of the April 20 deadline for district budgets to come in. Frankly, we have the feeling that the government wanted this ministry out of the way in estimates debates before some of the bottom lines came in from the districts that are facing serious financial shortfalls. So we're going to have to see, over the next week or so, what the unpleasant news is from some of those districts. As I've already commented, we do feel that this ministry was put up as number one for that particular reason. I'm not suggesting through those comments that this is necessarily a bad thing or a good thing, but it's probably the particular reason why this ministry is being debated first. The timing of our discussion and debates is critical, because as I've already commented, April 20 is the deadline for district budgets to be forthcoming. Some of those districts are going to be reporting unpleasant news, and we're going to have to address that either in the immediate sense or in the long-range, future planning sense.

[ Page 632 ]

That particular message -- and I refer to the financial shortfall message -- was clearly brought to this Legislature last Tuesday when many delegations came to Victoria to meet with individual MLAs. I know that the hon. minister, of course, had delegations meet with her. Those delegations were formed of teachers, parents, CUPE representatives, BCTF executive and in some cases -- as I've already referred to earlier -- students. The consistent message from the delegations was that the districts they come from and represent are facing financial shortfalls -- in some cases, very serious and significant financial shortfalls.

I'm hoping that the message was made clear to the minister -- and I'm sure it was -- and that the message is getting through. I don't think it's sufficient for the minister to respond by saying: "Well, we've provided enough money to the system." It's my feeling and the feeling of the official opposition that the money could be better distributed; or perhaps, to take care of some critical shortfalls for the upcoming school year, we can find some extra funding to take care of them.

If I may make a personal reference to the North Vancouver district where my children are all students, that district is facing some very serious shortfalls. In fact, it's probably true on a per capita basis that North Vancouver is in the worst financial shape of any district in this province. I don't say that because I'm the MLA for that area; I say that because it's a fact, and that issue has to be addressed. Hopefully we can use our collective efforts to find a solution to that and the other shortfall problems.

Let me comment on the budget itself and the lift that was given to education. It, of course, is 9.1 percent overall, and that's fine; that's an excellent figure. But when you break it down -- and the minister herself did so in her opening remarks -- there's only 2.4 percent for the economic adjustment, as far as the funding formula is concerned. There's 3.5 percent for anticipated increased student population. And the balance is for accounting adjustments -- the difference between the government fiscal year and the school year. So in reality -- and this comes back to the point I made earlier that we're going to be restating -- even though 9.1 percent looks good, the fact is we're talking realistically of a 2.4 percent lift on average. That, quite frankly, is the reason why many school boards are in financial difficulties at this time. As the budgets come in approaching the April 20 deadline, we're going to find more and more that those difficulties are, as I've stated, truly serious and must be addressed.

Mr. Chairman, coming back to the feeling that I've stated earlier as to why we're debating this ministry first, it's convenient for the government to get this ministry out of the way and to have these debates concluded before some of the very unpleasant bottom-line news comes from school districts. Already the news is out, so the government cannot escape this. We've got a pretty good sense already, even though some of the final budgets haven't come through, as to where the shortfalls and shortcomings in the financing of education are.

We would ask how the minister can adequately defend her estimates when she hasn't yet got a true financial picture as to the shortfalls. As these budgets come in -- and mostly they'll be over next week.... April 20, by the way, is Easter Monday, so presumably all budgets will have been wrapped up through next week, unless there's a permissible extension early into the week following. The districts with the greatest budgetary difficulty are the ones which have as yet been unable to finalize their budgets, and that's because of the April 20 deadline.

I would like to refer to a statement the hon. minister made in this house on May 3, 1990, when she was the opposition Education critic. She made the comments during second reading debate on Bill 11, and I quote from the legislative record of May 3, 1990: "We are entering into this debate today while nine boards in this province are in the final stages of going to their constituents for approval of funding through referendum. Those boards have made those decisions in extremely difficult circumstances and have not had the luxury of an open public debate on these policies...."

The Chair: Pardon me, hon. member. I neglected to notice that the light was on -- your time allotted under standing orders has expired.

C. Serwa: I appreciated listening to the member speak, and I'm willing to give up my time for the moment to let the member continue.

J. Dalton: I extend my thanks to the hon. member for that generous passing off of his time back to me, and I would be more than happy to return the compliment if it may be needed later.

I have some other comments to make about previous statements of the now Minister of Education. I've already remarked on the May 3, 1990, reference in the Bill 11 debate. The minister also made a comment on June 5, 1991, in this House: "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."

[11:15]

That statement shouldn't be necessarily interpreted as being negative or critical, but I think it is helpful to read that into the record to point out that the now hon. minister in the past has recognized the difficulties with the financing formula, even though she was alluding to the previous government -- even perhaps to the way the government manages and manipulates that formula. So perhaps we can keep those remarks in mind as we proceed through our estimates debate.

Those comments indicate that the minister at one time had difficulty with what I would describe as premature debate, in particular with her remarks on Bill 11. I'm going to suggest that this debate -- and I've already alluded to it -- is somewhat premature, as well, because of the April 20 budgetary deadline that boards are facing. However, that doesn't mean we're going to wrap these debates up in a great rush; certainly that is not our intention. Therefore, as this committee proceeds through the estimates, we can all share some of 

[ Page 633 ]

the unfortunate news that will be coming through next week.

Why is this government attempting to limit meaningful debate -- if they have that intention in mind? Damage control, I would suggest. There is no question that the budget has not been properly administered, and we're going to reinforce this later. The funding formula is inadequate. As I referred to earlier, there are districts that are in serious trouble. I think they're trying to exercise some damage control here.

That's not the way to approach education funding. It's not just a convenience -- push it out of the way, put it under the rug and say to districts that are in trouble: "Well, we're sorry. Come back next year; we'll try again." Quite frankly, by next year we will have all addressed the whole question of funding for school districts in a meaningful way and through a cooperative effort. Hon. minister, I'm sure that we can make great progress on that. But the fact is that we're looking at immediate problems, and the funding formula is the cause of those problems. We have to get to that and address it in a very serious manner.

I'm going to move from that discussion to some particular comments about a very significant group in the education system, the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The B.C. Teachers' Federation executive were here on Tuesday. I know they met with the minister, and I have met with the BCTF executive. Even though their message may not always be completely clear, if you read between the lines, the BCTF is not entirely happy, to put it mildly, with the way their teachers -- members of that union -- have been treated through this budget. Obviously the BCTF is concerned about the financing of education. If they aren't concerned, then who is? They're concerned not just because they happen to be salaried employees in the system; they're concerned because they are committed educators. Of course many of them have children in the system, as well as being workers in the system.

It must be very difficult for the BCTF to approach a government which -- I think it's fairly well known -- was supported by the BCTF. I'm not suggesting that all 40,000 members of the BCTF were supporters of the NDP in the last election, but I would suggest that a very significant number were. In particular, I'm going to refer to a budget summary of the BCTF in a moment. It's certainly my reading of it that the BCTF is disappointed, to say the least, about the treatment of education funding.

During the election campaign the NDP put out their election promises document, "A Better Way." Hopefully we're all going to find that sooner or later, but I'm not so sure that we've found it as far as education is concerned. With regard to education, it says: "... make sure that young people throughout B.C. get the best possible education. It's the best investment we can make in our future." Well, that's true. I've already referred earlier to the fact that I believe the minister is sincere in her statements that it reflect that same policy and philosophy. However, given the shortfall that many districts are facing and will be facing through the next fiscal year, I cannot say that a better way has necessarily been found for the education system, not collectively. Some districts are much better off than others. I make that reference as well because the formula, even though it may have been designed to level the playing-field, has not done that. What it has done is reduce inequities and cause a lot of serious concern in some districts.

The BCTF position, even though they may not come out and state it as such, is certainly not terribly complimentary of this government and the way it is financing the system. If I might refer to the provincial budget analysis put out by the BCTF, there are two or three interesting comments in here that I would like to read into the record.

"The increase in the public school operating portion at first glance suggests an infusion of new funding; however" -- this is the critical part -- "it really only confirms that the government has budgeted for the combined impact of a 2.4 percent per capita economic adjustment and a 3.5 percent increase in school enrolment, the same figures announced this past January. The rest of the 8.1 percent increase" -- and the BCTF is referring to the operating budget -- "reflects accounting differences between school system and government fiscal years."

Some other references as well from the BCTF summary:

"The budget does nothing to address the current funding deficit predicament found in many districts around the province. This predicament is largely the product of the fact that deficit finance has not proven an effective solution to the problem with 1991-92 budgets. Decisions regarding next year's funding levels will not rectify the situation either unless steps are taken to deal with this year's funding problems."

Two other references as well from the same document: "Increases in education spending are being funded disproportionately by way of net residential property tax increases." They go on to make negative comments about the impact, which turns out to be 13.5 percent now on residential taxpayers. It's certainly our position that there's too heavy a burden being placed on the residential taxpayer. That's also an issue that has to be addressed for future consideration.

One final reference: "The increase in net residential taxation also runs the risk of adversely conditioning upcoming discussions among education stakeholders regarding the return of property taxation authority to local school boards." That may very well have a significant impact, as that comment suggests, on any future planning, which, quite frankly -- even though it won't be dealt with in these estimates debates -- we have to address as a future policy: how we're going to finance this very important system of education.

I am wondering whether the hon. minister would like to make some comments on those BCTF remarks, because they are noteworthy. If the minister cares to, she should respond to those, and I will take my seat.

[ Page 634 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: I've listened intently to the many perspectives that the member has brought to the House and want to acknowledge both his obvious interest in this portfolio and his commitment to his own children, his district and the children of the province, and the opportunity for an open debate on these matters.

I want to make just a few comments in response to the remarks of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. First of all, I do want to comment on the fact that this is the very first ministry whose estimates are before the House, and I believe that it will be quite obvious to the public that this is in the interest of open debate. This is the earliest time, quite literally, that an estimate can come before the House, and we have chosen the Education estimates so that the debate may be open. It's as straightforward as that. I understand from the member's overview that there are quite a number of issues he plans to canvass, and I appreciate his giving us some perspective on those matters.

I also want to comment on a very special aspect of this ministry, in that it is cogoverned: there are two groups of people, if you like, who are elected and have responsibility for decisions in respect to education. There are decisions that are taken by the provincial government around the overall block of funds available for schools, and there are decisions that are taken at a local level around how those funds will be used.

Just as I speak about cogovernance in the sense that I recognize the role of both the provincial and the federal governments, I also think we recognize the coresponsibility, that there are decisions taken at the local level, quite rightly -- around how the schools will be managed and that those decisions affect the resources available for schools. Although we are not accountable here for those decisions, we need to acknowledge those decisions which relate to the working conditions, the staffing and the programs that exist within those schools.

A third point I want to make is that I agree with the member's comments about the potential for schools in terms of how they are used as community resources, and how they might be organized in terms of their school year and the offering of services. One of the goals of our government is to bring a shared responsibility more broadly to programs and services that are available in schools.

Some of that's reflected in our school meal program. Some of it is reflected in the fact that the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Health both have funding for the provision of appropriate services within the schools that serve children with special needs in particular and enable them to learn and to participate in the school. That is something I hope we can develop further.

[11:30]

There are good models that exist, just as the school meal program was informed by the pilot work that was done in a number of districts like Vancouver, Surrey, Nanaimo and Victoria. So work has been done around community schools in your district, hon. member, in Vancouver and in Victoria. Those programs blend not only human resources but also financial resources. Those are important things for us to look at.

I want to just comment a little about the actual budget, if you like, and our responsibilities, and to emphasize again the elements that go into our budget for this year. I want to comment on the ways in which I, as a minister, took responsibility for ensuring stability, fairness and consistency to districts at this time, recognizing that each district has responsibility for decisions that are its responsibilities alone and not shared by the provincial government.

As the member has noted, there is an economic lift of 2.4 percent. In addition, there are other increases and improvements to funding to school districts, and those have been included in the block. They are not for new services, but to recognize costs that boards have been incurring. The ones that have received particular attention are the inclusion of money for technology, for computers -- which has been a kind of yo-yo funding process over the last number of years -- for improvements in funding for rapidly growing districts that have really been struggling to deal with portables, for new school construction, and for new staffing for schools that haven't had the resources for that kind of work. We have recognized that those are unique costs to those districts and should be included.

We have fully funded the new children who are coming into the system. Although those dollars haven't as yet been disbursed entirely into the system, they are there and will provide additional resources in quite a number of districts across the province.

The member is correct in noting that the government fiscal year and the school fiscal year are not the same. We're looking at three-tenths and seven-tenths of a year -- enough to complicate anybody's accounting and bookkeeping analysis of all of this stuff. But we are looking at, school year over school year, block to block, a 6.5 percent increase, with a target of $3.7 million for targeted grants, $4.5 million for growth and $8 million for school meals. So I believe we have ensured that there are resources distributed to the schools and improvements available within the block for schools to manage some of the challenges that exist for them. We recognize too, as I say, that school districts have taken decisions which affect the management of their budgets. Those decisions are not ones before us, but we certainly know that they have had an effect on boards and their ability to manage.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the minister's response, and I am certainly encouraged to hear some of the comments that she has made. I would just like to make one particular remark, and then I believe there are other members on our side who would like to participate in this debate.

The minister has referred to local distribution of funds, and that is quite true. Obviously, from the formula, a sum of money comes out, you crank the numbers through the calculations and each district is accordingly funded. I would like to point out to the hon. minister that even though the local district has a responsibility as to how that money is apportioned.... I suppose that, theoretically, if they wanted to put all the money into one school and close down the rest of the system -- well, there might be some questions 

[ Page 635 ]

raised -- they might be free to do that. However, local school boards are in a difficult decision-making process when, quite frankly, the funding isn't significant. Therefore they've got to make some very unpleasant and harsh decisions. So speaking of local decision-making isn't necessarily a realistic way to put it, because local decision-making is predicated on adequate -- or, in the case of many districts, inadequate -- funding.

I don't want to be perceived as self-serving, but I must come back to my own district of North Vancouver, because, as I've commented earlier, I'm sure it's the one in the most difficult financial constraints for 1992-93. I make particular reference to a meeting on Tuesday night that I attended at Carson Graham Secondary School in North Vancouver. There were 300-plus parents at that meeting. They were there, in particular, to address the proposed elimination of the elementary band and strings program at North Vancouver, which has been going for many, many years. It's an excellent program. Two of my three children are in that program, and the third, because of her age, is on hold until next year to go into it, hopefully. I can assure the hon. minister that there were 300-plus very angry and upset people at the gymnasium. They are anything but pleased, and they're not faulting the local school board, although there was actually one person who stood up and said that it's the school board's fault and pointed the accusing finger.

I responded to that by saying that it's not the school board's fault. The school board is in a difficult decision-making process. North Vancouver is facing a $10 million shortfall in approximate figures. How is a local school board to conduct a realistic decision-making process when it's faced with that deficit, with that shortfall? Therefore what North Vancouver has had to do is line up a whole list of suggested programs, and April 14 is decision day for that district, when the bottom-line, totally unpleasant news is heard. Many programs, such as that elementary music program I referred to, are gone, unless something is done or they can produce some magic formula -- and they don't have it, quite frankly. Those programs took years to establish. If that's not a retrogressive step, I don't know what is. That's true erosion. That's not just sort of cosmetic "well, we'll take care of it now, and then next year we'll bring it back." It won't come back if it's gone. We have to find some solution for that and the other decisions that school boards like North Vancouver are having to make.

I'm hopeful that that program won't disappear, and certainly I'm going to do what I can, as both an MLA and a parent in that district, to argue on its behalf. But I point out to the minister that when she talks about a local decision-making process, it is not always an easy thing to make the right decision when the funding isn't necessarily adequate to address all of the needs that school districts have.

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I could provide some information to the member in the context of the 8.1 percent increase in operating costs across the whole school system, and the fact that there has been a lift of 6.5 percent in the block-over-block, and also in respect to his own constituency. I also want to refer back to my goal in working on the budget for my ministry, which is to bring as much stability into the system as possible this year, recognizing that we have more work to do. North Vancouver has indeed been recognized in that regard, and it has received a $2.567 million special purpose grant. That's out of a total of $18.5 million for all the school districts of the province. I haven't got a calculator, but it's somewhere between 10 and 15 percent. I haven't calculated it. But a very significant portion of that special purpose grant has gone to North Vancouver. That's 14 percent, I'm told by my official.

The other point I'd like to note is that North Vancouver and other districts are carrying forward the costs of multi-year agreements with their teacher associations. As a former school trustee, I know that it takes some time for the full implementation of those costs to be realized. For a two-year agreement, you're literally into the last half of the second year before all of those costs are realized. Those are indeed decisions that were taken at the local level, and I'm sure that the member is aware of the total cost of those agreements in terms of wages and working conditions. So those are parts of decisions that are in another domain from ours that I am sure are having an effect on the local school district at this time.

J. Dalton: One very quick and, by the way, complimentary remark to the hon. minister. I want to thank the minister for a letter that I received from her the other day about North Vancouver and the special grant, which I certainly appreciate. I recognize that this has been accorded to that district, and I certainly applaud that it's 14 percent of the total money that would be available from that fund.

However, to now be perhaps uncomplimentary, when you get to the bottom line, North Vancouver is facing a very significant shortfall. But I'm going to come back and revisit that later. In fact, I think perhaps the next speaker as well has some comments to make on that.

D. Jarvis: Madam Minister, I note that a lot of what you have had to say has already sort of scuppered me in what I wanted to ask you. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see we're all ostensibly on the same track to help the education system.

Being a new boy on the block, I'm not quite sure how the estimate system works, so I will ask you about three or four questions. I'll go through them, and then perhaps we can hear from you afterwards. I hope they're not too complicated. That's a joke.

I think perhaps I'm going to be repeating in some cases a lot of what has already been said by both of you. But seeing that about two-thirds of the school boards, or the people who have the problems, are in my riding, versus my colleague down there, maybe I'm allowed to repeat what you have said and what he has said. The purpose of my questions was to bring to the attention of you, your staff and the staff of the provincial Treasury Board the urgent need for immediate expansion of classroom facilities on the North Shore -- elementary schools predominantly. The need is to ensure that 

[ Page 636 ]

additional elementary schools are built east of the Seymour area to meet the radically expanding school-age population. The shortfall in elementary classroom space in east Seymour will continue for a great number of years unless immediate action is taken. You have already mentioned the fact that you are going to include all this in the $582 million, but you haven't specifically said: "Yes, I'm going to do this and this." We don't know who you're going to give it to, and we don't know -- in view of the problem throughout the province -- if there's enough in that $582 million to look after us first, and then the rest.

[11:45]

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I am being selfish, as the man said down there, but I have some constituents who are quite concerned, because we do have a problem. As I said, this area has grown to such an extent that.... As you will recall, Dorothy Lynas school, which you've no doubt heard about many times from many delegations, was opened in 1990. It was built to hold approximately 390 students. It now has approximately 130 students over that amount. As I said, Dorothy Lynas was built to serve the growing Indian River population. The school was designed as a dual-track school -- English and French immersion. An enrolment of 520 students now exists.

So one of the questions that I wanted to address to you was on the urgent need for construction of additional and permanent facilities in North Vancouver by at least September '92. So would you tell us what the proposed capital allotment was going to be in the budget to Dorothy Lynas Elementary, and that is to remove all the portables and to put on an addition, as we need approximately four additional classrooms for that school itself.

One thing I wanted to ask, and I'm not quite sure about, is how does this sort of allotment or announcement of the $582 million come about? I don't believe it was described in the actual budget estimates. I realize that capital costs come from the agency funding, but I'm just not too sure of how that will all work out.

In any event, the reason for the construction of Dorothy Lynas Elementary was the additional growth and developments in the Indian River neighbourhood of Seymour. That came about due to major residential land developments in the area, which were initiated by the district of North Vancouver. Prior to the school's construction, the elementary-school-age children of families who purchased homes in these neighbourhoods largely attended the nearby Sherwood Park Elementary. Here we have another problem. By 1987, it was clearly evident that Sherwood Park Elementary was becoming badly overcrowded and that a new school would be needed in Indian River. Hence, Dorothy Lynas Elementary came into effect. In 1987, a delegation came to Victoria, met with the Minister of Education of the day and presented a case for a new school. At the time, funding was to be approved for the following year. But, in the meantime, the neighbourhood continued to grow and grow and grow, and already the overcrowding problems had occurred. They had worsened, especially in Sherwood Park Elementary School. The physical capabilities of the school deteriorated, as evidenced by the, I think, four portable classrooms now.

So my question on that aspect was: did your proposed allotment include any addition to Dorothy Lynas Elementary for the four classrooms, and also the removal of the portables from Sherwood Park? That was my second question.

I found it was hard to quantify the impact of overcrowding and underfunding on the quality of the children's education in North Vancouver. Large numbers of problems were occurring due to lack of space and poor playgrounds; there were no playgrounds left because the portables had used them all up. No covered areas in the schools resulted in discipline problems. We were really quite concerned as to the growing youth problems, which I think can be cured through education.

However, in an overcrowded school the staff and administration have less time available for the individual students with their individual problems and needs, so accordingly there is less time for them to meet and interact with parents. In fact, the cohesion of the entire school is affected. Staff and students are not as familiar with each other and cannot be as effective as support units. This lack of unity and cohesion is evident with the addition of more portables and the physical isolation they create for their occupants.

The large student population has resulted in a loss of time for individual students. That, along with the reduction of available support facilities such as libraries and computer labs, can only lead to a deterioration in the quality of education in the Seymour area.

The forecast in the area of enrolment is really frightening. It is inevitable and unavoidable, given the number of children who actually live in the area and what is going to come onstream. We are faced, as I said at the start, with a base enrolment in 1992, in the Dorothy Lynas school alone of 520 children -- a school that was built to hold 390. They project that at the end of 1992, there will be 602; at end of 1993, up to 622; and by the end of 1995 there will be 749 children in that school. As you can see, it's illogical that this could possibly go on forever. This is all in a building that was built for 389 people; now we have 749 in the next three or four years. So something drastic has to be done about it. This sort of analysis that I was giving you exists throughout all of Seymour, and probably throughout this whole province.

At this point I'm really interested in the elementary facilities that serve the Indian River neighbourhood. Currently they're very deficient and will become increasingly more deficient within the next five years, as I have said. I am supporting an additional school. We require a new school in that area, a new site in the Indian River neighbourhood. With our current enrolment of 520 students, we're running at about 140 percent over the design capacity of Dorothy Lynas Elementary, so a new school is needed. Based on the household census of the Dorothy Lynas Elementary catchment area -- and this is evidenced by information supplied by the district of North Vancouver -- enrolment at Dorothy Lynas Elementary is to increase to over 600 by 1993 and to in excess of 700 students by 1995. That's another reason for a new school. To date, the enrolment over the school design capacity has been managed by using portable classrooms. Construction of a four-room addition will lessen the number of portables required. We need a number of additional classrooms plus a new school.

[ Page 637 ]

There are problems in other schools in the east Seymour area. As I said before, Sherwood Park and Cove Cliff schools are also overcrowded. They are currently over design capacity. Therefore, the catchment area boundary adjustments are not a practical alternative for the overcrowded conditions in the area. A new school is definitely required. One of my questions to you is: are there plans for a new elementary school in the Seymour area or the Indian River area?

Maybe we'll have to go on after lunch, because I still have a bit more here. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

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

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada