Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1992

Volume 2, Number 3

[ Page 685 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

P. Dueck: Visiting us today in the precincts are 40 grade 11 students from MEI, which is a private independent school in the Matsqui district. Their goal is quality education, and they are a very efficiently run operation. Accompanying them today are two teachers, Mr. Bartsch and Mr. Reimer. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

F. Gingell: In the gallery I have a constituent, Karen Morgan. I would ask this House to help make her welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I would like the House to join me in welcoming 20 adult students of the Native Education Centre in Vancouver, who are enrolled in the native public administration program, and their instructor John McBride. I hope the whole House will join me in making them very welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting the House for the very first time are my younger son, Joel Hagen, and my executive assistant, Renée Saklikar. I've asked the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a businesswoman from Chilliwack, Miss Ona Singleton, who plays an active part in our community and is one of my more avid supporters. If you'd make her most welcome, we'd appreciate it.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, I would ask the House to send its regrets to the family of Mildred Osterhout Fahrni, who just today passed away at the age of 92 years. Mildred Fahrni has been a long-time friend to many of us in Vancouver. Her political career was very distinguished, although it never resulted in her being a representative in this House.

Mildred Fahrni was born in rural Manitoba and was there when the CCF was formed. She was at the Regina convention where the original manifesto was written. She gave the homily at J. Woodsworth's funeral. She has been a long-time and well-respected member of the peace movement in our province, in our country and internationally. She was a friend of Gandhi and of Martin Luther King; she was someone they looked to when she was younger. We will really regret her passing. Over many years she has been a friend to all of us in Vancouver who have cared about the peace movement and about justice. She was awarded the Vancouver peace award in 1991, and the MOSIAC humanitarian award. She has been, as I said, a friend to all of us. I would ask this House to join me in sending sincere regrets to her family.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Is it the House's wish that we send those regrets?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, with your indulgence and that of other hon. members, I would like to add very briefly to what the minister has said. Mildred Fahrni was undoubtedly one of the great British Columbians of this century. The biography presented last year when she won the Vancouver Citizens Peace Award described an individual whose accomplishments few of us could even imagine, let alone emulate. She had a certain dignity and peacefulness about her that anyone who knew her will never forget and those of us who didn't know her can only imagine. I'd like to attempt to convey that to members so they know the kind of person about whom we're talking. She'll be an enormous loss, but she's left an indelible mark on the province.

V. Anderson: I would like to add my personal greetings to the family in the passing of Mildred Fahrni. It was 45 years ago at the University of Saskatchewan that we first had the privilege of meeting Mildred when she was speaking and conveying her convictions to us with her Fellowship of Reconciliation. She has maintained that over these years and had a long-lasting effect on the lives of many students across Canada and around the world.

It was only about three months ago that Mildred was in a group meeting with our congregation sharing her concerns and her interests, even then leading the rest of us and guiding us and overwhelming people by her sincerity and her modesty and her supreme effectiveness.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. With the will of the House I will ensure that those regrets are sent from this House.

Before we begin question period you will find some interesting information on your desk.

On Thursday last, hon. members, the government House Leader and both opposition House Leaders rose on a point of order relating to the conduct of question period in the House. The heart of the guidelines for question period are embodied in the words of standing order 47A(b), which reads as follows: "...questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion."

While from time to time the Chair has recited this particular subsection and believes all hon. members are quite familiar with its intent, based on the comments of last Thursday's point of order, quite clearly neither government nor opposition are completely satisfied with the way question period is unfolding. The Chair has also examined the official record of this House covering the last two weeks of question period, and while many questions and answers conformed to the rule, many did not.

Unless the members in framing questions and preambles and the ministers in formulating their answers conscientiously observe the spirit of section 47A, the House is in difficulty. The Chair is powerless to rewrite questions or rephrase answers for hon. members. Presiding officers throughout the Commonwealth have stated time and again that members must take the ultimate responsibility for conforming to the rules, 

[ Page 686 ]

which are of course the members' rules and not the Speaker's rules.

To assist members in better understanding the areas which appear to be giving the House the most difficulty, I have asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to circulate a decision of a former Speaker of the House, which may be found on page 86 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. The Speaker's comments of June 30, 1982, deal very specifically with the same complaints voiced by all hon. House leaders on Thursday last. I am also supplying to each member of the House the rules as stated in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which hon. members may wish to keep readily available to assist in framing questions and formulating answers during question period.

The Chair in this Legislature, as in all Legislatures in the Commonwealth, is prepared to guide and assist, but ultimately it is up to all hon. members to take responsibility for making question period in this House effective and in accordance with the well-established rules. So I hope hon. members will find the information on their desks of assistance.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Health. Over the past two weeks all the members of this House have received numerous calls from distraught family members of British Columbians who are eagerly awaiting emergency surgery. Can this minister finally come clean and admit today to the people of this province that the current levels of essential service in this province are totally inadequate?

Hon. E. Cull: We have the ability in this province to designate essential services, which are negotiated and put in place to make sure that emergency health care is available to everyone who needs it. Beyond that, because of some of the concerns around the disruption in some hospitals, we have also made available -- where the physicians deem it to be necessary -- the ability to fly patients to other hospitals in Alberta and Washington. We are doing all that we can to maintain essential emergency services.

G. Farrell-Collins: According to her comments last week, the minister said that Monday was D-Day for this dispute. It's Monday, and both sides are farther apart than ever. There are hundreds of people who are suffering because they cannot get the medical treatment they need. When will the minister finally act on behalf of the people of this province who are in urgent need of health services?

Hon. E. Cull: The member is asking about the labour dispute, and I think that question would be better put to the Minister of Labour.

[2:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't hear the question. The member may want to repeat it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, once again we're playing games in question period. This is a very serious matter.

I will repeat the question. The Minister of Health stated last week that Monday was the deadline in this dispute, and if nothing had been done by Monday she would look into it. Today is Monday. There are hundreds of people in this province who are in very serious situations regarding their health. I would like to know when some minister -- any minister -- of this government is going to stand up and take responsibility for the people of this province.

Hon. M. Sihota: This government is always pleased to stand up and take responsibility for all the issues that face the public in this province. I can assure the hon. member of that. The fact of the matter in this case is that there are concerns about essential services, which the hon. member raises. This government has made it very clear that it will not compromise on the issue of essential services. British Columbians will receive quality health care in this province. I noted over the course of last week that both the union and the hospitals indicated that if there were gaps in the provision of essential services, they were prepared to go back to the IRC and seek further clarification and orders in that regard. We welcome those applications. We have an assurance that the IRC will deal with them expeditiously.

The hon. member also implies in his question that no progress has been made in the past week with respect to this issue. He's wrong on that point. Quite frankly, the parties have made considerable progress over the weekend. I understand that there was a new offer put forward on Sunday that reduces the cost to government somewhat significantly from the previous offer.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's very encouraging to the people who are sitting in hallways -- as we saw last week -- to know that this government is willing to go back to the IRC and engage in negotiations on essential services. They'd like some answers now. Obviously the fear of offending anyone by intervening in this dispute is hampering the ability of at least two ministers to properly manage the people's business. Will either of these ministers finally set a realistic deadline for the resolution of this dispute? Enough is enough.

Hon. M. Sihota: In terms of setting a deadline, I don't think it makes any sense to impose artificial deadlines on the parties. The parties are well aware of the need to have this issue resolved, as is the government. The government, through the IRC and mediation mechanisms, is actively involved in this matter -- contrary to what the member wishes to suggest. The fact of the matter is that the government has made it abundantly clear to the parties that our patience is wearing thin with respect to this dispute.

[ Page 687 ]

ABORIGINAL TITLE

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. On December 10, the ministry issued a press release, in which he referred to British Columbia's recognition of the political legitimacy of aboriginal title and the inherent right to self-government.

Hon. G. Clark: A little late, Jack.

J. Weisgerber: Yes.

Later, on April 8, both the minister and the Attorney General rose in the House to make ministerial statements. The Attorney General said: "...the government recognizes the existence of aboriginal rights in the province, which may be described as an interest in respect of land sui generis." Will the minister explain for this House and British Columbians the difference between these two positions?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure there is a difference between the two positions. The first position was that we recognize the political legitimacy of aboriginal title. That is our political commitment, which we fully intend to act upon at the negotiating table. The second position is the position we're taking into court, and it is a position that directs itself to the interpretation of the common law and the legal situation.

That, I suppose, is the distinction between the two. If the member wants to define further for me what kind of differences he's looking for, I'd be happy to respond.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps for those of us who aren't as fluent in Latin as the minister might be, I think British Columbians clearly would like to know if this government still recognizes aboriginal title. Is that the position? If that's the case, it would have been much simpler for us -- aboriginal people and British Columbians who are interested in this issue -- to have simply reaffirmed your position of recognition of aboriginal title. Will you tell us: is there a difference between the recognition of aboriginal title and the statement made by the Attorney General in respect to the recognition of rights in land?

Hon. A. Petter: I think I can answer the question by reading from the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul in which they say:

"The inescapable conclusion from the court's analysis of Indian title up to this point is that the Indian interest in land is truly sui generis. It is more than the right to enjoyment and occupancy, although, as the Chief Justice pointed out in Guerin, it is difficult to describe what more in traditional property law terminology."

So the short answer is that the Supreme Court itself has defined aboriginal title as an interest in land sui generis. That's the terminology we're using too. The difficulty with the term aboriginal title is that the members opposite constantly misinterpret it.

SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET CUTS

J. Dalton: My question is for the Minister of Education. In order to address a serious budget shortfall, the Vancouver School District has announced 115 teacher layoffs for next year. Does the minister endorse the axing of teachers to balance district budgets?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe the question is out of order because we are in estimates today, but I would certainly be happy to deal with that question in detail during the estimates debate that will follow question period.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have a new question?

J. Dalton: I have a supplementary.

The Speaker: Unless the member has a new question, then I would go on to the next question.

TEACHER LAYOFFS

J. Dalton: New question, Hon. Speaker.

Hundreds of teachers have recently received their pink slips from school districts. Can the hon. Minister of Education tell this House where she expects these teachers might find future employment in education?

Hon. A. Hagen: I would repeat that we are in estimates, and these matters are to be canvassed at that time.

CROWN COUNSEL

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General, especially given that the Crown Counsel Association on Friday voted 96 percent in favour of withdrawing their services after June 15. I wonder if it is the minister's view that we are headed towards yet another public sector strike in a vital component of our society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all.

A. Warnke: It's interesting, hon. Speaker. In the past, both the Premier and the Minister of Labour criticized the Crown counsel office as being weak and subject to political interference. What specifically is the government doing about establishing a strong and independent Crown counsel office?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm absolutely committed, and so is the government, to a strong Crown counsel process and force in this province. I think it's clear to anyone who looks at the situation that there are some inadequacies in the current remuneration schedule; there are some problems with the contracting-out that took place almost a decade ago; and there are a number of other issues that need to be dealt with and are being dealt with. In fact, the Crown Counsel Association is now in the process of meeting with government 

[ Page 688 ]

representatives to discuss these outstanding issues, and I'm fully confident that a resolution will be reached.

A. Warnke: A final supplementary to the same minister. Since different professions have been on strike lately, ranging from BCIT, UBC and so forth, when is this government going to change its attitude of bargaining with these people and specifically the Crown Counsel Association?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, hon. Speaker, the Crown counsels are not covered by a collective bargaining situation. They are not under the PSLRA, and as a result, they have asked for a voluntary acceptance on our part that we discuss with their association, outside of the framework of collective bargaining. We've agreed to do that. We've agreed to sit down and talk to them about the problems they face. They have a series of objectives that they wish us to accept. We're prepared to talk about any and all of them. We're not prepared to accept absolutely every one of them, though, I might say.

GYPSY MOTH SPRAY PROGRAM

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, Btk is the active ingredient in the proposed gypsy moth spraying. It was last tested for toxicity to humans between 1956 and 1958. It is now 16 times more potent than it was then. My question to the Minister of Health is: are you satisfied with this spraying providing new test results from the 500,000 lower mainland residents exposed?

Hon. E. Cull: There has been extensive review of the studies done on the toxicity of the Btk. The best advice that I have from the provincial medical health officer is that there is a small risk to people who already have breathing difficulties from the spray and from the substance that it is in. But there is a larger -- although also extremely small -- risk from the moths themselves to that same population. In other words, the public health risk from either the spray or the moth is small, but it is larger from the infestation of the moth itself.

J. Tyabji: My question is for the Minister of Environment. The minister claims it is safe to spray Foray 48B over watersheds, based on ten years of spray research in Ontario. This same research lead to a cancelling of aerial spraying for gypsy moth. Does the minister plan to conduct an additional ten-year test on the province of B.C.?

Hon. J. Cashore: As a responsible government, we'll be paying attention to all information that becomes available to us. As I have stated, as a responsible government we've had to make a decision in an emergency situation. The fact is that the stickers and the spreaders that are employed in the Btk, sometimes referred to as surfactant, are the culture that the Btk grow on. These are primarily carbohydrates, such as ground potatoes or ground soya beans. They are also used in proteins, sugars and cornmeal. There are no secret chemicals. Also, all the ingredients are tested and passed by Health and Welfare Canada.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: I thank to the Minister of Environment for all kinds of information I hadn't asked for. Will the Minister of Environment bear the cost of evacuation of people who, on the advice of physicians, must leave the lower mainland for the two-month duration of the spray program?

[2:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to remind this hon. member that she was the one who last week appropriately raised the caution that this not be something -- albeit an emergency -- dealing in hysteria. She was absolutely right about that last week. We are dealing with an emergency here, but it is absolutely imperative that the public not be put in the situation, through the manipulation of information, to have to panic.

Ministerial Statement

TREE-SPIKING IN WALBRAN VALLEY

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a statement on tree-spiking, which is an issue of grave concern to everyone with an interest in B.C.'s forests. I make this statement today as a result of a number of trees with spikes being discovered in the Walbran Valley. Various people have been reported in the media as suggesting that tree-spiking does not present a hazard to people employed in the woods or the mills of our province. I want to disabuse anybody who retains that foolish notion.

Early last week an employee of MacMillan Bloedel narrowly escaped injury after his saw struck a large spike embedded in a tree in the Walbran Valley. MacMillan Bloedel employees subsequently discovered that a number of trees in an active cutting area in the Walbran had been spiked. In response to media reports of the discovery of some 34 spikes, Mr. Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society claimed in the Vancouver Province that he not only knew of some 2,000 other trees in the Walbran Valley that had been spiked, but that he had developed the tactic in an attempt to save old-growth forests from logging. Mr. Watson said that spiking is not a tactic aimed at injuring human beings, but rather it is intended to cost logging companies a great deal of money. Mr. Watson went on to say that tree-spiking cannot hurt loggers or sawmill employees, because both chainsaws and milling equipment have guards that protect the operators in the event that blades hit foreign objects in the wood.

A Mr. Jim Gillespie was also quoted as saying that tree-spiking posed no threat to loggers or millworkers. Mr. Gillespie suggested: "They can name the tree and put in as many spikes as they want. There's no danger whatsoever." This is utter nonsense. The 34 spikes discovered in the Walbran were deliberately inserted in such a fashion as to prevent their detection and to cause them to fly out of the tree when struck by a saw blade.

[ Page 689 ]

Many sawmills, such as that in Youbou, have experienced incidents where a saw blade has exploded upon striking a metal object embedded in a log. If I can deviate on a personal note, I have worked in a mill in British Columbia -- with a bandmill -- and I have seen that saw torn off its seat as a result of boom chains in a log. I know workers who have been injured when that saw broke into many pieces, causing them severe injury.

Moreover, the people who put the spikes in the trees made no attempt to warn the company of the presence of spikes before logging crews entered the area. From this, one can only conclude that the responsible party did not want to prevent or delay the felling of trees, but rather wanted to injure forestry workers. Tree-spiking is quite simply an act of violence against people.

The environmental movement has worked hard to establish a meaningful dialogue on land use in this province. I sincerely believe that through such government initiatives as the Commission on Resources and Environment, this positive working relationship will flourish and allow all parties to reach agreements on the future of land use in B.C. Tree-spiking, however, only undermines this process. It is not an attempt to protect trees or encourage cooperation on land use, but is instead a conscious and deliberate attempt to cause injury and death to our forest industry workers.

I have asked the Attorney General to raise with the federal Justice minister the possibility of including tree-spiking as an offence under the Criminal Code. I would also call on all members of this House to condemn these environmental terrorists and demand that the members of the many responsible environmental groups in B.C. use all the means at their disposal to seek out these individuals who would undermine their commendable efforts.

W. Hurd: It's a privilege to respond to the ministerial statement on tree-spiking, which the opposition equally abhors. I can certainly recount that felling is a dangerous enough profession of the woods without having to deal with the psychological terror that may go on when dealing with trees that have been spiked. I am also encouraged to hear that the government intends to pursue the idea of criminal charges against people who engage in this kind of activity. Certainly a charge of criminal negligence, if an action results in bodily harm or injury, is worthy of immediate consideration and would be endorsed by the opposition.

I hope that a day will come in this province when people have enough faith in due process of law and in consultation that these types of activities will not be defended in the media and will not be the subject of hero worship by some misguided people in our society. I really do hope that the environmental movement will take it upon itself to advise the authorities of who might be responsible for this type of activity, because I think it reflects badly on a very worthy environmental movement. I would hope that they will take the kind of action that they deem to be necessary.

We certainly support the ministerial statement and hope that we can include this type of activity in the Criminal Code as soon as possible.

L. Fox: I'm sure we can all support the minister's statement on tree-spiking. That is why the previous government passed Bill 35 in 1990, which makes tree-spiking an illegal act punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or a three-year jail term where it results in physical injury. Believe me, if the Social Credit caucus had its way, tree-spiking would be punishable under the Criminal Code and subject to much tougher treatment than now accorded it under provincial law.

When Bill 35 was debated two years ago, every member of this House condemned tree-spiking as a senseless act of violence that could not be excused and should not be tolerated. Given the incidents that have recently been documented, I would urge this government to review Bill 35 and evoke much harsher penalties for tree-spiking before this session is concluded. Every member of the Social Credit caucus will support tougher fines and tougher jail terms if this government uses its power to ensure that tree-spiking simply doesn't happen.

Again, we support the minister's statement and urge him to bring in tougher provincial penalties for tree-spiking as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Barnes in the chair.

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

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

J. Dalton: To the Minister of Education, welcome back, after a day off -- as I guess we can describe it -- to the estimates debate.

I appreciate that in question period today the minister chose not to answer some specific questions on teacher layoffs. I'm going to make some comments today about that particular issue, which is becoming more and more evident. I might say, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Minister of Education that some of the remarks I'm going to make were precipitated by a newspaper article of last Saturday, in the Sun, and comments that the minister made in an interview with, I presume, the reporters who wrote this article. I think the timing is very appropriate.

More and more of what I would describe as the bad news is coming in from various school boards and districts about the underfunding of education. I made this observation last Thursday as well, when we commenced these debates: there is more and more evidence of board, or district, underfunding. We in the opposition are certainly very concerned about that, and I trust that the minister is equally concerned.

If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to some of the comments attributed to the Minister of Education, because they are appropriate to our discussion in the estimates debate. In particular terms, the Vancouver district has now had to come to grips with its budget shortfall. It has given approval as of last week 

[ Page 690 ]

for a $326 million operating budget for the 1992-93 fiscal year. That is in response to the funding formula and the money provided for Vancouver, and also in response to the very difficult task that that board, and many others, have either gone through so far or are in the process of going through.

In the case of the Vancouver School Board, 115 teachers will be given layoff notices for the upcoming school year to take care of significant shortfalls; in addition, there will be another 105 non-teaching staff who will also be given layoff notices; and this all in the aftermath of the shortfalls and the budget preparation of the Vancouver district.

When the hon. Minister of Education was asked to comment on the particular example of Vancouver, in these very difficult times that teachers, students, parents and everyone else in that district in particular are facing, she suggested, in answer to a question about layoffs, that the about-to-be-laid-off teachers in Vancouver could find employment in other suburban or lower mainland districts. While that may or may not be the case, Mr. Chairman -- and of course we cannot speculate on whether other school districts will be in a specific position to hire laid-off teachers -- the fact is that there is a significant budget shortfall; that many teachers and also support staff are now facing the very unpleasant news that their jobs are about to be terminated for the upcoming year.

This particular article was originally drawn to my attention by a newscast that I heard on Saturday morning on my way to a West Vancouver School Board meeting. Every time you turn around there's a correlation between all these difficulties the various school districts are facing. At that time -- before I had actually read this newspaper article -- I raised the question to myself, and I also posed it to the superintendent of schools for West Vancouver. I'm wondering where the minister feels these teachers who have now been given layoff notices are going to find employment, given that other school districts are facing similar budget shortfalls for next year.

[2:45]

I am not only going to ask myself and ask other school officials that question, but I think it would be appropriate for the minister, if she cares to, to make comments on these layoffs and on the prospects for future employment in other school districts. I do appreciate that some school districts are in a growth position, and I think, for example, of Surrey, Langley and many of the districts in the Fraser Valley. Richmond School District is in a growth position.

It is somewhat speculative, of course, to indicate exactly what the numbers would be in the fall. We do know that there are funds set aside, and I think we're going to have the opportunity to question later in these debates about what to do as far as fall enrolment -- if it's higher or perhaps in some cases lower than anticipated -- by looking at the actual figures each school district has in front of it now.... However, coming back to the budget shortfall and the awkward situation that these boards are placed in by having to lay off their teaching and non-teaching staff, is it realistic for the hon. Minister of Education to state publicly -- as she has done in this newspaper article and in public meetings -- that teachers are going to find employment in other districts? This, in essence, is the theme of the question that I tried to raise in question period today, so there is a correlation between the two. Quite frankly, it's a bit misleading to suggest to those teachers who are going to open up their pay slips one day -- if they haven't already -- and find that pink slip drop out: "Don't worry about it. Your educational career is not being put on hold. You can find employment elsewhere."

For example, many of these teachers have families in particular communities. Is the minister inviting these people to uproot themselves and their families to find employment elsewhere, which may or may not be available? Given the very real uncertainty of budget shortfalls in a majority of districts -- and later today I'm going to comment on a survey that will substantiate this -- I am going to suggest to the hon. minister that it is both misleading and inaccurate to suggest to teachers: "I'm sorry that you got laid off in Vancouver or wherever else it may be. Go and find employment elsewhere." I don't think that's quite the approach that teachers are expecting to hear, and I'm hoping that teachers will look at this in a more realistic sense than perhaps the minister is prepared to do.

The fact is -- and this is demonstrated more and more as budgets come in -- that many districts are facing the same shortfall that I have already referred to as far as Vancouver is concerned. Vancouver, being the largest district in the province, is naturally going to get more publicity than other districts might receive. However, Vancouver is only one of many examples of shortfalls, and I'm hoping the minister doesn't have a game plan in mind whereby she's saying: "We'll just farm off the surplus teachers out of Vancouver, because they can't afford to pay for them, to other growth districts." I'm suggesting that these so-called growth districts -- and they are in a growth situation -- are not getting the proper funding, either.

There is another difficulty I would point out. If growth districts are to receive extra funding, it would not arrive until the September enrolment occurs. There is certainly no assurance that they would then be in a position to hire on extra faculty or support staff for their education delivery.

It's not an easy time for anyone involved in the process of education, and it is anything but an easy time for those who are getting the bad news from districts like Vancouver and hearing statements attributed to the Minister of Education saying, in effect: "Don't worry about it. Go elsewhere. There is employment available elsewhere."

As I've already suggested, I think it's misleading. I think it is an unwarranted way to approach this problem. It certainly is true that in the long run we all have to address -- we made these comments on Thursday of last week as well -- the whole question of funding for the education system. In the short run -- these are the points that we are bringing up in the estimates now -- many districts are facing the unpleasant situation of getting to the bottom line, as I will describe it, of presenting their budgets for next year and 

[ Page 691 ]

finding that they are definitely in a shortfall position. I am sure I will have the opportunity later to make reference -- and other members as well -- to other districts. I don't want to use Vancouver as the only example; it's one that is useful to use right now, because as my line of questioning is suggesting, to take Vancouver teachers and park them somewhere else in the growth districts, if indeed they have the financial wherewithal to hire these teachers.... So I am going to summarize this line of reasoning by suggesting again that the growth districts may not be in a position to hire surplus teachers. It is unfair to laid-off teachers to raise false expectations, which I think is happening. I'm sure many teachers in Vancouver -- who are anticipating, if they haven't already got the unpleasant news -- are going to read this article or hear the newscast and say: "Thank God, now I can go off to Surrey or whatever district it might be and find other employment." I don't think that is a likelihood in the reality of the underfunding of the system in a general sense.

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, I want to say that all of us are concerned about the difficulties the school boards and other levels of government are having in preparing their budgets for the coming year. Let me address a couple of points which the member has taken from an article in a weekend newspaper, one which put some words into my mouth, as is sometimes the wont of newspaper writers. I was asked if there were growing districts where there would be opportunities for new teachers. Indeed, there are growing districts which will require new teachers. Perhaps the best way to give testament to that is to look at the number of teachers employed this year over and above the number employed in each of the two previous years. In each of the two previous years in British Columbia, 1,200 teachers have been added to our teaching complement. A great many of those teachers are added because of increases in enrolment, and that doesn't include principals or district staff. So there are 2,400 more teachers employed in British Columbia in 1991-92 than in 1989-90. Our enrolment projections are that there will be increased numbers of students as well.

It's important, too, to note that each year a certain number of teachers retire or take leave. This provides some space in terms of the staffing arrangements that every district goes through each year, as it plans to prepare for next year's enrolment of youngsters in our school system.

The other matter that was addressed at that time -- and it's an important matter for me to address in this House -- is the increases that this government has provided for the school districts of the province in this most difficult of budgeting years, when we are facing at a provincial level an actual deficit of about $1.75 billion. The block of funds to school districts for operating year over year is up 6.5 percent. The overall increase in dollars is $232 million. If we look at all the funding going to school districts this year over last year, it's $300 million, an increase of over 9 percent. Our provincial budget is up 4.7 percent, so we clearly have targeted money to school districts.

Now let me look to the particular district that the member has cited in his comments, the district of Vancouver. Vancouver is not growing. It has had some modest growth over the last two or three years, but this year the enrolment projections agreed upon between the ministry and the district are pretty flat -- a very modest increase in students. So Vancouver receives pretty well the average per-block increase compared to what all other districts receive. It's about 2.2 percent. However, Vancouver has some special circumstances, and those have been acknowledged in the funding that goes to Vancouver. I have communicated this to the chairman of the Vancouver Board of School Trustees.

Vancouver receives within its block significant funding for its large number of English-as-second-language students. But in addition to that, Vancouver will have targeted funding for the challenge of receiving, assessing and placing new students in its system. We have $3.7 million in the funds available to school districts. It's our estimation that Vancouver, along with other lower mainland districts, will receive a large portion of those funds.

Vancouver also has received some assistance for costs that it incurred last year for its excellent school meal program -- almost $1 million in 1991-92 budget terms, to assist us with costs it had incurred. This is, in a sense, some new money that they might not have expected and that will assist them in their budgeting. That school meal program will translate into $1.6 million estimated for next year for programs that are in place or contemplated.

Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, there has been a 6.5 percent increase block over block to school districts this year. Vancouver has received an increase parallel to the increase that has gone out to most districts on average, plus funds that will be targeted to some of the special needs of Vancouver.

I might add that although this next item does not deal with operating, Vancouver has already received word of $11 million in capital funds and will be receiving word this week of additional funds to assist it in upgrading its schools as per its requests to the ministry. I would just note, Mr. Chairman, that the $11 million was for last year, 1991-92, and the other funds that I'm speaking of are for the upcoming year. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

J. Dalton: As I believe I said the other day -- and I would like to reiterate it -- the minister is very generous in her answers, and certainly we appreciate the information that is forthcoming. However, that doesn't mean that I am intending to be overcomplimentary or not critical of this whole question of budget shortfalls that we are addressing.

As she did on the first day of the estimates debate, the minister today refers, appropriately from her perspective, to the budget increase, and we recognize that. We have seen the figures, and we know that 9.1 percent overall in her ministry.... We are aware of the lift on the funding formula of 2.4 percent for economic adjustment, 3.5 percent for increased enrolment and the other factors. I don't think that we need to go over old ground or have specific figures restated for us.

[3:00]

[ Page 692 ]

There is a reality out there, and I think that now I wish to address some of the reality. The reality is an ongoing thing. We've referred in our comments to Vancouver -- there is a really harsh reality. It is true that Vancouver has received -- as the minister kindly provided -- a 2.2 percent increase in the funding as opposed to the provincial average of 2.4. That's close enough. However, that doesn't take into account other costs which are certainly going to affect Vancouver and the other school districts.

I don't believe that at any time in my comments, either in the first day or today, have I made any reference to anticipated salary increases for teachers. Maybe that's a topic that nobody wants to address, because should we suggest to teachers, "By the way, we all recognize that your districts are in financial difficulty, and we're going to expect you to pay for it indirectly by not asking for an appropriate salary increase for 1992-93...." I don't think that's realistic or fair to teachers, and it's not very likely that teachers are going to come to their local school boards and say: "We know that you're in difficulty and that you are not the cause of it -- it's the provincial government ministry -- and we'll certainly be happy to surrender salary increases for next year in order to bail you out." That's not going to happen. Certainly teachers that I've talked to are not suggesting that they are going to be greedy, but I can assure you that teachers, as with any other public sector group in this province, have an expectation that they should be treated fairly.

This government is more than often prepared to talk about fair wages, pay equity and all of the things that have a nice ring to them -- some of which may be more predictably part of what this government is going to bring in than others. But teachers have to be treated with the same respect and fairness that any other public sector group would anticipate. I would just add as sort of an aside, as we're going through the estimates and talking about budget shortfalls, that we haven't even got around to the very unpleasant prospect of districts being placed in an even more awkward situation because of salary increases that no doubt will be negotiated or at least asked for in the upcoming year. That's a topic that we may revisit later.

Right now, there is a very consistent theme from school districts that they're in difficult economic times. The thing that they then add, as I've already alluded to in my comments, is: "By the way, our budget shortfall doesn't even include the possibility of an increase in salaries." As salaries go up, it's obviously going to impact it even further as far as district funding is concerned.

Let me return to the first theme that we are commenting on: budget shortfalls. I'm going to refer this committee to a survey of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. This survey was recently completed, and the results, as I see from the cover, were presented to the hon. Minister of Education and the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on Friday, April 10, 1992. The information from the B.C. School Trustees' Association is of interest to this committee and all the members present. The minister no doubt has a copy, and I now have a copy in front of me. Some of the information contained in this report will be of interest to everyone, including school administrators, teachers and parents, who hopefully will be listening in or receiving this information through other sources. I could go on and name everyone who will be concerned and interested in this survey.

The survey was sent out to each of the member boards of the BCSTA. I can't recall the exact number, but there are some school boards that are not members of the BCSTA. The significant majority are members. They responded to particular questions put to their individual boards in March, the last month the survey form came out. It's headed "Statement of Issue: School District Concerns About Education Funding." This is not a detailed survey. I'm not going to go through a lot of facts and figures, because the BCSTA did not ask for those. It just wanted a general overview reaction of school districts to the funding situation for '92-93.

The information provided in the response to this survey is certainly of interest. As of April 3 of this year, 82 percent of member boards had responded to this brief survey. I might add as an aside that we have been doing our own research, as you might suspect, and the information I see here in summary form does not surprise me one bit. It's very consistent with the information and messages we've been receiving in our independent research.

Let's examine some of the facts and figures that have come to light from this survey. Here's a heading: "Funding and Economic Conditions." The boards were invited to comment on their evaluation of funding levels for the '92-93 fiscal year. Some 39 percent of the responding boards felt that the funding was appropriate. I don't know how to interpret "appropriate," but I presume that means they are more or less satisfied. The next figure is certainly of significance to us: 52 percent were of the opinion that the funding level was inappropriate. This isn't just an expression of opinion; this is a fact based on the budgets they've put together. Over half of the responding boards have indicated in the survey they have now shared with the minister that the funding received is inappropriate.

I will give you my interpretation of what that means. I would say "inappropriate" means that these boards, as we are demonstrating in our examples, are going through varying degrees of financial agony. Some of the agony in the cuts is, of course, far more serious and severe for some districts than others, but the fact does remain that over one-half of these responding boards are responding "inappropriate funding."

Here's another heading: "Impact of the Allocation." That is the funding formula, of course, and the funds allocated to each of the districts. Table 2 of this survey indicates that, as far as the impact on funding allocation is concerned, 17 percent of the responding boards feel that it's "drastic." I don't think that's necessarily an overstatement; in fact, if I might refer -- as I did the other day -- to one of the two school districts in my own constituency of North Vancouver, I would suggest that North Vancouver has probably described its economic circumstances as drastic. Tomorrow evening, April 14, North Vancouver has to go through the final throes of its budget exercise; it will be producing its 

[ Page 693 ]

budget for '92-93. I know full well that this will be a drastic budget. I can assure this committee of this; I've heard from many constituents within my riding and elsewhere in North Vancouver who are of the same opinion.

Twenty-eight percent of responding boards felt that the impact on their district would be "severe." So here we have an interesting range of adjectives. First we have "drastic"; now we're into "severe" -- and 28 percent. In fairness, we have to go on and give the other responses: "moderate" was 37 percent. I guess "moderate" would probably tie into the appropriate funding that the first question asked for a response on, which was 39 percent. So there's a very close similarity between the two figures. "Minimal" impact was 13 percent.

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting. You go through the list and the percentages decrease quite significantly as the positive reaction to funding is invited as a response from member boards. So we've gone through the very significant numbers -- drastic, severe, moderate -- and now we're into "minimal" with 13 percent; "no effect" with 2 percent -- almost a non-existent number; "positive" with 2 percent -- it would be interesting to see which boards feel that they're in a positive position, but there are certainly not very many of them; and "no response" with 2 percent -- so there were some member boards who have either not gotten around to responding yet or chose not to.

I have one other thing, and then I will invite comment from the minister. I'm just reading from a survey given to her by the BCSTA. The third survey aspect of this report dealt with staff and program cuts. Based on the responses to questions about funding impact, it is not surprising that 74 percent of the boards answering expect staff reductions to result from the funding allocations -- 74 percent expect staff layoffs. That does come back to the point that I started with today, which precipitated this whole line of questioning: the Vancouver layoffs and the response the minister gave publicly about teachers finding employment elsewhere. I can't see, in all honesty, how teachers are going to find employment elsewhere when so many responding districts are facing -- 74 percent in this case -- staff reductions.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to acknowledge the work the member has done in reviewing the survey, which, as he noted, the Minister of Finance and I received in a further extensive discussion with members of the B.C. School Trustees' Association executive, accompanied, at their invitation, by members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. As I have noted over and over again, we are all facing difficult challenges in this time, and one of my responsibilities is to understand as much as possible what is in the budgets that boards have to work with. I want to just comment briefly about the survey that was done. It represents just over two-thirds of the boards. There are 75 school districts in British Columbia, and as I listened to the analysis, it would appear from the survey that about half of those boards are looking at some changes in their staffing as a result of this year's block allocations.

First of all, I want to be sure that we understand the decisions that are local decisions and the decisions that are taken provincially. Provincially, we build our budgets based on a great deal of information that comes directly from school districts. One of the largest costs of school districts is salaries, because it's a people business; whether it's teachers, principals, support staff or the district staff, those salaries make up somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of school district budgets. Our budgets are built with an acknowledgment of the fact that teachers grow in their professional capacity. They get increments based on their years of experience, and they get increases in their salaries based on improved professional qualifications. Those are all acknowledged in the block of funds that go to school districts.

[3:15]

In the matter of negotiations for settlement of salaries, benefits and working conditions -- class size, preparation time, supervision -- all of those matters are negotiated between school districts and their boards. We have a system that acknowledges the increased professional and experiential qualifications of teachers. Districts are responsible for the negotiations, and the outcome of those negotiations is the result of the intensive work that goes on at district level. As I think I noted on Thursday, both of those factors have an effect on that important component of a budget. Some of them are our responsibility as a provincial government; some of them are local responsibilities.

I have often talked about the fact that we are cogovernors, comanagers, each accountable for certain decisions that we take. It's important for all of us to understand, when we're talking about budgets and management of the system, that we're talking about decisions we've taken for which I've been providing answers to the members of the assembly here today, and we're talking about decisions that are taken at the local district level.

The other comment I'd like to make is that I set out, at the start of my new responsibilities as Minister of Education and Multiculturalism and Human Rights, to work closely with the partners in education, and I have met with them frequently over the last number of months. I have some flesh on the bones of those surveys that the member is discussing, because I have been in face-to-face meetings with boards as extensively as possible. Those meetings have been very productive where we have taken a problem-solving perspective on the situation we face in managing to maintain services to children in classrooms in the context of difficult economic times. I would like to acknowledge the problem-solving approach that boards of school trustees and their officials -- sometimes accompanied by representatives of parents -- teachers and support staff organizations have taken. I've met with -- I've lost count -- probably 12 or 14 boards at this time, and I have meetings scheduled with another dozen boards over the next month. Those boards are helping us to look at the longer-term challenges we face with respect to providing services for students.

I have been impressed with the principles that boards have had around dealing with their budget 

[ Page 694 ]

reality, just as we as government have principles in dealing with our budgeting realities. Without identifying a board, I'm going to note some principles which one board has shared: to protect services and programs; to maximize attrition and minimize layoffs -- I think every board is looking to ways in which its teacher complement can be as strong as possible with as few changes, in terms of people leaving service, as possible; to maintain equity; to avoid a disproportionate impact of reductions -- in other words, to spread the decisions in ways that protect the system; and to examine all expenditures and reduce expenses as much as possible to make sure that inflation impacts are minimized. The overarching principle of this particular school district is to maintain services to classrooms.

I believe that boards have taken the same principled approach that we have. We have tried to maximize the resources that go to school districts in this difficult time. I won't repeat the figures; the member knows them. He said: "Please don't repeat them." But we have indeed indicated our support for education. I appreciate the work of school districts in cooperation -- not always cooperation, but in consultation -- with the people affected by their decisions.

I'm sure that at times it's hard to deal with some of those very difficult decisions. I appreciate that boards are working diligently in their area of responsibility, because we have shared responsibilities for our budgets -- I and our government in the block that goes to boards, and the boards in the decisions they've taken. And boards are dealing now -- in sometimes very difficult circumstances, I certainly acknowledge -- with managing those budgets at this time.

J. Dalton: Again I appreciate the remarks of the minister, and I certainly cannot take issue with her comments about local boards. They are dedicated. I've always admired people who were prepared to stand for a trustee's position because, in my opinion, they're underpaid and overworked -- perhaps even more so than we are, if you members can believe that.

I've met with many boards, as the minister has, and I certainly know many people involved in the delivery of education: teachers and volunteers. This morning I had the opportunity, before I left my constituency, to meet with two classes of one of the high schools in my riding. I can tell you that the students -- these were grade 11 students -- are as equally concerned, objective and positive about the importance of education, and all the work and the effort that must go in to ensure that our quality of education is preserved, and will hopefully be expanded upon. I certainly do concur with the remarks that the minister has just made in that connection.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to also go on record as not wishing to be only a naysayer and only bringing up the negative implications of reports that we may receive, or consultations that we will have with boards and other people affected by education delivery. Coming back to the B.C. School Trustees' Association report of last Friday, there are some positive things in it. I've referred to the negative, the drastic and -- what were the other adjectives I referred to? -- severe.... It sounds like an operation that went bad -- and the figures may support the very negative tone that some parts of the survey have taken on. But there are some positive things. I must say that these are for future consideration, so I'm not inviting the minister to specifically respond, unless she cares to do so.

The survey has come up with some excellent suggestions. I think we touched on some of them last Thursday, when we started our estimates. They've come up with some excellent suggestions on long-term options that should be considered. I just wish to draw these to the attention of the committee and the members. I know the minister shares the same optimism for the long term. I know I'm convinced that we can work on a collaborative, cooperative effort to address these long-term solutions, such as a review of funding, distribution and taxation policy. Sixty-five per cent of the responding boards felt that this would be a desirable long-term option. I've also been told this in meetings that I have had with school trustees and superintendents.

Here's another interesting long-term option, Mr. Chairman: the return to supplementary taxation; 43 percent of responding boards suggested that might be something desirable at least of examination.

Here's one -- I don't even know whether I want to touch this now; and again, it's future policy, but I will add it to the list of long-term options that were surveyed: provincial bargaining. Seventeen percent of responding boards were of the opinion that that issue should at least be addressed. That is something that no doubt we will all have to collectively and individually address and discuss in the future. Right now we are dealing with the specific budget for this ministry, and the estimates that we have to more closely examine.

There are some short-term options surveyed as well. The response was as follows. On the early retirement program, 30 percent were of the opinion that more incentives for early retirement should be provided for teachers. I point that one out in particular, because in recent discussions that I've had with educators and administrators on the North Shore, they've brought up the same suggestion. It would be good if we could come up with a realistic early retirement program. I'm not saying that early retirement is just a way to get rid of the high-priced and, obviously, older teaching staff; that's certainly not the objective of early retirement. But many teachers in the 55-plus category whom I've spoken with would certainly like to have the option of early retirement presented to them; they may or may not take it. But I think it's a very desirable thing. I come from the post-secondary system and the college level, and the same thing is very true as well of the members of whom I'm aware in the college system. They would like the opportunity for an early retirement program to be presented to them. At least then they can feel comfortable as to whether they would or would not care to react to that. Quite frankly, there is a bottom line to this line of option as well. There could be savings demonstrated to school districts if an early retirement program of a realistic nature was brought in. I don't want to raise that as just a way of saving money, because some people might misinterpret that as thinking: "Well, 

[ Page 695 ]

we'll get rid of some of the higher-priced help and bring in lower-priced help." That's certainly not the purpose.

The purpose would be twofold. It would take care of the concerns that many teachers have about the possibility of early retirement. I think we would all like to retire early from whatever function in life we perform, would we not? It's always nice to think of the possibility of sitting under a palm tree, putting your feet up and not having to go to work every day. That's a desirable option. Plus, of course, there is a realistic feature of it as well. If you can allow people the dignity to retire early, then you can hire the younger, energetic -- not to say that older teachers aren't energetic, because they are -- faculty who come in with new ideas and are probably, in a sense, a little more in touch with the student population. So I think there are desirable objectives as well.

I just point those out to the committee, because there are some very positive things that this survey has dealt with in a long-range, future-policy way. I am hoping that through the education committee that has been put together -- and other avenues -- we'll be able to explore these in more detail.

Hon. A. Hagen: I have two, perhaps three, comments on the member's proposals, referring to the survey of the B.C. School Trustees Association. I might note that that survey relates to 54 of 75 boards. For example, when we look at those figures, we find that about 25 percent of the boards are talking about experiencing the kind of difficulties which he is talking about. That's a lot of boards, but I think we have to put it in the context of all boards.

On the matter of the longer-term options that the member spoke of, I announced at the time of block funding on January 31 that government would be reviewing the funding and financing processes involved with education. It's quite a complex area. I know it perhaps too well, as do some other members on your side of the House, hon. member. The issue of funding and financing for schools confounds even wonderful accountants like your critic on the finance side, and he's been on that part of the governance table at some time in his life as well. However, we do plan to undertake that review and are now working on the process which will allow us to do it in a timely way.

The member also spoke about early retirement as an option. I want to make two or three comments about that particular proposal. It's a very significant proposal in terms of human capital, which, if you like, our teachers are. I noted earlier in our discussions this afternoon that there are 2,400 more teachers employed in British Columbia now than there were two years ago, and we still have enrolment increases occurring that are right up there with the pattern of the last couple of years, even though there are increasing numbers of students in our education faculties. We are pressed in respect to our human resources. I do believe that the combination of attrition people who leave.... Women -- and men -- on parenting leave and people who choose other occupations provides a natural attrition within our teaching force each year, and with those increased enrolments, we are pretty well in balance in respect to our human resources, as we need them and the ones who are available.

[3:30]

There are concerns about early retirement in that regard. I happen to have a great respect for the older teachers in our workforce as well as admiring and welcoming the exuberance, enthusiasm and new talents of young teachers. Let me just draw a parallel here with the provincial government, which in 1989 decided that it was going to enter into a very major early retirement program, and a lot of middle and upper management went out of government. All of a sudden, government found itself without the wisdom and knowledge and experience of those people, and a lot of them had to be hired back. There is a very high cost, too, for early retirement. I can't give you an exact figure of that early retirement package, but it was well in excess of a hundred million dollars against the public purse. I have done some examination of an early retirement package that would be equitable across the public service at this time. I don't think we could say that it would apply in this district and not in other districts; I don't think we could ever bring in a proposal of that nature. The costs run into the hundreds of millions of dollars for such an early retirement proposal to be put into place. It is a very costly item, borne entirely by the taxpayers. I think we have to decide how our priorities work, looking at our human resource needs and at some of the options, such as a financial incentive to retire early and the cost of that package to taxpayers in the province. So those may be some helpful comments on the proposals that the member has just made.

R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, the provincial government has announced an increase of 9.1 percent in funding for the '92-93 school year. On the surface, this sounds like an extremely generous provision. However, approximately $585 million of this amount was previously scheduled for capital projects for desperately needed new schools. A further approximate percentage for projected growth in student enrolment.... Another estimated $50 million was required to cover school board deficits carried from the '91-92 fiscal year. Most of this deficit situation -- created by the government's flip-flop in the middle of the school year, as a new government rescinded the old government's legislation under Bill 82 -- leaves less than 2.5 percent to cover inflationary increases, teacher increments and other pressing needs of the school districts. This is wholly inadequate to provide for the education of our children, and the result is that it is forcing school boards all over the province to make massive program cuts to lay off young teachers and to generally shortchange students. This situation will be exacerbated by my prediction of major labour disputes between school boards and their respective staffs. When the poorer districts are unable to offer an appropriate wage increase to their employees, it results in labour disruption and strike situations throughout the province, which can be expected during the '92-93 school year.

My question to the Minister of Education is: in light of the massive cuts to programs and teaching staff being experienced by some school districts, will the minister 

[ Page 696 ]

make additional funding available to address these shortages?

Hon. A. Hagen: I know it's really very complex when we're dealing with all of these figures, so let me first of all deal with the first figure that the member quoted, which is the increase in capital funding. Except for the debt servicing of that capital funding, none of that is in the 9.1 percent increase. Last year there was a larger capital envelope than this year, $650,000. There's debt servicing that continues for that, plus the new capital envelope. Overall, of the $300 million of additional funding going into schools, $55 million of that is new debt servicing. That's a pass-through.

What we need to know is that school districts pay no costs directly for building schools. They're built by this government. They're financed by this government, and the debt servicing for them goes directly to school districts to pay them down. It's just a direct transfer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the funding that goes into school districts. Let's go back to the funding that does go into school districts, which is 6.5 percent more, block over block, than last year. This includes full funding for enrolment.

I just want to make a point about that particular full funding for enrolment, because we often talk about what happens when kids leave home and our costs don't go down. Some of our kids come home these days, and our costs don't go up in proportion to one more person. We still pay the taxes, we still pay the light bill, we still pay the heating bill. Even though there is an increase in enrolment, there are some ways in which school districts are able to accommodate that growth by virtue of the youngsters going to the same school, sharing the same principal, sharing the same office, sharing the same heating bill, the same electrical bill, travelling on the same bus.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't additional costs; of course there are. We have in fact provided for those additional costs, and added some more costs to reflect the fact that some districts are growing so rapidly that there are increases throughout the year.

I repeat to the member, Mr. Chairman, that the increases that have gone to school districts are well over and above the increases in inflation. There have been mandate improvements in computer technology, assistants for ESL, and school meal programs in rapid growth districts. I won't go through all those figures again, but we have looked at a whole range of ways in which we can assist districts in setting their budgets.

I repeat again the comment I made to the previous member that there are also decisions taken by local school districts which have an impact on their budgets. We share decision-making. I have some that are my responsibility and the responsibility of my government. Districts have some. Each of us is looking to manage our affairs in the context of those decisions.

R. Chisholm: Labour Minister Moe Sihota's legislation to implement a fair wage policy for government construction projects in excess of $1.5 million makes a mockery of the government's previously announced intention not to interfere in the area of labour-management negotiations. But in addition to that obvious contradiction, this legislation is bad because it will interfere with the capital projects presently underway in a variety of school districts and with other government projects.

Where a project using a non-union contract....

The Chair: Hon. member, just a moment, please. You are discussing legislation, and as you know, we are dealing with the administration of the Ministry of Education. So I would caution you with respect to reflecting on legislation.

R. Chisholm: The question for the minister, at the end of all of that preamble, is: will the government compensate non-union contractors and/or school districts that find themselves in a cost overrun situation or with a major project being unreasonably delayed?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not sure there is a question there in respect to my ministry. The member, I believe, is hypothesizing on the basis of a policy of government, and I'm not able to provide him with an answer on the basis of that hypothesis.

The Chair: The member should reconsider the subject of his concern and try to relate it to the actual administration of the Ministry of Education.

R. Chisholm: My concern here is, if the legislation goes through, will the school boards be unduly burdened? That's the problem.

The Chair: With all due respect, that is a hypothetical question. You should address your question to matters of fact, not speculating on matters that may or may not have occurred.

V. Anderson: I, too, would like to thank the minister for the way she responds to the questions, both when we were dealing with the warrants and also with the estimates.

Two questions I would ask together at this particular point. When we mention the increase of 2,400 for teachers over the last two years -- just for clarification of whether that's net growth or gross growth -- is that 2,400 new teachers after those who have left are discounted? That's one part of the question.

I couldn't help but raise, in response to my colleague here, the question: how significant is the number of "mature" persons who are changing occupations and coming into the teaching profession against the young people out of high school and then directly into university? This is a very significant input and one we need to think about, because many of these people will never get to early retirement but have a significant contribution to make because of the other skills they bring with them out of their life and previous experiences.

I would ask both of those questions.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me provide the member with the actual total of full-time-equivalent educators in the 

[ Page 697 ]

system -- '89-90, '90-91, '91-92, according to my figures. This is where the 2,400 additional people.... This is actually more people. I don't know how many have gone in, how many have left, but the figures I have are that in 1989-90 there were 29,798 full-time educators. The next year, 31,147 -- that's '90-91 -- and for '91-92, 32,373.

It's important to note that there are all kinds of arrangements our educators make: there is team teaching, part-time teaching and so on. I believe the count is something in the order of 40,000 educators who are in some way or other involved with education, but that's off the top of my head, and I will offer it in that context.

[3:45]

I really appreciate the comment of the member about people who are choosing to become teachers, having perhaps had other professional or para-professional careers. Indeed it is a very significant number. I don't have those figures, although I believe our faculties of education are watching that phenomenon. I agree with the member wholeheartedly that those people bring into their teaching a range of life experience that will make them very valuable people in our education system. The fact that they are choosing teaching, I think, suggests something about their optimism for that profession, but it also suggests something about where their values are -- that they've done other things, that they have made a choice and believe teaching will be a very satisfying and enriching occupation for them. I think those are things that we would all accept as attributes of the health and well-being of the system -- both their choice and what they give to the system.

V. Anderson: You have mentioned some special program costs that have been given to schools because of special circumstances -- Vancouver, Victoria and other areas throughout the province. Two questions arise from that particular comment. One that wasn't mentioned was the special funds which might be available to students with disabilities. In the integration process this has become a very significant program for many areas and has changed not only the number of students in the classroom, but the whole process within the classroom. For that reason it requires a different style of teacher training.

It also has raised the question of student aid or student-support persons -- some of them even needing to be full-time -- with students who have extreme physical disabilities or hearing or sight difficulties. I raise the question of the number of additional persons or aid available for that very important process -- which I commend. I also raise the question of what kind of cross-ministry funding is available, and I think particularly of health workers who are part of the Health ministry but are also working within schools. So it's cross-ministry. There will be others as well, but I use that one as an illustration.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me see if I can provide some information to the member. Indeed there are funds within the block that go to each school district to meet a wide range of special needs of students, and that's in the context of those students being a part of the mainstream, integrated into regular classes -- which is the commitment that we have, both as a ministry and within the system. When looking at funds to support students who have special needs, one looks at the amount of money in the block for those students -- as there would be for any student -- and then at the incremental amounts that are available to provide additional services for them. The incremental amount is in the order of $351 million.

In addition to that, we must recognize the costs associated with the running of a school. So we have the regular teaching costs, incremental funding to assist the boards in how they plan an educational program for each of these children, and then the fixed costs of administering the school. The important thing for us to recognize, as we look at these students being a part of every classroom and each neighbourhood school, is that all those funds do blend together to provide for those kinds of needs.

The member has also asked about the interministerial work. I can't comment about the estimates of other ministries like Health and Social Services, because the Chairman will call me to order if I do that. But I can let you know that we work in a cooperative way around providing those supportive services. You may want to inquire of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Services at the appropriate time about the way in which those kinds of complementary services are organized and funded.

We always have more to do than will be in place. All of us will agree with the challenge that is there. But the system is well accommodated to look toward that kind of improvement, as we see more children in our schools who wouldn't have been there two or three or four years ago. I think that's wonderful.

I was at a conference last night with about 700 people attending, not only from B.C. but from other parts of Canada and the United States. They were looking at the collaborative working relationships between specialists -- maybe health and other specialists, or specialists within the system -- and the regular classroom teacher in providing the best of educational opportunity for every child who attends a school in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I might just add to the comments I've made so that the member has a complete answer. We have a special educational technology centre, which deals with the way our high technology can assist students. There is nearly $2 million in funding to that centre in support of the kinds of equipment that students need. It may be computers, or it may be Bliss boards that allow them to communicate; the scope of technology at this time is really quite phenomenal. This provides the best of analysis and planning to provide those resources for students, and that's very helpful. In addition, there are provincial resource programs. So if we have students in hospital or homebound, there are programs to provide for them as well. These sums are over and above what goes directly to school boards. There might be a hospital program, but they are in excess of those. They are special funds that recognize those special needs. If the member would like more detailed information on these matters -- it's hard some-

[ Page 698 ]

times to deal with them across the floor -- we would be pleased to provide that information.

B. Jones: The member opposite raised a previous question about special-needs students, and I wanted to rise to raise concerns in that general area. But before I do, let me first say how much I've appreciated the efforts of the minister in the last six months -- in these difficult times and with a neophyte government. I'll just mention one thing we have raised many times in this chamber in the last five years, and that is the student hot-lunch program. Time and time again we raised the point that the nutritional needs of students were a priority, and that the education of those students was incumbent upon a government assisting with that. It was very, very heartening to see the minister's announcement. I was very, very proud to have seen that issue develop, to have raised it myself and to have seen at least the beginnings of that program implemented. So I very much wanted to commend the minister for her efforts in that regard.

With respect to special-needs students, I want to make a comment both in terms of the public school system and in terms of the independent schools. My vague recollection of how things worked was that a percentage of students were deemed to have qualified for special needs under the previous financing scheme, and regardless of the setting -- whether it was urban or rural -- there were deemed to be that number of special-needs students, in terms of funding. I think we raised many times in this House the need to review that and to try and sharpen the pencil to better meet the individual needs of school districts by having a closer look at the actual number of special-needs students -- the number of students that are receiving special-needs treatment.

I understand that there is a review of education financing planned for the province, and what I'm hoping the minister will say at the end of all my remarks is very simple: "We're going to take a very serious look at this, and this will be part of the review." I can assure the minister that my school district still shares those concerns which it shared last year and the year before, in terms of the large number of identified special-needs students who are receiving intense and specialized education services that are very costly. There is a concern about funding in that area.

I want to raise with the minister a very similar kind of concern from the independent school system. I understand that there are about six schools in the province that treat solely special-needs students. I wrote the minister recently with respect to one of them, the Vancouver Oral Centre for Deaf Children. This school provides special-needs services to deaf children. The goal of this school is to integrate deaf students into the public school system and into the independent school system. They want to mainstream these students so that those that are able to function within the regular school stream don't end up in that school, but that they go on to the regular school stream. So we end up with a population of students that are receiving very specialized treatment, and this is a very atypical school population. I don't know if there's another school population like this, save perhaps the Jericho system.

If I understand it correctly, because of the intense nature of the training for these students, their per-pupil costs are high. As a result of the fact that their per pupil costs are high, they end up in the group 2 funding category which receives 35 percent funding rather than the 50 percent funding. Hence if I'm reading it correctly, they are virtually penalized in terms of funding, because they are a special-needs school and don't have a typical student population.

I appreciate that there are two special grants that they receive: the special education grant that has been retained for those six schools, and they receive another $75,000 grant for their itinerant services. Because of the cutbacks in the grants to the independent schools for special-needs children, I expect that they are no longer able to contract with other independent schools, because those other independent schools no longer have that grant available. In answer to my question -- will the minister review this situation? -- I'm hoping this one can be reviewed as well as the one from my own school district.

The minister on many occasions has expressed a strong concern for these children, and I'm sure we all share that concern. The current situation is a new one that I think needs to be reviewed. I think the funding for these children can be reviewed on an ongoing basis. I hope the answer to the question I posed is that both of these situations will be incorporated into the review that the province is planning to hold.

[4:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for those excellent questions. To refer to his first comments about the school meal program, when the member for Burnaby North was the critic for Education, he was one of the earliest members in this House to raise the issue of the importance of school meals. So I know the pleasure he has -- as we all do -- in the fact that those programs are now available in over 100 schools in British Columbia.

In a general way, let me respond to the questions that the member has raised around the need to look broadly at our funding and financing system, including the way we look to provide for special-needs children. That is, of course, something that will be encompassed in the review.

Let me just make a couple of comments. One learns a great deal as one talks to school districts, and one of the perceptions we in the lower mainland sometimes have is that we are unique or different from the interior. One of the things I am finding is that the dispersal of children with special needs is very broad throughout the province. It's going to be interesting, when we look at this from a review point of view, to find out whether our perceptions about the differences between Burnaby and Burns Lake are reality. I'm not sure, as we educate children closer to home -- whether they be hearing-impaired children, blind children or children with mental challenges -- that we won't find that the dispersal is in proportion to the population. I think we should be 

[ Page 699 ]

open-minded about that. The question certainly needs to be addressed.

On the matter of the half dozen schools that the member speaks about -- and particularly the Vancouver Oral Centre for Deaf Children -- yes, there are some special circumstances in respect to those schools, and they have been recognized. Funding for those schools will be continued, recognizing that they serve a different population. It's a population that is entirely, in the case of the Vancouver Oral Centre for Deaf Children, serving the hearing impaired. I know their intent is to provide the kind of schooling and training that enables students to go to their community school and eventually to be a part of the school district. I am very pleased that we are able to provide them with those resources.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

We have made a change in the funding for independent schools. They are receiving funding according to the act based on 10, 35 or 50 percent of the public school funding in their school districts, and that is the basis for the funding. It includes, of course, funding for special needs because in the block that goes to the school district, there is funding for special needs. So it includes, within those percentages, an amount that reflects the resources available for special needs within the community. If the member would like further information, I'd be happy to talk to him about that.

V. Anderson: As we go along, it's exciting to see the picture unfold and more parts of it come to light. The first one I'd want to respond to is also commending the government for moving on the hot lunch program, since this is critical and certainly needs to be undertaken. I would hope, though, that this will be the first stage; that out of the hot lunch program will come more awareness between this ministry and others about the family situation that caused this need in the first place, and so that interrelationship can be undertaken.

I'll probably have a question that I'll ask to all three ministries you mentioned -- Social Services, Health and Education -- because I expect, and properly so, that each one of them will say that I could only ask a part of the question in their ministry. I will ask the question: when can I get down and sit with you three altogether so I can ask the question in an interministerial place? Fundamentally, that's where it needs to be dealt with. Perhaps you can suggest a process -- either in the estimates or afterwards, which is probably more appropriate still -- where that can happen.

Also I would comment on the technology and also as it relates to special needs. I would commend -- from my understanding -- the transfer of the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf into the ministry programs and the new school that is being built in Burnaby for that program. I understand the state-of-the-art technology in that building will be very valuable for all of us. It raises the question of not only enhancing the computer technology within the school, which is a process I know you are encouraging, but also looking at other types of technology available so these may be more available to the school program.

Let me, at this point, just raise one other one. In the capital funding program, which presumably will be for new schools and for replacing portables that we all approved of very much.... Also within that program or a separate program is the need for upgrading because of earthquake concerns; in many areas schools have been targeted with an urgent need for that to take place as quickly as possible.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd be delighted to talk to the member about the interministerial work. As he might imagine, given that not a lot of this was going on in a previous administration, we have work to do. But I can assure him of a couple of things that may save him a little bit of work and may reassure him.

First of all, with the school meal announcement, we coupled it with the initiatives that the Ministry of Health is doing in what are called healthy schools. We recognize it's not just a lunch, but all of the things that are part of the curriculum of the school and the work that happens with health professionals in the school in supporting a good knowledge of nutrition and other activities that enhance health and learning. I might note, too, that we have an interministerial committee that has worked on the school meal program involving the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, and the Ministry of Social Services. We have an active working group I'm happy to applaud for the excellent effort they made on behalf of that program and getting information out.

In connection with the Burnaby School Board, let me just be sure we understand that the Jericho students are now students in Burnaby; that's the school district now that is responsible for that program. There are two schools: the new Year 2000 school, as it's called; and the other school is Sussex elementary school. Those two schools will be receiving the children who live out of town and children who come from various parts of the lower mainland to attend that school. It's been a very exciting program. The actual building of the secondary school -- I see it as I drive back and forth to home -- is coming along very well, and I understand that the target opening date is January, 1993. Every time I pass it, it's looking more and more as if they may be successful with that. In September of '92 the elementary school will be ready. These children are now part of a school district. I think that that is an excellent move. Burnaby has both planned for and welcomed these children in a very fine way. We have worked very closely with them in making that transition.

On the matter of the capital envelope, yes, it does include the kinds of improvements that need to be there for buildings in high risk areas. I think last Thursday -- perhaps in my initial comments when we began the estimates -- I noted that there are three prongs to our capital envelope. One is either additions, or new buildings, that deal with growth; a second is what we call "rejuvenation" -- I like that word -- which is designed to bring buildings into a more contemporary mode for their programs. Quite literally we're planning that to extend the life of buildings so that they'll last 

[ Page 700 ]

longer and be contemporary in their design and their facilities. The third is dealing with what I call "safety features," including seismic features. There are a number of upgradings and changes that will reflect that. People will be informed.

As I said last Thursday, school districts will be informed of that before Easter. There's going to be good news and some disappointment, because we've said that not all of the initiatives that boards have on their drawing boards can be accommodated. Again, I just want to note the tremendous work that's gone on at the school district level and with my ministry staff in getting this information finalized and out to districts a good two to two and a half months earlier than has been the pattern in the past, so they can get on with their real life work of building and improving and making our schools safer.

V. Anderson: I'd like to move to another area. Much of the discussion we've had so far in the initial part has been on the money that goes to school boards to do their programming. That's the largest part of the money, of course.

Following up on the minister's comment just now about the excellent work that the staff has done, and this I commend.... But I listen to the discussion of what's coming up, the excellent work that the staff is going to be expected to do. I have a few questions around the resources for that opportunity or privilege that they may have of working late nights and long week-ends, and a few other things, as it sounds. Because I took the budget for the minister's office and operations and discovered that it has been reduced by $1,164,000. Yet, and in spite of that reduction, it has added some $7 million for the three new programs: multiculturalism, immigration, and human rights. I haven't taken the third category but there seems to be, then, a considerable reduction.

Of the five categories, not counting the three I've just mentioned, four are reduced in funding and only one is increased. First of all, I commend the ability to do more with less, but as I hear the things in the programs that are being planned, I am just wondering about the realism and optimism of this. What is enabling this major shift to take place? I'm not complaining about you not spending as much money, but I am asking how the operations are being remoulded to make this possible.

Hon. A. Hagen: It is important for everyone to understand that we are comparing year over year. When we look at the increase in the budget for the whole ministry -- Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights, and immigration -- we have already factored in the '90-91 costs. They also include the immigration settlement branch, which was first funded in the '91-92 school year. We are comparing the whole ministry as if it had existed before November 5, 1991 -- if I make myself clear. We are looking at the same set of services year over year. The member is correct. There have been some readjustments.

[4:15]

Let me just give you a bit of information, if I may. The Human Rights Council will see some improvements in its staffing. As you may know, the council has really been challenged to keep apace of the work dealing with complaints -- investigation, mediation and then to a full hearing if necessary. They have looked at a whole range of ways in which they can accommodate their mandate better. Some of those are internal management ways, which I commend them for. We are also going to be adding six full-time-equivalent staff to the Human Rights Council, and that will assist them in their work for the coming year.

I appreciate the member's concern that we do have a lot of work to do. There is the educational change movement, a very large capital envelope to be processed with school districts and the ongoing work of budget planning. We are undertaking some reviews, as we have indicated. Like everyone, we are looking at ways in which we can manage and do our job better without cutting any of the programs, services or work that affects kids in classrooms.

We're dealing with travel costs. I know; I just made reservations for a trip I am taking, and I am dealing with that on an economy level. We are cutting back on travel and really looking carefully at whether that travel is necessary and how we can make the trips that do occur more efficient. When I travel into the interior or the north to visit school districts, for example, it's my plan to take the time to do several important pieces of work in that community. I will only be travelling once in the immediate future, rather than needing to go back.

We're looking at equipment economies, the communications budget. We are looking at personal-service contract spending, where we very often have higher costs for the services we get. We are prioritizing the work of the ministry, which is equally important.

The other aspect is efficiencies and economy. We are prioritizing the important tasks that the ministry needs to undertake at this time. As I indicated earlier, we are looking at our tasks particularly with respect to education change and how we can most effectively use the excellent human resources in my ministry and our financial means to assist school districts in their work of educational change. That is where it happens. The classrooms and the communities of the province are where the improving and the constructive change of education take place.

V. Anderson: Thank you for that response. Under the deputy minister's office explanation are three areas that I would like to inquire about within the discussion you've just presented, to ask what the implications might be. First, what are the implications of the Education Advisory Council? What is the mandate of that council? How many people does it involve? What are the financial implications of the mandate of that council? Second, what are the implications of the legislative changes suggested here and the policies that come out of the report on the Royal Commission on Education? Third, will there be an increase or decrease or realigning of the grants that partially support the societies that offer programs which are related to but 

[ Page 701 ]

are outside of the regular budget of the educational institutions listed here in the explanation?

Those are three areas that I am asking about in particular at this moment.

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, I'll answer two of those questions, but for the third question I'm going to ask for some clarification. I'm not sure what the member was asking.

The Education Advisory Council was established by statute in the School Act. It has 24 members who directly represent key organizations, such as school trustees, teachers, CUPE, labour, principals, vice-principals and superintendents -- in terms of the formal in-school people. It represents parents through a variety of members and also other interested sectors, such as post-secondary, business, labour, the arts, languages and native people. So there are 24 people on that council, and their mandate is to advise the minister on all aspects of the education of our children.

I have had the pleasure of working firsthand with that council. I have taken a little different approach from my predecessors in that I believe that if the council is advisory to the minister, it is important for us to have a direct working relationship. Although I may not be able to sustain an active presence in the council meetings on an ongoing basis, it is my goal to be present for some of each of their meetings. I find that they provide perspective in their work, which is very important, and I see them playing a very useful role in bringing a broad perspective to our planning.

The issue of education change is important. We have targeted funds within our total ministry budget for education change to the amount of about $30 million. Those funds will be used as effectively as possible to assist teachers in classrooms and school districts as we move to develop the intermediate and graduation programs. I believe that all members of this House recognize that change is not a terminal activity but an ongoing one that will involve us from now on as we work to keep our education system relevant and appropriate for youngsters, and as we modify one of our strongest institutions to be a more active and effective means for our children to prepare themselves both for their personal lives and their lives as citizens and workers.

We are committed to that ongoing work in very close cooperation with the schools, communities and districts of the province. We will be sharing with them, once our estimates are through, some of the ways in which we plan to use these resources to assist them in the coming year.

V. Anderson: On the third question, I think I was right. What I'm reading from is the description in the estimates themselves, and I'll make a comment on it: "This subvote also provides grants to partially support societies offering programs not provided by educational institutions, and provides for projects to develop and enhance the provincial educational system." You may not be able to give me offhand all the grants, but at least I would like to get some idea of what grants and societies and what kind of programs and funding may be in that area. I'd like to know whether community schools is involved in that. I'm very aware of the very significant place of community schools in the wholeness of communities -- from an educational perspective not only of the children but of the adults, and particularly now in the area of multicultural communities, where the school is the place where much of this interaction takes place.

I would highlight an experience of a few years ago when -- I mentioned it before, but it's worth mentioning again -- a meeting of city council was discussing a community centre. The people from the community were there to discuss the centre, and after the professionals had given all the argument to city council about the validity of having such a centre, the citizens and parents who were there to support the professionals in putting forth the argument got up and said one after the other: "In essence, it's fine if you want to have a community centre. We'll use it, and it will help us to some extent, but please remember that our community place is the school."

For many immigrants, particularly the new ones, if they need advice on anything at all, the one person they know is the teacher and the principal of the school. They go to them for that kind of support. That's an extra responsibility for the teachers. In community schools, where this kind of support is built in and made available, it is a very excellent use. I'm wondering if that's the kind of program that would come under this particular category. I know it would get a lot of support in the community if that's so.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not able to provide the member with details around the societies grants. They will be determined once we're through the estimates. If he would like to inquire, we'd be happy to provide that information at a later time.

The matter of community schools is a very germane and generic discussion that takes us again into not only interministerial work but work that involves municipal bodies as well. I note the member's comment about "We don't really need a new community centre; we just need to use our school more effectively." I'm sure all of us can cite examples -- I certainly can from my district -- where parks and recreation make the local school a community school by running programs after hours. They are a part of the community's planning for people of all ages and all backgrounds.

In some instances there may be some funding from other ministries. I'm not sure that I could cite examples specifically. Well, baby clinics with the Ministry of Health and public health would be an obvious one. I suspect, although I'm not able to say this directly, that immigrant-serving agencies working with school districts bring services into the school as well.

What the member is really talking about is the matrix of services, and what some of my friends who used to talk to me when I worked in the non-profit said was the blending and rolling of dollars, so that they all complement services to people in a community -- not necessarily dollars from Education, but because Education has provided a structure or a building with quite a lot of assets in the way of gyms, meeting rooms and so 

[ Page 702 ]

on. Very often there are staff who cooperate. I can think of any number of schools in the province that are exemplary in that regard.

It's interesting too that some of the community schools have begun to be entrepreneurial, in the sense of offering services to the community that bring in some income to help defray the cost of services that one wants to have available on a pro bono or an open community basis. There is no limit in this regard, and certainly the ministry -- and school districts particularly -- is very open to those cooperative relationships. I believe we have a lot of work to do there to make sure that our facilities are used to the maximum, and that we blend the kinds of services that may come from other parts of the infrastructure besides Education, where we can be as supportive as we can.

[4:30]

J. Beattie: Hon. minister, I'd like to thank you very much for pursuing these estimates in the House and for answering the questions of the members.

I come from a district where, in one of the towns in particular -- the school district of Kelowna represents the community of Peachland -- they have quite a rapid growth. My question is about the rapid growth fund and the 1 percent qualifying in the growth rate from September until the end of January. I'm wondering about that growth and how those funds are applied. Or is it that school districts' growth is relative, and districts that have the highest growth qualify for that fund? Could you explain that to me, please?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, first let me say that a youngster is a youngster, so this is not a relative fund. But what the member is talking about is that we've added a new source of funding for those rapidly growing districts. There is now -- and there has been -- funding for the enrolment that comes into the school in September. I don't understand the technicalities of this, but I understand the ministry has tried to make it very easy for districts to figure out what additional funds will be available with the youngsters who come at the usual time in September, so that they have the staff and resources for them. But if there is a net increase of 1 percent after September 30, then there will be additional resources available to the school districts that are experiencing the growth.

The plan, as we move into this -- this is a new program for us -- is to take another snapshot of the enrolment growth at the end of January for elementary schools and at the end of February for secondary schools. Many are on semester, so they have another intake in February. And then, if there is a net growth of more than 1 percent, there will be a disbursal. It will be prorated, because those youngsters haven't necessarily been there all year. If the member would like a little more information, I'm not quite sure that I can provide all those details. I just want to say that a youngster is a youngster. This is not something targeted to the first one past the post; it is targeted on the basis of net enrolment over that period of time. I hope that makes it clear to the member.

B. Copping: I have two school districts in my riding, Burnaby and Coquitlam. Both of them certainly have a large and increasing component of ESL. When I was on the school board, we felt that this was a federal responsibility. I would like to ask the minister if there are any ongoing discussions. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as getting federal funding for ESL? I recognize that your ministry has committed some funds for ESL, but how will that affect our district? Will those that need it get it?

Hon. A. Hagen: I did not acknowledge the role of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on Thursday. She is my parliamentary secretary and has provided me with excellent assistance in my role. I want to take this opportunity to introduce the hon. member to the House in that role and thank her publicly for her work on behalf of children.

There are two parts to the question. One of them is around our discussions with the federal government. Yes, there are ongoing discussions around English-as-a-second-language training and education. It's a broad-ranging discussion. I have to be careful not to get into the domain of the other education minister, the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. We have both children and adults requiring English-as-a-second-language training. Coming back to our talk about the community school, we all have an interest in both domains, because the parents benefit from language training as well as the children themselves.

There are two ways in which we provide funds for English as a second language. As there are more children in the school district, there are incremental funds in the block for those children. As the member well knows, in the Burnaby and Coquitlam school districts we're seeing significant increases in the number of children in English as a second language. This is again a figure off the top of my head. We are now in the 8 to 12 percent range. Those additional students receive additional funds in the block.

Because there is an influx of children into the broader GVRD, we recognize that there are some unique issues that school districts need help with this year. When these children come into the district, they need assessment and placement, and that's an added cost over and above the classroom work that these children do. We're providing some additional funds to areas where there is a rapid growth of English as a second language. That helps those school districts with those particular intake costs, you might call them, around assessment and placement. Those are targeted. They are not in the block. Altogether I think it's $3.7 million, most of which will go to the greater Vancouver area and a few districts throughout the province where that kind of growth is occurring. It should provide some help to districts like the member's in planning for the educational programs of those new children in her district.

B. Copping: Regarding these funds that are yet to come, when will the districts be informed when these funds are coming?

[ Page 703 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: There's a net amount and a per-pupil amount, and as soon as those enrolments can be determined and provided to the Ministry, the dollars will flow. One of the things I'm learning about districts is that they are increasingly very knowledgeable about their predictions. I know they are working on anticipating and being prepared for that information to flow back to the ministry in September.

V. Anderson: I was interested in the 8 to 12 percent which I presume would be the provincial average of these new youngsters coming in to school. We are very aware of it in the Vancouver area where about 50 percent of students study English as a second language. They have not all come in the last year, but over the last ten years. In some of our schools 80 percent of students come from an English as a second language background. I mention this particularly because it's one of the things that has been discussed and we've become aware of in the change. I'm not sure how that's being reflected in the planning.

When we went through the school program, the extracurricular activity in which teachers were primarily engaged was sports and recreation and everything associated with that. One of the things I am discovering now is that for many of these students sports are not a primary interest. There is a whole new interest in music, drama, the arts and culture. Musical instruments are far more expensive than sports instruments. If we're working to develop the whole student, then these skills and abilities must be developed, because they are skills they'll carry over and which will give many of them their professional opportunities. If they go on as teachers, art and music and drama will be a fundamental part of the skills they'll carry into the profession with them. So one of the items that I would raise is whether this shift in teaching needs and opportunities is being taken into account in regard to the new people coming into our community, who are pluses.

On the same question and dealing primarily with the three new aspects of your ministry, I'm delighted that multiculturalism, immigration and human rights have been added to the Education ministry. It seems to me very appropriate that they should be in that ministry and related to each other. What is the effect first of all in having these three put into the overall planning, finance and administration of the ministry?

I'm sure it's going to have a lot of impact financially, and in the numbers of people that need to be brought on. You've mentioned the ones for the Council of Human Rights, but I'm presuming there's an increase in staff for the multicultural concerns and for the immigration concerns. How do people, deputy ministers or senior persons, concerned in these areas relate to them if they want to follow up these concerns about the ministry? There's the overweight of administration and finances, the kind of way they contact and the way these ministries have impacted the education. Do they then in effect also change the curriculum and become part of the educational process of the curriculum itself? Because multiculturalism, immigration and human rights are all related to many of these new students when they come into our school.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to share the delight of the member in the broadening interests of any school, and indeed I am sure that school districts will be responding. I know that one of the things that happened in the eighties was that we saw some constraints on the arts program in my district. I've been to one major play in the last two months; there's another major musical that's done in cooperation with the community that's just opening. A plug for Oklahoma! to anyone who is watching in New Westminster: go see it. It's starting at the end of this week or the beginning of next week. Those kinds of programs are part of our education program, where fine arts is a major strand. The member is indeed very accurate.

I remember when the critic on our side of the House spoke about fine arts and the effect on the tourism industry and in fact on the economy of the province. I can't recall the exact figures, but people in the performing arts are among the top employee groups in our province. They play a very significant role in the economy of the lower mainland and regions, and schools indeed do provide the basis both for vocational and avocational activities.

Last night at the Focus '92 conference -- the conference I spoke about that is looking at collaboration and integrating special-needs students into the schools -- there was a community choir of young people aged 12 to 15, the Greater Victoria Youth Choir, which was just exemplary. That's a community choir, but many of those children get their first exposure to choral music in the schools, and then those who have an interest and excel go on.

[4:45]

I'm happy, too, to speak about the new ministry responsibilities. I share the member's perspective that this is a good marriage, as I've called it. There are many ways in which bringing these components into the ministry increases the efficiency and effectiveness -- the words we use. There are cost savings by virtue of our being able to share administrative costs and all of the straightforward costs of running these programs. But there are much more tangible benefits, I think, in the policy development and the working relationships.

Let me just take the multicultural program, for example, which now works very closely with the languages and multicultural division of my ministry. That program can assist us in policy development. There are ways in which we can share resources. The immigrant settlements program, which comes under the immigration part of the ministry, is working closely too with the multicultural part of the ministry.

There are lots of ways in which shared planning under our executive committee and in respect to our programs makes us able to do more with the same resources to expand the work of our multicultural programs and of our immigrant settlement initiatives. Again, my approach to that has been an open door and a very close working relationship with the agencies. I am truly amazed at the outreach of the people in the ministry in immigration and in multiculturalism. They have a very solid connection not only in the lower mainland but throughout the province, and that's very helpful to our schools and communities and program 

[ Page 704 ]

development. In fact, we get increased service and an increased understanding of how to improve service with the resources we've put into one ministry at this time.

C. Tanner: I'd like to ask a couple of questions concerning French immersion. Specifically, could the minister tell us how much the government receives from the federal government for French immersion? How is that money distributed and on what basis? When you've answered that question, maybe I can ask you a second one.

Hon. A. Hagen: This particular funding is a transfer payment. It is accounted for outside of my actual estimates, so it's not a part of the matters we're dealing with.

C. Tanner: In that case, could the minister tell the House who administers the funds once they've reached the various school districts?

Hon. A. Hagen: Those funds are administered via grants to the school districts from the Ministry of Education.

C. Tanner: I've got a funny feeling I'm falling between the cracks here a little bit. If the funds don't go directly to the school districts from the federal government, they must go through your department. If they go through your department, they must surely appear somewhere on your books.

Hon. A. Hagen: It's my understanding that the funds are distributed to the school districts, and then, under a section of the Financial Administration Act -- which is not a part of my ministry -- those funds are recovered from the federal government. It's an account under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act.

C. Tanner: I have a suspicion that the minister, too, has some difficulty with answering this question, and I'm obviously having difficulty asking it. Perhaps we could leave this for a further time.

In the meantime, could the minister inform the House as to what provincial funds, if any, are devoted through her department to French immersion?

Hon. A. Hagen: The children who study in a French immersion program are children in our school systems. They are supported in the same way that all children are, with funds that go to their school districts based on them being students in that school district.

C. Tanner: Is there any cost to the province of British Columbia for French immersion in British Columbia schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes. There's the cost of the education of those children, just as there is a cost for children who are studying in English.

V. Anderson: I can follow this, and maybe I can help my colleague and myself as well. If I understand correctly, there are two streams. There are students who are in our regular English classroom who will be also taking French lessons as part of their education training. Then there are students in our classrooms who will be taking all of their education in French. Both of those are within the system, and they're both being taught by teachers hired by the school boards through the ministry. Put simply: is there a difference as to how those teachers are funded in those two programs?

Hon. A. Hagen: Core French, which is French as one of the subjects that children learn in school, is part of the education program. Education programs are defined in our School Act, and any programs that are offered are funded through the block funding program. I think I've answered the previous member's question in respect to recoveries that come through section 22 of the Financial Administration Act for what we normally call immersion programs, where children are learning with French as their working language in the classroom.

F. Gingell: Just for greater certainty, because I'm not sure now: a child who is in French immersion is counted, and there's block funding for that student exactly the same as though the child were not in French immersion. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me try to be as clear as I can. The child who is studying in a French immersion program is provided for, as we noted, in the regular program. There is also some funding that comes from the federal government to assist in the programming. It has some technical names that I don't think really inform our discussion particularly, but there is a transfer payment that comes to students via a particular section of the Financial Administration Act.

F. Gingell: So the funding from the province is exactly the same whether the child is in French immersion or in the regular schools. The funds that are paid to the school district under this section 22 of the FAA are funds in addition to the funds provided by the province. This recognizes that the school district receives from the two levels of government a greater sum per student for students who are in French immersion. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: We fund those students through our block, and in addition there is funding that comes from the federal government for the French programs. I want to be very clear that when we fund students it is in a block, and the board determines how it arranges its education programs. There's a block of funds that goes to school districts, based on the numbers of students, and there is funding that comes through federal grants for those kinds of programs.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 705 ]

The Chair: The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that from where you are you sometimes can't see me, so I'll have to draw your attention. I'll do that in dulcet tones, rather than wait for you to see me and wave my arm.

One last question. I still have some problems with what the minister is telling us about French immersion. Maybe I'll start with another question. My question pertains to funding which the ministry receives from the federal government for French immersion education in this province. Can I ask the minister this question: do any of my taxes, as a taxpayer only in this province, go toward funding French immersion in this province?

Hon. A. Hagen: A student in our schools is a student. The student may be studying in a French immersion program or with English as the language of instruction. Irrespective of whether studying in French or in English, that student is funded, and, yes, your taxes go to provide the education program for that student. If you have three classes of children in a school district that are receiving instruction in French, they are block-funded. They are students in our school system.

But there are additional funds, and I suppose we could say that those are your tax dollars too. They are not provincial tax dollars; they are federal tax dollars. I can provide you with information on the amount of money that we anticipate on the basis of the agreements that we have regarding support for these programs: it's $11,093,000. Those are the anticipated funds for French programs from the federal government that flow through the Financial Administration Act, based on agreements with the federal government.

C. Tanner: As I understand it, the minister is giving us information now that is not actually in her vote. It's out of another vote. Is that correct? And if so, could the minister share with this House the way in which the money for French immersion education is received from the federal government and distributed? And is there any follow-up done, once the moneys have been allocated to the specific school boards for French immersion programs?

Hon. A. Hagen: Back to my original point, this is not in a vote. I have shared with the House the fact that these are children in our school system who are offered an education program and are like any other students within our school system in receiving that education program. I have provided the member with the information of the anticipated amount of money that comes from the federal government to assist with those programs.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

C. Tanner: I think I've got the situation now. But now I want to know who supervises those funds, once they've been allocated to the school. Let's assume that it's federal money, that it's $11,093,000, that it's allocated to certain school districts, and that those school districts make use of it. Who's looking after those funds, as far as the federal government is concerned? Surely it has got to be your department.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would presume that the federal government has a process not unlike ours, that those funds are voted by the federal government, and that they may have processes. Remember that the programs are a part of the educational programs offered by school districts and are indeed evaluated by school districts and by the parents in those school districts -- highly valued programs, I might note.

[5:00]

F. Gingell: Minister, can you tell us approximately how many children in British Columbia are in the French immersion programs?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, if the member would just give us a moment, we may be able to find that figure. I don't know it accurately enough to want to quote it into the record, but I'd be happy to provide that information as soon as we can.

V. Anderson: Perhaps while they're looking that up.... I can appreciate it takes time to get all these figures. I'm not good at holding all these in my head. But I'm still trying to clarify in my own mind.... It was my conclusion, as I listened to the discussion on this, that in French immersion, where the students are being taught in French, the cost of the education of those students was then received from the federal government. But you're saying no, it's over and above that; we pay those costs as we would any other student, and there are funds over and above that. That clarifies it, if that's the way it is.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to be very clear. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of the line of questioning is. We offer many different programs in our schools, and French immersion is one of the programs we offer.

If you look at the School Act, it talks about the educational programs that are offered in schools. A child is in an educational program as deemed by the act to provide for that child. We provide funding for every child in our school system, as I believe all of us recognize and support.

The information I have provided, which is not a part of any vote of my ministry, is that additional funds come via another process that assists in bilingual programs, French immersion and other French programs. I don't know whether we have a number.... It's coming, so we still don't have a number of the students, but we'll offer that when we have the information available.

C. Tanner: Madam Minister, I am now soliciting an opinion, rather than facts and figures. It appears to me that the funding for French immersion comes from the federal government and flows through your department, but it comes through a different vote within the 

[ Page 706 ]

government services. Would the minister give her opinion as to the...?

The Chair: Hon. member, I must caution you that on several occasions the question has been put to the minister with respect to items not covered under her ministry. You are at present attempting to present a hypothetical question, which I am sure all members will recognize as not a matter of fact, and it cannot be accepted under the House rules. Maybe you could rephrase your question.

C. Tanner: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Chairman.

Would the minister give an opinion as to the advisability of those funds not flowing...were completely within her charge as Minister of Education?

Hon. A. Hagen: I am prepared to provide the member with some further understanding of how these funds flow, which is factual information. I am learning a little about the Financial Administration Act as well in the course of this discussion. I am advised that section 22 of the Financial Administration Act allows the ministry to advance funds to school districts in anticipation of those funds being received from the federal government. We have agreements in place regarding that.

F. Gingell: There isn't anything sinister in this line of questioning. What has suddenly come up, though.... We are all learning. I wonder if there are any other forms of direct federal funding that goes to the school boards to support education costs in this province, such as English as a second language.

Hon. A. Hagen: I think the best way for me to answer is that to the best of my knowledge, this is the only instance where funds are not within our vote and therefore able to be discussed -- the instance I was speaking about, where there is another method by which funds flow eventually into the province for the particular activity we're talking about, support of French-language instruction.

C. Tanner: Could the Chairman advise this member -- and maybe some other new members in the House -- as to our course of action? I find that I'd like to ask the minister some more questions concerning French immersion, but I don't feel I've got sufficient information to ask the questions right now. Can we come back to it later on in the vote?

Hon. A. Hagen: We really do want to have the members opposite understand the manner in which funds flow to assist with French language learning within the province. There is an agreement, and the funds flow to the school districts based on that agreement. I guess it would be fair to say that it then has a formula basis. In most instances when you are looking at an agreement, it translates into a formula. Additional funds are available as a result of the agreement with the federal government in support of French-language learning, and school districts receive those funds according to that agreement. As I say, that's outside the actual vote, but that's helpful. The programs are then developed in the school districts like other educational programs, and certainly they are part of the school district's management of its district.

If I might just provide the information for the member for Vancouver-Langara, who wanted to know the number of children enrolled, there are about 560,000 students in our schools in British Columbia. The number enrolled in 1991-92 in French immersion is 19,960, and in the program cadre it's 2,005. We don't have figures for the numbers of students who are studying French as a second language as a part of their overall educational program.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister just told us, but my question was addressed to you as the Chair and dealt with process. The question I asked you, Mr. Chairman, was whether we could come back to a subject later on in the vote after we had passed it by.

The Chair: With agreement of the committee, that is certainly in order, hon. member. I didn't put it to the committee, but there seemed to be a sense of affirmation on that when you raised it. However, if you'd like to restate your request, we will put it to the committee.

C. Tanner: My question is simply whether we can come back to visit the same question we've already addressed within the committee.

The Chair: Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Accepted.

Hon. T. Perry: I just want to say that I'm finding the debate fascinating, and I encourage all hon. members to continue to participate as brilliantly as they are.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister.

V. Anderson: I'll move onto a different topic now for a while. With the change in education that is being discovered at the grass-roots level because of multiculturalism and integration of disabilities and all the other things we've been discussing, is there a program of consultation between the Education minister and the Minister of Advanced Education to reflect back and forth between teacher training and practicality in developing the new teachers who will be coming into the community? It seems to me most industries have this interaction, so one is learning from the other. I'm wondering if the ministry has this interministerial interaction and program where this takes place, apart from the teacher-training program itself.

Hon. A. Hagen: I must note that I really value the questions of that member; they're good questions, and 

[ Page 707 ]

they do address some of the important challenges we face.

It's fair to say that the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and I have many interests that encourage us to work together, and we have established a number of processes around a whole range of issues. I won't count the number, and I won't say that they're all in wonderful array as yet, but we have agreed that it is most important for our ministries to work together on issues that relate to transition from public school into post-secondary education, on the broad range of issues relating to our changing province and the needs of our population. I'm particularly interested in finding ways in which we can ensure that people who are choosing teaching as a career reflect the broad face of our province, and we have some interesting challenges in that regard. Yes, we are working together, and we hope you'll see the results of that on many occasions over the months ahead.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to ask the minister's opinion of a situation that we are fast approaching with reference to the labour disputes and strikes that occurred in 1991. The minister will no doubt be aware that many school districts, especially the larger districts, are facing severe underfunding situations and operating deficits and are being forced to budget zero increases for employees while other more fortunate and better-funded districts will have the capacity to offer salary increases at the level of inflation or better.

[5:15]

There is also the extremely costly issue of working conditions for teachers, given the tight operating budgets and serious deficit situations being experienced by many of the larger school districts. There is a very real prospect of serious labour disruptions occurring in school districts this year as the wealthier school districts establish a trend of higher wage and benefit settlements which the poorer districts are unable to match, thereby forcing confrontational situations, subsequent strikes that will seriously impact the quality and delivery of education for many of our children.

I just want an opinion of what you see as possible solutions to this situation. Do you see, as part of that solution, provincewide bargaining?

The Chair: Before the minister proceeds I want to caution the member that the matters of labour disputes and issues concerning legislation can be addressed, but with great difficulty, because we are dealing with the administration of the Ministry of Education. To be quite precise, they do not come under vote 24. However, the minister may wish to respond.

Hon. A. Hagen: Collective bargaining is indeed a matter between the school districts and their employee groups. Beyond that it would be most inappropriate for me to respond to a very provocative question by the member. In fact, I think that the question is not a very helpful one.

V. Anderson: One of the listings in the estimates is independent, national and international education. It's in this area that I would ask the minister some questions, particularly with regard to national and international education. There are four questions -- if I can raise them all at one time, and perhaps help us to deal with them.

One of them is the Pacific Rim program which is mentioned there. What is the nature of this program? How is it implemented and how does it work within our school system? The other is the provincial student-teacher exchange program. Does that have to deal only with the Pacific Rim, or other places around the world? What's the nature of that program? What involvement do we have with the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education? What discussions are taking place in cooperative curriculum planning across the country, and in the exchange of students and teachers from one province to another? How is this accessibility -- which in the past has not been very easy either for students or teachers -- becoming more Canadianized so that we are not separate provinces but can integrate more effectively across the community? The other one has to do with the support of individuals and non-profit societies that are mentioned in the explanations, who are involved. The final one has to do with the correspondence courses. Are these increasing or decreasing? And perhaps related to this -- I'm not sure -- is whether the Knowledge Network program facilities are being used in the educational system as well.

Hon. A. Hagen: My only problem sometimes is keeping up with the diversity of the questions that member asks. If I happen to miss one, I know that he will come back and remind me. I will try to make sure that I've kept them all, but you do range around quite a bit, Mr. Member.

On the Pacific Rim initiatives, this particular program was instituted in the ministry in 1987. It was designed -- as we face the Pacific Rim, in terms of much of our economic development -- to strengthen our working relationships. The purposes are social, educational and economic. They do involve working relationships with many organizations. Presently about a thousand students and teachers study in Asia and in Europe annually. That answers your question about whether the focus is entirely on the Pacific Rim.

There are a range of programs, from three weeks in orientation to a full year of extensive study opportunities. I'm not sure I remember the number, but I have recently been helping to advise the students who will be studying for the full year. I'm sure someone will remind me of the number of students who are going to various countries for the year ahead.

We've also been expanding language programs. I'm delighted to see the increase in numbers. Japanese-language programs have grown from a paltry 318 students in 1987 to 5,000 in 1992. I believe that that fits into the broad spectrum of British Columbians' awareness that the ability to speak, think and write in any other language is a wonderful education asset, be that language the co-language of our country, French, or Japanese or a heritage language that students have as their spoken language but learn to read and write. We are enriched by what our students have to give to us as 

[ Page 708 ]

graduates if they have learned a second language. Mandarin-language programs have grown from 40 students to 3,000 over that five-year period. We are also integrating international studies into our curriculum, and I think that is a very contemporary view.

We are particularly emphasizing student exchanges. There are teacher opportunities as well, which are co-funded, but our approach, particularly this year and on an ongoing basis, will be to emphasize the opportunity for young students to study abroad.

The second question was on national education. One of the earliest meetings I attended was of the Council of Ministers of Education, along with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology -- and those are very valuable forums. I would say that we are, as a group, a council of ministers looking at our cooperative relationships and at establishing something that speaks about our common Canadian vision of education. At the same time there is a guarding of our responsibility with the locus for education being close to home. We feel very strongly that our provincial governments are close to our communities, and the constitutional authority, in reality, works well for us.

We're also members of the Canadian Education Association, which is a broad-based group of educators. My ministry works closely with that body. I think one of the assistant deputy ministers is a senior member of the executive. I had the privilege of meeting the president of that organization recently. He's a senior official in a large school district in Toronto, and he gave us great encouragement for the education change movement. I learned some interesting facts about how he was managing in a very multicultural urban environment as one of the senior officials in that department. We will be hosting the Canadian Education Association annual conference here in 1993. I look forward to increasing working relationships with the other ministers in that regard, and I believe there is work for us to do in ensuring that our work has a national perspective.

On the matter of distance learning, you've almost read my mind, because one of the briefings we had early on was with the Open Learning Agency and Knowledge Network. I believe there is a very real opportunity for us to use Knowledge Network as a means of providing education to teachers, to parents, to students who are studying through correspondence -- there are a whole range of ways of doing that.

We also support some interesting information technologies. There is a southern interior telecommunications project, a joint venture of the educational technology centre of the ministry and others. It's bringing network technologies into classrooms and providing students access to national and international communications and databases. As I have talked to principals and teachers from the north and from more remote districts, I am quite astounded at the use of technology in those schools, because they don't always have the same resources that we in the lower mainland take a little bit for granted. They are very progressive and quite assertive in bringing new resources into their classrooms.

That perhaps gives you a little flavour. If I haven't answered any specific questions, please come back to me, and I will try to fill in the gaps.

V. Anderson: I would go on from that. One of the things that I hear from your responses is that within our school system -- and this I would approve -- we're endeavouring to have students be aware of our own communities and of our uniqueness here in B.C. Distinctiveness is the term we hear in other discussions at the moment. I hear we are also trying to develop a Canadian awareness. We also recognize not only that have students come from around the world but that we are international citizens. With a strong interest in peace and security around the world and with the place that our peacekeeping forces have taken in that regard, it is that focus for international understanding and our place within an international context that are very important.

That leads me then to another area: the place of multicultural programming within the school. We do have multicultural students within the school, and we have had some multicultural workers within the school in the past. Then they were pulled some time ago. Will there be an effort to bring multicultural workers, perhaps in cooperation with other ministries, back into the schoolroom both for the benefit of the students and for the benefit of working between the students and their families in the community? This is a very important help to the teachers as they work in that student-parent relationship in multilanguage situations. Are the recognition and the resources available for that in-school awareness of multiculturalism, as well as between home and school activities?

Hon. A. Hagen: On Friday I attended the annual conference of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. Their focus for that day was on multiculturalism, both in the educational component and in respect to home-school relationships. There is, as the member has noted, a very strong awareness of those needs, and I would agree with the member that the resources we need in that regard are probably multidisciplinary in nature and require us to look at ways in which they may be provided.

We have begun to do some of that work -- not nearly to the degree that it needs to be done. I don't know if you have seen the Multicultural Week poster this year. It's a really beautiful poster with ten languages around the rim in all of the different scripts that are part of the many languages of our province. That's a symbol, rather than a practical manifestation, but I think it is important for us to have those symbols as well. We have a lot of work to do in that area and it is, as you say, a multi-ministry initiative.

[5:30]

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address another subject to the Minister of Education with regard to the graduation program as described in the framework for draft two, and it's with reference to the omission of social studies and senior electives in the new curriculum.

[ Page 709 ]

Concern has been expressed -- and I believe a letter has already gone to you from the Lord Tweedsmuir Senior Secondary School in my riding and probably from others -- that the direction has sidestepped the current social studies content. This is being done under the program of Year 2000 documentation and the Sullivan royal commission.

The concern they have expressed is that the current content of social studies 11 is disappearing in the context of general studies, and they're concerned that essential ingredients of a basic education are being deleted. There is no reference to the current unit on government; no reference to twentieth-century Canadian or British Columbia history; no reference to global education and an appreciation of our responsibilities to the earth and its people; no reference to the current senior electives of history, geography, western civilization, Canadian law or economics. This has to be of concern to us all. There's a concern that Canadians should have a knowledge of their current history, because to understand the present we require an understanding of the past. The current constitutional crisis and the constitutional changes that are being proposed need an understanding of government and the evolution of the federal system among our young Canadians. This period of rapid change in the world population, with its growth and that, has its associated problems, and an understanding of these problems is also necessary for our young people to have.

The social studies programs develop a series of intellectual skills and attitudes that all Canadians should have the opportunity to develop. These skills include analysis, interpretation, induction and deduction, critical assessment of evidence, research skills, aesthetics and others. These are essential to our having a scientific capability and being able to deal with this new high-tech world that we're faced with. In addition, there are attitudes that would be developed through these programs -- including moral, ethical and social -- and decision-making and an appreciation of our multicultural society. These skills and attitudes are the foundation of good citizens and will allow them to participate and make decisions in a truly democratic society.

These teachers, some of whom are from Lord Tweedsmuir school, believe that it's essential that the social studies be included in the foundation studies part of the graduation program. We hope that you'll consider that in making your decisions in the future.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to thank the member for his comments and his review of a very important part of curriculum. Just for the members to know, the graduation program is in a second draft, and that will be going out into the broad community. I want to make it very clear that decisions that I take -- picking up on your last comment, hon. member -- are going to be based on the broadest of consultation.

I have indeed heard from members of the teaching profession who teach senior social studies in our schools. I'm not sure on what basis their concerns are arising, because I'm looking at what happened before I came and at some of the earlier documents. The graduation program, draft two, which is going out based on consultation that has already occurred, is a living, working document, and one that will encourage the kind of input you've had from the teachers who've communicated with you.

Out of that I believe our mutual goal is to build an excellent system that has our students very much based in a knowledge, decision-making, critical-thinking approach to our own country and to our own communities -- and, as your colleague from Vancouver-Langara has said, the broader community. Nothing could be more important socially and economically to us as a nation than that kind of understanding that comes from real breadth in the studies youngsters undertake. We need to look at ways in which we can encourage students to have that kind of knowledge and understanding. That's a challenge to us as a society and a challenge that has been reflected in the comments you're receiving from concerned teachers. I'm delighted with their interest and with your presentation.

K. Jones: Thank you very much, hon. minister. We're very pleased with your response, and I'm sure that these teachers will feel much more satisfied as they receive the further developments in this program.

I would like to go on to an area of great concern to my school board, the Surrey School Board. They have met with us in full delegation, including the union people, the school trustees, the teachers and the parents' groups. They've expressed many concerns. One of the first ones that I'd like to address to you.... Hopefully, you could come forward with some suggestions on how we can resolve this. Between last year and this year, Surrey, at the bottom of all school districts for per capita student funding, has ended up having a greater gap between seventy-fourth position and seventy-fifth -- out of all 75 school districts -- where they are right now. Can you come forward with a way of bridging that gap and bring the school districts' operating funds to a more realistic level?

I'd like to address a couple of other items, and perhaps you could handle them all at once. Block funding was being pegged at an unrealistic 1990s statistics figure. The school board had already taken a $12-million cut in service last year. We're now faced with being $2 million short of what is proposed just to maintain last year's existing service level. The school district is growing at 2,000 students a year, which equates to approximately 160 new teachers required each year to handle that growth. Last year's growth was 800 to 900 students more than the projected amount of 2,000 students, yet 86 teachers were not hired because of insufficient funding. To meet those requirements, 86 more should have been hired.

A $2 million to $4 million shortfall is expected this year with absolutely no salary increases. We have to recognize that the teachers and staff also deserve some salary increases this year, because the cost of living has gone up. It's only fair that they should get the same type of treatment that other school districts are getting. Parents in Surrey are very concerned that we are not getting universal education and are much less equal than the rest of the people in this province. We would 

[ Page 710 ]

like you to rethink the process by which large-growth communities are funded and drastically modify the block-funding program to recognize the difference.

In order to address the acute problem, they would like to see the $85 million that was projected for fall growth brought forward and given to the school board immediately to address the needs that they have today. Parents are having to raise funds for basic core items such as textbooks, and parents are getting fed up with that. The libraries are still in the 1950s; they lack modern book renewals, and they just can't cope with that. I've even talked with some people who are trying to do at-home education who say they can't even get a textbook to teach their children, even though it's an authorized at-home program, because the schools can't give them the books for their work.

There are as many as 1,800 students in some schools in Surrey. The operating budget needs major capital additions as well, and I don't think the amount of proposed portable replacements that were proposed in the budget are even going to touch the needs of Surrey in replacing portables with permanent facilities. There is no indication of a drop in the growth rate in Surrey in the foreseeable future.

All of the people in the school system would like to see a full review of the funding formula. I can say from the input that they've given us that they had high hopes that these issues would be addressed with the NDP taking over. We know that you can't fix them all at once; certainly not in this one year. But the feeling is that it's actually reminiscent of the Social Credit restraint budgets, as far as Surrey is concerned. There is great disillusionment with the entire public education system. They don't want to step backwards, but the situation is getting so bad. As an example, 50 per cent of the teacher-funded disability program is going to stress-related issues; 50 per cent, because teachers are being stressed out. Parents want to continue as partners in this education program, but they would far sooner spend their time raising funds for scholarships than have to go after general funding.

[5:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: As I have with various members, as they've risen to speak about their own districts, I try to provide some information about the resources that are going, in this case, to the district of Surrey. Let me begin by noting it is indeed a fast-growing district, and because it is such a large district -- there are over 45,000 students now in Surrey -- it's a massive district for the school board to administer. It is a great challenge for the board of school trustees and the administration, and I have a great deal of respect for the work that they do and the analysis they bring. Funding has increased by $16 million over last year. If we look at the three-year figure, enrolment has gone up about 20 percent, which is a phenomenal increase, but the block funding has gone up to close to 38 percent. There have been, I believe, some efforts to keep pace. This year the funding increases by 7.5 percent for Surrey, with the enrolment increase of about 4.5 percent.

As I noted to some of your colleagues earlier, there are some economies with that; there also are not economies. One of the things we did this year in our planning was to build in some funding for the additional costs, and that came out of consultations with boards like Surrey, which said: "Look, we've got a new school coming on stream. We need to have the administration in place to do the hiring and get the school ready to open." There's funding for that now and for some additional start-up costs.

In the capital envelope there will be some support for a sort of "clerk of the works" to assist with districts like Surrey that really do have a very large management task with the new schools being built. I think Surrey had a large capital infusion last year, and we'll be hearing very shortly about the capital infusion this year. I've said, and I'll repeat it for you, Mr. Member, that on January 31 I announced that there would be a review. We've done some work with Surrey. My officials have done some work with Surrey and other boards that are experiencing growth, which helps to inform the nature of that review. They have been very good in defining some of the challenges faced by those growing districts, and we appreciate the way in which they are assisting us in getting on with that task.

You asked about enrolment funding. Let me say again -- I've said it before: the ministry and your district work very closely to predict as accurately as we can. We respond to the districts' predictions, and if they believe that changes are in place, we can deal with that, but those predictions are worked on cooperatively between the two parties to decide where we are now. We have made it easier for boards to figure out what their funding will be if there is enrolment in September that hasn't yet been captured. The funds are there, plus there is money for enrolment that may come after September 30.

Surrey is one of the districts that have taken a vigorous role in looking at school meals. We announced the school-meals program in Surrey at Hjorth Road Elementary School, a very fine school where we enjoyed the hospitality of a grade 4-5 class and all the work going on there. Surrey will, for last year, have $416,000 for the school-meal program they had in place last year, and the estimate for next year is $852,000, which offsets some of the costs they have themselves been putting into those programs.

That gives you some indication of the increases that have gone to Surrey in this fiscal year and in this budget year. I hope it may be helpful to you in understanding the perspective that we come from in the ministry and in government, in responding to the needs of that school district, which has many challenges as a rapidly growing district.

K. Jones: What you've said is worthwhile. It's just that the school district doesn't feel that they can continue to operate on the funding that's been given them within the budget indications. They're faced with a labour-relations situation where they don't have the funds to pay any contractual increase. The staff are very concerned about this. Do you have any help for them -- for the school district and for the workers in the school district -- that will give them some assurance that there 

[ Page 711 ]

is going to be funding available? Or are we going to have a protracted strike?

The Chair: Hon. member, the latter part of your question is not in order in that it addresses matters between management and labour. As you know, the minister's responsibilities for the committee are to do with administration and not with matters of legislation -- the effect or ill effect of legislation.

K. Jones: I was actually addressing it specifically to the fact that there was insufficient budget allocation to the school district to meet the current needs. I was just giving you a scenario of what would happen if that funding is not going to be increased. They're going to have to face problems like that.

The Chair: I appreciate that, hon. member, and your point is certainly of interest. But it is nonetheless a matter to do with conjecture. It is theoretical, and the minister is not obliged to respond to the question.

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, further to the comments of the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I had the good fortune to attend the same briefing by School District 36 people. As the member indicated, it comprised a broad range of people including CUPE representatives, teacher representatives and the Surrey Teachers' Association. The point they emphasized in the strongest possible terms was that the block funding formula, since 1987, has come down onerously on the municipality of Surrey and has created a situation in this funding year in which the chickens are coming home to roost, so to speak. They are very concerned that in some ways their board or district, because it such a fast-growing one, has been penalized.

Since 1987 they've advised us that their increase has been around 10,000 students under the old block funding formula. Their concern is that, while the aid announced by the minister is certainly appreciated, it does nothing to address the structural deficiencies that occurred over the previous three or four years. They're suggesting that the ministry give consideration to making the $85 million fund -- which we understand is an emergency source of funding -- available to districts like the municipality of Surrey, which ranks seventy-fifth out of 75 in terms of the block funding formula.

They're saying to us -- I might add they've also said to members of the New Democratic Party in a special meeting shortly after the election -- that Surrey's case was somewhat unique, but that they weren't facing this buildup of problems under the old block funding formula, and that their district could make a special case for more access to this type of emergency funding. We just point out that this was a delegation of concerned educators and a real broad base of people coming together from the municipality of Surrey for the first time to visit us here.

It's important, I think, for the ministry to realize that the municipality of Surrey is facing problems that are probably unique to any district in the province of British Columbia. They are very concerned that the review of the fiscal framework that was promised prior to this budget year has not taken place, and that another year with the existing funding formula in place will, in turn, fall more onerously on Surrey than any other district. Certainly any message the ministry could give to the educators, students and parents of Surrey with respect to eradicating or dealing with this immediate funding shortfall would be greatly appreciated.

Hon. A. Hagen: Just to briefly respond, as I note the hour of adjournment is coming close, the member referred to an $80 million emergency fund. There is unallocated, as yet, approximately $80 million for enrolment growth, and Surrey as a rapidly growing district I would imagine will be one of the districts that may receive part of that funding. I noted, too, your colleague for Surrey-Cloverdale.... The enrolment projections are indeed worked out between the ministry and the school board, and more or less agreed to. If there are changes in those enrolment projections then we can certainly deal with that.

Other than that, I don't know whether you were here, Mr. Member, when I outlined that Surrey has had increases of $15 million over last year's block, and that, overall, in the three years since block funding came in -- it was 1990, not the earlier date you noted -- the block amount has gone up about 38 percent and enrolment has gone up about 20 percent. We have those figures to give you some perspective on the funding for the district. I have noted also that funds have been targeted to districts like Surrey to assist them with the start-up costs that go with new schools.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, by leave, I move that the member for Skeena be added to the list of members comprising Committee of Supply A and that the said member be Deputy Chairperson of Committee A.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m. 

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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