Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1992

[ Page 713 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce a delegation that's visiting today from my constituency of Saanich South. I have the pleasure of introducing 40 students from grades 8 through 12 in the Pacific Christian School and their teacher Mr. Bulthuis -- I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Just before we move on, I'd like to formally inform the House, because we haven't done so yet, that by agreement the House will not sit on Thursday and Friday of this week or Monday of next week, and that Tuesday of next week will be Monday's hours. In addition, if I can at this point, I will inform the House that the House will sit tomorrow at the normal sitting hours.

Orders of the Day

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

Hon. G. Clark: I move that votes 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Ministry of Attorney General be referred to section A.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: The sitting of section A shall begin in five minutes in the Douglas Fir Room. I might advise all members of section A to move there any time in the next five minutes.

With that, I now move that section B, which will be sitting in the chamber, continue the Education estimates.

Motion approved.

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

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

The Chair: Hon. members, before recognizing the next speaker, I'd just like to inform the committee that yesterday the member for Saanich North and the Islands wanted to protect his right to recanvass a matter that the minister was unable to respond to at the time. I put the question in order to protect that member's right to return to the issue. In committee, as long as the vote hasn't passed -- we are on vote 24, the minister's office -- any matter can be recanvassed; it's not necessary to have the approval of the House. All members should realize that they are quite free to canvass various matters from time to time and are able to return as long as that vote hasn't passed.

We're now beginning debate on vote 24, the minister's office. Shall the vote pass?

C. Serwa: I'm rising for no other purpose right now than to assure you that the vote should most definitely not pass and that continuation by the Education critic, or people on our bench, will certainly be welcome to the estimates on the Education minister's office. Having said that, and with my colleagues now being amply prepared, I shall take my seat.

J. Dalton: I thank the last member for getting to his feet. We were just discussing some tactics leading into this morning's debate. We are going to carry on with our discussion and our debate on vote 24, but I want to advise the minister in particular that I'm going to lead off with some particular questions on block funding, and then there will no doubt be other members who wish to raise either concerns within their school districts or other general concerns.

I thought it would be helpful for this committee, before I raise some particular questions on block funding, to set the stage with regard to this government's overall attitude to education funding. We've already canvassed at length in this committee some of the shortfalls that districts have faced and will continue to face over the next year at least.

When I say that I wish to set the stage, I am referring in particular to the New Democratic Party election platform, which I have with me, entitled "A Better Way for British Columbia." Item No. 41 in this election platform is of interest, because it sets out the stated commitment to education of the New Democratic Party, which now has formed the government in this province. Item No. 41 in their document is entitled: "Education is key to everyone's future...yet we're falling behind." That we're falling behind is of interest. Of course, many people in the opposition have been stating in the last two days of debate that many districts have fallen behind, and probably face the unfortunate prospect of falling further behind. However, that's not the point I'm trying to make right now. I want to refer in particular, Mr. Chairman, to one statement from the New Democratic Party election platform which I think is appropriate as we head into some questions on block funding itself. The statement is as follows: "Funding will be geared to local needs rather than to artificial provincial averages." That is the particular statement from the New Democratic Party platform. The intention of the New Democratic Party is to ensure that local needs are adhered to, and not just to level the playing-field, as I assume was the philosophy behind the block funding formula.

[10:15]

However, let me get into the particulars of the questions, Mr. Chairman. Block funding was introduced in 1989-1990 as a method of financing school districts. Two intentions of block funding were to lend stability to the funding process and to create some equity in the distribution of funds for education purposes. That equity was, of course, intended on a district-by-district basis. Those are laudable intentions. I don't think anyone would quarrel with the need or 

[ Page 714 ]

objective of ensuring that all British Columbia students have equal opportunity at least to a basic education -- I think that's a given. Nobody would quarrel with that concept.

It is also very laudable to suggest that block funding would lend stability to the financing of education. As school boards plan their budgets and make their plans for the next school year, naturally they have to have some assurance that they will know what the funding will be, and that there will be a stabilizing effect lent by the funding formula. As I say, those are laudable intentions. However, we've now had several years of experience with block funding, and school districts are facing difficulties. They're facing budget shortfalls. We've already documented some of those, and no doubt, if the opportunity arises, we will be documenting more as we go through these estimates debates.

Some of the criticisms that I have heard personally about block funding -- and certainly many others as well have heard these criticisms.... Educators in the system, trustees, parents and others who have spoken with me or whom I've met with describe block funding as being very flawed in its process. It's so complex that many school officials cannot comprehend how it actually works. When I refer to school officials, I refer in particular to secretary-treasurers of school boards. If they cannot understand the full nature of block funding, then I don't think that we can realistically expect anyone else to, because naturally the secretary-treasurers are the ones who are working daily with the budgets and ascertaining the financial picture of their district.

That's one criticism that has certainly been generated against block funding -- very complex to the point of being incomprehensible, to some degree at least. The other criticism that seems to be universally made about block funding is that there is a lack of equity. Even though block funding, as I've commented, was presumably intended to create some equality or equity in the system, it doesn't seem to have worked that way in reality. Certainly many districts have experienced the inequity of the funding formula.

The hon. Minister of Education supported the principle of block funding when it was introduced to the Legislature. If I may, I would quote from Hansard, May 3, 1990. This was a comment that the now Minister of Education made in the debate on block funding:

"We support the block funding concept, but we would ask the minister to be very open about the elements of that block and to provide, in legislation, regulation or formal policy guidelines, the processes by which it will be reviewed and altered, to ensure that there is equitable funding for school districts and that the severe problems arising in some districts as a result of the snapshot of introducing the block at this time will be addressed."

Now I just read that statement into the records to give some indication of the feeling that the Minister of Education had with regard to block funding. I don't mean to read that quotation or comment in any critical sense, but just to set the further background as to presumably the minister's feeling about block funding, so that when we raise particular questions, we can at least have some common understanding as to the minister's feeling towards the block funding formula. The questions we are going to raise will get down to the specifics of where we feel the formula needs improvement. I might add that we are certainly looking forward to the announced review of the funding formula. We certainly do have some common ground on that basis. Everyone recognizes that the formula needs improvement, and we're all going to work collectively as far as the future is concerned to achieve that improvement. However, we must now get down to the basics: the formula does have difficulties; it's causing problems for school districts, and that's the concern we must raise in these debates.

I would suggest the statement of the now hon. Minister of Education that I read into the record from May 3, 1990, is a somewhat guarded endorsement of block funding. Given the bad news coming in from district after district -- the bad news will be ongoing through this week as we approach the April 20 deadline for budget-setting -- I would suggest that any endorsement of the formula as it now stands would be unwise, to say the least.

My particular question and points I would like to address to the hon. minister.... Can the minister tell this committee what her ministry has done over the last six months to address the concerns that many people have expressed about block funding? I appreciate that some of this is perhaps going to be touching upon future policy, and I don't wish at this time to -- unless the minister cares to -- address future concerns. My question is pointed to the first six months of her ministry. Given the many criticisms that school officials and others have raised about block funding, would the minister care to comment on any improvements her ministry has undertaken or could see taking care of some of those difficulties?

Hon. A. Hagen: Good morning, and thank you for your comments, hon. member. There are, fundamentally, two issues that I believe you are addressing. One is the current budget, which we've discussed at quite considerable length over the last two days of our estimates debate -- the context in which that budget was developed, and the resources that have been made available to education this year. I think we have quite frequently reviewed those in respect to the priority that has been accorded education in our whole budgeting process. The member is looking at the system we have in place, a block funding system, and within that, the distribution. Let me just make a few comments and respond to his question about how I have dealt with that as minister over the last number of months.

Historically, it may be useful to recall that the block funding system was one of the recommendations of the royal commission. To give credit to the former administration, the introduction of block funding came about with a consultative process that involved the major partners in education. It had certain elements in it that people recognized and applauded at that time. Let's face it, it's a complicated system. I've said that it's been complicated for a long time, and people have tried to simplify it. Block funding was seen as a way of simplifying the system, and in many ways it still has merit as a funding mechanism.

[ Page 715 ]

Besides the block of funds, there is the means by which that block is raised each year and the distribution. To simplify it so that people understand, we're talking about the total amount of money for education, the increases that occur each year, and the way it's distributed. I might note that the method of distribution precedes block funding; it goes back almost ten years to 1983 or 1984.

I want to answer the question in two ways. As I looked at preparing this year's budget, we had to look at a number of factors: first, the budget decisions needed to be announced a little over two months after we took office at the end of January; second, I was dealing in the context of the financial situation in which our new government found itself; and third, I knew of many of the pressures that school boards were facing.

How did we go about building the budget? First of all, let me just note -- because the member may not know this -- that each year the fiscal framework, which is the distribution mechanism, is reviewed by a changing group of senior officials from the superintendencies and secretary-treasurerships. They advise my ministry about ways in which the distribution system can be improved. So an ongoing review has been in place, and it brings in expertise from large and small districts in different regions of the province.

Secondly, we have engaged in a very extensive consultation with the partners in education. I have met frequently with the trustees, teachers, superintendents, secretary-treasurers, principals, vice-principals, parents, the Education Advisory Council and with as many boards representing as wide a range of perspectives as possible in order to get input on the needs and problems that boards were facing at this stage. So as we built the budget, we built it around the knowledge I had at that time; and, of course, that knowledge has been augmented and continues to be augmented as we prepare for the review that is coming. We have responded by looking particularly to some of the pressures that boards face. Let me outline some of the ways in which the budget was developed to respond to those needs.

Growing districts have received special attention. In the latter part of 1991, a learning resources grant went to all districts in the amount of $13 million added to their budgets. That was targeted to growing districts. In the funding that has gone to districts in the block and outside the block, we have had particular awareness of growing districts and the challenges they face, the needs of districts with increased ESL populations and the challenges they face, and the way in which we distribute learning resources such as computer technology, which again takes account of the fact that new districts have added costs over and above other districts.

All in all, as I've said on many occasions, the result of those initiatives has produced an increase of 6.5 percent block over block for this year over last year. We have maintained the full funding of enrolment increases. I believe we're one of the few provinces in Canada doing that this year, in addition to the fact that our increase for the economic adjustment is one of the highest in Canada.

As to the future review, it has been in the planning stage since I announced it on January 31, when I announced the block. There is not agreement among all the parties about the current system. In developing the protocol and terms of reference for the review, I need to have as broad a preliminary consultation as is possible to inform that framework. My ministry and I, both together, and with the ministry carrying on from my initial meetings, have been working with school boards, both individually and collectively, and with the partners in education in preparing for that review. Our timetable for it recognizes that what we want to do is complete the work so it will inform our budget planning for next year.

[10:30]

J. Dalton: Again, as I believe I've done on other occasions, I do thank the hon. minister for her forthright responses. We don't necessarily always get exactly what we're asking for, but certainly I think the minister has been quite generous in her responses overall.

I would like to carry on with some other questions on the block funding issue. I don't want to seem to be beating this to death -- that's certainly not our intention. We are addressing real concerns that many boards have expressed and continue to express about the budget shortfall. That is certainly the central theme of our line of questioning. It would be desirable and the best of all worlds if we could find instant solutions to these problems. I think the minister can recognize that there is a true expression of concern from this side of the House -- yesterday, I think, was a good indication of that. We had many members, including some on the government side, who appropriately rose to ask questions of the minister about their district concerns, about particular problems, or simply about education funding in general. So we all have to pursue these topics, and try -- if not immediately, then in the future -- to gain some common understanding of the difficulties, and hopefully work out common solutions to those. I think that we can achieve that in time.

Coming back again, Mr. Chairman, to the immediate difficulties of the block funding formula and, as the minister referred to, how we distribute the money, there is more and more evidence that many boards are in a very awkward economic situation because of the funding formula. In particular, I refer to contacts that all of the official opposition MLAs have had with each of their districts. Those contacts have come through delegations. For example, a week ago today -- as the minister is aware -- many delegations came to Victoria expressing concerns: teachers, parents, students, school administrators, the BCTF. We've had a lot of opportunity through a broad range of consultation: delegations, school districts, phone calls and letters. We've had that opportunity, and I know the minister has as well. We've also consulted not only with our own school districts but with the official opposition side and with many, many districts throughout British Columbia. I've had the opportunity to personally meet with school districts in Prince George, Nechako Valley and Kelowna -- just to give some idea to this committee that we do not just represent lower mainland or Vancouver Island inter-

[ Page 716 ]

ests. We have certainly canvassed the districts throughout this province, and I know all the other members have done likewise. The consistent message that we are getting from the school districts is that the fiscal framework is certainly in need of an overall. We've touched upon that, and it will be future policy.

However, it is somewhat ironic that it took a one-year delay of the implementation of district equalization to protect some school districts from the shortfalls that other districts are facing in '92-93. I refer in particular to the chairperson of the Lake Cowichan School District -- to give one example that I'm hoping the minister will be able to react to. She indicated to us that without the delay in implementing equalization for the upcoming year, her district would be in the same shortfall position that other more publicized districts are facing, such as Vancouver. Would the minister inform this committee as to the rationale used to determine the need to postpone the equalization for a year, and could the minister also inform the committee as to what districts this delay may have assisted? I've referred to Lake Cowichan as one example of a district that seems to have escaped the economic shortfall because the ministry has made the decision to delay equalization for at least one year.

Hon. A. Hagen: I think the member has just made a very important point about why we need to proceed carefully with any changes that we bring into the funding system. One of the reasons that the equalization was postponed for this year was to allow for that change in a careful and thoughtful manner. It would take quite a long time for me to inform you of the boards that are affected, but if you don't have that information I'd be happy to provide it to you.

J. Dalton: I can appreciate the response of the minister, because obviously there would be a lot of detail required from that question. I also appreciate her reaction in recognizing some of the difficulties that we are referring to in our line of questioning. It certainly was appropriate to postpone equalization for a year, because it obviously has built-in difficulties of itself. So that is something that we can again pursue as we deal with future policy considerations with regard to the funding of education itself.

To carry on with the funding formula difficulties, the message that we are receiving not only from the highly publicized districts.... I made reference earlier to Vancouver, and other members, through their line of questioning, have certainly commented on their own districts. I presume that I'm going to have the unpleasant task tomorrow, if we're still dealing with these Education estimates, to report back to this committee on the very difficult situation facing one of my school districts, North Vancouver. I am going this evening to the budget-setting meeting of the North Vancouver district. They are facing an approximately $10 million shortfall. I don't know all the details of how they're going to address that significant difficulty. Certainly there's not going to be very pleasant news coming out of that district. This is just another example that I would cite to reinforce the funding difficulties that many districts are facing.

However, coming back to my question here, the message that we're getting from across British Columbia is that the districts need more money. That's maybe too simple a way to put it. I suppose we all need more money to address many problems, but given the very real importance of education -- it's not just a question of providing adequate education for our children; it is an investment in the entire future of this province -- we have to try to address this very serious question head on and hopefully come up with some answers. I would like to think that the answers we may be able to find are going to be more immediate than they will be through future policy discussion. The future will be attended to through ongoing discussions, but the immediate concerns we have to address now.

So the message, again, is that the lift in the per-pupil grant has created financial uncertainty for school districts. In some districts there's a lot of financial uncertainty. I would add that the uncertainty is not only for the administrators and the people who work in the school system but also for the parents, the students and everyone who is directly or indirectly affected by the underfunding of schooling. I can assure you that many people I am personally aware of, either in my own riding or elsewhere, are so upset about the prospects of losing programs and of teachers and support staff being laid off that they are -- I wouldn't want to overstate it -- somewhat distraught by the very unpleasant prospects. Longstanding programs that many districts have been able to put into place over the years are now facing either total elimination or certainly very severe cutbacks. I've always described that as a step backwards. Any time you step backwards, it's extremely difficult to take that other step forward so that at least you can hold your own.

I would like to pose a particular question out of the comments I've just made. Can the minister inform the committee as to how many districts have approached her ministry with concerns that they will be unable to maintain the same level of program offerings in '92-93 that they were able to offer in the previous year? So again, my question is directed to particular concerns that school districts have raised about the inadequate funding for this upcoming year, whereby they're unable to maintain the same level of program offerings that they are offering now in the current school year.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not sure that I can give the member an entirely accurate answer, so I'm going to give an answer that's to the best of my recollection. If there's further information, I would be glad to add it. I believe that we have had three requests for a special-purpose grant from school districts, and another one or two districts have formally advised us of the difficulties that they are facing in respect to their budgets. I'm speaking here of communications, where boards have actually made a request as they did in the previous year, when they asked for permission to run a deficit. This, you'll remember, was an option I made available to boards in December. As I said, that's my recollection at this time, and there may be other information that I 

[ Page 717 ]

don't recall in response to the question. If there's a correction, I'll be happy to make that at a further time.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that response. It's interesting to note that at least three have gone on record as requesting special-purpose grants. Certainly others, as the minister has indicated, have indicated real concerns. I would suggest that there are many other boards which perhaps haven't got down to the specifics of coming on bended knee and pleading for extra funding, but I don't think there's any question whatsoever that other districts certainly would like to be considered for special grants if that is a possibility. Once the final budgets are established for the '92-93 year, I suspect that other districts will be prepared to go on record as saying: "Well, now that we know the final figures, can the ministry not do anything about it that would be helpful to all of us?"

I again admit that it is a very difficult problem that education does demand high expenditures, and rightly so. I'm not suggesting -- at least, I hope I'm not suggesting through my line of questioning -- that the minister should find the money that every school district might request or indicate that it could use for the funding of its programs. I guess it's probably true that education could gobble up great amounts of money, and it would be very desirable perhaps in the long run that we could provide those sorts of funds. But we recognize now that that kind of funding is not feasible. We're certainly not suggesting that the opposition advocates almost unfettered or unlimited spending on education, even though it is so important.

The fact does remain that some districts have expressed to the minister, as her answer has indicated, a particular need for special funding. I'm also indicating that I'm sure there are other districts that may not have gone through that formality, but that doesn't mean that they're not in financial difficulties. It's our information -- these aren't absolute figures, but they certainly give an indication of the shortfall position in many districts -- that a minimum of 15 districts in this province are facing significant reductions in programs because of their budget shortfalls for next year -- teaching and support staff, supplies, maintenance and all the other things that go to into the operation of school districts.

[10:45]

There's already general agreement in our discussions in this committee about the need for revision. This is something we won't get into now, but it is certainly important to keep restating it so that we all have a common understanding of the shortcomings of the funding system and of how we might address future solutions to those. That is our future policy, and we are dealing with the immediate financial concerns arising from the budget which many school districts are facing.

Could the minister advise this committee if she is aware of the significant reduction in staffing levels in several districts? To illustrate my question, when I refer to several districts, Vancouver obviously comes to mind. There were 115 teaching positions indicated by the Vancouver School District. The Greater Victoria School District is going through a very significant announced reduction in its teaching staff. I indicated earlier today that I'll be going to the North Vancouver district budget meeting tonight. I know there will be teacher layoffs in North Vancouver. So can the minister indicate to us if she is aware of these significant reductions in those and other districts that have either determined their final budgets or are now going through the process of doing so this week? And is anything being done to address the serious impact that such reductions will have both on the personnel affected, the people who get their notice that they are to be laid off, and on their colleagues, the teachers who are going to remain after the reduction processes have been gone through? The students and the parents are affected, and, I would even add, the non-teaching staff. I haven't referred particularly to reductions in the support staff, but that is also happening in many districts. So is the minister aware of the very significant impact on and disruption of the education system that these layoffs are creating?

Hon. A. Hagen: Certainly all of us have been in touch with school districts and employee groups across the province, and we are aware that districts, like the province, are working hard to balance their budgets within the means that they have available.

I want to just put this in context for us, as I seek to do each time. We're dealing with the estimates that are before the House, the budget that is proposed for education for the coming year. Those estimates are the broad resources available, and I, on many occasions in this committee, have outlined the way in which they have been distributed. In terms of the decisions we make, I have an underlying principle of fairness and equity across the system. Individual solutions are, I think, what the member has been suggesting at this stage. It's not easy to understand all the reasons why our boards are in the particular circumstances in which they find themselves. There are many factors which are the decisions of local districts and are a part of those decisions. That's the reason we have tried to look in a global way, in the context of our budget, at the circumstances of boards.

The member has commented on the two boards in his particular constituency. If we look at the increases that have been made available to those two boards in relation to their enrolments, we have one board that is experiencing greater difficulty than others at this particular time. It's difficult to hypothesize on the reasons for those difficulties. My approach has been to treat all boards fairly and consistently, to provide some leverage for boards that are experiencing difficulties through the deficit process, and to look to the review process that we've talked about for a means for us to bring greater stability and predictability to the system.

Certainly I've heard from boards. I've heard from many people that they would like a fair and consistent approach to all boards at this time, rather than an individual solution approach. I think it's important to emphasize that we are dealing with the resources that have been allocated to this ministry through a very extensive review, through what I believe, in consultation with the partners, has been as effective a way as we have available to us to provide for some of the diversity 

[ Page 718 ]

of need that is abroad. We have tried to provide some opportunity for all boards to deal with a financial situation that reflects the broad constraints of government around growing districts and around the effects of equalization. Remember, however, that those constraints have not been felt by the education system, which is seeing a 9.1 percent increase overall and an 8.1 percent increase to school districts, when the overall increase to government is 4.7 percent.

We have many important domains -- health, social services and education. I believe our government has accorded the priority it promised to education during this budget year.

J. Dalton: I'm going to get down in a moment, Mr. Chairman, to a suggested specific solution to some of these problems to which I, and other members as well, have been referring in this line of questioning. I do want to comment on some of the responses the minister has just made, and I certainly agree with the concept, as she said, of trying to create fairness and equity throughout the system. I think we all would applaud that concept, because that's really what the purpose of education funding should be: to ensure that all students and all people coming into and going through the system in this province have an equal opportunity to at least the basics of education that we all recognize must be afforded to those students.

That's a nice philosophical approach that we can all take, but we're not into a lot of philosophical discussion this morning. We are down into the nitty-gritty: if there is money missing for some school districts, what, if anything, can be done about it? Then we'll go on into future discussion, beyond this committee stage, to try to address these ongoing concerns.

I wish to make reference to a suggestion to get specific, as I said I would do, with regard to the funding shortfall. I'm going to refer to a suggestion that the executive of the BCTF came up with when they were here a week ago today as part of the many delegations that came to the Legislature and met with the hon. minister, and with many MLAs from all across the province. The suggestion that came from the BCTF -- in particular, from their president-elect Ray Worley.... He was part of that delegation; I know he met with the minister. He suggested -- and I like this idea, and I will be inviting the minister to respond after I've made my comments -- that the BCTF would like to see what he has described as an education stabilization fund created with the money that the government has set aside, in the event of unexpected enrolments in September.

The Chair: Hon. member, the matter you are raising poses some problems for the Chair, in that it anticipates the future action of the government with respect to legislation and the use of funding on matters that I don't think have to do with the administration of the ministry. You can proceed, but I am having a little problem making sure that you're in order. Proceed.

J. Dalton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your concern.

I believe that my question is centred around part of the funding available for this ministry which is set aside or retained until the fall enrolment is ascertained. Therefore, if I may come back to the suggestion Mr. Worley has presented to the minister: he's looking at funding in place that is not yet distributed but will be in the event of, for example, growth districts like Surrey coming in with their fall enrolments. It would be well recognized that the funding provided through the formula would be inadequate to take care of the numbers, so there would have to be an increase in funding.

Mr. Worley is suggesting that the funds, which are set aside and available through the ministry's estimates, be released, as he described it, as an educational stabilization fund to enable these districts facing immediate shortfalls to take care of those problems now and not perhaps in the fall. Of course, I might also add that the funding I refer to -- and by the way, Mr. Chairman, the figure that is stated in this newspaper article is $85 million.... I might also ask the minister, once I've finished with my comments, if that's an accurate figure, because I've heard that sums as high as $110 million would be in this fund. But we'll say $85 million for the sake of discussion.

Mr. Worley's suggestion, which I think deserves some merit -- it certainly deserves some discussion -- is whether the minister might be in a position to release some of that funding now and not wait until the fall. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the prospect of time-honoured and well-established programs and the prospect of teacher layoffs and non-support staff layoffs and the entire disruption in the system that I've already referred to.... If there's any way it could be headed off, and if there's any realistic method to address these very real concerns now, I think we would all applaud it. I might even add that the minister would probably be considered as a folk hero, in a sense, if she could come up with such a happy solution. I'm not pretending that's going to happen. But I think, through this suggestion of Mr. Worley, that we should canvass it.

[11:00]

Some people naturally may raise the concern that we could have 75 districts all coming to Victoria saying: "Well, we have special needs and economic shortfalls, so we would sure love to be able to tap into this fund." That is not what the BCTF is suggesting. Mr. Worley has indicated that districts would have to justify their dire financial straits. Maybe that's overstating it, but quite frankly, some districts are in dire financial straits.

If Mr. Worley's suggestion has any merit -- and I think personally it does -- it would then be set up in such a way, from my understanding of it, that districts would demonstrate.... I presume that would even mean the ministry could send people into the district to ascertain their true needs and not what they might indicate publicly are their needs; and then hopefully find a sum of money to provide to those dire-need districts to address the '92-93 funding difficulties. My questions that I would like to pose to the minister: is the stated figure of $85 million reasonably accurate? Is that the funding that is set aside for unexpected enrolment for the fall? More importantly, does the minister 

[ Page 719 ]

consider that the BCTF proposal has any merit? Has she given it due consideration? Is there any possibility that such a suggestion may actually take on some reality?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe we did actually canvass this matter earlier. Let me be clear about the process that we're talking about. We have included money in our budget for students that are not yet enrolled. These are additional funds that will go towards those students' arrival, both September enrolments and later enrolments. It's a part of a very good planning process. The other aspect of that which I think relates to the member's question is whether some of that money can be released now. I've noted on innumerable occasions in this committee that the boards and my ministry staff work on the predictability of that enrolment. We are more than ready to work with boards. If there is a predictability of enrolment, they can plan their budgets in anticipation of those funds being available.

Mr. Chairman, those funds are very clearly allocated for a need that we will have next year, according to our best estimates. In all likelihood dollars will flow to districts like Kelowna, Courtenay, Nanaimo, Surrey, Abbotsford and Richmond -- just to name of few of the rapidly growing districts where we are prepared to do what we must do to ensure that the children in those school districts are funded when they arrive. So this is the amount of money that the member is talking about. It's a part of our planning. We work with school districts around predictability, and those dollars are clearly allocated for an upcoming need -- a part of our estimates that we have to find for everyone to know about.

D. Symons: Yesterday I believe you mentioned that Surrey had a 20 percent increase in its population during the year. Later in the day I believe you also mentioned that the funding was for an increase of 5 percent in Surrey. Seeing what the figure was for the previous year, it would seem that increasing funding by 5 percent this year does not seem adequate. Projections for enrolment increases are grossly understated. Are my figures right, or is there something wrong in the projections the ministry is using?

Hon. A. Hagen: I am always reluctant to use these figures in the House, because it's very difficult to really convey information. Let me just deal with Surrey's funding. There is a 7.5 percent increase in their funding this year over last year. If we just look at the three years 1989-90, '90-91 and '91-92, there's been an increase of 38 percent in funding, and the enrolment increase figures are just under 20 percent. I've rounded the figures: 38 percent increase in funding, 20 percent increase in enrolment in that rapidly growing school district.

But I'm reluctant to get into those figures district by district because one really needs to be able to do a much more sophisticated profile of any district in deference to their programming, the makeup of their population, special-needs children, English-as-a-second-language children. Those figures I want to acknowledge don't give a good snapshot of anything other than gross figures and should not be seen as being a good means of analyzing. I noted them because someone was asking about those figures yesterday, and that may clarify it for the member.

V. Anderson: I wanted to clarify just a couple of questions that have come out of the discussion. It's a practice in many businesses, when people are being fired or let go, to provide them with counselling help or some help in re-employment opportunities for seeking new jobs. Is there a provision within the overall budgeting and planning with school boards to provide an opportunity for teachers who have lost their jobs to get counselling or have extra assistance in finding new occupations, or if they need even to go out of the teaching profession per se in that transition period, which is very difficult for them and their families?

Hon. A. Hagen: That would be a matter boards might address. I would note also that there are some systems in place that have been developed by the school trustees and the Teachers' Federation around opportunities for teaching. That information is always available for teachers who are looking for different career opportunities. But those matters are within the domain of boards.

V. Anderson: Yesterday you mentioned something about plans for continuing the new primary program which had been instituted, and you also made a comment about working on the graduate program for future planning of integrating the graduate program into its new phase. There was no comment made on the intermediate programming, and I wondered if you might comment on it as against the other two, because it's my understanding it's on the front burner someplace.

Hon. A. Hagen: I am pleased to clarify any incomplete information. The primary program is ongoing, and it will be continued -- review processes of the excellent work that has gone on in the primary classrooms of the province. This spring we will be releasing both the intermediate and the graduation draft documents for discussion in the school districts of the province. Both of those documents are owned by the education community at this stage of the game, because these are second drafts that reflect the input from literally hundreds of teachers and parents and groups of the ideas that were put forward some time ago. They're going back out into the field. At the same time, there will be developmental work coming out of the initiatives of individual teachers in schools and districts in both the intermediate and the graduate areas. Those are going on now, and I'm pleased with the initiative that many districts and teachers have taken in support of those older grades towards constructive change for our children.

V. Anderson: I know that the future of those programs is of interest not only to the teaching staff who must implement them but to the parents who have some anxiety about the continuation of the programs and the continuity within them. They sometimes get left 

[ Page 720 ]

out of knowing that things are happening. It's important that that information get beyond the school system into the public at large.

Yesterday in one of the questions there were concerns about the social study curriculum, and I just wanted to highlight in passing.... I presume the agreed-on curriculum of world religions -- which is an option in the curriculum which has been very successful, developed in the Surrey school system -- will be continuing, and information of that will continue out into the school. I've heard a lot of good comments and feedback from persons who have been involved in that system. It's undertaken in its development stage by Sid Bentley. I would commend that and also commend, just in passing, the multifaith calendar -- which I presume you're very much aware of -- and hope that this is circulated within the schools, that they might be aware of it as well. Because I think that awareness of the special holidays of all of the faith groups for all of our schools is very important. I know many teachers who use it regularly, so that they understand the celebration of their students in the particular days as they come to them.

Moving from that -- and maybe you would want to comment briefly on those -- the other question I would raise is in the education curriculum. Are there new approaches being taken in the regular curriculum for a better understanding of the history and place of the aboriginal and Inuit people in our Canadian history? I'm thinking not only of programs for aboriginal and Inuit students themselves, but, more appropriately as well, programs in the general curriculum, so that all students might have a better understanding of the history and contribution of these people within our culture.

Related to that, is there an awareness being conveyed in the system, for many of the students who come to us from different parts of the world, of the almost opposite process of thinking that occurs in the non-western world to that which occurs in the western world? Because I think that is a very important understanding for our teachers, our students and in our international relationships.

Hon. A. Hagen: The questions of the member bring again into focus the value of the breadth of this ministry, because what the member is talking about is the depth and breadth of our population. I'm familiar with the particular course that has been developed by Mr. Bentley in Surrey. We have, within every district, a capacity for locally-developed curriculum; about 20 percent of the curriculum may be locally developed. The information about that curriculum tends to spread. I think many people know that particular course, for example, that has been developed by that teacher.

We will find also that there are excellent programs that are developed around a knowledge of our native and Inuit people, although for us we don't have an Inuit population within our own community, but in the broad Canadian perspective. I want to commend that local initiative, because what it does is enrich the curriculum of the children in that district. It also provides an enrichment for us in respect to the learning resources that become available.

The interfaith calendar is supported by our multicultural programs so that it can be broadly available, and it is a very simple and excellent resource around the importance of religion in the lives and cultures of people. It is a means then for people to know about the celebrations of those important holy days and holidays in the many cultures.

With respect to native education, there are two processes. One is contributions to native bands and organizations for the development of language and culture programs. There's $1.2 million in our budget for that initiative. Quite often those initiatives are taken in collaboration with the school district, or perhaps with partner groups like the teachers around training and understanding, and broadly there is a good solid infusion of curriculum relating to native education. I hope that gives the member a little bit of a flavour of the work that the ministry is doing in this regard.

V. Anderson: Under the budget item "British Columbia Council of Human Rights," there's a figure of $107,800 for grants and contributions. Could you give us some indication of how that is used in grants and contributions?

There's also a $50,000 rebate in there, and I was wondering about the nature of the rebate.

[11:15]

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, let me deal with the rebate. There are fees charged for some services, and in terms of the money accorded to various groups, one of the tasks of the Council of Human Rights is education on human rights. In the same way that the ministry works with what I like to think of as affinity bodies, bodies that can assist in a broad way the goals of the ministries, the Council of Human Rights also has some grants that go out for that.

There are also contracts with the Legal Services Society for support for some of the work that goes on within the Council of Human Rights in pursuit of complaints and so on.

V. Anderson: Following up on the Council of Human Rights, I gather there are payments for legal aid fees if that's needed in particular cases. When individuals have concerns that they want to bring to the council, are there any funds available to persons who may be living in an out-of-the-way place and have to travel or have board or lodging to be able to have their case heard? What is the opportunity to make access equal for people from around the province?

Hon. A. Hagen: That's a very good question. Let me answer it with two sources of information. The initial investigations and intake are done through the employment standards branch of the Labour ministry, and those people travel to various parts of the province. I don't know where all the offices are, but I know that they can in many instances go to either the place of residence or close to the place of residence, and the same thing holds true in respect to a hearing. If there 

[ Page 721 ]

were in fact a complaint that wasn't resolved through investigation and mediation -- a complaint that came to a hearing -- then the members of the council would travel to different parts of the province to hear and deal with those complaints. The reason for that is to ensure that no one is denied access to the services of the council.

V. Anderson: I'm just following up with two more related questions in that area. I noticed you commented yesterday that material is made available to people in their different languages, so it would be accessible to them. Are there facilities where people may use their own language, particularly immigrants, in the hearing process, either through translation or whatever process? Is there a process of appeal from the decision of the council?

Hon. A. Hagen: We would certainly attempt to facilitate a person having the support he or she needs with language around a hearing. That certainly would be an important one.

On the matter of appeal, let me just inform the member that the council, which is a quasi-judicial body, is subject to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and any party to a complaint may seek judicial review of a council decision by petitioning the Supreme Court under the terms of that act. A decision could be set aside based on a jurisdictional error, including a breach of natural justice, an error of law related to the interpretation of the act under which the council operates or an error of fact that is patently unreasonable on the face of the record. As I noted during the warrants debate, there is a procedure to appeal through the Supreme Court, and those are the terms for such an appeal of a decision of the council.

V. Anderson: In the area of immigration responsibilities and opportunities that you have, similar perhaps to the French discussion that we had earlier where there are agreements between the provincial and the federal governments which set out the different mandates, are there agreements that we have formally with the federal government with immigration as to the areas of responsibility that we are undertaking -- the areas which are theirs and the areas of cooperation? If so, could these briefly be explained? Are the agreements available that we might read them at a later date for ourselves?

Hon. A. Hagen: A good question. The previous administration did not pursue, in a very vigorous way, agreements on policies respecting federal and provincial jurisdictions. It's been a piece of work that's actively being pursued by my ministry with the federal government. The announcement of the immigrant settlement grant program was one component in terms of us participating in a practical way around settlement issues. Once there are agreements in place, I'm sure we'll be pleased to share them with the members.

V. Anderson: If I understand, there are at least two major programs related to immigration -- maybe more. I haven't quite sorted them out. One is the business immigration program. How actively does your ministry undertake to promote that? What kind of staff and resources are put into that? That's one, and the other one, which you related in the immigrant settlement grants, is to persons working through groups, as I would understand it, to support persons here in Canada. Are those the two major programs that come under that area of your responsibility?

Hon. A. Hagen: It may be useful at some time after we finish with the estimates for the member to have a briefing with us. We'd be really happy to provide you with a more expanded discussion than is possible when we're dealing with estimates. Let me just give you a very brief sketch of the immigration part of the ministry. I see it as three fundamental areas. There's the broad area of immigration policy, and that area encompasses federal-provincial negotiations and agreements, because the responsibility is shared and is being developed. We are working very actively in that domain, because it was pretty well a wasteland in the previous administration. Then there are the immigration settlement grants, which were first introduced in January and are a permanent part of our support for new Canadians. And then there is the business immigration branch, which relates to business opportunities in British Columbia for people from various parts of the world who wish to invest in our province. I'd be very pleased to provide a more detailed briefing for the member once the estimate process has been completed.

V. Anderson: Just following up on that last comment, which I appreciate very much -- your clarification on that. Could you give us a brief clarification of the extent of the business immigration program at the moment? Approximately how many people on average are coming in and being settled? And how successful is that program as far as people being able to accomplish what was intended and fulfilling the mandate for that program?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me see if I can give the member a brief resume of what's happening. A number of people have come into the country in the past year. The average entrepreneurial business immigrant, whose mandate is to create jobs within British Columbia, has created about six jobs on average. They will range from one or two to 20 jobs. In 1991 we had 682 entrepreneurs and 573 investors who came into Canada.

The relationship of the number of people coming in year over year also is related to federal policy. That's one of the reasons I've offered a briefing. It's not a straightforward one where some snapshot figures will provide the member with a very useful overview, which I believe is what you're trying to get some sense of. I can provide a whole range of figures, but I'm not sure that they will really provide you with quality and balanced information. I really think it would be useful for you to meet with us and have some opportunity to see this in a broader perspective.

[ Page 722 ]

D. Symons: I'm back in Surrey again. I seem to be stuck there, but I guess the Surrey Teachers' Association is very good at pushing its position, and it seems to be a district that certainly does have real problems. It seems that the year before, they were seventy-fifth as far as the per-pupil funding went, and with the current government they are still seventy-fifth. In the eyes of the teachers.... I'm simply reading from their publication here: "I guess that even when you're last, things can get worse." That seems to be the opinion of the educators in Surrey. I guess it's not terribly encouraging to them as teachers, and there's a real morale problem here when they feel that this is how they're being treated.

What I'm concerned about is that if they were seventy-fifth before and they still remain seventy-fifth, in what way has the fiscal framework not worked to help them? It seems that tinkering with it hasn't ended up raising their position. If that's not the case, maybe the ministry has something in mind where Surrey could save money, because obviously they're leaving them in that low position.

I'm wondering if the ministry gives to boards an idea of where -- since they are fairly low down on the economic scale in our priorities here -- they might be able to save money. I would assume that you have some plan for Surrey to be able to meet its obligations, and they aren't aware of it.

Hon. A. Hagen: I don't think the member is advocating that every district should have the same amount per pupil, which is one way of distributing. You have a block amount and just distribute the same amount to every district, regardless of whether they have busing costs, whether they have to heat buildings or whether their teaching force is experienced and receives higher salaries or is more likely to comprise new teachers because the district is growing and beginning teachers are being hired. There are factors which affect the range of dollars that go to each school district for the pupils. In the north they're very high because of the cost of educating youngsters across wide distances. They tend to be more clustered in the lower mainland.

[11:30]

I can repeat, if the member likes, the way in which we have targeted the issues of growth districts. The special-purpose grant in December was weighted to growing districts, so that established districts got a very small number of dollars per pupil, and large districts got -- I can't remember exactly -- the figure multiplied many times. The same is true with computer grants. There is a significant increase for growing districts in the computer grants. We are funding the new school's administration months before that school is opened, so that the district doesn't have to find that in its regular funds. We are fully funding enrolment, which means additional dollars.

I would note that Surrey has lived within its budget. I know it's a district that has been challenged because of growth. There are all kinds of pressures on a growing district, because you have new youngsters coming in, new schools abuilding and you're moving portables around. Those are very major challenges for a district. Surrey too is increasing in the number of English-as-a-second-language children. There will be additional funds to Surrey to assist it in integrating those students, plus the funds that are already in the block for those students. Again I emphasize that I have paid particular attention to districts like Surrey, which are growing -- districts like Richmond and your own, Mr. Member, and districts like Central Okanagan, for the member from Kelowna. They were a high priority in our planning, and government recognized that they had not been attended to. We have provided additional funds for them this year.

D. Symons: I'll leave the districts that have specific problems and move more to a provincewide thing. I'm revisiting yesterday, on the French immersion programs.

What I was curious about and wasn't quite clear in my mind about from what came out yesterday is this: do the districts receive the same amount per pupil for French immersion programs as they do for students that aren't on the French immersion program? Is the per-pupil allotment the same in each one? If that's the case, do the French immersion programs receive additional funds from either the province or the federal government because it is a French immersion program? That leads me to the question, depending upon the answers here: is it costing more to educate a student in French than it is in English?

Hon. A. Hagen: To clarify the question the member has asked, there are agreements with the federal government for programs in our second language, for bilingual programs. Those are by agreement with the federal government. It's not a part of our vote, but they do flow through to districts for those children.

D. Symons: I'm still not sure if I had an answer to my question. The question was: are the students on a French immersion program receiving a higher per-pupil amount, regardless of where that money now comes from? I'll clarify it: whether it's federal or provincial, is there more money per student on French immersion programs than on regular programs? Is that the case? I think that's the answer you gave me, but it wasn't terribly clear to me.

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, to clarify for the member. I have more complete information than I had yesterday on the number of students. I do want the record to be accurate in the information I'm providing. I believe that I said yesterday that there were about 19,000 to 20,000 students in French immersion. The current status -- we have reviewed figures and just made sure they were correct -- is 28,500. We have 45 districts offering programs. The information about program cadre was correct. There are 213,500 students studying French as a second language -- and that is available in every district.

To come back to the original question, through federal-provincial agreements there is additional money for all three of those programs within the districts in which they are offered. So every district 

[ Page 723 ]

would be receiving some of those resources that come from the agreed-upon negotiated federal dollars to assist us with French language education.

D. Mitchell: I have a brief question for the minister. It relates to the youth health survey that has been initiated. I understand it has the support of the Ministry of Education. This is a survey that I understand -- I'd like some confirmation on this -- is going to be distributed to some 25,000 British Columbia students in grades 8 to 12, starting with 12-year-olds. This is a survey that is now in process; it's being distributed in our schools. I have some concerns about this, and I think some concerns have been expressed publicly from parents and from educators as well.

Could the minister simply comment on the youth health survey, and am I correct in my assumption that the ministry is in fact endorsing this and is basically one of the sponsors of this survey?

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you for the questions. First of all, let me clarify the role of the Ministry of Education in respect to this. The ministry was advised that the McCreary Centre Society wished to conduct a health survey of adolescents. We advised the people who were working on the survey that they should take their requests to individual districts with information about the purpose of the survey, and that the individual districts would then make their decisions around the delivery -- the carrying of out the survey within the schools of the province. We have not endorsed the particular survey, but have advised the proponents -- the people who are planning the survey -- about how they may get the attention and the decision of local school districts. It is in the hands of school districts.

The Ministry of Health has supported the survey, and I understand that other bodies may have, but I don't have information other than from my own ministry around endorsement.

D. Mitchell: My thanks to the minister for that answer. My concern about the survey is a concern that I think many parents would share. I, for one, have a young daughter who's going into grade 8 next year. According to reports on the survey, some 25,000 British Columbia students are going to be asked questions like these: "How old were you when you tried marijuana for the first time? How old were you when you used any form of cocaine, including any powder, crack or freebase, for the first time? During your life, how many times have you used any other type of illegal drug, such as LSD, PCP, Ecstasy, mushrooms, speed, ice, heroin or pills without a doctor's prescription? When was the last time you had sexual intercourse? Did you or your partner use a condom? How many times have you been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant? Have you ever been told by a doctor or nurse that you had a sexually transmitted disease?" It goes on to list all the sexually transmitted diseases known to our health care specialists. Other questions that are apparently asked on the survey: "When you daydream or fantasize about sex, do you think about males, females or both, or do you not yet fantasize about sex? Have you started your menstrual periods? During the past 12 months did you ever make a plan about how you would attempt suicide? During the past 12 months how many times did you actually attempt suicide?"

These are the kinds of questions. I won't go on any longer. Apparently there are many, many questions in this survey. My concern with subjecting our young people in the province to these kinds of questions, without the approval of the Ministry of Education, without the endorsement -- the minister says -- of her ministry and without the approval of the parents of the students involved. To simply have this kind of survey distributed to our young people in our high schools, including 12-year-olds.... I have some concern because I'm the father of a 12-year-old. I have some serious reservations about this. Implicit in many questions, hon. minister, seems to be the assumption that most 12-year-olds perhaps have been pregnant or have gotten someone pregnant, have used drugs, have fantasized about suicide. These are extremely provocative questions that I am uncomfortable with as a parent. I would ask the minister whether or not her ministry, through herself, would show some leadership and put a halt to this, to take a look at this. This is a very serious, explosive issue. I simply think that this survey could do much more harm than good, and I think it really is up to the ministry to show some leadership here and to decide whether or not this is the kind of survey that should be distributed to our young people in the province.

I really look forward to the minister's comments on this important issue.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would hope first of all that the member would, like me, take a very responsible attitude toward the risks that our young people face. Before I respond to the specific questions, I want to just preface my remarks by referring to conversations that I have had with medical health officers before I became minister and since I became minister. The medical health officers have advised me -- these are senior people concerned with public health issues -- that the population in our society most at risk for long-term health hazards is our young people. We all know of some of the concerns about AIDS, but there are other very significant health issues that they are very concerned about with respect to our young people. I don't know, for instance, whether most young men and young women know about a sexually transmitted disease called chlamydia -- I didn't know about it until somewhat recently -- that can leave young people infertile. It is a silent sexually transmitted disease.

So I think it behooves us in dealing with issues regarding the health of our young people to take a very responsible attitude and approach. The member has read from a newspaper account of the survey. I would encourage that member to go to the McCreary Centre and ask for some information about the study, so that he is able to gain comprehensive information on the nature of the survey and the intent of the survey. It's important for us, when we have a concern, to take a responsible approach to how we assess that concern and make judgments.

[ Page 724 ]

Now let me turn to the specifics of the question that the member has raised. He has asked about how these surveys go into schools. They go through the school districts. Every school district will have received information about the survey, about its content, about the method by which it will be delivered. Every school district has policies regarding any surveys that may take place in schools, and those policies involve the consent of parents. I've done some checking on that process over the last few days, and I am advised by parents who are just like you, hon. member, a parent in a school district, that their school districts keep them informed; they provide them with information. There is a consent form, and parents with their children, or on their own initiative, may make decisions on whether their youngsters participate. I believe that that is an appropriate process for any kind of sensitive survey that may be conducted in the school -- or information that is sensitive, because the information around sexuality and responsible behaviour is where parents have a very important role to play.

In this particular instance, the ministry has advised that the process the surveyor should use is to go to the school districts and gain that consent. I don't have information about what school districts have decided in respect of that. I know that they will be reviewing the intent of the survey -- which I understand is a totally confidential survey -- and deciding whether or not they should participate.

[11:45]

D. Mitchell: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I have some continuing concerns about this, and I'd like some further clarification on this survey. I'm not certain now as to whether or not the ministry does in fact endorse this survey, which I understand is being conducted by the McCreary Centre Society -- it's the youth health survey that I refer to. I agree with the minister that one must take a very responsible approach to this issue.

I also agree with the minister's comment that this is an important area. We must take a look at some of the social dimensions of our educational system, particularly as they're impacting on the young people in the system today. These are some very sensitive areas. But I'm concerned about this particular survey and its approach and methodology. I will familiarize myself further with this, but I'm hoping to seek some information today from the minister.

It is proposed to distribute this survey to some 25,000 young British Columbians, including grade 8 students, including British Columbians as young as the age of 12. It asks questions in some very sensitive areas -- and I've listed some of those -- including sexuality, drug use and suicide. They are very sensitive, potentially explosive social issues. While I might agree that it's important for the Ministry of Education to be on top of these issues and to be concerned with some of the social dimensions of our students' lives and activities in the school system, how one collects data about that is a touchy subject, a sensitive one, and clearly there must be some methodology employed. But when a survey of this nature asks these kinds of very provocative questions -- in fact, if the media reports are accurate, some of the questions are extremely leading questions -- then surely we have to ask some questions about privacy and the right to privacy of individuals. While the survey is confidential, are parents involved in the process? Have parents been asked whether or not they approve of this survey being distributed to their children -- children as young as 12?

What role has the ministry played in this? I understand what the minister has said in terms of the local school districts being involved, but what leadership role has the ministry played in this? Has the issue of privacy been addressed? I'd be very interested in the minister's comments on that with respect to the youth health survey that we're discussing.

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, let me be clear on the ministry policy. It is that surveys of this nature, which are initiated outside of the ministry, are negotiated between the surveyor and the local school district. That is our policy in respect to that. However, on some of the broader issues, I am aware of and confident in the processes that are part of surveys of this nature.

Let me just deal with, first of all, the issue of consent. To the very best of my knowledge, no school district would offer a survey of this nature, any more than it would offer any other kind of health initiative within its doors, without the consent of parents. That consent would be, I would hope, a most informed consent.

In many instances, parents are asked about programs in a way that allows them to meet and discuss those programs. It's one of the reasons why I said to the member that I believe the approach, which is to take a news media story and not do some research and find out some information from the centre, perhaps does not provide the balance that would help us in a discussion of this issue, given that there are many issues, as the member notes, that are important to the health of young people.

It is my understanding, because the ministry was advised about the protocol for the survey, that it is totally confidential, private and voluntary. All those terms apply, with respect to our knowledge of how the survey was proposed to be conducted, provided individual school districts agreed that the survey should take place in their particular school district.

D. Mitchell: Thank you for that answer. The reason I'm asking the question now is that obviously your estimates are up for review right now, and it's timely. It's an opportunity for us to discuss this and to seek some information about the ministry's role in the survey. Also, there's the timeliness of this in the sense that if this survey is about to be distributed.... I'd like to get some reassurance from the minister. I take her comments to my previous question to mean that before this survey is distributed to students, parents will have an opportunity to see the questions, to understand what the goals of the survey are and to have a chance to approve the distribution of the survey to their children before it is distributed. Could the minister confirm that?

[ Page 725 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: From my experience, it's my understanding that those policies are in place in school districts. As with other areas where parents have a role, particularly with a survey outside the usual domain of the school's activities, parents would indeed be consulted. As I understand it, the policy of school districts is to involve parents in consent and information around many of these issues.

It may well be that the outcome of this confidential and private survey could provide information that would help the ministries of Health, Education and Social Services. It may help us in a legislative committee on education to know more about some of the risks that our children face and ways in which we can help them know about themselves, about their health and about how to act in ways that are in their best long-term interest, which has to be something that I think concerns us all.

D. Mitchell: The minister speaks of the potential benefits of the survey to her ministry and to government broadly speaking, other agencies of government. I won't question that. My concern is based more on process -- concern for the young people who are being exposed to this survey. We have a proposal for a survey to some 25,000 young British Columbians, ranging from as early as age 12 on through high school, dealing with some very sensitive issues. I don't want to repeat myself, but they're very sensitive issues. The minister says that she understands that the school districts would certainly involve parents, but I don't think that's good enough. Hon. minister, what I'm asking for is an assurance from you that your ministry will play a leadership role in ensuring that this survey will not be distributed to our young people -- this survey dealing with questions of drug use, sexuality, suicide, on and on, very sensitive areas, very provocative questions -- without consent and approval, and involving parents in the process so that there is an understanding. While I understand school districts would normally take a responsible approach here, I really believe it's important for the ministry and for the minister herself to show some leadership and ensure there is no abuse here.

The reason I raise this question.... I'm not speaking to the potential benefits of the survey, which the minister has addressed. I'm really speaking towards the sensitivities of the young people who are possibly going to be exposed to the survey without proper preparation, without involving their families -- their parents in particular. There are many parents -- myself included -- who may be uncomfortable with having their children, as early as the age of 12, exposed to this survey. I might ask the minister.... I reflect back a little on when I was of that age and whether or not the methodology of this survey can really be guaranteed in the sense that young people of age 12, 13 or 14 are going to be exposed to answering these questions. It's an anonymous survey, the minister pointed out; she said that confidentiality will be assured. There's still an issue of privacy here that we have not addressed -- whether or not we can really expect the integrity in the data that is going to be collected in this survey, if it does proceed. I go back to my question: can the minister assure us that her ministry will show some leadership to ensure this survey will not be distributed without proper consultation with parents involved?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me inform the member, again, that it is my understanding that letters of consent will be sent to each child in any classroom where this survey may have been agreed to by the district. Let me further note that the medical health officers of the province are supportive of this survey and will be involved, if it is administered, remembering that school districts make that decision. But let me assure the member that letters of consent will go to parents in respect to this survey before it is administered in any classroom in the province.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m. 

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

The committee met at 10:24 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

On vote 18: minister's office, $386,191.

The Chair: I call this meeting to order. This is an historic occasion. It is the first meeting of the Committee of Supply, section A. We're probably going to run into a few wrinkles, because most of us are new -- and that includes me -- but we'll have to deal with that. As you probably guessed, there was considerable debate in trying to iron out some of the difficulties. But hopefully we've got a handle on that now, and we can proceed.

I'll call on the minister to proceed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As everyone in this room is well aware, this is really an historic occasion. This is the first time in the history of this parliament that business normally done in the full House as part of Committee of 

[ Page 726 ]

Supply has been done in the Douglas Fir committee room as part of a smaller committee of the House. This is a wonderful departure from decades of doing it in a very traditional way.

I really want to say to all members here and in the House that while we may have some initial difficulties working out the odd procedural question, trying to adjust to how we do this and feeling uncomfortable about speaking while seated in this committee room rather than standing at our regular seats, we will find that this will work. I hope we will all undertake to relax about the difficulties and find a way to make it work.

This is a small departure, in some ways. We could move a lot further, in my view. Maybe in the months and years to come we will advance this process along so that we also end up doing Committee of the Whole through this kind of process. We may even get to the point someday where we will allow deputy ministers to answer some of the more technical questions, rather than going through the kind of charade that those of us who have been here for years have gone through, which is to have the answer whispered in our ear and then try to remember to articulate it in a way that reflects the message we've just been given. If this procedure works here, I hope we will give some thought to advancing the whole issue a little further.

This is an important issue, too, in respect to trying to advance the public's confidence in politicians and in the institutions of government and this Legislature. If we can make this kind of procedural change work, and if we can make the House in its entirety work more effectively, we will go some real distance towards restoring public confidence not just in ourselves but, more importantly, in the institutions that we're all a part of.

I was delighted the other day to read Ted Hughes's comments in the press following his review of the conflict-of-interest requirements for all 75 of us. He was quoted as saying that politicians are by and large an honest and hard-working group. After more than 16 years in this place, I must tell you that I share that view completely. The public has no concept of how hard politicians work in our society, and I'm delighted that Ted Hughes made that public comment.

I hope this process we're embarked on means that we will be less partisan, but I suspect and hope we will also be partisan when that's required. I look forward to the kind of debate that partisan politics will always ensure we have in this parliament. The bottom line is that we're working here for the common good of all British Columbians, and as much as we can, I hope we can participate in that effort together.

Just as the public's image of politicians isn't particularly high at the present time, so too the image of the public service is not nearly as high as it should be, in my view. In my years here I've worked with many people in the public service, and I must tell you that the men and women who work for the people of this province do an outstanding job. They work far more hours than they ever get paid for, and for the most part they are dramatically underpaid. They do wonderful work for the people of this province.

[10:30]

I want to make a few comments about my ministry. It's a big one. We have 5,700 employees, plus another 1,500 or so in the liquor stores around British Columbia. In the five months or so since I've been in this office, I've been impressed with the professionalism, commitment and hard work of all of those public servants. I've been delighted with the cooperation I've had from members of the ministry, particularly senior members, who have given me their absolute support and have tried to teach me about the complexities of the ministry as best they can. They have done their job exceptionally well. Whether I've been a good student is yet to be determined. Perhaps members of the opposition will discover through these estimates that I've not been as good a student as my teachers have been in the ministry. They certainly have done excellent work.

At this stage, if I might, I want to introduce the people who are here from the ministry this morning, just so you know a few of the names. Immediately behind me on my left is the deputy minister, Bob Edwards. Beside him, on his left, is Rick McCandless, who is the director of resource planning in the ministry. Behind me on my right is David Duncan, who is the assistant deputy minister of management services. In the gallery in the back are a number of other members of the ministry. I won't try to identify each of them as to where they're sitting, but present are Bob Simpson, who is the acting general manager for the liquor licensing branch; Ted Harrison, the regional director for Corrections; Bill Stewart, the assistant deputy minister of criminal justice; Brian Neal, the acting assistant deputy minister of legal services; Doug Kopp, superintendent of the motor vehicle branch; Steve Rumsey, the assistant deputy minister of court services; and Val Pattee, the assistant deputy minister of police services. From the policy division are Carol Nugent, Russell Getz, Barb Kaiway and Bill Scigllano. Some others from my own office are present as well, in the back.

I want to draw members' attention to some areas with substantially increased budget allocations and to highlight some of our objectives in this set of estimates. I'll start with police services. As members know, we've concluded a 20-year agreement with the RCMP, which will provide some real stability for municipalities in this province. It means that there will be an additional 45 RCMP officers throughout the province. We are increasing our funding to coordinate police efforts and to enhance prosecution efforts to combat organized crime and teen gangs.

The criminal justice branch has received additional funding for disclosure courts to improve efficiency. Operating funds for new courtrooms in Vancouver, New Westminster and Surrey are included in the estimates. Proposed additional funding for the judiciary would make possible three additional provincial court judges and the appointment of 15 masters.

In corrections, additional funding to expand community and residential programs as an alternative to custody for young offenders has been provided. In case the numbers of people in our containment facilities increase, the branch is developing contingency plans. I should say at this point that our real goal is to try to decrease the number of people in our institutions.

[ Page 727 ]

In the motor vehicle branch, additional funding to improve efficiency and to increase the collection of overdue fines is very much a priority. I'll talk a bit later about some of the traffic safety initiatives. Members know that we have had a serious problem with fine collection in this province. We are treating it as a serious issue and trying to find ways to deal with that.

In the House a couple of weeks ago, I indicated that we are doing a full review of legal aid. We retained a fellow named Tim Agg to consult with all of the people impacted in British Columbia by legal aid. That review is continuing, and I hope to be able to report to the House later this session about some of the issues there. Legal aid costs have increased, as I mentioned in the House the other day, from $32.3 million in 1990-91, to $50.7 million last year, to $71.5 million in the estimates this year. That's a 121 percent increase over three years.

I need to say that costs are not the only issue. We also have a problem with access -- in particular, access to family legal aid. As a result, we have to look at service delivery models, and we are doing that. Perhaps one of the results of that will be a different mix to ensure quality and availability in a cost-effective way.

We're evaluating the family maintenance enforcement program. Every MLA will know that there's a lot of disquiet about that particular program. We all get immense amounts of correspondence. We are doing a review of that program to see whether appropriate changes can be made. We welcomed the review in December 1991 by the Society for Children's Rights to Adequate Parental Support. We've provided an additional $1.46 million and five full-time-equivalent staff -- that's an increase of 27 percent -- as part of that whole program.

Funding for programs to assist victims of crime is another priority. The ministry has directly or jointly funded over 100 local victim assistance programs around the province. The total budget for counselling and support services for victims, including wife assault, sexual assault and child sexual abuse, increased by $2.6 million, or 86 percent. I want to emphasize that the number one priority is to drastically reduce and ultimately eliminate these crimes. Until we have succeeded, we must continue to provide adequate counselling and assistance for victims.

The criminal injury compensation program has received an increase in this budget of $4.4 million. It's an issue members may want to pursue later. It's a statutory program that is driven by demand and is not subject to cost controls as a result. Increased funding is also provided for training in the justice system. Community-based staff involved here are in victim services, to assist in the development of general standards for court testimony and for victim assistance coordinators in the area of domestic violence.

Members are also aware, I'm sure, of the government's high priority for achieving greater justice for aboriginal people. While we look at that, we need to recognize that B.C.'s native people are 6 percent of the population but 16 percent of the population in our correctional facilities. We're adding more than $1.2 million to fund diversion and alternative measures, and programs developed and operated by aboriginal communities.

Very much a part of the justice system for natives is a greater involvement on their part, and we have a number of projects underway to try to coordinate our activities and develop alternative measures. The native courtworker program will be strengthened by an increased grant -- an increase of about $260,000 to that program, which is the equivalent of about 12.7 percent -- to the Native Courtworker and Counselling Association.

I mentioned traffic safety earlier. A number of initiatives will be announced in the weeks ahead. We have carnage on our highways in this province, and we need to do a number of things to try to reduce the large number of traffic accidents. Most important are the personal tragedies represented by this carnage on our highways: 600 fatalities and 50,000 injuries per year. If a couple of Boeing 747s went down every year, there would be a fair amount of discussion and newspaper attention. But that's how many people we end up killing on our highways every year, and we don't seem to pay nearly as much attention to it. We have to, and we are going to. It is also a serious cost factor for the taxpayer. We are probably looking at in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion in the health care and the justice system alone to deal with car accidents. The program we are going to announce will be comprehensive and an integrated campaign. The budget contains, as you will have noticed, a couple of million additional dollars to fund these new initiatives.

Those are the main areas of new or increased funding.

One of my ministry's most important activities does not show in the ministry's estimates. I want to spend just a minute on freedom of information. We appointed Murray Rankin, a lawyer in private practice in Victoria. He previously taught at the University of Victoria's law school. He is judged by most people across the country to be the leading expert in the country on freedom of information and privacy legislation. Murray has been working for us gratis, which is very kind of him. He is helping considerably to develop freedom of information legislation. This information will come to the House later this session.

People in our society are powerless if they don't have information. In our view, they need to be given that power. They need to be given the right of access to that information easily and without bureaucratic impediment wherever it is appropriate that that information be provided. We have no special rights as government to have the public's information. The public pays for it. We are servants of the public, and we should not have any special rights beyond the privacy issues that we will talk about when we do get to the legislation.

We are undertaking a pretty exhaustive consultation process as part of the development of the legislation, in order to ensure that everybody who has an interest in it or is affected by it will be part of the development of the legislation when it is introduced. Our intention is that we will leave it sit on the order paper for a while so that all members and the public can have an opportunity to make suggestions. If we get suggestions on areas we've 

[ Page 728 ]

missed or mistakes we've made, we'd be very delighted to make the improvements at that time.

In conclusion, hon. Chair, the overall priority for our ministry in the months ahead is to ensure that the justice system in B.C. is accessible, accountable and equitable. I believe it is a sound system. It is a good system in British Columbia, but I think members would agree that it's not perfect. Nothing ever is. We can make improvements, and we are definitely moving in that direction.

My concerns include special concerns about how well our system is meeting the needs of women, native people, recent immigrants, children, people who are deaf and blind, and other people who have been marginalized in our society. I want to do everything possible to make improvements in trying to deal with access to justice for those people. I'm certain that all members of this House and of this committee will want to work towards that objective. I'm looking forward to hearing members' ideas, suggestions, proposals and criticisms. In that spirit I will give members as much information as I humanly can about all the issues included in our area of responsibility.

A. Warnke: At the outset, I want to first of all mention that a couple of my colleagues had a prior meeting. It had absolutely nothing to do with the statement by the minister. They wanted me to be sure to tell you that, Mr. Minister. They will come back as soon as possible. They certainly want to participate in this.

I share with the minister this being a very interesting and important occasion. I think it is progress to expedite matters before the House. Despite the fact that on occasion I have been leaned on that it is really just facilitating the government's agenda by splitting the committee and rushing the agenda through, and so forth, I actually don't share that cynicism. I think it is a progressive step forward to establish the concept of two sets of estimates committees. I certainly feel quite honoured to be a part of an innovation. Let us hope us that we can come up with more innovations to perhaps expedite procedures of the House in the future -- either that, or I suspect it will be forced upon us anyway.

[10:45]

What I also reflect on is that a month ago members of the legislature had a series of inquiries with regard to government revenues and expenditures over the past fiscal year, which we've debated. In that particular debate I made the point -- and I think it is worth reiterating now -- that the concept of justice is absolutely critical in a democratic society. Wherever possible, it is quite necessary for the government and the opposition to work not as an appendage of one another but together, in the best interests of the province. Some statements made by the minister this morning express sentiments I share. To a certain extent, we've been somewhat successful. I hope we have been successful in coming together on common ground to pursue the administration of justice in the best interests of the people of this province.

From time to time, it is obscured by partisan debate. I have always felt that partisan debate belongs in the Legislature. This is the smallest Legislature I've ever seen. But I have a different view as well. When we review the government's estimates, I share the minister's view that, as much as possible, we should examine the priorities, the rationale and the essential background for pursuing certain policies, inserting certain estimates, and so forth.

It's in this context that I will be looking at the budget estimates today. With a new government, a brand-new opposition and so many legislators new to the political process, it's not inappropriate to review the ministry, to develop a good understanding and comprehension of its structure and organization -- especially since the government has merged the former Attorney General and Solicitor General ministries. It is appropriate in this forum to examine and describe that a little, not only for the purposes of fleshing this out for the legislators, but for the people of the province.

It has been said many times that people are not interested, that they're apathetic about the affairs of government, and so forth. I don't share that view. As a matter of fact, I've come to the firm conclusion that the election in October did usher in a new chapter in British Columbia's political history. I'm optimistic that British Columbians are taking a greater interest in politics, in government and in all economic, social and legal issues than they have in the past -- especially in the recent past. I'm optimistic that we are embarking on something new. I'm also optimistic that when we describe the structure and organization of our various ministries, and the nature of our system, and establish the purpose of government, people will pay attention. Many people are keenly interested in this.

It's in this context that I will put forward many different questions, but not with the intention of trapping the government. If I'm going to pose an awkward question, I'll make it vividly clear to the minister. The purpose will be to explore, describe and flesh out for the public the nature and purpose of government. We might have a very interesting exchange, not only of partisan debate but also of ideas as to where we are, whence we've come and where we are going. In a sense, the estimates are a great opportunity to do just that.

I will be asking questions about the minister's assessment of the government's priorities. I'll even try to give the minister an opportunity to outline the successes of the government; I don't mind. As well, perhaps the minister can give us an indication of what changes and adaptations are occurring, and what is likely to occur in the future. British Columbians have an opportunity to have the nature of this ministry explained to them. Perhaps it will give them insight into government itself.

Aside from that, there will be many aspects of this new ministry -- particularly its programs, policy preferences and so forth -- that I want to explore as well. Perhaps the rigorous cross-examination.... Well, maybe I'll slip into that mode from time to time. Again, I want to suggest that what we have before is a new government, new members of the Legislature, and so forth, and that perhaps this will be an opportunity for the government to provide a rationale and an explanation for its policies and programs.

[ Page 729 ]

Third, what I'll be pursuing today are particular issues. I hope they will be of interest to members of the public as well as to members of the Legislature. The minister has actually introduced a number of interesting ideas and programs this morning which I think I would like to see him embellish on or certainly elaborate on. As well, a number of issues and questions may be very simplified; nonetheless, they are the questions and issues that the public are extremely interested in.

Perhaps I'll conclude my remarks, because I know there is a member of the third party who would also like to make some opening comments. But at the outset, in response to my remarks, I would like the Attorney General to provide us a general background -- I don't think it's inappropriate -- as to why this government actually favoured the reorganization of the Ministries of Attorney General and Solicitor General, and their amalgamation. Indeed, I can't resist, having been a political scientist in my former life.... I guess it's going to be former -- for a while, anyway. Let us hope that it is longer -- quite a while. I am interested. I can't resist having the minister describe bringing forth a new office -- the Attorney General's office -- and the relationship of that office to the many different delimited components of the Attorney General ministry, which has also taken in the Solicitor General ministry.

As well, there's a bit of an initial rationale that I would like the minister to describe; it's based on the philosophy that small is beautiful. I have an appreciation that not everything can be small and that not everything that is small is necessarily beautiful -- especially when you're a big guy like me. I sometimes take exception to that philosophy. But there is that mode of thinking in our society that what we have to do is break everything down to its smaller components. I suppose there's even an argument that the present government and other governments, by concentrating so much on the ministries, have created these large bureaucracies and so forth; that view is out there.

I think that it's quite appropriate for the Attorney General initially to provide some insight into the necessity of reorganizing these two ministries. I don't share the view that reorganizing them, making them bigger, is necessarily bad. As a matter of fact, I hope it's good. But I would like to see the Attorney General really assure us that in the reorganizing of these ministries, he can actually maintain his ability to keep in touch with all of the components of the new ministry. As well, maybe he will reflect on what he has found as some of the problems -- I can appreciate that -- as well as some of the challenges, and demonstrate to us the ability to manage and monitor the various activities of this new ministry.

I would have to say as well, to reassure the minister at the outset, that I have every confidence in him and in the organization, reorganization and restructuring of the ministry. As a matter of fact, I am very enthusiastic about the future of this new ministry. So at the outset, naturally, I'm very enthusiastic to hear what the Attorney General will have to say.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, my opening remarks will be briefer, I think. But I don't want to miss the opportunity, at the opening of the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General in the Douglas Fir Room, to emphasize what a wondrous and historic occasion it is. It's so totally appropriate that it's the Ministry of Attorney General estimates that we open first in this room. The reason for that, of course, is fundamental. Certainly throughout the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations, of which we are one, respect for the rule of law and order is the very essence of the foundation of our total system. That's why I think it's particularly appropriate that the minister's estimates are in fact the first ones in this facility.

I am an advocate of this Douglas Fir Room estimates opportunity. It is perhaps symbolic that the room was constructed by the previous administration and equally symbolic that the first opportunity for the use of this expanded facility is by the new government. It's important to recognize those two things.

I listened to the remarks of the Attorney General with pride and considerable satisfaction. I note that after a long period of years he has not lost his sense of idealism about the role of the Legislature and the Westminster parliamentary system. That's really important.

Since we've partially moved estimates here, perhaps we'll have the opportunity to leave some of the baggage, the bitterness, the viciousness that accompanied debate in the other forum. Hopefully that will remain there and dissipate over a period of time. When we come into this room, it's an entirely different room. Perhaps it lacks the grandeur and part of the traditional elements. Nevertheless, we can look outside. Perhaps there's an inducement for those who participate in debate here to keep their feet on the ground. You can see the real world outside; you're not surrounded simply by walls. That's very important. Heads can be in the clouds, but it's incredibly important to keep our feet on the ground. Hopefully that opportunity will prevail here.

[11:00]

The minister also gave us an opportunity to share his vision of what we'll see happening in this facility in the future when he indicated that we would have the opportunity to question the deputy minister directly. I am one who yearns for that opportunity. As legislators we have a fundamental collective responsibility to all of the people of the province; but so do the staff in the civil service. One of the problems we have run into is that accountability and a sense of proprietorship have not been extended into the civil service. Through this medium, accountability for civil service decisions and the rationale for those decisions should have the opportunity to come out in estimates debate. It's not partisan, and it's not a matter of being politically correct. The important part is to strive to provide the best possible form of government for the people of this province. Everyone should welcome that opportunity.

As a former member of the caucus budget review committee, we did have the opportunity to talk to senior staff members and explore the rationale in depth. Rather than getting a political type of answer, we got 

[ Page 730 ]

the rationale. You couldn't help but be impressed and express a great deal of confidence in the quality, intellectual ability, knowledge, experience and wisdom of those individuals, who also serve the public with as great a commitment as the legislators.

Another opportunity on this historic occasion is that the estimates of the House will go through much more quickly, and that's really important. Our major role is to act as legislators. Estimates formerly occupied too much of the time of the House, and legislation suffered. A lot of legislation was run through without the type of scrutiny that it really required, either by government members or opposition members, simply because of the immense flow of material that had to be looked through and debated in a short time.

Each and every one of us is immensely proud of today. It's a very special and positive day in the history of the province. It was met by the House leaders getting together and making the necessary arrangements. It shows a new spirit of cooperation. I can't think of a more opportune manner to set forward our responsibilities than to be here today and take part in this opening of the estimates in the Douglas Fir room.

With that I'll take my seat and defer to the opposition critic or the minister.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to thank both members for their comments. I'm sure their sentiments are shared by all members of the House.

I thought I would just take a minute to deal with one question from the member for Richmond-Steveston that relates to the rationale behind the merger of the Solicitor General and Attorney General ministries. It came from a number of perspectives. First of all, there was an intention on the part of the Premier to reduce the number of cabinet members. That necessitated a comprehensive review of all ministries to see where appropriate contractions could be made. An obvious one was the justice ministry, as it were. Members know that historically in British Columbia the Attorney General and Solicitor General functions have been in one ministry. It was only in 1988, three years ago, that a decision was taken, for whatever reason, to separate the functions of the ministry into Solicitor General and Attorney General. I think it makes sense from a policy perspective and from an administrative perspective to have all components of the justice system linked in one ministry, so that you can have an integration of all of the various components.

Just quickly, not to take a lot of time of the committee, I thought it would be useful to delineate where all the current components of the ministry were previously, just so it's on the record. We have the elections branch now, which used to be in Provincial Secretary. We have film classification and public gaming, both of which were in the Solicitor General ministry. Legal services has always been in the Attorney General ministry, as has criminal justice, obviously. Similarly, justice support programs have always been with AG. The corrections branch was with Solicitor General for the last three years and is now back in AG. The same goes for the police services branch and the motor vehicle branch. An argument could be made that the motor vehicle branch is not so much a part of the justice system, but it was part of the Solicitor General ministry and is now part of this merger. Liquor issues were in Labour and Consumer Services and have been brought under our mandate with the merger.

I won't go through all the boards and commissions, but most of those are now the responsibility of the Attorney General were in Solicitor General, with the exception of the Law Reform Commission and the Expropriation Compensation Board, which were both in Attorney General, and the Liquor Appeal Board, which was previously in Labour. Most of the other boards were in Solicitor General and are now in the merged ministry.

Criminal injury compensation was in Solicitor General, as was the Flood Relief Act. Crown Proceeding was in Attorney General, and the Election Act, as I mentioned earlier, was in Provincial Secretary. They are now all included here. The judiciary is obviously part of the Attorney General. Emergency assistance -- PEP -- was in Solicitor General and is now with us. In terms of special accounts, the public trustee's office has always been AG, and the Corrections work program, which is a special account, was in Solicitor General. All those are merged.

With the odd anomaly that exists, I think the overall principle is that all issues relating to the justice system in our province should be linked in one ministry. You can always make arguments in any ministry in government that some components might better be delivered in another ministry, and we have seen a lot of changes to that effect over the last few years. People have spent more time getting new business cards printed in a variety of ministries than anything else. I hope that what we've done will produce some stability for a period of time. It may be that in a longer-term view there might need to be some adjustments to the model that was determined last November. I can think of some that might make more sense. Essentially, the important issue here is that the justice functions be linked and integrated and be the responsibility of one minister.

A. Warnke: I thank the Attorney-General for providing that brief outline. I share the view of the minister that it does provide some stability over administrations over a period of time. I'm one to think that the government moved in the right direction in bringing together a number of facets under the Attorney General, especially bringing both the Solicitor General and Attorney General into one ministry. It was definitely on the right track.

There's another aspect, which is philosophical in one way, that I would like to explore with the minister. A couple of years ago there was the attempt.... I believe parts of the Access to Justice report were actually embraced by the government. It has shown up in a number of acts, such as the Small Claims Act. Nonetheless, it is appropriate at the outset to examine and make some sort of an assessment as to where we are going with regard to changes in the legal and justice system and to look at areas of progress that we've made.

I agree with one point that the Attorney General mentioned. We do have a problem with the increase in 

[ Page 731 ]

crime. Certainly there is a perception that the increase in crime is tremendous. Looking statistically, perhaps one is less convinced of that, but nonetheless the increase exists in terms of the volume of criminal cases, the complexity of these criminal cases, increased court costs, the number of delays that we see in the administration of justice through the courts, and so forth. There is thinking that to a certain extent this provides a limited access to the justice system itself. There are aspects of the justice system, I think, worth exploring, to see where we are at. As a guidepost, I would appreciate it very much if the Attorney General could reflect on where we've come with regard to the Access to Justice report, and what seems to be the current state, in his assessment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is referring to the Ted Hughes report of 1988. The recommendations of that report are largely implemented. I understand that approximately three-quarters of the recommendations are now implemented and others are being pursued. I would be delighted to give more precise answers to that later if the member wants to have the specific issue-by-issue accounting. The merger of the courts has been accomplished, and there have been a number of other issues. As I say, I can do a more detailed response on that later if the member would like.

A. Warnke: It is that general overlay that I actually wanted from the minister. I appreciate his answer, because it does show us how far we've come with it and that we're headed in a direction of some comprehensive change with regard to our legal system. To hear the answer from the minister is actually quite important, and it provides a very important signal that we're continuing on a course of comprehensive change.

As well, in the Access to Justice report, there are two issues that I would like to explore further with the minister: improving access to justice and services to the public; improving access to the courts and registries for the public and, indeed, the legal community; and improving the access to government legislation and regulations. The minister referred to freedom of information. I think that is definitely a positive step in a new direction, and perhaps we will explore it later this afternoon.

I'm familiar to a certain extent with the progress towards establishing plain language in the small claims court, but I wonder whether the minister could provide us with information on where we are going in terms of plain language, as well as on improving the information technology.

[11:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Plain language improvements were very much a part of the Hughes report and were, I think, essential to the public's ability to make real connections with the justice system and to be properly served by it. We are committed to attempting to put legislation into plain language. I might add, at the same time, that we also try to make sure that language is gender neutral throughout our legislative statutes. The commitment to plain language exists in the statutes and in terms of the forms that people have to deal with and all of the procedural issues that people encounter when they deal with the broader justice system. It's very much a commitment, and I'd like to be able to say that we're accelerating it. But to give credit where it's due, it is an initiative that has been underway since the Hughes report.

A. Warnke: I also want to explore one point the minister made in his opening remarks. I think it's important to elaborate on that as well: developing a justice system that is appropriate for native people. It is well known -- and I concur with the minister -- that there is a tremendous overrepresentation of native people incarcerated in our prisons, and this has to be corrected. The minister mentioned a number of programs that are being established, so hopefully this disparity between the 6 percent of natives in British Columbia's population and the 16 percent of natives in the prison population will decrease. Hopefully we will see the day where no natives in prison -- indeed, none of the population at large -- will be the situation here in British Columbia.

At the same time, there are two avenues I want to explore with the minister. One is an outline of the various programs and policies, but specifically the programs tailored towards helping and perhaps encouraging natives to seek other.... If there's a problem of theft or property violations, perhaps there are programs that could alleviate this problem.

I am interested, therefore, in seeing what sort of programs the ministry has targeted for natives. I think it's very fair to say that efforts made in this direction will receive the support of the opposition. I would also like the minister to comment on whether the ministry is moving in the direction of establishing justice systems within the native community itself. Maybe this is too speculative and hypothetical, in which case it would be out of order. I appreciate that, but could the minister respond?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is a very important issue for me personally, and I just want to take a minute to share my own views on the issue and then to talk for a minute about some of the programs the ministry is embarked upon.

I represent a constituency -- the northern half of Vancouver Island -- which includes native people from four separate tribal groupings. As a result, I have a lot to do with them -- and have had for 13 or 14 years now -- and with a variety of views, ideas and values expressed by native people in respect of justice issues and, obviously, very much more.

One of the things that has become clear to me in my dealings in my own constituency on the issue of native access is that the traditional ways of dealing with issues in their community has no real connection with our way of dealing with the issues. The traditional role of the elders has no comparable expression in our justice system. We often compound the problem by extracting wrongdoers from their community and then dealing with them in a very alien way. We end up alienating 

[ Page 732 ]

those people even more from the system and from their own community in a way that has very negative consequences. I think it often leads to results that are demonstrated by the fact that native people are overrepresented in our prison populations.

I'll give you one particular example without naming the community in the constituency. A couple of kids were involved in breaking and entering in a remote community; you travel by four-wheel drive and then by boat to get there. The judge wanted to give the kind of sentence that he would have given in a normal case, which would have been a month or two on probation, and not a lot more. It was a very minor impact. The judge had no resources, given the current situation. Probation officers go to this community twice a year for half a day, so that doesn't really serve the particular purposes of that community.

The judge in this case was unable to have the kids supervised in any effective way in their own community, because there is no component of any justice system in that particular community. He ended up -- he talked to me about it -- giving the kids two weeks in Lakeview, which I don't think was very useful at all. But he wanted the kids to know they had done something wrong and wanted them to have some connection with that thought, and he ended up making that judgment. I'm not making any comment about the rightness or wrongness of the judgment -- that's not my role -- but it illustrates the problem. If the elders in that particular native community had been involved in the justice system in some meaningful way and had been a resource for the court, we may have had a more effective resolution to what was, in the scheme of things, a minor violation. That's only one example. It's those kinds of issues that we need to find ways of dealing with.

The ministry has been doing this. At the present time, we have a project going on on the south Island, which members may be aware of. The ministry will come at these issues, recognizing the traditional values of native people and recognizing that we need to deal differently with native communities as a result.

I will digress for a moment and say that if we don't do this -- if society and government, and this ministry in particular, don't do these kinds of things -- the demand eventually may well be for a separate and parallel justice system in native communities. I don't think that kind of result would be useful for any us, native people included. Even if we weren't doing this for the right reasons, I think that just from a long-term perspective it's essential that we actually work closely with native communities to ensure that we find ways of merging our various values.

In 1991-92 the ministry put about $900,000 into 12 aboriginal justice projects. That figure this year is.... There are new projects involved this year. The money sort of revolves.... For new projects you don't need new money; in a sense it's start-up money, and the money is approximately the same. If the cash position of the province was better, it's an area in which I think we could do more; I don't mind admitting that. But certainly these aboriginal justice projects are underway in a variety of ways.

The two branches that are particularly involved in native issues are Corrections and police services, and I think there's some really good work going on in those two branches in particular.

It's always hard to identify how every dollar gets spent, but we spend approximately $6 million a year now -- and in this budget -- for programs designed specifically to try to reduce the number of native people in our jails. Part of it is for legal aid, and part of it's for courtworker services, education and assisting in policing on reserves. The corrections branch is actively involved in the development and supervision of a number of native programs. They use funding that's identified for native justice consultation -- which is $428,000 -- and, from other internal service resources in the ministry, another $300,000.

Programs range from community service and reparation to native drop-in centres and residential attendance beds. In the corrections branch, the cost of housing and supervising natives is approximately $30 million a year. It is an astonishing amount of money, and we can all think of ways to spend that better, if we can get to that point.

The corrections branch has 46 contracts with aboriginal communities and organizations, valued at over $800,000, to provide community-based services. In police services, 89 police detachments in B.C. provide services to aboriginals living on 1,100 separate reserves. The costs of that are not quantified, but we do share in the cost of the native constable program. Our share is $1.4 million, and we pay another $221,000 to the city of Kamloops as compensation for on-reserve policing that the police are involved with there.

We've developed a policy framework for aboriginal policing for British Columbia. That work is ongoing. The police services branch, in its funding of RCMP services in the province, has shifted money to have it made available for direct policing on reserves in some communities. Special constables in the RCMP have been integrated into the regular component of the force, where that's been possible to accomplish. In response to the issue of continuing native police-keeping forces and who does the policing on reserves, the police services branch is coordinating a federal-provincial native committee on native policing. We have this joint committee and we're working on doing that in a cooperative way with the federal government, the police and particularly the native communities.

Those are just a few of the initiatives. We could go into more detail, but I think it gives you a flavour of the ministry's activities at this point.

A. Warnke: I want to thank the minister for an excellent response. I'm particularly struck by the Attorney General's sensitivity to the local native communities. That's extremely important. While I don't know the specific example he cites, I certainly can believe it, because I'm somewhat familiar with his constituency and the various native peoples.

In framing my original question, I had it in mind that, yes.... In what sort of direction should we move, whereby the elders...? It varies. The different native communities are amazing in this province, and we have 

[ Page 733 ]

to be sensitive to the different nuances in social structure and so forth. I am very encouraged that the minister is tremendously sensitive to the various native communities, what they would like to see and what kind of input they could have in the administration of justice. If anything, I'd like to encourage the minister. The ministry is indeed headed in the right direction.

[11:30]

There are a couple of other questions along this line dealing with the justice system for natives. In particular, the minister has been in office now for several months and has acquired a grip on his ministry. What sort of frustrations has he had in terms of the cost? He alluded to our cash position in the province. We are quite strapped. Perhaps in devising a strategy whereby one develops different types of programs, and articulating policies, he has run across some frustrations. I'd be interested to know if the minister wants to send a message about where we need help. Perhaps the opposition and the people of British Columbia could actually help in this regard.

I'm also interested, incidentally, in seeing if the minister could comment on what kind of financial help is coming from the federal government with regard to the funding of native programs.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give a specific response off the top of my head on the federal contributions to the various programs. Obviously there are shared costs. I think immediately of RCMP costs, where a portion that applies to the policing of native communities is picked up by the federal government.

A number of other programs also have some cost-shared components. I will endeavour to give you a breakdown. I'm not sure we'll be able to do it by actual dollars, but if we can I'll give you that as well. I will certainly try to give you a flavour of that later this afternoon if you like.

A. Warnke: Would you care to comment on what frustrations you have come across? I'm trying to help you out.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think every person in every job is frustrated on occasion. By talking to you about whatever frustrations may occur from time to time, I wouldn't want to give an indication to members of the committee that that dominates my thinking. The reality is that this ministry in particular -- and being part of government, too -- is an exhilarating, exciting and challenging opportunity. I don't think of it very often in terms of frustrations. My biggest frustration is that my golf game isn't getting any better, because of the time required to deal with all of the issues.

More directly, I would say my biggest frustration has been trying to get a handle, in five months, on all of the different components of the ministry, all of the different issues and the complexity of the particular issues. I haven't had enough hours every day to learn enough to do the job in a way that satisfies me enough. That has really been the biggest frustration.

In terms of dealing with the federal government, I've had cooperation with the federal Minister of Justice. I have no frustration in that respect. In dealing with my colleagues, in dealing with the ministry and with other ministry officials, we have had nothing but cooperation. I would say that the frustrations are few. I think every minister in government will tell you that the financial limitations, in terms of program delivery, are a frustration, but on the other hand we think that within our budget there are things we can do to actually reduce costs. Money that is now being expended can in fact be reduced if we redesign and deal differently with various issues. That's a major push right now so that we don't keep going to the Minister of Finance asking for more money, but rather prove to the Minister of Finance and to the public that we can save money within our programs; so we're trying to do that. But the general answer is that the frustrations are so few that I don't think about them.

A. Warnke: Actually, what I hear is the problem of a poor question. I certainly share the minister's problem with regard to the golf game -- I too have suffered tremendously in that regard. But I was thinking specifically what sort of help would be most useful to address some of the native problems with the justice system. So I'll just toss that back to the minister. I believe there are others who may well want to address this question about the justice system for natives as well. That's just a short one, if that's any help.

C. Serwa: What we'll try to do here is create an orderly flow in the debate so we don't bounce back and forth. In order to do that, I'd just like to go back from the aboriginal justice system to a question that reflects on a statement by the minister. When we were looking at the plain language initiative, the minister indicated that gender neutrality would also be part of that particular program. Perhaps the minister would elaborate on the implications of that and what the intentions are. As a layperson, I'm not familiar with that particular requirement.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll deal with the last question first, and then come back to the member for Richmond-Steveston. May I try to begin to answer by saying that we will be introducing legislation to deal with statute revision. Periodically, as members know, the statues in B.C. are revised. The last revision took place in the seventies, and therefore we have the 1979 statutes. We are proposing to do that again, with a target date of -- if my memory's correct -- 1994, to try to get an updated set of statutes. Apart from dealing with anomalies, Charter issues and a whole series of other things that you do when you're doing periodic revisions, our intention is to deal with plain language so that people can understand what they're reading. In respect to gender neutrality, any casual reading of statutes will tell the members that all of the references are to "he." The language is male-dominated, and we think there are ways to rewrite the statutes so there is no bias, male or female. That's what that's really about.

Back on the native programs again for a moment, I may have misunderstood the member for Richmond-Steveston's question with respect to frustrations apply-

[ Page 734 ]

ing specifically to the native side. The programs that we have in place are not programs that we develop and then lay on to native communities. We try to do that in consultation, working with them and not imposing our views, values or ideas. As a result of that, we have not perhaps been spending as much money as it might seem on the surface it needs, but we are spending, and have available, enough money to accomplish the programs as they're developed. I'm delighted to be able to say that we have not suffered a financial constraint in developing native programs. As they're developed, as the communities are on board and ready to proceed to the next phase, the next development or the next project, moneys have been available and, I expect, will continue to be available.

A. Warnke: Mr. Chairman, if there is someone else who wants to speak on the native system, I would defer to that member.

C. Serwa: Again to the minister, six or more generations have passed since the time of first contact of non-native people with native people; certainly on the coast that is appropriate. When we talk about traditional methods of native justice, we have to reflect and recognize that tradition has in fact changed; culture has in fact changed. Nothing remains the same. The sensitivity and awareness have to be that there are differences. Fundamentally, the old traditions and the old cultures that once were and once worked will never be the same again, because nothing else in this environment is ever the same again.

Sometimes I wonder if we don't spend too much time -- and perhaps your ministry is an example of this -- treating the symptoms and trying to make accommodation, without really reflecting on the true cause: a sense of hopelessness; a loss of the foundation of the individuals of the first peoples because of the loss of culture and the loss of spiritualism; the loss of language; the hopelessness, again, because of the fundamental economic issues; the feeling of self-esteem, of paddling your own canoe, providing for yourself and your family.

Fundamentally, while we focus on the systems and make all sorts of accommodations, they are not inexpensive. You've included some of the figures, and I'm certainly impressed by the commitment. But really, the fundamental problem is that we haven't given the native people the opportunity for self-determination economically. Surely we all recognize that if we improved the economic situation, then we would reduce what has happened and what is almost now a cultural trait: alcoholism. Incarceration almost becomes a cultural coming-of-age thing. It's almost like a badge of honour in some parts of Canada, and that's all spawned by the sense of hopelessness. If I had my druthers, I think rather than the emphasis on gerrymandering or tinkering with a fundamentally good justice system, there would be a recognition that most of the problems are solved and the expenditures would be focussed. Since you have alluded to the fact that you're the member for North Island and at the same time the Attorney General, certainly you must realize the validity of those statements.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't want to get into a quarrel with the member about some of the characterizations he has used. I feel uncomfortable about some of them, but I'll leave it at that. Let me say that different native tribal groups and bands have different approaches and different expectations, and are in a different place in history, in a sense. For us, in developing policies or in designing programs or working with native communities, to assume that there is homogeneity among native peoples would be the first mistake, because there is not. Many bands have as their focus dealing with economic development projects -- and the member is well aware of that in his own constituency; others have other agenda items, and others are at different places in development.

I don't think the non-native community generally has a full understanding of the damage and devastation we reaped on native communities decades ago: the banning of the potlatch, the punishment meted out to kids for speaking their own languages, the shame of the residential schools. We have done some intolerable damage to our native communities as a result of a whole series of absolutely wrong programs and decisions of government. In my own constituency in the last decade, the single most important event or thing that has happened that has led to the repairing of native communities has been the working toward and the establishment of native pride. For me, pride is the single most important issue for dealing with native communities. Our system, through the residential schools, the banning of the potlatch, the effective banning of the language, and a whole series of other events, destroyed native pride in this province.

[11:45]

In the last decade or so, and again in varying times for varying bands, we have seen a rebirth of that pride. The potlatch is again an important element in native cultures and communities. The language is coming back and being preserved -- it is in threat of distinction in many places. It is problematic whether it will come back in many communities. Those initiatives are being undertaken, and they all have to do with a sense of pride, a sense of self-worth and a sense of value; that is the first and most important issue. Once native communities have that kind of development going on in their own communities, they can start to think about other issues -- and they are.

I think we have seen dramatic progress in the last decade in particular. In the long term, clearly, economic self-sufficiency is an essential element for native communities. But there are some other things, as I say, that have to precede that, and we're making good progress. Simply dealing with economic self-sufficiency isn't going to solve all the problems. We still have to respect and value the traditional ways of doing things -- and that doesn't mean that the traditional ways don't change on occasion; they do. Nothing is static; history isn't stagnant. We can't pick a date in pre-history and say that for native people, everything is going to emulate that particular time. There's always an evolu-

[ Page 735 ]

tion, and there will continue to be. There will be an evolution in the way native communities want to be dealt with by the justice system.

Underpinning all of that, I think, is a requirement that we recognize that whatever those values are, whatever the approaches are that they want to take, we need to respect them. We need to find ways of making sure that those values, those traditions and those ways of dealing internally with justice issues can be integrated into the greater system. I think that's really important for us to remember.

I'm looking at the clock and at the note I have, which -- I think; I haven't got my glasses on -- tells me I should move that the committee rise and report progress. Before I do that, I should say that procedurally what happens is that at ten minutes to the regular adjournment hour every day, we have to move that the committee rise, so that the Chair can go back to report to the House that we've had some progress in here this morning. With the thought that we'll see each other again around 2:30 p.m., I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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