Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1992

[ Page 737 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, it is my honour to introduce a visitor seated in the members' gallery this afternoon: the Malaysian consul general in Vancouver, Mr. Zinal Zain. Would the members of the House please join me in welcoming our visitor.

R. Neufeld: I have two people that I would like to introduce. One is my right-hand person in Fort St. John, who works in my constituency office, Dorene Callison; the other is the mayor of Fort St. John, Mr. Steve Thorlakson. Would the House make them truly welcome.

C. Evans: I'd like to introduce a few fine people who came to visit us today. They are members of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union -- the kind of people who pay the money to keep us here. Please join me in welcoming Jack Nichol, Nick Carr, Burma Lockett, Jim Sinclair, Bjorn Storness-Bliss, Brian Averill, Linda van Dorn, Sue Averill, Janet Duplisse, Jeanie Park, Raphaella McLean, Bob Grant, David Lane, Mary Douglas, Verna Heaney, Dan Kruk, Lorne Iverson, Dale Mundy, Mary Teranishi, Joyce Yamamoto, Lila Craig, Jackie Campbell and Lorry Foster.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the Legislature the grade 5 to 6 students from Monterey Elementary School who are in the Speaker's gallery along with their teacher Mr. Toleikis. They have just spent the last half hour talking to me about what it's like to be an MLA, and they asked some very good questions.

Oral Questions

SENDING PATIENTS OUT OF PROVINCE

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, last week the government announced with some ceremony that they were going to start to fly patients out of British Columbia to Washington and to Alberta -- those people who required essential care. My question to the minister is: of the approximately 120 people that we understand are on a waiting-list, how many people has this province actually sent out of the province for medical care since last Thursday?

Hon. E. Cull: I'd just like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the patients who are being sent out of province are being sent on the advice of a physicians' panel. To date they have determined that two patients needed to be sent to Alberta for treatment: one for cancer surgery and one for cardiac surgery.

G. Wilson: My understanding then is that of the total 120 discussed last week, only two have gone out of the province.

I refer in my supplementary to the report by the BCMA president, Dr. Gur Singh, who says that the government's move to send more than 100 cardiac and cancer patients south for treatment is unnecessary, and he suggests further in this letter that the only crisis that we have -- and indeed he recognizes there is a crisis -- is the inability of this government to make action possible to resolve the health care crisis in the province in the HEU dispute. Could the minister then tell us what action she is prepared to take today to initiate some kind of settlement in what has become a real crisis in health care provision in B.C.?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, the number of 100 patients came from the BCMA; it did not come from the Ministry of Health. As I said in response to questions along this line last week, we anticipate that very few people will actually have to go out of province for needed medical care. Essential services are the way that we respond to emergency medical care. I have been advised on a daily basis by the major hospitals as to their status with respect to essential services. As of today, the reports I have are that all essential services are being met, and in fact a number of the hospitals are back at the IRC, expanding the number of beds that they are allowed to have open. And they have been successful in having this approved.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary to the Minister of Health. Insofar as the Minister of Labour is absent, could the Minister of Health then tell us what this government intends to do to try and bring a resolution to this question? When it was put to the minister that binding arbitration might be a solution, it was suggested that the government didn't wish to do that because the settlement may be more than the government was prepared to pay HEU workers. Would the minister now tell the House what plan of action she has to bring about resolution to this crisis in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware, this is a dispute between the hospital labour relations association and one of the unions whose workers they employ. I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that fact. He asks what steps are being taken. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am disappointed that the gap between the two parties is so large in this set of negotiations. Because of that and because the negotiations are broken down, I have requested the Minister of Labour meet tomorrow with the parties.

FAIR WAGE POLICY

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the Minister confirm that the fair wage or fixed wage policy does not apply to the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels, snow sheds, drainage, that sort of construction project?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Fair Wage Act does not apply to highway construction.

[ Page 738 ]

L. Hanson: Supplementary to the Premier. Has there been a change in the application of the fair wage policy since it was originally introduced to us? Has there been a change in the application of the policy?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not sure of the specific way that the hon. member thinks that there has been a change. He just heard from the Minister of Transportation and Highways that it does not apply to highway construction, maintenance. So I don't really understand what change he's aware of. I'm not aware of any.

L. Hanson: For clarification, I have in front of me a request for a tender on a project that is described as the excavation of a 420-foot tunnel, approximately 22 feet wide by 30 feet high, at the Revelstoke Dam. A second tender is invited for the excavation of approximately 8,000 yards of overburden, 6,000 yards of rock drainage and road paving and rehabilitation slope protection. The question is asked of B.C. Hydro: does the fair wage policy and skills policy apply?

Hydro's answer is yes, it does apply. Then there's obviously some change in the direction we were originally led to believe the fair wage policy applied to.

The Speaker: Hon. member, to whom was that question directed?.

L. Hanson: The question -- if there is some confusion -- was directed to the Premier. I asked the Premier if there was some change in the application of the fair or fixed wage policy as to what it applied to. The suggestion was that no, he didn't know of any change. I'm suggesting that our understanding of the application of that policy was that it did not involve tunnels and road construction and that sort of thing; and yet one of the Crown corporations is applying it to that project. Has the government changed their application of the fair wage policy?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member is mixing apples and peaches, and he should know that Crown corporations are included under that fair wage policy. This is a construction project that involves a tunnel and bridge, I would assume, by the Revelstoke dam that collapsed by the spillway and is part of the dam facility.

CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX

F. Gingell: To the Premier. B.C. business leaders were amazed yesterday to hear, on your return from Washington and Oregon, you advise them that their tax rates are competitive with the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Does this mean this government anticipates that those states will bring in a competing corporate capital tax?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm going to need the assistance of a linguist to interpret those three questions in one, but I'll attempt to do that.

I can tell the member that the response I had in Portland was very positive -- from the governors of Washington, Oregon and Idaho -- to working cooperatively on the question of this very hypocritical and vexatious countervail on log exports.

But there are some areas where we're friendly competitors. It's not me saying that we are competitive; the Ministry of Economic Development had a study commissioned that showed that in the area of high tech we were very competitive, if not more so, than Oregon, Washington and California, and that was backed up by the independent work of an accounting firm the opposition would, I'm sure, approve of -- Price Waterhouse.

F. Gingell: I note this study that you refer to is a hypothetical plan. The opposition is more interested in jobs in plants that are still here. Will the Premier please table this report, and will this Premier commit to investigate each actual and threatened relocation of business south of the border so that we can stop dealing with the hypothetical and start dealing with the real world?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not interested in hypothetical businesses or hypothetical questions. I am interested in making sure that we have new businesses coming here. I can assure the member that new businesses are coming here. If the member would like to know more about this particular study and the backup work that was done by Price Waterhouse, I'm sure the minister would be willing to inform him of that.

At the appropriate time, that report will be tabled. We'd we more than delighted to talk to you about it and to look at ways that we could encourage new businesses to come here. I'm sure the member would back the trade initiatives that I've taken so far, and will be continuing.

F. Gingell: I'm interested in your world tour, when you were drumming up business for British Columbia. At that time did you tell potential investors about the corporation capital tax? Did you tell them that we would be hitting the business sector with $400 million in increased taxes? Did you say: "Come to B.C., invest your money and we'll tax your assets"? Or was your invitation for them to come as a tourist on their way to setting up businesses on the U.S. west coast?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Quite frankly, I am pleased to welcome visitors here as investors, tourists or whatever. I'd encourage them to come as both. That was exactly what I did when I visited Asia and when I went to New York.

As a matter of fact, the member should know that the response of the New York bond agencies to our latest $500 million bond issue was very positive. The response came after the budget, and our borrowing rate went down four points. I think that's a very positive response. As a matter of fact, there was a press release issued by one of those bond-rating agencies saying that this is the government that had the courage to do what it said it was going to do.

When I was there last January or February, I said that deficit financing was not acceptable to this govern-

[ Page 739 ]

ment and that we were going to cap the deficit and reduce it to below $2 billion. We did that, and that showed up in the fine rating we got in New York with that $500 million placement.

ABORIGINAL TITLE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. Last Thursday he made a ministerial statement in the House. At that time he made a couple of significant statements. The first was that the government recognizes the existence of aboriginal rights, that may be described as an interest in land sui generis. Yesterday the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs advised the House that in his opinion there was no difference between that statement and the statement that the government would recognize aboriginal title; in his mind both were the same. The second statement that the minister made was that the government recognizes that a blanket extinguishment of aboriginal rights -- the same word again -- throughout the province did not occur at any time.

Those two statements taken together appear to me to be a direct contradiction of the decision of the Chief Justice in the Delgam Uukw case. How can the government on one hand pretend to suggest that aboriginal title was not extinguished, how can it make those statements, while on the other hand pretending to argue in the courts that in fact aboriginal title was extinguished?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, my comments last week in the House in the ministerial statement had to do with the instructions to counsel on the government's behalf in respect of the argument in the appeal, which begins in about three or four weeks or so.

The factum in that appeal is being filed tomorrow, I expect, and in that factum we have -- as I indicated to the House -- revised some of the arguments and some of the positions taken by the previous government. I think it's important for British Columbians to understand it; in fact for all members of this House to understand that there exists much confusion in people's minds around the terms "aboriginal rights" or "aboriginal title." The terms are in many cases by many people used interchangeably. Interestingly there is a very positive response on the public's part to the term "aboriginal rights," and among some people, including members of the third party, a relatively negative response to the term "aboriginal title," when in fact in the case before the appeal court the terms are interchangeable.

Aboriginal title does not in any way convey....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, if the answer's too long, I'll sit down.

The Speaker: Attorney General, if you could wrap up your comments, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Aboriginal title does not in any way convey a sense of title in the fee simple sense that we Europeans understand it.

L. Reid: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House, to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the crisis in delivery of health care services in our province due to the labour dispute between hospital workers and their employers. Advance notice has been given to the Chair under practice recommendation No. 8.

This dispute, which has lasted 14 days, has now reached a critical stage where patient care is being seriously threatened. The B.C. Health Association said today that 423 more surgeries were cancelled at 29 hospitals from April 7 to April 10, bringing the total number of cancellations during the labour dispute to nearly 2,700 surgeries. The silent, suffering, elderly British Columbians requiring immediate care, patients needing critical treatment and surgery are being seriously affected by this dispute.

Today as talks in the labour dispute have broken off, and we face the threat of a full-scale provincewide strike, there is a need for an emergency debate in this House on this crucial matter of urgent public importance.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In helping the Speaker to come to a decision about the appropriateness of this request under standing order 35, I think it's important for the Speaker to know that the Industrial Relations Council has been and is dealing with the issue of essential services, and has made modifications to the previous order. It's important for the Speaker to know as well that the Minister of Labour, as indicated by the Premier a few minutes ago, is meeting with the parties tomorrow and that in fact no emergency exists in British Columbia in this respect.

J. Weisgerber: I would support the opposition's call for a debate. I believe we have waited for two weeks in this House for some positive response from the government. We've been patient, we've waited, and in fact there has been no response other than: "We're going to do something tomorrow." Yesterday the Minister of Labour advised us he was going to find a quick resolution to the problem. We find today he's in Ottawa. There in fact is no real focus by the government on this issue, and I think the intent of the request for an emergency debate is to focus the government's attention on what is becoming an emergency in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Hon. member, is this a submission on this application?

D. Mitchell: Yes it is, hon. Speaker. With respect to the guidance that's been offered to the Chair already on this, particularly from the acting government House Leader, the standing order 35 deals with an emergency situation, where there's an urgent need to debate a matter.

[ Page 740 ]

The submission made by the member for Richmond East deals not with the industrial relations aspect of the current dispute affecting hospital workers in the province but with the need to debate the matter today. Contract talks have broken off. This is an urgent situation, a matter of definite urgent public importance.

We believe that this submission should be ruled in favour of because of the need to debate this in the House today. It's critical today. We're not dealing with a continuing problem or an industrial relations issue. We're dealing with an issue affecting more than 2,700 British Columbians today. It's a definite matter of urgent public importance, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you for the submissions, hon. members. I will return my opinion as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think we may have our procedures in place now for how we deal with the committee. I'd like to announce that the House now go into Committee of Supply: section A in the Douglas Fir Room, section B in this chamber. Votes 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Ministry of Attorney-General are referred to section A. The sitting of section A shall begin in five minutes in the Douglas Fir Room.

[2:30]

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

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

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

D. Mitchell: I'd like to thank the minister for the comments she made before we adjourned at noon today. We were dealing with an important matter. The minister made a commitment that the youth health survey certainly would not be administered or distributed to students in the province of British Columbia without the express consent of their parents. I thank the minister for that commitment, because that's what we were looking for in our discussion this morning. There may be further comments on that particular survey by other members, but certainly I would like to go on to a different topic now.

I have a question with respect to facilities issues, in particular with respect to two school districts -- West Vancouver School District 45 and Howe Sound School District 48. Before I ask a couple of specific questions with respect to those two school districts in particular, I would like to ask the hon. minister about her budget. Her budget contains capital construction provisions for some $582 million in the 1992-1993 fiscal year. I'd like to ask the minister if she could share with us how that $582 million is going to be distributed, roughly speaking, on a provincewide basis, and whether or not that $582 million of school capital construction is going to be covered by the government's proposed fair wage policy, which has been discussed in the House as well.

Hon. A. Hagen: I advised the House earlier about the fact that there is a capital budget. It's separate from the operating budget. Debt services are included in the estimates that we are dealing with. The process by which approvals for various capital projects are chosen is a matter of very close collaborative work between my ministry and the school districts. Although it's not a subject for this particular debate, because it belongs under the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, I will advise that the policy of the government applies to projects that are $1.5 million and more.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for her answer. While I appreciate that this issue relating to the fair wage policy does relate to the Minister of Labour, I think it is a vital issue here, with respect to the capital construction part of her own budget, which is a significant portion of that budget. I believe that the school districts around the province would want to know whether or not they have the ability, on their own, to manage the allocation of those funds for construction projects and upgrading projects of schools in various districts in the most cost-effective manner, so that they can get the greatest value for these taxpayers' dollars, or whether they're going to have this fair wage policy imposed upon them.

I take it, from the minister's response, that any project in excess of $1.5 million will be subject to the so-called fair wage policy of the government....

The Chair: Pardon me. With the greatest respect, hon. member, the matter that you are discussing is under consideration for future legislation, and as such would not be an appropriate matter for discussion in Committee of the Whole.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the government has repeatedly told us in the House that there is no legislation forthcoming on the so-called fair wage policy, so this is not a matter for future consideration under legislation at all. In fact, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I really believe it's important to address this issue, because school districts are very concerned about the allocation of precious capital construction dollars.

While I don't intend to pursue this to any length at all, I simply wanted to establish -- and I have; the minister has confirmed it -- that the fair wage policy is going to apply to the $582 million in her budget for capital construction costs, and that any project in any school district that is in excess of $1.5 million is going to be governed by the fair wage policy, which does not require legislation, according to what the government has told us in the House.

I would therefore like to ask one final question of the minister on this. Given that $582 million is certainly not going to satisfy all the needs of all the school districts in the province, it doesn't make sense to tie the hands of the school districts with this policy. Would it not make better sense to allow the school districts to spend those moneys as they see fit to try to maximize the value of those precious dollars for construction and renovation pro-

[ Page 741 ]

jects, without imposing this fair wage policy on them?

Hon. A. Hagen: Although the member is clearly talking about something that is in the domain of another ministry, let me just advise him that the policy of government has always applied to funds that flow through to school districts, and that my ministry and school districts will work very carefully and diligently to maximize the effective use of those dollars.

D. Mitchell: With respect to School District 45, West Vancouver, there's currently a controversy relating to facilities, and the minister has certainly received representation on this matter -- as have I and the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. It's a difficult issue because it has divided the community and has pitted one neighbourhood against another. I refer to the controversy relating to the proposal to basically eliminate Hillside Middle school in West Vancouver, to dispose of the assets relating to that school, and to use the proceeds to build a new school in the western portion of the municipality of West Vancouver at Caulfeild Plateau. It's a controversial proposal which has, as I indicated, split the community. It's a difficult issue, and I know the school board is having some difficulties with it. Could the minister tell the committee whether her ministry has taken a position on this issue, and whether there are any general guidelines offered to school districts that come up with these kinds of proposals, that are innovative, but certainly cause some concerns in communities when existing facilities are phased out, and there is an attempt effectively to sell them off so that funds can be raised to build a new or more modern school?

Hon. A. Hagen: The issue that the member raises is not in our current capital plan, and I would just note again that the district is working through a discussion on its priorities, and will share that with our ministry.

D. Mitchell: One last question for the minister. Does the Ministry of Education have any policy or guidelines that it would provide to school districts who wish to develop innovative solutions to modernizing schools, because sufficient funds are not provided in the budget to address all school districts' concerns and needs to modernize, build new schools and renovate existing facilities? When a school district comes forward with a proposal such as the one we have in West Vancouver, where there is a proposal to sell off an existing school and to use the proceeds of that sale, or of the possible development of the land involved, to essentially build a new school, does the ministry provide any direction or guidance, or does it have an opinion on this?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to provide the member with a copy of the guidelines on capital projects which the ministry makes available to school districts.

D. Mitchell: I'll move on to another question relating to School District 48, Howe Sound; again it's a facilities issue, relating to the northern portion of this district. It relates to a concern about Whistler, Pemberton and Squamish. We have high schools in Squamish and Pemberton. There is currently a concern as to whether the small but growing community of Whistler warrants a high school of its own. I know the minister has appointed a facilitator in this matter to inquire into the needs and concerns that have been expressed both from trustees and from various communities. Could the minister indicate to the committee today the status of the facilitator's report, whether that facilitator's report will be made public, and the rough timing for that?

Hon. A. Hagen: The district is in the process of examining its future needs and plans with the help of a facilitator, and in due course, I'm sure, the outcome of that work will be made known to the members of the community of Whistler and the Howe Sound School District.

D. Mitchell: The minister has confirmed what I think is already known publicly when she indicates "in due course." Is it possible to be more specific than that? This is an issue of real concern in School District 48, particularly in the northern portion. Does the facilitator have a mandate that goes beyond looking at facilities management? Is the facilitator also taking a look at the composition of the board and the number of trustees from various communities? Does the facilitator's mandate go beyond facilities management per se? Does it deal with other concerns in the Howe Sound School District?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, I note that the facilitator is employed by the board, and the member may wish to discuss with the board the terms of reference the school board has with the facilitator.

D. Mitchell: I'm not searching or fishing for information here; I'm simply seeking an answer. My understanding is that the facilitator was appointed by the minister pursuant to a visit to the school district, which I understand was one of her first visits to a school district after she assumed the position of Minister of Education. I understood that the facilitator was appointed by the minister and given a mandate. While the facilitator may be working with the board, I simply ask if the minister can provide information to this committee today as to the terms of reference for the facilitator and the expected timing for the receipt of the report.

Hon. A. Hagen: As the member noted, I met with the Howe Sound School District, and we discussed some of their concerns. To facilitate the work that they wished to do, I indicated that we would support them in their wish to have a facilitator. That support is 50 percent of the cost of the facilitator. We provided some names; they could choose whoever they wished and set the terms of reference for the work the facilitator would do on their behalf.

[ Page 742 ]

D. Mitchell: At this point I'll move on to another issue. I would like to talk again about an issue relating to School District 45, West Vancouver. But it goes beyond that, and I think it is an issue that has relevance provincewide. It started with a fairly recent story relating to Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver appointing or hiring a development office to raise funds privately for Sentinel Secondary. I wonder if the minister could share with this committee whether or not the Ministry of Education has any general guidelines or policy dealing with high schools and their abilities to raise funds privately.

There is a serious concern about this. Many schools throughout the province are looking for alternative means to raise money -- through alumni of high schools in the community. There are various fund-raising drives, and that's nothing new to schools in British Columbia. Many of our best schools throughout the province have been very creative over the course of time in terms of various fund-raising programs and activities to supplement programs in their schools, whether they be for travel abroad or in the province or for raising money for special projects. Recently this controversy was livened up a little by Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver hiring a development officer with the specific purpose of raising funds.

I would like to ask the minister if she could provide this committee with any information about the ministry's position on this kind of activity, and whether or not this is the wave of the future. Are high schools throughout the province going to have to look toward private fund-raising increasingly as a means of funding basic programs -- core programs -- in schools simply because of the serious crisis in underfunding in our schools today?

[2:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: The School Act requires that each school district provide education programs to the children in their district free of charge. Boards have the autonomy to set policies, including policies around fund-raising, consistent with their bylaws. Any board in the province will have the autonomy to take those decisions.

D. Mitchell: As with the few previous questions I've asked, I'm not going to pursue this at any length. I'm simply asking the minister to tell us what leadership the Ministry of Education is willing to provide in some of these areas. It's simply not sufficient to say that school districts can manage their own affairs if, in fact, they're not given the resources to manage their own affairs. We can aspire to the ideal of autonomy for school districts in a number of areas relating to the management of their school district, their schools and curriculum, but what I'm looking for today in this committee is some demonstration of leadership on the part of this minister and the Ministry of Education in a few very basic areas. These are not necessarily controversial areas; there is no element of partisanship here. I'm simply asking for some commitment from this minister and in the budget estimates we're reviewing right now for 1992-1993 to some leadership and guidance for some school districts who are asking questions -- they're not complicated questions -- on this particular matter of private fund-raising activities for schools.

Does the Minister of Education support the idea that individual schools should be going out, whether it's on a pilot-project basis or on a permanent basis, and hiring development officers and private fund-raisers to raise money so that they can either engage in activities relating to their basic core activities of school program curriculum development, exchange programs and what have you, or go over and above the existing programs to develop enriched programs for curriculum development? What is the minister's position on this?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, we've spent a great deal of time over the last three days in this estimates debate examining the resources that the provincial government makes available to school districts to provide education programs for their children. I think it's also been clear in these discussions that I have a great deal of respect for decisions that local school districts take in policies that affect their districts, and I know that those school districts are guided by the principles of our School Act and the values we hold to ensure that every child has an opportunity for an education. The principles of fairness and equity apply. They then are translated into decisions that local school districts take. The member is referring to one school district that has developed some policies. There are many school districts that have policies in respect to fund-raising. I would hope that they would engage in those policy discussions with parents and the community and arrive at statements of principles and guidelines for any fund-raising that goes on within their communities.

All of us from time immemorial have been involved with the ways in which communities support schools, and I believe that school districts are indeed the place for those policies to be discussed thoroughly within the general principles of a free education to every student within British Columbia.

D. Mitchell: Just one more time on this question. We need to know whether this government and this Minister of Education are willing to commit the resources that are necessary to provide the educational services that our young people in British Columbia need and deserve -- whether that commitment is there and whether leadership is coming from this minister and from her ministry, or whether school districts now need to be harnessing the creativity, energy and drive within their communities, families, alumni and support groups of the schools within school districts so that private fund-raising efforts and initiatives can be developed to provide the basic educational services that are supposed to be provided through the Ministry of Education as a funding mechanism, or for enhanced programs as well. There are two dimensions to this question: (1) is the commitment there to provide the funding so that we don't have to rely on private fund-raising; and (2) if private fund-raising is to be encouraged, if the minister is looking to school districts to come up with proposals, does that mean she 

[ Page 743 ]

supports the idea that if an individual school district or school has the ability to raise funds that will allow for enriched programs to be developed, technology programs to be built into school programming or other kinds of advanced programs developed in schools, that is the way we should be going in British Columbia? Does the minister support that? It's a simple question.

Hon. A. Hagen: The supplying of resources for education is a provincial responsibility, and it's something that local school districts take as a very important part of their role. We have many ways in which local communities enhance, enrich and augment the schooling that is offered within our school systems. I applaud those initiatives. I could talk about many ways in which local communities have assisted with the enrichment of the educational opportunity in our schools. It's a Canadian tradition, I believe.

The member is looking at one particular school district and asking for my comment. I have commented that the policy should be well and thoroughly canvassed in that district, as in any other district. We have noted over the past three days our commitment to education in terms of the resources available for the operating of schools right across the province with equity, fairness and consistency, the fundamental principles for enhancing the school buildings and in proceeding with educational change. It's a challenge for all of us, and we as a government are committed to human and financial resources to that end.

D. Mitchell: One other question on a different topic.

I note the government has made provision for declaring sections of the Ombudsman Act that have been previously unproclaimed. This would allow the ombudsman's office to investigate concerns and questions that come from the general public dealing with school districts, which previously have not been covered by the office of the ombudsman. In the budget for the 1992-93 fiscal year, has the minister made any special provisions in the administrative portion of the budget for addressing or dealing with the volume of inquiries that may be anticipated through this new level of scrutiny that may result from this section of the Ombudsman Act being proclaimed?

Hon. A. Hagen: We have signalled our intent to proclaim that long-unproclaimed section of the Ombudsman Act. The member may wish, when we come in this House to debate the estimates of the ombudsman's office, to make inquiries about the implications it may have for the office of the ombudsman.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments, but I wasn't asking about the office of the ombudsman; I was asking about the Ministry of Education and whether or not this decision -- a good decision on the part of this government -- to proclaim these sections of the Ombudsman Act that have not yet been proclaimed may have any budgetary impact on the Ministry of Education. It hasn't happened yet, but there has been an indication we can expect this. If a number of inquiries, complaints and concerns of citizens dealing with school districts might now be expected or anticipated, does that have any budgetary implications for the Ministry of Education in terms of the responses that are going to be required, from either individual schools or school districts? If it does, can the minister tell us whether or not her budget provides for that?

The Chair: Before the minister responds, I should caution the opposition House Leader that while the Ombudsman Act is in place, the section he's speaking of is not yet proclaimed law, and does fall under the standing orders which prohibit the discussion of legislation that is before the House. It is not yet law. I'm not suggesting that there is no relationship, but be cautioned by the nature of the question.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would just very briefly repeat my comment that it's appropriate for the member to ask questions when the ombudsman's estimates are here. I would note that the ministry is currently within the ambit of the ombudsman, as are all ministries of government.

D. Mitchell: Thank you for your comments. I take it from your answer that no special provision has been made in your budget for dealing with this, and that's fine. We'll monitor with interest how this all works out once the sections of the Ombudsman Act are proclaimed, and see whether in fact they do have any impact on your ministerial budget.

I have one other question, and it deals with what we have been discussing for the few days that we have been reviewing your estimates. I think it is a theme that has been developing here: the serious state of underfunding of education and the provision of educational services to our schools in British Columbia. We're talking now of K to 12. I understand that as a result of the serious state of underfunding, many school districts are now looking at laying off teachers in large numbers. This relates particularly to school districts in the lower mainland; it certainly relates to the two school districts that I've been asking questions about -- in particular West Vancouver.

I would like to know if the minister or the Ministry of Education has given any thought or consideration to responding to school district proposals for allowing for early retirement programs for teachers, which would allow the issue of teacher layoffs to be dealt with in perhaps a more manageable and humane way -- in a way that can be managed more easily. I understand that the whole issue of pensions is part of the block funding formula. But would any consideration be given to the idea of removing the whole matter of pensions from the block funding formula, so that individual school districts on their own initiative could develop early retirement programs -- perhaps enriched early retirement programs -- to allow some of their older, more experienced teachers to accept early retirement voluntarily, and in that way deal with a situation where layoffs were not required?

[ Page 744 ]

It is a serious financial crisis that we are facing in education today. This early retirement option might be one tool that individual school districts in a number of areas of the province could use to alleviate the situation, without taking the draconian measures that we've seen over the last number of days, with announcements of massive layoffs, particularly in the lower mainland.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm delighted to welcome you to the chair. I haven't had the pleasure of being in the House when you've been there.

To part of the question: we canvassed it extensively yesterday, and I don't believe that I should take the time of the House to deal with it again.

But on the specific question of whether boards have the option to institute early retirement packages on their own, some boards have done that, and it's my understanding that yes, they may do that.

G. Wilson: I have a particular concern with respect to the funding of special-needs children. I'd like to turn my attention to the whole question of mainstreaming and the commitment that this government is prepared to make to the process of mainstreaming young British Columbians into the classroom. Could the minister elaborate, first and foremost, on the philosophy of this ministry with respect to the mainstreaming of young children who have both physical and mental handicaps and who are mentally and physically challenged? Whatever the commitment may be, to what extent is that going to translate into funds that will make it possible for teachers to have adequately trained and properly placed teacher assistants?

Hon. A. Hagen: A good question. The philosophy and direction of government is: the least restrictive environment for a suitable education for children. This is an approach that encourages them to be a part of the community school in which their family or guardians reside. We had some considerable discussion yesterday about the financial resources available to school districts, in the broad sense, from our budget.

[3:00]

The point that the member makes about training is a valid and important point, because we are moving now to some new ways of having these children be a part of their community schools. I've had discussions with teachers and with learning assistants around those needs. I know it's a part of districts' professional development and in-service work, a part of our concerns, and it's something I believe too -- we talked yesterday about working with other ministries -- that we would want to work on, both from a school district perspective and from a ministry perspective, in cooperation with the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training. In many ways there are new initiatives we need to take around the use of technology and around the scope of learning -- the infinite capacity for children to learn -- as we learn better how to help them learn. It's my view too that as we learn more about the education of children with special needs, we actually learn more about the education of all children and that the learning here is applicable in a very broad sense to the classroom environment and to the teaching methodology. The training issue is an ongoing one, and we are working on that on a whole variety of fronts with school districts and with the advanced education movement.

I note too that there is a lot of work that is done in the field by collaborative effort. The Focus '92 conference that's being held in Victoria this week has 700 or 800 attendees, many of them from British Columbia. The Independence '92 conference which starts in about two weeks in Vancouver is very much around the ways in which people with disabilities are incorporated, integrated and welcomed into all aspects of our society, including our schools.

One of the excellent aspects of these programs is the working relationships between parents, advocacy groups, training groups, school boards and the ministry. That's part of the enrichment that we often talk about as we accept the challenge of all children having the opportunity for an education that will take them to the furthest point that they can possibly achieve, even if they come with major challenges to their learning, as many of these youngsters do.

G. Wilson: Certainly those in the Liberal opposition welcome the focus on children with special challenges, those that are physically and mentally challenged, and that we would support an integration of those children into the system.

From our point of view we recognize that there are three component parts to this issue within the educational framework.

Training is clearly one -- training with respect not only to the teachers but also to those that are learning-assistant trained as well as those that are providing assistance and support within the school system. I refer to librarians, to people that are involved in counselling and counselling services and those kinds of areas, where there is going to have to be a broadening of the training available where integration takes place.

The second, however, is one that is specifically and directly related to funding. I wonder, on that matter, if I might come back in just a moment to asking the minister what kind of comparative ratio there may be with respect to the cost per student for those classes where there is limited or no integration and the cost where integration does occur. Perhaps I can just serve notice that I would like to come back to that, and if there is some information available it might give some time to find those figures.

The third part, and I think a very important part, is not only the integration within the education system but integration in society generally, and how the school interacts with community and how community interacts with the school. That means more than just the question of the parent and the family. It also means other support services -- other societies and organizations in the community -- being integrated into the education process, therefore becoming a component part of the overall approach to the integration of children with special needs.

[ Page 745 ]

Having said that then, on the matter of training I think that we can take the minister's word that there is going to be a greater degree of commitment, effort and attention, particularly with respect to the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training, to look after those concerns. We welcome that, and we'd be anxious to find out what kind of dollar commitment is there, particularly with respect to teachers already in service and to what extent special leaves may be available to teachers who wish to upgrade or expand their services through increased training. I would like to come back to that.

There is a matter with respect to duplication of funds, funds that are currently available in other line ministries, namely Social Services, particularly in those areas where there are families that require assistance and have children that have special needs, and therefore there is an added burden because of the financial requirements of that family, to the extent that the Education ministry and the Ministry of Social Services may have discussed, prior to the establishment of this budget, matters that would eliminate duplication of costs and would start to bring together a more coordinated approach in terms of the delivery of services to those families. Quite clearly the needs of the child in the school don't end at 3 o'clock when the child goes home; the need of that child is carried right throughout the evening to the next morning.

Those are the areas where we would like to focus our attention. I outlined them so that you have some understanding of where I'm going in my line of questioning. So let me come back to the question of training, which is the first point that I put forward. To what extent is the government committed to making funds available to people currently employed in the system who may wish to have funds made available for upgrading so that they can deal with children already integrated into the service? To what extent is money available to expand the training facility for teachers facing special-needs challenges in their classrooms?

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I can deal with a number of the matters that the Leader of the Opposition raised. The issue of support for children in the system depends on where the child is -- what district. It's the same funding, but if there isn't a deaf child in a district, there obviously isn't funding for a deaf child in that district. We do look especially at the needs of the highly challenged youngsters. The cost of educating some of these youngsters can be as high as $40,000 a year, depending on the extent of the challenge or the disability. We start with the per-pupil amount, and we recognize those costs. So it will vary from district to district, and certainly that's a factor in block funding.

In respect to the question of training, it's almost like "Let me count the ways." There are so many different approaches to training. Much training comes from professionals training other professionals. A tremendous amount of work goes on in that regard, and we and school districts provide funds to support that kind of interactive work among professionals.

In respect to the Ministry of Advanced Education, particularly at the college and institute level, we've seen the introduction of new courses that provide basic training for people who plan to be teaching assistants working with challenged students. I might note again that advocacy groups like the Association for Community Living, the Learning Disabilities Association or the gifted and challenged community do conferences that assist teachers in training. So there is a whole range of ways in which training actually does take place throughout the districts. You were away yesterday, I expect. And we noted too that there are ways in which technology is made available through the special education technology centre. So there are an infinite variety of ways in which we deal with these matters.

I think there may have been one other question, which flashed into my mind and then went out again, that you raised in the discussion. It hasn't come back to me, but perhaps you can remind me and I'll respond.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to see that this commitment is there. I think what I'm searching for is a bit more of a definitive response with respect to the provision of funds that are actually available to teachers in the system who wish to upgrade and to retrain -- in particular how that retraining might be available with respect to a variety of demands that they may have.

Quite obviously if there isn't a person with a hearing disability in a school district, then there are not going to be funds. I think we'd all accept that. However, there may be various levels of mental challenge before young people. I think one of the first things we would have to accept is that there is going to have to be some training for teachers to be able to identify the challenges that young people face; second, the extent to which those challenges could be overcome through different models, different directions and different kinds of programs put forward in the class.

More importantly, where there are severe disabilities -- both physical and mental -- there is an additional challenge to the teacher who has to deal with a classroom full of young people wishing to progress at a particular rate, when integrated into that class is an individual who is mentally challenged. There is going to have to be some provision for ongoing training to be able to accommodate that kind of individual. What I'm really searching for here is the extent to which there is a greater and additional commitment by this government to get money than we have seen over the last decade for those teachers who are in service.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just advise the member that funds for training are recognized in the funding formula, and there are a number of training needs. They're recognized both for teachers and for teaching aides. There are also some targeted grants to support teachers attending conferences or various focused training opportunities. I think that is particularly useful to people who live outside the lower mainland, where they can come into Vancouver or Victoria to take advantage of training opportunities.

I'm not sure that I can provide the member with all of the facts that he is looking for, because in fact each school district sets its implementation plan for the integration of students, based on the children in that school district. The block of funds has dollars in it that 

[ Page 746 ]

provide for training, but they make those decisions and teachers make those decisions as well. We provide funds, including some travel funds, in the global budget that each school district has.

It might be useful for the member just to note that the cost of educating such students can range from the block amount -- which is the average amount for all students of $5,661 -- to just under $40,000, which provides for the range of services and supports which a very specially challenged child might need.

In addition, because we are in the process of change in education, there are grants, training sessions and resource materials available through the ministry's budget. I noted yesterday that there's a quantum amount of money. We're finding that very small amounts often go a very long way, because we're tapping into the expertise and commitment of teachers who are prepared to share their knowledge and special skills with other teachers.

Let me just give you an example that I recall from attending the teachers' annual general meeting a few weeks ago. A teacher came up and talked to me in quite an animated and very committed way about the work he was doing with youngsters with behavioural problems; about the difficulty that those youngsters often provide to a classroom teacher, out of proportion to their numbers; and about the skills he has developed as a teacher and is interested in sharing. Through proposals to this ministry, there are ways in which the skills and commitment of that teacher can be translated into training other teachers to learn more about what he has learned, about good ways of working effectively with children with behaviour problems. He happened to be working in the early adolescent area.

That kind of initiative goes on in literally dozens and hundreds of places around the province with funding that comes through the ministry for relatively small initiatives, in terms of dollars, very much maximized because of the initiative, innovation and commitment of teachers.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: Is the minister able to advise us what this quantum amount is within the ministry, what kind of dollar figure are we talking about?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'll repeat the information that I've given two or three times. It's $30 million out of the ministry's budget in the year ahead, for a whole range of change activities.

G. Wilson: I should have been more specific to the minister. I am aware of the $30 million figure. But how much within that figure is dedicated to mainstreaming children and to upgrading or retraining teachers in the system who are coping and dealing with young people who have mental and physical disabilities?

Hon. A. Hagen: The philosophy that the member is talking about is a philosophy of separating out; our philosophy is integrating in. For instance, when we're looking at the primary program, which is the program that we have implemented most extensively around change, whatever we're doing with the teachers in those programs, whatever training is involved, assumes an integrated classroom. It's a part of the broader agenda.

I can provide the member with some specific activities under our change agenda that relate to special education. We are preparing a directory of provincial resource programs and networking ideas for special education programs. That comes back to my earlier comment about how much the training is the result of practical initiatives that many good teachers have taken and are prepared and able to share with their fellow teachers.

There is ongoing research, and there are strategies for integrating and assessing special-needs students. There is also the development of a special education review process, which I understand is being piloted in Surrey. I'm not able to give you a lot of information about that, hon. member. Again, that's looking at one district, but the review process there will be informative for other school districts.

It's important for us to remember that we're talking here about children being part of the community school. We're not talking about programs that separate out but about programs that look at the education of all children in those classrooms, including special-needs children.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that we're trying to be inclusive. That philosophy is consistent with the philosophy on this side of the House: that we are trying to integrate and to make sure that these young people are very much equal members of society.

What I'm trying to determine there, and perhaps I need to find a way to reword my question so that it can be more specific.... We recognize, however, that there are additional costs specific to the education and training of teachers who are having to deal with specific kinds of disabilities. For example, if a teacher has to get involved in Bliss symbol learning because it is required in order to advance a program for a specific child, or if there is a teacher who is dealing with autism, there has to be some specific training. If teachers are dealing with various other levels of physical and mental disability -- particularly with those who have a combination of mental and physical handicaps -- there are various requirements for those teachers to have specific training.

I'm not talking about the generic approach to allowing teachers to broaden their base of knowledge on these subjects. The question I'm asking is: what kind of money is being specifically earmarked for and tailored to those cases where there are children in the school system who require people in the classroom with specific training with respect to the needs of those children?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm having some difficulty with the member's examples, because he's asking how much money there is to train this, that or the other person. There is money in budgets of school districts to assist teachers to get the training they need and teaching assistance. For example, the majority of people who are attending the Focus '92 conference will have the 

[ Page 747 ]

support of their school districts to attend that conference. The work that they do at that conference may cover an enormous range of issues in which those teachers are gaining training: working with autism, the deaf and the physically disabled.

The point I'm trying to get across to the member is that this is a complex matrix of training opportunities that occurs informally, formally, within the schools, at conferences and at post-secondary institutions. There are a variety of ways in which that is resourced, as I say, in human and in financial terms.

There's also support to teachers in terms of instruction within their classrooms. If I can provide the member with more information outside the context of this House that would give him the kind of detail that he's looking for, I'd be happy to try to do that. But I'm having difficulty saying that there is some quantum somewhere that would in any way give an appropriate recognition of the kind of work that goes on in and across our school districts and at a provincial and partnership working level to provide the scope and depth of training that the member and I agree is important to have available to teachers and teaching assistants.

G. Wilson: Perhaps I can focus on an example of my concern. In the two school districts that I am most familiar with, for example.... The hon. minister suggests that there is money in the school districts to deal with these issues. However, in School District 46, at Sechelt, they're talking about there being an $800,000 shortfall this year. In Powell River they're talking about a $400,000 shortfall this year. These are school districts that do not have surplus money. Both of these school districts have a number of students who have been mainstreamed and who require special assistance in the classroom. f there is not money dedicated to these programs that cannot be transferred into other program delivery, and because there is a relative minority of students under special needs, I am concerned that programs and training for teachers that otherwise would be available will not be available as school districts who are squeezed and in a desperate situation will seek to put those moneys into the area they perceive will do the most good. So what I'm trying to establish is whether this ministry has earmarked and dedicated specific moneys for the mainstreaming program of young children with mental and physical handicaps into the school. I'm hearing that there isn't that kind of dedicated fund.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me try again with two pieces of information for the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, in the block that goes to every school district there's a recognition that the teacher is the primary person involved with learning, and the block contains money for that person's salary and, recognizing that this person may be away on study leave or professional development leave, money for travel and money for training. That's included in our calculations of the block. The same thing applies around support services for youngsters who have special needs, because there are teaching assistants and other people who assist those youngsters to be in school.

In terms of the incremental funding over and above the block of funds that are available for any youngster, there is $351 million distributed to school districts with the recognition that those school districts enrol a wide variety of children with special challenges. This is to support the staff and the training of that staff to provide for those children.

G. Wilson: I hear what the minister is saying. I think the answer is that the money is there for the broad base of school entrance, and out of that the school districts are supposed to be providing for integrated students. It would be the preference of this side of the House that there would be dedicated funds, and that they would be over and above the block.

However, let's move to the second question with respect to the mainstreaming of children with handicaps into the classroom. Could the minister outline the philosophy of this government with respect to the delivery of education to those classrooms, especially those classrooms where there are young people integrated between grade 4 and grade 8? Is there is some kind of provision for reduction of class size? Is there is some kind of formula that they are entertaining to be able to look at class size and the number of teacher aides or learning assistants? Is there is some kind of additional provision for the mainstreaming of children with mental and physical disabilities who are going through the bridge period in the latter part of their elementary school education and are commencing into high school?

Hon. A. Hagen: As I noted earlier, the direction of the ministry is that children will be mainstreamed wherever possible into a regular classroom. The range of support for students can be as high as $40,000, recognizing that there needs to be support in those classrooms and that the school districts work on those support services.

I hear the member saying he would prefer that we specify targeted funds for special-needs students. As we get into our funding and financial review, he may wish to bring forward his perspectives in respect of some future changes that we will be considering as we look over the whole system of funding that's now in place.

G. Wilson: With specific reference to class size, I recognize the independence of the collective bargaining process and the relative autonomy of school districts in this matter. I wonder if the minister could state the general philosophical approach of this government with respect to class size, where the integration of one or more children with special needs may be found. Is it the feeling of this minister that in those cases where there is an integration of children with special needs, class size should be adjusted as a factor of program delivery with any formula that school districts may look at?

Hon. A. Hagen: With respect to teachers and support staff who need to be there, staffing is recog-

[ Page 748 ]

nized in the funding formula that we use in setting the funding for each district.

G. Wilson: Once again I find that I should have perhaps been more specific in my question. Is the minister satisfied then that the funding formula which is in place -- the dollars, the provision for class size and the delivery of money going into the classroom where special-needs or mainstream children are a part of the day-to-day delivery of education -- takes into account adequate resources into those areas?

[3:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: I might offer the member some information about the resources available, because I think he's interested in knowing something about what is available. I'll make that information available to him.

G. Wilson: I would appreciate that information. I am most interested in looking at that particular aspect of education.

I wonder if I might then move to the third part of this discussion with respect to mainstreaming, which has to do with collaboration within the community. I noted that the minister did talk about the Association for Community Living, various community service organizations, the gifted and challenged programs and so on. Within the budget and its preparation and the manner in which dollars are being committed, I wonder to what extent funds are being integrated between line ministries that may overlap in the delivery of these kinds of programs. That's something which certainly the Liberals on this side of the House are most interested in.

Hon. A. Hagen: That's the other question you asked earlier, and I couldn't recall it to mind. I knew there was a further very specific question that the Leader of the Opposition had inquired about. There are agreements in place between my ministry, the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Health. There are dollars in their budgets for the delivery of services in health and in support of families.

Back to your earlier comment around how we are blending those dollars, there is also money within our budget and the budgets of school districts in support of parent advisory councils in schools, which I hope would have the same kind of philosophy as the school itself, in that parents of challenged children would be a part of those groups. I know that the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils recently had its annual general meeting and spring conference; they were looking at multicultural children within the province. It was both a learning session and a planning session around ways in which the outreach to a broader community of parents might be achieved.

At various times we do cooperative work, under the aegis of the ministry, with community organizations. That is a grant process where proposals come to us, and where, if we are able to assist in matters that are going to have an impact on the programs that we offer in the schools, we do so. Again, once those are announced we'd be pleased to provide you with that information.

G. Wilson: That sounds like good news, and we're very keen to see those various community groups integrated much more directly in the provision of service for young people that we normally look at in a regular school day, recognizing that their day doesn't end at 3 o'clock, and that we have to make provisions for these young people beyond that, especially in cases where there may be particular needs.

I wonder then if I could just add one further question on the involvement of community organizations in the provision of education. What kind of dollars is the minister prepared to put into the provision of community-based services and organizations around education for parents of children that have special needs? I mean specifically in relation to some of the recommendations coming out of the Year 2000 program that started to talk about a cooperative movement between the sort of integrated parent and the degree to which the parent becomes much more a functional part of the day-to-day educational process. My question -- I'm trying to be specific with it, although it's fairly broad in its scope -- is: to what extent is the minister prepared to put some dollars toward those recommendations within the Year 2000 program, particularly with relation to parent involvement in schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: In three or four ways. First of all, I would note that you may want to explore this with the Social Services minister as well, because there are a number of programs in support of families that come under her ministry that are not a part of our protocols either. Our protocols are to support the youngster in the classroom, largely; although it's hard to define those in absolute nine-to-three terms. But there are other programs that I know and you may want to ask.

We have parent-teacher interaction grants -- working relationships that are a part of the change process. We provide funds to assist the parent advisory councils; we provide funds to assist the federation of parents. There's work going on within the ministry through the immigration services funding that comes under the immigration ministry where we are working with parents around a variety of issues.

There's a range of ways. Again, I can't quantify those for you. Some of them are not decided yet, because they are in the change dollars that I've spoken of for the ministry where those grants have not been made. I agree with you, though, on the importance of parents -- children's first teachers and ongoing teachers -- having good working relationships and understandings in the school and contributing to the education of their children. That is an important part of our contemporary view of how we have the best education we can. There's a whole range of ways in which the schools themselves provide in cultural ways, the school meal program, through outreach activities, newsletters, communication in different languages and to different target populations -- they contribute to bringing parents into a closer involvement with the schools. I like to really think of this as "let me count the ways," and there are no limits. Our job is to try to provide some of the resources that act as catalysts and support for school 

[ Page 749 ]

districts and schools that are doing such an excellent job in that domain.

G. Wilson: That indeed is an enlightening answer. What we'd very much like to do is look at those change dollars. I hope that we have an opportunity to have some input and discussion with respect to the programs that will be developed. I think as a general philosophy in education, in the commitment of dollars, we recognize that we all in the province of British Columbia face limits to what we can afford to spend on education. That's the reality of it. We have to try to remove or eliminate, wherever possible, duplication that may exist as a result of line ministries not communicating as effectively as possible.

We would like to pursue this, and we're anxious to see what the government comes forward with regarding integrating programs at a community level that do accomplish some of the items the minister has outlined as being important. We're certainly going to be most interested to see what programs come forward in that respect. We will demonstrate considerable support for any integrated and adequately funded programs at a community level that will allow people to recognize that the school day doesn't end at 3 o'clock for children, but that learning is a 24-hour process.

Having said that, I wonder if I might then move to some specific questions for the minister. It has to do with the Year 2000; it has to do with the commitment that this government has made with respect to adequate funding to make sure the Year 2000 indeed becomes a reality. At the termination of the last government, we had some considerable waffling on whether the Year 2000 program was on or off. Clearly, the delegations that I have received from members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, from various school districts and from the BCSTA show some concern, hon. minister, that the Year 2000 program still is in some jeopardy, and that it is not going to receive the adequate funding that it requires, given that the curriculum proposed with the Year 2000 needs some substantial lift in dollars if it's to be accomplished effectively.

I wonder if the minister might want to comment on the Year 2000 program with respect to this government's commitment to it, and also the government's commitment to providing the dollars needed to make sure that we do more than simply teacher-train, but that we actually have dollars there to make sure that the teachers can adequately deliver the recommended program.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition has learned, in his short tenure in his office, of the support that is in the community for the philosophy of the Year 2000 and of the work of the royal commission, A Legacy for Learners. One of the most encouraging experiences I've had coming out of the uncertainty and instability of the last couple of years in respect to education and education change is that in spite of that instability, the heart of the program has beaten strongly in the minds of teachers and parents. People are very interested in getting on with an education system that serves each child as well as we possibly can, and with programs that enable those children to participate fully in our society and in our economy and in the enrichment of their personal lives.

I want to assure the member that the work is ongoing in respect to the Royal Commission on Education and what's usually coded as the Year 2000. It's pretty well fully implemented now within the primary program, where it had its best beginning. There has been strong support coming out of a philosophy of learning among primary teachers that was reflected in the philosophy of the Year 2000 program. They have done an excellent job in introducing the facets of a more learner-focused education program, the recognition of children developing at their own pace and setting high standards of excellence for those youngsters.

I have noted several times in the House that there has been some pause.... On the part of the former administration, there was a real backing away from a commitment to the royal commission and its sense of direction for the future and the future needs of our children. The ministry has worked out of that stop or pause that was placed there, to prepare work that will let us go ahead with the Year 2000, not just in a linear way -- next into the intermediate grades and into the graduation program -- but across the whole school system.

I have learned of the tremendous amount of work that has been going on in the intermediate and secondary schools of the province, as they have looked at ways in which they can implement change. The resources for that change exist within school districts, because we are talking about change that is organic. The member shakes his head, but I want us to recognize that it is going on in districts; change is going on right now and has been going on. It will be supported by clearly defined dollars and programs to assist teachers and the community to look at the next drafts of the intermediate and graduation program and to continue with the work of developing the prototypes of the program within the school districts.

There is a lot of work to do. We have all talked about the fact that our resources are limited, and we are -- we'll make clear -- prepared to stage the pace of change consistent with the resources that will be available. We want to be very open about that. The last government was closed and worked from the top down; we want to open up the process. The member has indicated his and his colleagues' interest in that process. It is something that I believe needs to be supported, understood and developed with the knowledge, the sensitivity and the support of the people of British Columbia. There's no more important task.

I've often said that we need to place education in the same kind of priority that we place health. That means we need to understand what we are working on, and we need to value the work in individual communities and to provide the resources for it. I look forward to opportunities to discuss this with the member and his caucus in the future.

[3:45]

G. Wilson: I have a final question to the minister. I would hope that the minister would take my remarks 

[ Page 750 ]

with the greatest respect. I recognize that this government and all British Columbians are facing a difficult financial task. I recognize that there is not a large pool of available dollars that we can easily put into education without having to take from elsewhere. I recognize also that the last year of the last administration was an extremely difficult one for all of us to deal with.

Nevertheless, I think the minister is incorrect when she suggests that there are resources currently existing in the school districts to provide for the integration and development of the Year 2000 program.

Notwithstanding the comment that the minister is glad that I have discovered the Year 2000 in my short tenure as Leader of the Opposition, I would point out that I've been actively working and pursuing matters in politics in British Columbia as leader of the Liberal Party since 1987. I've actively worked with and made contributions and submissions to the royal commission, and I've actively worked with professionals in the field for some years. My knowledge of the difficulty is fairly extensive.

What we are facing here is a situation where we have developed an excellent model for the most part. I have some difficulty with some of it, particularly with respect to grading in senior years, but nevertheless I have general support for it. It's an excellent model that is going to require not just additional dollars in the initial phase for introduction, but it's going to require a fundamental change in the way we are funding education: a move off a block funding formula basis -- we discussed it at length yesterday, and I don't want to get back into it today -- that is based on a 1990 set of figures and is already 14 percent underfunded just at status quo. It is underfunded in terms of the potential for development of dollars even now in the integration of the Year 2000 program.

I say with respect, hon. minister, that I think your words are going to be a great disappointment to a great number of people involved in the delivery of education and a great number of students and parents who really wanted to see -- and expected to see -- a fundamental change in the way we deliver educational dollars and a greater commitment to integrating curriculum development and financing of education. There can be a blending of those two processes, so that one is not done in isolation from the other, and so we don't advance a program that's an excellent program for the most part and then find ourselves totally unprepared or -- to give benefit where benefit is due -- unable to adequately finance this new curriculum.

So my final question to the minister is: what provision is the minister undertaking now to put in place a comprehensive review of the way we finance education, so that the Year 2000 program can receive the dollars it requires to become a functioning part of British Columbia before the children who are in grade 1 now are in grade 12 and graduating? To suggest we're going to integrate it as funds become available, if we're not prepared to change the formula by which we develop funding for education.... My suspicion is that the Year 2000 will never become a functioning reality in its entirety, and that the best we'll get are little pieces of it where they don't have a financial impact. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. A. Hagen: I note that the member opposite is unwilling to give the kind of respect and credit to teachers that I give to them. I just want to note, in spite of what that member has suggested, the amount of work and effort going on in the classrooms of British Columbia at this time to support change. It is not something that has stopped. It is not something to which teachers are not giving a great deal of time and energy for innovative work, and it is not something that we are failing to fund. I've already indicated to the member that there's $30 million in the ministry budget alone to support change in the year ahead.

Let me just go through some of the initiatives that are occurring. I'll take an area that he has said he is interested in seeing us move into: the intermediate program. Over 4,000 teachers in the province are engaged this year in the developmental sites in work that is related to the implementation of the intermediate Year 2000 program. What I learned is that those teachers do what they call brokering; they learn from each other, trade and move their knowledge, their understanding and their experience around from developmental site to developmental site. We need to respect and to recognize that teachers are themselves the agents of change, that they are instituting, implementing and creating change, and that they are providing leadership in the change within the school system.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to support them, but what the teachers asked for was respect for the work they do and commitment on the part of all of us to assist them in that work. That commitment involves financial support, which our government is committed to providing. It also requires us to recognize and acknowledge the tremendous day-to-day work that individual teachers in the primary, intermediate and graduation areas of our school system are providing in the direction of change. I want very strongly to speak to that and to have all of us acknowledge, respect and celebrate it, because it is going on. It has gone on in spite of the vicissitudes of the last couple of years. What we need to do now is to respect it, celebrate it and support it in all the ways we can.

G. Wilson: The former was my last question. This is supplementary to my last question, because it would appear that the minister was suggesting that I was somehow disrespectful of teachers. There was nothing in my comments at any time anywhere -- certainly not today -- that would demonstrate a disrespect for teachers. With due respect, the problem is that teachers, in their work and discussion with us on the question of the Year 2000, suggest that much of what they are hearing is rhetoric, rhetoric which says: "Yes, you're doing a fine job. You're out there putting Year 2000 together. We like the work you're doing. It's great that you're working together, it's great that you're being innovative and it's wonderful that you're coming forward with these programs. However, if you ask me if I will adequately fund it, so that you can actually implement the programs to any degree of success, the answer is no." 

[ Page 751 ]

Unfortunately, that is what teachers are so thoroughly disappointed in, in the budget that they have now. Clearly the 200-plus-or-minus teachers that have just been released from Vancouver aren't going to be there to put in place Year 2000, no matter how good a job they did last year working to integrate it. That can be said for many of the school districts that are currently finding that they do not have adequate money to simply deliver the programs that they delivered last year.

So I don't understand -- and perhaps the minister can explain briefly -- how it's possible that teachers can feel that respect is being given to the work they're doing in the integration and delivery of the new curriculum, if this government is not committed to a fundamental reform of the way we finance education, and to a greater number of dollars that actually go to the delivery of service in the classroom. I think that's a question that teachers want an answer to.

Hon. A. Hagen: I have reviewed extensively with the oppostion members the increase in our funding to school districts in this most difficult of years. We have accorded education highest priority. I was speaking a moment ago about the day-to-day work of classroom teachers, which is related to change in the day-to-day, and which has produced many effective new strategies and new approaches in our classroom. I have a great deal of respect for this. The teachers will continue to work in that way, and we will be supporting them with ongoing grants to take advantage of the innovation and the energy that they bring to their work, which they tell me they are very committed to continuing.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister some questions about School District 23, Central Okanagan. As the minister alluded, this is one of the fastest-growing districts in the province. This district has all kinds of questions that they'd like me to ask on their behalf with regard to funding and the funding formula and allocation of funds. If I could start with the special purpose grant for 1992-93 in the estimates, I'd just mention that there has been no special purpose grant given to School District 23, despite the fact that there were some assurances from the ministry that adjustments would be made for the faster-growing districts. I'd just like to ask for some kind of clarification on that.

Hon. A. Hagen: I welcome the member to the debate. She is representing one of the fastest-growing districts in British Columbia. Some funds that relate to the growth of the district have been targeted there, as to other fast-growing districts. In terms of a special purpose grant, your district has not requested such a grant, although I think it would be fair to say that at this stage of the game we have a budget for such grants, nor is it my intent to give one.

I have met with your school district, and I believe my ministry officials have met in the past month with the officials of your school district and with other rapidly growing school districts. We had an opportunity to examine in some considerable depth the challenges that your district faces and the ways in which some of the changes that we've made this year may be of assistance to them.

I could canvass them again, but they're fundamentally the same answers that I've given in the House regarding Surrey and other rapidly growing districts. If you like, I'd be happy to speak to you about them more specifically, but I think they are fundamentally targeted funds to rapidly growing districts to deal with new schools, costs of technology and enrolment growth, including enrolment growth through the year. Kelowna has been taken into account as one of the districts that is experiencing that growth.

J. Tyabji: I have a submission from the school district from March 20. They say that they were further encouraged when the minister announced a 2.4 percent economic adjustment in the average per-student block in the January 31 news release. The minister specifically noted that assistance would be forthcoming for rapid-growth districts -- $4.5 million in special purpose grants for those districts which experienced significant enrolment growth. It was on that basis that they were actually expecting some kind of special purpose grant, because there had been some difficulties in this area with regard to the funding formula. It goes back to 1989 when the percentages for each district were set -- at least that's my understanding.

At that time there was a surplus in the budget for School District 23. They had very tight purse strings and very responsible fiscal management. I believe that surplus was going to be set aside for some expenditures that they were anticipating. However, the funding formula for that district was then locked in. They have actually been receiving less than 100 percent, as far as the block funding formula goes, despite the fact that they're growing so quickly and the fact that the allocation of funds doesn't take into account students who arrive after a certain date. From my understanding, if they arrive in October, November, December or January, they're not allowed for them until the following year.

They've had a lot of problems with that, in terms of a juggling act. They would like to have more explanation with regard to the special-purpose grant. For example, if it's not there because they didn't ask for it -- although it's my understanding that they did, or at least they were expecting it -- is it a matter of them making another submission to ask for a retroactive special-purpose grant?

[4:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I can assist the member. The block contains some funds for the anticipated increase in enrolment in your district. Most rapidly growing school districts will have a further recalculation of their grant later on, after the September 30 enrolments are there. As I've noted to other members of your caucus, that is worked out with the ministry.

Your district is trying to predict as accurately as it can what its growth pattern is going to be. This year it's about half of what it was last year, in terms of the prediction. There may be a bit of caution in terms of that predicting. There are two stages for grants to come 

[ Page 752 ]

to your school district if enrolment is above what they are predicting: that is, after September 30 and then a later grant that could come early in the new year. I guess it's a bit of a juggling act for boards to try to predict accurately. They may hold back a little about being overly optimistic about whether their predictions are going to actually turn into youngsters who arrive in the schools.

As I noted, in 1991 your district had a 16 percent increase, which was perhaps the largest, or very close to the largest, in the province. Last year it was 14.5 percent. The estimate is 7.3 percent, which, as I say, comes from your district estimates, working with the ministry. That's a very significant change. Perhaps there may be a temporary down, waiting to see what's happening.

Just to give you some idea of the difference in funding over three years, in 1989-90 your district received $68.5 million, and this year its block is $97,742,000. So there has been an increase in funding of pretty close to 43 percent over the last three years. In that period of time your enrolment has gone up just under 25 percent. Those are the figures that we have.

J. Tyabji: I appreciate that we have had a lot of growth. It is anticipated to slow to some extent. When you talk about the increase in budget, in School District 23 we've had a problem in that with the former administration there were not enough funds provided. We're already dealing with a discrepancy that has existed for some years. I know that in this budget the minister, no doubt, has tried to be fair to all school districts. But we were starting out from such a disadvantage that it would have taken extra funding just to bring us onto a level-playing field with other districts, given the amount of growth.

If I could also remind the minister, we do have a lot of capital costs involved with the growth, in addition to just block funding for students for their education. We have to start off with an initial infusion just for the purposes of dealing with the capital costs that go with the growth, which might be a one-time infusion. The biggest difficulty goes back to the fact that in 1989 they were locked in to the amount that they had, which wasn't adequate to deal with what they've had for the last couple of years prior to this budget.

I know you're trying to be fair to all the districts, but we're starting from so far below so many of the other districts that there should be some method of bringing them up to speed and then from there going to a level playing-field.

I'm sure the minister has seen the submission from School District 23 with regard to the expenditure plan from the school board, in which there were three principles. I have to really compliment the school board for being so thorough. The first of the three principles that they followed in their expenditure plan was that they would have a balanced budget, which is very important where I come from. If you don't have a balanced budget, out you go. The second was that the mission statement of the district must be a focus, which is for the existence of the school system to provide quality education. And the third was a commendable principle: to not have any layoff of staff. They really wanted to make sure that they wouldn't have to terminate anyone; that has involved moving a number of people around.

We're having about 1,100 new students next year, so if you can imagine this school district having to absorb 1,100 new students and not hiring any new teachers, what we have is a problem where class size is out the window. It's up for grabs. They feel that it's more important to keep a balanced budget -- and I'd have to agree with that -- than perhaps to go with the guidelines on class size.

I pose this question to the minister: to what extent do the provincial guidelines for class size affect the budget for the individual school districts, in this case School District 23? Where class size gets too large, is there not some formula for making allowance, given the responsible expenditure plan of School District 23?

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, if I may correct some figures. Every once in a while I get into the wrong column. I realized as I was making these comments that it wasn't adding up, but I didn't have an opportunity to figure out why until I sat down. This is on the percentage increases with population. Let me just correct those, because they shouldn't stand incorrect in Hansard. In 1990-91, 9.5; last year, 7.4; and projected this year, 5.7. I was giving you the funding increases over those three years. So if you want to go back, you'll know that those figures of 16, 14 and 7.5 were the funding increases over each of those years. I just wanted to be sure that we haven't left a totally incorrect record.

Just to comment about the capital budget, we have acknowledged what I think was a real lack in recognizing the start-up cost to districts like Kelowna, so there is money in the block this year for staffing of new schools and to assist with some of their start-up costs. Your district will be hearing the announcements very soon about capital budget. They're being worked on now in order to be finalized.

On the class size issue, there is no provincial guideline. In fact, it is set by district. Sometimes there are negotiations with teachers which establish class sizes, which translates into the pupil-teacher ratio. But it ranges from a low of 9 or 10 -- usually a figure that we'll find in a very small northern district -- to a high of just under 18. The cluster, I suppose, is in the 15.5 to 17.5 range, if one looks at a number of districts. That may give you some perspective on the actual. But there are no guidelines from the province.

J. Tyabji: I'd also like to ask the minister if she has any concerns with regard to the situation we have in School District 23. I have to say that I think they've come up with a very responsible expenditure plan, given the constraints we all face in these economic times.

One of the things coming up that I think is of great concern is with regard to Bill 15, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991, where they would like to reduce special-education allotments, contrary to the bill. This would mean that a lot of the 

[ Page 753 ]

services that they would then be providing for special-needs students -- from my understanding of it -- would have to be compromised. I have a lot of concerns about this, because I don't know that it's very effective. In some cases, you see going against a bill like this -- with this particular request -- is going to degrade the education of many people, not just the individual students who are affected. I wonder if the minister has some comments as to what the ministry has in mind for counteracting the effects of this, or is there some kind of independent funding that is hidden somewhere else in the ministry that would then take care of these special-needs students?

Hon. A. Hagen: Madam Chair, I understand that the district, which has been working very diligently on its budget, has submitted a request to the ministry in respect to that particular legislation. I just wanted to let you know we will consider that very carefully in light of the information that your district has provided.

J. Tyabji: I'm not that experienced with Bill 15, per se. I understand there are eight other districts which last year received approval -- I believe from the former administration -- to set up their budgets contrary to Bill 15. I'm wondering if there is a directional philosophy from the ministry with regard to Bill 15. If so, is there some kind of backup plan in the event these eight districts and let's say School District 23 waive Bill 15? My concern is in the event the needs were so great that it would bring about a bill to take care of the needs. If we waive these needs in enough districts, then no doubt we compromise the education of the students that the bill was set up for, and also the students who may not be receiving as much time or as much attention as they might otherwise, given the fact that there are students within the classroom that have special needs.

Hon. A. Hagen: The School Act requires that boards provide educational programs for children. That's their guideline, and it's the guideline of the ministry. We also have had an extensive discussion with the Leader of the Opposition around the mainstreaming and integration of children within the system. There is a process for us to work with the school district when they make a request around them meeting those challenges. As I noted, we will be discussing that matter with your school district very carefully as we look at what they are proposing. We will also be discussing the needs of the children within your district.

J. Tyabji: There's a very, very excellent program that has been operating in Kelowna, in the Central Okanagan, for a number of years that really met some of the needs of society. I had hoped that it would perhaps be expanded, or at least encouraged in other districts: that is, the AP and the IB programs -- the programs for the gifted children, and those who had perhaps slightly more inclinations in certain educational areas than the other students. Those needs for the greater inclinations and perhaps for some of their strengths in terms of educational strengths were being met by this program. It was extremely successful, and I think a lot of the parents were happy for it. We have to recognize that just as there are special needs for those who don't fit within the guidelines of our regular education system, perhaps because of learning disabilities, there are also those who have many questions and many curiosities that need to be fulfilled through the education system.

These enrichment programs that were offered are now going to have to be eliminated, which is quite unfortunate, given the success of the program and also given the fact that we should recognize as a society that the common denominator approach to education is not always effective for every student. I'm wondering, first of all, if the minister has any plans or any provisions for a long-term, perhaps provincewide enrichment program of this nature, or if the minister would understand the need to perhaps continue this program in Kelowna and therefore provide some supplementary funds for a pilot project or something of this nature. As I say, it has been operating very successfully, and I think it's something that should be encouraged in terms of doing away with a lot of the frustrations of these students.

[4:15]

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you for the information about the program in your district. I know that many districts have developed programs. Our funding does recognize that there are additional costs for offering such programs, and they are reflected in the funding that goes out to school districts. I'm confident that school districts are planning and looking to ways in which they can provide for such special programs for children as they develop their budgets. Just to repeat, there is a recognition of those costs in our funding processes, and additional funds are provided when there are identified programs for gifted children.

J. Tyabji: At this time, given the current expenditure plan of School District 23, the school board expects a shortfall of just over $7 million. If I can emphasize, this is definitely a school district where fiscal responsibility is a catch phrase, and they are extremely good at getting value for their dollar. Certainly they should be commended for their record in the past. I find it somewhat disturbing, given that kind of approach, that we are then facing over a $7 million shortfall.

I guess my question to the minister is: what message can we give the school board with regard to the $7.1 million shortfall, given that according to the figures that I have here, we've got a 5.7 percent increase in student enrolment and only about a 2.93 percent increase in funding for this district -- given that there's so much growth? It's extremely frustrating for them, I understand. They've been locked into this position from the two previous years. They're now faced with this shortfall, given this level playing-field, I would say, with the other districts. There wasn't enough allowance made for the growth that they were experiencing in previous years, and now they're facing such a dramatic shortfall. If there is any recourse with regard to.... Particularly I'm looking at the special purpose grant and -- seeing that there was nothing allocated for this district for the special purpose grant -- some way of redressing this concern.

[ Page 754 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: I do understand that the budget of the member for Okanagan East has been submitted, and it is balanced, but there has been a request around special education, which I spoke of.

Remember that I said earlier on, too, that there may be additional funding for enrolment growth after September and then throughout the year, and so those are dollar resources that will come to the district. They will be able to figure that out as soon as those students are there within the district. They will know that they have those additional dollars to support those youngsters when they arrive in September.

J. Tyabji: The money that may be available in September.... My understanding is that there would be 64 new teachers needed to address the needs of the over 1,000 students expected. In the event that there are these 64 new teachers needed to meet their needs -- who aren't being hired under this school district's budget -- would there be some allowance when the moneys are made available in September? That's, I would assume, based on the figures for students being above the 1,011 students.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me have the member understand that the budget already reflects the anticipated enrolment growth of 5.7 percent: looking at the figures, that is 1,100 students. The budget that has gone to Kelowna -- to central Okanagan -- is taking into account that projection on the part of your school district. If there are more students beyond that, then there will be additional funding to accommodate those students, and however that translates into the way classes are organized and whether there are more teachers needed will evolve come September.

J. Tyabji: I guess a question I'd like to ask the minister then is: is there going to be some kind of change to the funding formula at some point so that the 1989 discrepancies that were locked in for School District 23 will somehow be redressed later on?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just repeat again: we plan to review the funding and financing formula, and that process, which we've been working on and developing in consultation with school districts, as I've had an opportunity to review the circumstances and the issues that they bring forward.... We will be further consulting with those school districts as that review takes place, and I'm sure that your district, which has worked already with a number of districts around bringing forward concerns, will be very active in that review. I anticipate it will be one where we'll have an opportunity to look at all of the issues that you've raised today.

L. Fox: I'd just like to clarify -- as I've sat here this afternoon -- for my own mind some of the questions that were asked by members of the official opposition. One in particular is whether or not there were any studies or an examination of your capital projects done, either those that were planned in previous years but have not yet gone through to the tender stage, or those that are presently being planned. What, if any, impact will the fair wage issue have on the cost of those programs? Have you done that within your ministry?

Hon. A. Hagen: I have noted earlier that this is a policy of government, and the issue is therefore not appropriate for discussion in these estimates. The policy will be implemented by my ministry, and I will repeat the comment I made earlier that school districts and the ministry will work diligently in using the resources from our capital envelope to the benefit of our youngsters.

L. Fox: I recognized what the minister was saying. It's my concern that in one school district we've had two projects approved in the last budget year of this government. They were approved for a certain amount of dollars. The tune between the two of them is about $5.2 million; one was to the tune of $3 million and the other to the tune of $2.2 million. Both were to increase school space within School District 56.

My concern -- and why I asked the question to the minister -- was whether or not those numbers would be jeopardized by this policy and would necessitate the school district coming back with a further approval in order to see these projects through to completion.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me advise the member that there are many aspects between getting a project planned and getting it on the ground. The approvals are in place for the Nechako School District, and you can be confident that those projects will go ahead.

L. Fox: With respect to another issue, I was extremely pleased to hear of your government's continued commitment toward the disadvantaged and the disabled. Let me put it into the perspective of the Prince George School District and ask a specific question with respect to that. The mainstreaming is something that I'm sure each member of this House could give a long dissertation on the value of, and I don't intend to do that. I'm extremely concerned about the impact on Prince George School District 57.

As the minister will recall, she has had a written request for improvements in the College Heights area for school additions, and the position of the ministry and yourself has been that there's vacant space elsewhere in the district that these students could be bused to.

I was extremely appreciative of your comments that the value in mainstreaming being part of the community was a very important part of mainstreaming. Two points: given the fact that it is going to be necessary to bus some special-needs children from this rural-type school setting into a larger school, would there be transportation assistance available to that school district in order to provide that special-needs busing?

I'm told that this shift of students would necessitate three additional bus routes within the district at a cost of approximately $40,000 per bus route. Is the minister prepared to provide that school district, given the fact that she's not going to commit additional space, the additional dollars in order to bus those children from one area of the district to the other?

[ Page 755 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, the busing needs of those children will be recognized. I believe they may already be...not so, but if there are changes, those needs are recognized.

L. Fox: So let me just clarify. The special-needs busing will be looked after. What about the extra routes required in order to bus children from that College Heights region into the Prince George Secondary School? I'm told -- and I'll repeat it -- that there will be three extra bus routes required at a cost of $40,000 apiece. Is that cost also going to be recognized by the ministry?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's my understanding that busing is evaluated each year, and what I'd encourage the member to do would be to discuss this with my ministry people so that we're clear about what is in place and what's new. It's sometimes difficult to do that across the floor of the House, but it may be one of those matters where it would be helpful for us to work with you and be sure that we're understanding the issue that you're raising -- what is in place and what you believe is needed. I'd like to offer that opportunity to the member.

L. Fox: Thank you, and I'll certainly take you up on that. I know that given the constraints of the present budgeting system, $120,000 for three additional bus routes is not easily found.

Earlier, hon. minister, you made reference to the $30 million that represented, among other things, some training dollars with respect to these special-needs children. I have two questions with respect to the $30 million. I have difficulty here, because the school-year budget does not comply with ours, but how many dollars of that $30 million were in the 1991-92 school year, and how many in the 1992-93 school year? And what does that represent in terms of an increase over the expenditures in that same category for the 1991 fiscal year?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not sure that all of us are going to have our fiscal years quite straight, but let me tell you what the difference is between this administration and the administration that you weren't a part of but that was of your party. In previous years we haven't really been able to identify the dollars that were available for educational change, and we need to know what is available.

There is within this fiscal year of my ministry's budget $30 million that will be allocated to a whole variety of activities to assist us with educational change. It is a fiscal year, but most of these activities don't start on April 1 and end on March 31; the school system doesn't work like that, nor does funding. So I'm not sure that it's a very useful question. It's useful to know that we have targeted funds, and we're going to be honest about reporting on those funds. This has not always been the case, I'm sad to say.

L. Fox: The point of the question was to decide how much of the $30 million was pre-spent in the last school year. So you're telling me that's all for the 1992-1993 school year. Okay. So that's different from other parts of the budget, which indeed cover the last part of the 1991-92 school year. Am I not right in that?

Hon. A. Hagen: We can dance on the head of a pin around fiscal years, calendar years, school years and government fiscal years, but when we're talking about my estimates for the Ministry of Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights, we're talking about spending for the fiscal year starting April 1 to the end of March 1993. The point I want to make to the member, however, is that that's the allocation. The activities often sort of flow over. We're talking about real activities that go on. But the commitments are made within the fiscal year; they'll be reported in Public Accounts for this ministry for this fiscal year.

I quite honestly don't know.... If I knew where you were leading, in terms of the usefulness of this, I would respond perhaps in a more useful way. But since we're simply talking about fiscal years, I really do feel we're dancing a little bit on the head of a pin around anything that's useful to our understanding of the task, which is to get on with providing resources to our teachers and to our schools to implement education change, Mr. Member.

L. Fox: I assure the minister that I'm not trying to dance on the head of a pin. The block funding as a whole, as I understand it, covers the school district's commitment from April through to the end of June, or wherever you want to slice the pie. So some of that is committed and budgeted in the last school year's budget. That's the point that I'm trying to get to, and that was the reason for this question. If I'm wrong in that, perhaps the minister will tell me that this budget that she has given in her estimates is only for the school year '92 to '93.

Hon. A. Hagen: The member is correct. The block of funds going to school districts includes part of the current school year -- April, May, June -- and nine months of the next school year. The $30 million I'm talking about is in my ministry's budget. It's new money, it hasn't been spent, and it is planned for education change. We've identified that in respect of the total ministry budget: what goes to school districts as dollars that will be directed to education change. I hope that helps.

L. Fox: Thank you. I'm glad I understood it correctly, because the whole thrust of the rest of my question was based on that premise.

Let me ask one further question with respect to the transfer of students within School District 57 that is being suggested by the minister. I had the privilege of serving on a school board and being chairman of one for two years, so I have some basic understanding -- and I won't call it any more than that -- of the square-footage-based formula that was used in order to achieve the appropriate size of school.

[ Page 756 ]

I'm somewhat concerned that perhaps the minister has gotten the wrong advice from her administrative team with respect to Prince George Secondary School. I don't want to fault anyone in that, because I know that quite often we look down upon these age-old plants and say that, yes, there are 5,000, 20,000 or 30,000 square feet, and that should accommodate X number of children. The concern I have is that the library of such a facility, given an influx of 200 students -- I think it was in that vicinity, and I stand to be corrected on that -- cannot even accommodate the present student body that's already in that school. I know that the minister has had at least three invitations to come to Prince George and look at that facility, but unfortunately because of her schedule has been unable to do that. I would urge the minister to have a first-hand view of that school at the earliest opportunity so that you could understand the board's concern.

While the square-footage formula appears to accommodate more students, the physical size of such amenities -- such as the library, a very key component in a high school, other things such as the IA facilities, and the other needs, especially those of the special-needs children -- are going to be extremely stressed in continuing to meet the enrolment projected from its catchment area, never mind trying to accommodate these other students from the College Heights area. Would the minister just like to comment a little on the formula used, and whether she feels satisfied that it's going to be in the best interests of those students to be moved into that situation.

Hon. A. Hagen: The member asks about the means by which we make these determinations; as in all areas, we really do work hard to be fair and consistent. There is an advisory committee that uses people from the field, as we say; this means people from school districts who assist us in those kinds of decisions. But I hear what the member is saying and the concerns of your district. They're common concerns as we try to meet growth and moving populations, and we recognize also the importance of the support facilities within the schools.

So I have had some information from your district, and I do look forward actually very much to coming up there. I didn't dare go up in the winter, because the first time I flew into Prince George in the winter, we circled it a couple of times, flew into Fort St. John, landed, circled Prince George a couple of times and came back to Vancouver. Next day we went to Quesnel and drove to Prince George. So I wanted to be sure that the weather was reasonably cooperative before I put it into my schedule, and I am looking forward to having an opportunity to visit your district if at all possible before the end of the school year, legislative responsibilities permitting. I appreciate the perspective that you've brought; it is good to see those situations on the ground, I agree.

L. Fox: I will pass the word on to the school district to pass on another invitation and see if you haven't got the time perhaps to comply. I've been asked by both school districts to pose one question to the minister. Given that you identify a 9.1 percent increase in your budget, could you explain to me, so that I could pass on to those school districts, why, if there's a 9.1 percent increase, the block funding that they received only was 2.4 percent respectively?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just give you a little picture of Prince George. It is a district that is not growing, and some of the funding that has gone block-over-block to school districts is funding for growth. There also have been a few changes in the makeup of your district.

Overall, I can provide you with information about the increase over the past three years and the increase in enrolment. There has been an 18.5 percent increase over the past three years. Enrolment has grown about 5 percent. Yours is a pretty stable district in respect to enrolment. So what has gone to Prince George is fundamentally the economic adjustment without those other factors affecting it, as they have with districts like Surrey, Kelowna or Courtenay that are growing very rapidly. Your growth this year is virtually flat. It appears that there might be another 30 or 40 youngsters anticipated. That has been reflected, in fact. So you're an average school district in terms of the funding that has come to your district this year.

L. Fox: I understand that. While I'm not necessarily a proponent of "more money means better education," I realize that no matter what government was in place today, they would have horrendous challenges before them in order to meet the needs of education and balance that with the economic climate that unfortunately is before us.

But let me just ask a specific question with respect to the lunch program. It's my understanding that there were 68 elementary schools and 17 secondary schools that applied for that lunch program. Could you either confirm the number of applications you received, or tell me what the number was?

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, I can confirm those figures. There were 68 elementary schools and 17 secondary schools that applied.

L. Fox: I'm also under the impression that a major factor in awarding the lunch program dollars was a criterion that 25 percent of students had to be in the low-wage-earner category. School district 56, Nechako, made for three applications, all meeting the criterion, and yet they received no dollars whatsoever for any of their three applications. Could the minister tell me whether any rural applications were granted funds and perhaps identify what they were?

[4:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, there were some rural districts that were granted funds in this first round. Also there is a second process that will be underway in the new fiscal year with the continuation of the program. It's my understanding that there will then be a review of some of the applications that were not 

[ Page 757 ]

funded within the initial funding round that was approved just about a week ago.

L. Fox: Thank you. If it wouldn't take too much time, could I ask that the minister identify what rural school districts did in fact receive funds?

Hon. A. Hagen: My only hesitancy is that I'm not quite sure what's classified as rural as distinct from....

L. Fox: Beyond Hope.

Hon. A. Hagen: All right, if it's beyond Hope, that makes it easy. My geography is quite adequate for that.

The districts that receive funding are: Trail, Central Okanagan, Kamloops, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Prince Rupert, Prince George and Cowichan; and on the other side of Hope, Alberni and, way north, Stikine.

L. Fox: Thank you for those. I want to ask a question specifically with respect to the deficit budgeting allowed by this administration right after it took office. My question is whether or not there was any extraordinary allowance to those districts that did deficit budget, with respect to either repaying the deficit or paying the interest on the deficit?

Hon. A. Hagen: Boards that requested a deficit had a limit of 2 percent of last year's budget, and they were required to make a commitment to repay that deficit over the next two fiscal years.

L. Fox: I want to get into the Year 2000 initiative. As I understand it, it really is an initiative, not a program. There is a growing concern in my area that the Year 2000 program may not totally represent the intent of the Sullivan report. There is a real opportunity for some different programs on a district-to-district basis, and there's some concern with respect to that. I wonder if maybe the minister might want to touch on her thoughts with respect to those issues.

Hon. A. Hagen: We need to think that the Sullivan report, the royal commission, was the first opportunity in 25 years for this province to sit down and discuss education and the future needs of our children. I commend your government for instituting that royal commission. I think it has served as a starting point for renewal.

Let me come directly to the member's question. It is an excellent point, one that I believe is very consistent with the initiatives in A Legacy for Learners: that is, programs should be relevant and appropriate for children in the areas in which they live. One of the very first things I said as minister -- and my ministry people have heard me say this all too often -- is that change occurs in our school districts, in the Prince Georges, the Nechakos and the Peace Rivers of the province. The focus for change must come from those districts.

The development sites that we are supporting all around the province pick up on initiatives of school districts such as yours, consistent with a relevant and appropriate education for the needs of children. I'm personally very supportive of that diversity because we have a diverse province with diverse populations and diverse economic needs. Within the broad framework of our commitment to children's education for their citizenship, their personal growth and their participation in the world of work, there will be great scope for initiatives such as you may be describing. I look forward to hearing more about them in some other forum when we can discuss them, and when I can know more specifically some of the programs that are being developed.

L. Fox: I just want to go into some of the areas of the Year 2000 initiative if I can. One of the concerns I have and has been given to me on many occasions has been not using what we have known through 121 studies: that is, teaching of reading techniques through the phonics method. We're looking at teaching them through different methods, and I'm a bit concerned.

When I went to school, I was a subject of a test program, and to this day I suffer with respect to spelling. I'm concerned that we would enter into these initiatives when we've proven time and time again that the best method is the phonics method.

Hon. A. Hagen: The approach to teaching reading, as I understand it, is a very broad approach of which phonics is a part. With that comment, I can assure the member that the diversity we're talking about reflects good practice. Teachers recognize, again, the variety of techniques they bring to teaching reading. I don't have information here, but I'd be happy to share information with the member about how well our children are doing in those early grades. That may be information you might like to request of me -- to provide you with some information on our accountability, if you like -- for the achievement of youngsters in the early grades.

L. Fox: Another concern in my community, and I know, as well, in some other areas of the province, perhaps due to the makeup of the community.... The sense by a large sector of my community and the school district is that this 2000 initiative, if not carefully designed, could really undermine some of the values that the parents take time to instil in their children -- the system could really undermine the parent-taught values. I'm wondering what your thoughts might be on that.

Hon. A. Hagen: Both the School Act and I, as minister, support parents having an integral role in their school communities. There are a wide variety of ways for parents to participate in their school communities, to discuss with the school the programs that are offered. I support that very strongly. I've been a parent, a trustee and a teacher, so I come from all of those perspectives in knowing that the role of the parent and the work of the parent in relation to the school is an important part of school being relevant and right for kids. I would hope that parents work with their school district and with their community school around issues that relate, as you say, to the values of parents, and that 

[ Page 758 ]

there are opportunities for those to be discussed as programs are developed.

L. Fox: Earlier, hon. minister, I heard you talk about the fact that this government has a larger commitment in terms of dollars than the previous government did, with respect to the support of the Year 2000 program. I wonder if you could be definitive in terms of how your commitment in dollar terms is larger in this year's budget than it was in the previous budget.

Hon. A. Hagen: Having sat on the other side of the House and tried to get honest information about what was available for Year 2000 initiatives for a number of years, one of my first goals was that we would be honest and forthright in reporting what was available in the ministry's budget for genuine change, and that we would not keep repeating that we were continuing to spend money for change that had already occurred.

We were accounting last year, for example, for the fact that we had full-day kindergarten. Well, we have had full-day kindergarten for two or three years, and it was a change that had taken place and should have simply been acknowledged as part of the block funding.

So my approach has been to be honest about the resources available for educational change. I hope to be consultative through the excellent work of my ministry officials so that we can use those dollars most effectively to assist teachers, classrooms and school districts as they work on improving the education for children.

L. Fox: I'll try to rephrase the question. Perhaps because I wasn't here prior to this year, I'm not understanding the answer. Let me say it this way: is part of the training costs and the implementation costs that will be incurred by the respective school districts part of the $30 million that you suggested earlier was available for extra training and so on with respect to special-needs children?

Hon. A. Hagen: There's money for special-needs children in the block, and I've examined that several times in the course of these estimates. The member can see that information in Hansard. The $30 million is in addition to funding that goes out to schools now and is already distributed in the block or still to be distributed for special programs like ESL assistance or for new kids who are arriving in September and throughout the year.

L. Fox: I'll try one more time. I'm really not trying to be difficult; I'm trying to understand exactly where the dollars are going. How many dollars are allocated toward training and the Year 2000 initiative with respect to the 1992-93 budget?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, we spent about an hour on that subject earlier today, and I would suggest that the member look to Hansard, where he will find quite a bit of information about that.

L. Fox: Thank you. I respect that you may have answered it before. I waited here for a considerable time to listen, but had to do other business.

A growing concern from my perspective is the overall pressure that we're placing on the teaching profession to deal with social issues, and in a lot of cases, particularly in the smaller school districts, these are areas where the teachers do not have the benefit of the training and therefore suffer extreme stress in many instances.

I'm concerned that that side of the educational budget is indeed increasing substantially. Does the minister see any way we might be able to address these kinds of concerns within the smaller school districts that do not have the funds for psychologists and other specialty trained people?

[5:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: We did talk earlier about the range of per-pupil costs. One reason for this is just the matter that the member has raised: that in order to provide a range of services, the costs in our northern regions and small communities may be higher. We've also noted that through protocols with Social Services and Health we're bringing resources into the school to assist the classroom teacher with those needs. They're not as extensive as we would like, but we are building those and will continue to built them.

The former Prince George member quite often brought to the attention of this House the concerns of districts that are remote from the lower mainland. One of the challenges we face, in fact, is not always funding but the availability of trained personnel to work in those districts. So there are two factors here. Certainly there's a fair and equitable approach to providing the dollars, but I know that quite often the personnel are simply not there to be the speech pathologist or the physiotherapist or someone else who may provide support services in health, or perhaps in the social service domain.

L. Fox: Earlier I asked the minister why, given a 9.1 percent increase, the Prince George and Nechako School Districts got 2.4 percent. I should have asked for this clarification at that time, but am I given to understand that the balance of that increase has gone to districts with a high rate of growth in order to meet their demands? Is the whole 9.1 percent in fact allocated?

Hon. A. Hagen: Just to be clear, it's 8.1 percent for operating funds. There are a number of factors. There's the funding that goes to regional correspondence schools and special programs like homebound/hospital programs and so on. There are increases in those programs.

Actually, one of the things we're finding in some of the smaller districts is that adults who can receive their graduation credentials through correspondence and distance learning are in increasing numbers looking to upgrade their skills, and there's funding in this amount for them. Also there is an increase in debt servicing in that 8.1 percent as well. Last year there was a large 

[ Page 759 ]

capital envelope, the second-largest capital envelope ever: $582 million. Then there are funds in the blocks to all districts for computer technology and predicted growth. There are also some targeted funds, like the school meal fund or increases in funds for English as a second language, which have not yet been allocated.

It's a variety of answers, I guess, in terms of what is there. If you look in your blue book of estimates, there are three figures: the operating grants to school districts; the debt servicing that pays for the capital funding for our capital program; and what we call provincial resource programs that don't fit any one school district and that are organized through the ministry and funded in that way. Let me just be clear, because we start to deal with so many figures here and we've been at it for a long time, that the 8.1 percent increase is entirely to operating. The other contributions to schools for debt service and for support for other programs are a part of the 9.1 figure year over year in the whole ministry budget.

L. Fox: In another area, the minister will recall the sidewalk school issue last year. We were fortunate enough that the school board saw a need within the Nechako district, School District 56, and placed a number of these throughout the community. They were funded through the Ministry of Education, versus the Ministry of Advanced Education, yet they were available to school dropouts, no matter what age. They were able to, if they wished -- at their convenience, whether it was 7 o'clock in the morning or 9 o'clock at night -- upgrade themselves in terms of increasing their opportunities to find employment. Can the minister tell me whether this program is going to be continued to be funded through the school districts under the Ministry of Education? Or has it been, as was hinted by the previous minister, put into the Advanced Education area?

Hon. A. Hagen: We are in the process of conducting a review of adult education, how it can best be delivered and what ministry should be the lead ministry. There was an intent that there would be a transfer in September 1992; that has been delayed to September 1993, as we continue that review.

L. Fox: Then the district can feel comfortable that this program is going to go forth this year with funding from your ministry? Okay.

Getting back to the Year 2000 initiative, could I ask -- there has been some concern expressed to me as well -- what role competition will play in the Year 2000 program, if any? Are the children going to be entirely on their own and at their own initiative, or will they have some level of competition taught to them through this initiative?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's difficult to discuss philosophy in a question-and-answer approach. I believe that there are two fundamental elements that we want to see in our school system: one is that every child has an opportunity to learn and to be the best person and the best lifelong learner that he or she can be; secondly, that all children are challenged to excellence in their studies, whatever they may happen to be. There are a whole range of ways in which we achieve those two goals. If we work to those goals, then the approaches are quite varied in challenging children to excellence and ensuring that all of them have opportunities to learn, no matter where they live or what their own personal challenges are.

F. Gingell: We have heard that the block funding has been increased by 2.4 percent. Can you tell us how you arrived at that number?

Hon. A. Hagen: I would note that the decision about that increase is a government decision, not a ministry decision per se, and it is in line with the projected rate of inflation for the coming year.

F. Gingell: One recognizes that the Ministry of Education, which is funding the various 75 school boards in the province.... All of the school boards had salary negotiations in the year past, for the year 1991, that were within the range of 7 percent plus. There was one at 5 point something percent -- I can't see it at the moment -- one at 6 percent and one at 6.8 percent, but basically all of the rest were in the 7.1 percent and 7.2 percent area. How does the minister believe that the school boards can afford to pay their teachers increases in these negotiated amounts when the block funding has only been increased by 2.4 percent?

Hon. A. Hagen: The agreements presently in place, with the exception of one or two districts, are for the school years 1990 through 1992 -- from September 1990 to September 1992. The block funding is based on the recommendations of the royal commission that a block be established and that collective bargaining not be affected by that block, that collective bargaining be done by the parties, by the school boards and their employee groups -- teachers and support groups.

The economic adjustment, then, is one which is taken independently of those salary negotiations. That was a very strong recommendation of the royal commission. It is my understanding that school districts have signed two-year agreements that have 7 percent and 7 percent over those two years, plus whatever teaching and working conditions they have agreed to around class size. Those are matters between school districts and teachers.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that, Madam Minister, but we have to deal with the real world. It must have been obvious to the government at the time the decision was made to make the economic adjustment in the amount of 2.4 percent that the uproar and the series of announcements that school boards would have to lay off teachers would be the obvious result of that decision. The ministry and government were aware that the second year of these two-year settlements was going to have to be funded.

Is there not some way that the year 1992-93 can recognize the real world and a very strong message be sent out that the increase in the block funding will be 

[ Page 760 ]

substantially reduced in the 1993-94 year, for which salary agreements have not yet been negotiated?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me come back to the recommendation of the royal commission, which was that the distribution system should not attempt to counteract bargaining outcomes. I would note that the provincial government has no role in the bargaining between school districts and their employees. Those decisions are taken at that level.

I can provide the member with information about the increase in the block over the last three years -- it's 25.5 percent. The increase in enrolment is less than 10 percent over the province, and I can repeat the information that we have increased funding for education by $300 million over this year. There is $232 million more in the block for the coming year than there is for this year.

So those are the ways in which we have stated our priority for education consistent with the system in place and the responsibilities we have and recognizing the responsibility of the local school districts to deal with bargaining with their employees, teachers and support staff.

[5:15]

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member from Richmond Centre. No, I'm sorry, I apologize -- West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Don't feel badly, it seems that everyone sitting in the chair in the last two days has had difficulty with my riding. It's a point that I have made many times and will make once more: I want to change the name of it, and perhaps I'll have a private member's bill to do that.

This morning, before we adjourned, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi made reference to a newspaper article dealing with this survey that is rumoured to be -- or apparently will be -- conducted in some school districts. We now have obtained a copy of the survey, and I thought the minister would be interested in the content of it -- or some of it. I'm not going to go through all of the contents, I can assure you; there are 123 questions in this questionnaire. It just boggles the mind to think of 12-year-olds having to go through 123 questions. I haven't counted the pages, although they are numbered. There are 11 pages, and also the students have some space at the back of the form to fill in any written comments that they would like to leave.

Let me just give a quick overview of this survey entitled "Youth Health Survey." There's an opening statement to all students saying that "thousands of students ranging in age from 12 to 19 years across the province" will be "taking part in this important survey." It says: "There are no right or wrong answers. This is not a test. Your participation is voluntary." These are just some introductory comments. "Your help today is very important to us."

Now that's fine of itself, but I might comment that I understand from some information we've obtained that apparently the Vancouver School Board has said that they will not allow this survey to be conducted -- or at least that was their initial reaction.

The questionnaire that we received actually came from the Richmond School Board, so I should be fair and state to the committee the position that the Richmond board has taken. This survey came up at their last meeting, as to whether they would allow it to go forward. There was general discussion, and it was moved and seconded that the survey and all information be sent to the various junior secondary and senior secondary schools in Richmond -- or at least some of them.

However, the motion went on, "...to see if the parents of the students of these four schools are willing to have their children participate in this youth health survey." I think we would all applaud that, and the hon. minister did mention before we adjourned in the morning that certainly she would expect -- as is the case anyway -- that parents would have to give their okay. I might add, as a sort of personal editorial comment on that particular point, that as a parent of a 13-year-old child I would certainly would not give my permission for him to answer some of these questions. I'm not quarrelling with the concept of the survey; I think some very useful information could be gathered. But quite frankly, this survey is inappropriate for young children.

I've already commented on the length of the survey -- 123 questions. That in itself suggests that the survey is inappropriate. But I would add that there are many questions in here that are both leading and suggestive. I think these questions, they way they're phrased, are inappropriate, given the age of the recipients, the people who are invited to comment. Let me get down to some specifics.

This one may not be terribly important, but I thought it would be of interest for the members of this committee to hear. Question 13 deals with father's employment status, and there's a list of six general categories of employment. Number 5 on the list deals with "househusband -- does not work outside the home" as a possible choice, which is fine. Question 14: "What is your mother's employment status?"

The Chair: Excuse me, member. The minister has risen on a point of order.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to make clear, Madam Chair, a point that was made clear this morning: that this is a matter that we did discuss this morning, but it is not a part of the estimates; it is not a part of any work of the ministry. We did engage in some discussion on it this morning around ministry policy, but the actual survey that the member is dealing with is not related to my estimates.

The Chair: The minister's point is well taken, member, unless you can tie this to the debate here today, the estimates debate and the responsibilities of this ministry.

[ Page 761 ]

J. Dalton: I appreciate those comments. I would then put a direct question to the hon. minister through you, Madam Chairperson. Who is funding this survey?

Hon. A. Hagen: Because this is in no way related to the ministry, I do not have an answer for that question.

D. Mitchell: When we were discussing this issue this morning, certainly the minister was more forthcoming with her answers, and we did talk about whether the ministry did endorse this survey. We canvassed this, and the minister indicated that in fact the survey has been endorsed by the government, by the Ministry of Health, by the Ministry of Education. Certainly this is a survey that is being distributed, or being proposed to be distributed, to some 2,500 students in British Columbia, and the minister....

Hon. A. Hagen: On a point of order, I am perfectly happy to answer questions in respect to this as it relates to ministry policy, and I would ask that perhaps the member direct his questions to ministry policy.

D. Mitchell: Certainly if I could have a chance to get to my question, I'd be pleased to do that. This morning we were talking about this survey in the context of ministerial policy -- what the ministry's stance was on this survey -- and the minister made a commitment to this committee this morning that this survey would not be distributed to students without having the approval from the parents of the students. Implicit in that commitment was the connection between the ministry's position on a survey such as this one being distributed to students.... Therefore we are talking about something that is relevant to the estimates that are before the committee, and we are talking about ministry policy. Can the minister confirm our understanding from the comments made this morning that the consent of parents will be obtained before this questionnaire is distributed to any student in British Columbia? 

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: I am pleased to deal with matters relating to ministry policy. Let me state the ministry policy in respect to this survey -- and any survey. The ministry has a position that surveys of this nature, initiated outside the ministry, should be negotiated between the surveyor and the local school district. I want to make clear again that contrary to statements that may have been made by others, the ministry has not endorsed this survey. I did advise the member, as I've often talked about school districts and their role, that it is my understanding that school districts have policies regarding consent about matters that come to students and that those consents are requested. It is my understanding that that is indeed the case with this survey for any school districts who have decided that the survey may be offered within their school district. I think what that does is provide the member the policy on which we operate and my understanding of what our school district policy is. Before we deal with the survey proper in this House, it's not a part of my ministry. The comment about the participation of the students being voluntary.... The member made reference to that in his reading before we did say that the survey proper is not an appropriate subject for the estimates.

The Chair: Hon. opposition House Leader, are you satisfied with that explanation? The reason I ask is that it may be helpful to remind the committee that our standing orders are quite clear on the matter of areas of responsibility when we're in Committee of Supply. Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. This isn't legislation specifically, but it does fall outside, technically, the Ministry of Education's responsibilities. I would ask you to keep that in mind when making your comments.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that guidance. This matter and this question is certainly within the administrative competence of the minister who is here with the committee today.

I would like at this time to ask one final question on this survey. The minister has made some statements with respect to the autonomy of local school districts in this and in other areas, and we applaud the principle of the autonomy of local school districts to administer their affairs, although we have raised some concerns in this committee, certainly during the review of these estimates, as to whether or not sufficient resources are being provided to school districts so they can manage their affairs with this budget. That's another matter, separate and apart from the issue relating to this survey and surveys, generally speaking, which are going to be distributed to students within the K-12 system.

Can I ask the minister this question? If a proposed survey was to be distributed to students within our school system, and if the contents of that survey were considered to be inappropriate for whatever reason by the ministry and by the minister, would the minister consider intervening to the point of preventing the distribution of the questionnaire?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's very difficult to answer a hypothetical question. I did give some indication to the member this morning about the processes by which requests are handled, and I've reviewed that policy with the member today. I think that has provided him with some guidance.

The Chair: I would just point out to the member that I think the minister's response is well taken. The response may not be to the satisfaction of the opposition House Leader, but I do feel that the Chair has to rule against further canvassing of a decision made by the school district, in light of the explanation given by the minister, which should be sufficient. Further discussion of this matter would be outside the ability of this committee at this time.

[ Page 762 ]

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, taking into account your comments, I have one final question that I would like to ask the minister on this.

F. Garden: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I've heard your ruling to the opposition House Leader. I've heard the minister give about five replies to the question, and it's becoming obvious to me as a member that he's trying to engage the minister in debate as opposed to dealing with estimates. You gave your ruling, and he's ignoring that ruling. I think the member should be called to order.

The Chair: Your point is well taken, hon. member. I think the hon. opposition House Leader has now been apprised of the dilemma the committee finds itself in, and we are all hoping that he will conduct his comments accordingly.

D. Mitchell: We've been dealing with an issue within the administrative competence of the minister, and I have a final comment on this. It is a specific question, and it's within the administrative competence. We've heard during the discussion of this matter, both this morning and this afternoon, some concern expressed by some members of this committee with respect to a particular survey and its contents, and whether or not it's appropriate for distribution in our school system. Of course the Minister of Education is responsible for the K-to-12 school system.

[5:30]

My one final comment on this relates back to a question that was answered by the minister this morning with respect to the survey and her familiarity with its contents. We've expressed some concern and some reservations in this committee today about the contents of the survey and the method of its distribution and the methodology of the survey and what in fact is intended to be obtained from it. Can the minister confirm -- and this is one final question -- that she has read the survey, that she is personally familiar with it and that she feels that it is appropriate for distribution to K-to-12 students, including 12-year-olds, in our school system?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe the member is still straying from the particular issue, but I did suggest to the member, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly dealing with a public body that is proposing a survey, that it would be appropriate for him or any members of his caucus to speak to the surveyor, who is responsible for the content of the survey, about their concerns. That is advice I would like to offer again.

G. Wilson: A matter that is only tangentially related to what we're talking about, but I think is equally important, has to do with the position that you, as minister, and your ministry have with respect to potential amendments to section 9 of the B.C. School Act. I'm referring specifically to opening up the School Act and allowing parents complete access to all school records on their children and their attendance. I wonder what the position of the minister is with respect to this and whether or not direct guidelines are going to be put forward this year with respect school districts possibly being able to coordinate their records. Is some money going to be made available for such coordination, so that the ministry can have some process, in an amended act, to allow parents more direct access to records, particularly those parents who have children with handicaps, who are moving from school district to school district, who require those records in order to facilitate adequate care for their child in a second school?

The Chair: Before the minister responds, is the opposition leader inquiring with respect to future legislation?

G. Wilson: No, I'm not talking about future legislation. I'm asking about government policy with respect to parents -- particularly those who have children with special needs and handicaps -- being able to access records, so that if their child leaves one school and goes to another, they're able to facilitate getting those records so they can take them to another school and have that school assess the needs of the child prior to the child's entry. That's what I'm talking about.

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you for the question. When a student moves from one school to another, there are procedures in place for the records to be transferred. Also, parents have access to school records under section 9 of the School Act, as the member has noted. Those procedures are in place.

In addition, we have advised school districts of the Interpretation Act and some views that would assist them in interpreting access under section 9 of the School Act. It's our belief that parents need to have access to any records relating to their children, as they help in the planning for the special needs of their children's education.

G. Wilson: If I could just clarify the situation with respect to the transfer of records, is the minister saying that a parent has full access to all records and that those records can be made available to the parent, or is it simply records transferred between schools, without parents having a full assessment and an ability to review, to act on and to deal directly with the records on file that relate to their child?

Hon. A. Hagen: I hope I'm understanding the question. The School Act allows parents access to the records of their children. When children move from school to school, those records are transferred according to procedures that are clearly established. As a youngster moves from Vancouver to Surrey, there's a process for their school records to be transferred from the school they've been attending to the new school.

G. Wilson: I accept that that is the case. What we are attempting to do, however, is find out what the policy is with respect to the provision accorded parents to be able to access themselves -- to take copies of, to have copies of and to have at home a full record of the 

[ Page 763 ]

material that is on file in the school -- if they wish to get a second opinion on, for example, any assessments done on learning disabilities, so the parent has access to all of the documentation and is able to keep it at home.

Hon. A. Hagen: I now understand the thrust of the member's question. This is a matter that has been raised. I advised boards in February of their obligations under the School Act. The member also asked about the possibility of an amendment to the School Act. That is future policy, but I will advise him that if there are some questions there, we are considering how best to be sure that there is no ambiguity in respect to access to student records.

G. Wilson: To be clear, then, the minister is in favour of parents having full access to those records so that they may have hard copy of that data at home. Is that what I'm hearing the minister say -- that there would be a directive to make sure that within each of the school districts the provision for that could be accommodated? Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me advise the member that I will make available to him the letter that has gone to school districts about access to student records and in respect to legislation. That is indeed future policy, and we are reviewing legislation at this time. But I have addressed this issue with school districts, and I will provide the member with information about that letter -- or a copy of that letter -- so that he's aware of the direction that has gone to boards.

J. Dalton: I am going to perhaps take a different tack. We've had a very interesting range of questions throughout the afternoon. My question deals with aboriginal education. She has already made some comments in response to some points. I make particular reference to an item in the budget. While we're on that topic I would just like to point out to the committee that this budget is very poorly put together. The first time I opened it, it broke. I don't know whether that's a symbolic thing or not.

F. Garden: We'll get you another one.

J. Dalton: Oh, thank you. Perhaps with a better binding.

I make reference to the ministry operations. There is under educational programs reference to aboriginal bands, grants and contributions provided to same. Just leading into my question, I had occasion last month to meet with one of the band council members from the Fort St. James area -- I see that my hon. friend from Prince George-Omineca's just rejoined us; it's within his riding, in actual fact. A very interesting concept was proposed to me in the meeting I held with this aboriginal official. I'm inviting the minister to give a response. The proposal that the official came up with -- and I'm sure it's not unique -- is whether it would be possible within the Ministry of Education for independent aboriginal school boards to be set up. He voiced concerns, and I've heard other aboriginal people voice similar concerns, that the school districts are not necessarily addressing all of the issues that aboriginal people face, and I think that's a reality. We all share those concerns. So he left me with some information, and he invited me wherever possible to get some reaction from the ministry. I'm taking this opportunity now, Mr. Chairman, to raise the point of whether the ministry has considered the possibility of independent or separate -- for want of a better word -- aboriginal school boards to specifically deal with the very important question of proper and adequate education for our aboriginal people.

Hon. A. Hagen: We are into domains that relate partly to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in terms of negotiations around native issues and ongoing issues in relation to the provision of education services. Since the member is really talking about future policy rather than existing programs, I don't believe that we can really examine it in the context of our debate today, except to note that issues of native education and how to provide a culturally appropriate education, one that involves the parents, is a high priority with my ministry. We have a number of initiatives and working relationships with tribal councils and bands in those discussions.

V. Anderson: I would come back to discuss the area of multiculturalism, which we did some discussion on before. This is really a growing concern, and as I mentioned before, I was delighted that it had been put in Education along with this minister's other portfolios.

One of the first questions I would have to ask about this is in relation to the message about the funding related to this program. Since this is the first time it appears in estimates per se, I'd like to confirm that prior to this, this multiculturalism program was handled by funds that came through lotteries. Will lottery funds still be coming to fund this program? Or have those been taken away, and it's now included in the minister's budget itself?

Hon. A. Hagen: We're now honestly reporting where the funding is, and it's under my ministry. So it's within the Ministry of Education. Funds are not coming from any other source. The lottery funds were in general revenue too; we just didn't know they were there.

V. Anderson: Yes, we didn't know. I agree with you.

Two questions regarding the amount of the funding. I notice the funding has been static from previous years regardless of where the funding came from, and I notice that each of the items is the same as it has been previously. Yet I have heard from the minister throughout this debate that there will be an extension of the program, a greater emphasis on it and greater integration of this program into others. Does this mean that other funds in the ministry will be used in cooperation with these funds to undertake more aspects? And with this program covering the whole of the province, I notice that the travel budget is only $8,000. I wonder 

[ Page 764 ]

how much travel for a program of this nature could be accomplished with $8,000. So there are two questions.

[5:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: I may not have caught the last question, because I was engaged in a brief question with the Attorney General. To the first question, I have noted that we will be working with the immigration settlements program and with programs within my ministry that support multiculturalism to enhance the work of multicultural programs. And the support services are there within the ministry, of course, for that program as well.

V. Anderson: I also notice that one of the largest pieces of the funding for this particular project -- $100,000 out of a total budget of $150,000; two-thirds of the budget -- is used for advertising and publications. Does this indicate that this is the major thrust of this program, rather than any other aspects of developing multiculturalism?

Hon. A. Hagen: Over half of the funding in this program goes directly to grants for multicultural programs in the communities.

V. Anderson: Might I ask, then, about the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism? Who is this council made up of? What is its mandate? And what are their terms of reference and the time of their appointment?

Hon. A. Hagen: The multicultural council is advisory to the minister. I am in the process of appointing a new council. I have opened up a process seeking information from the multicultural community about people who may serve on the council, and it's my intent that we have a rotating council so that we have input from regions and different cultural groups. Their mandate has been to advise on multiculturalism policy for government to deal with education, information and racial understanding. I will of course be reviewing the mandate with the new committee when it is appointed.

V. Anderson: I notice that the heritage language program is also in this ministry. What languages are covered within this program, and how is it implemented?

Hon. A. Hagen: This funding provides for cultural communities to provide instruction for youngsters in their ethnic or national language. They're often called Saturday schools. I don't have the list in front of me, hon. member, but a wide range of national language groups takes advantage of this funding.

J. Dalton: I still have some questions on standby with regard to block funding, and I think it would be appropriate to bring up one or two of those now. I did ask some questions earlier in the day on this topic, but I want to revisit it from another perspective.

One of the questions I would like to put to the hon. minister deals with the fiscal framework in the block funding formula. There seems to be a conception out there -- which I think is proven, certainly in the growth districts that I'm going to refer to in a moment -- that there's an infinite economy of scale within the education system whereby the larger you are, presumably the more efficient you therefore are. So the funding certainly gets unequal in that respect.

I'm referring in particular to a brief entitled "Block Funding in Rapid-Growth Districts" that six of the growth districts put together and submitted. I believe the hon. minister has a copy. This was a joint effort by the Central Okanagan, Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey, Richmond and Coquitlam School Districts. It's a very interesting endeavour; we have districts not just within a particular geographic area, but throughout British Columbia.

I'm referring now, Mr. Chairman, to a letter that I have a copy of that was actually addressed to the hon. minister from the president of the Central Okanagan Teachers' Association. She's made some comments that I think are an appropriate lead-in to my point about these economies of scale. The president of the Central Okanagan Teachers' Association comments, back in January, on the inadequacy of growth-district funding. She says that the snapshot of district budgets in the '89-90 fiscal year -- that was the year, as we've observed earlier, when block funding came in -- laid the foundation for the formation of the current block funding formula, which has mistakenly created a false sense of economy in the Education ministry. As a result, you have a rich-and-poor-district syndrome starting to emerge in the province. Districts that were run by thrifty boards were penalized further by the increased centralization of educational budgets at the provincial level. There's other information in the letter, but I'm not going to go on into that. I want to get down to the particular observation that I see from that, and the question....

Interjection.

J. Dalton: With respect to some comments from the government side, we have 15 minutes on each observation we make, and I will carry on.

Coming back to the brief and the observations that are made in it, since there are so many districts facing financial problems, has the minister undertaken any changes to the fiscal framework which would allow for these economies of scale to be reduced and eventually eliminated -- whereby the growth districts will not be further penalized by the very fact that they are seeing new students introduced into their districts? More and more we're seeing evidence of the growth districts going through -- not of their own choosing or liking -- what we might call growing pains.

Hon. A. Hagen: I have met with most of the boards that he referred to in his comments, and my officials have met with them, so there have been extensive discussions on these matters. Let me just give the member a couple of facts that relate to, if you like, economies of scale. Districts range in number from a little bit under 500 to over 50,000. Yes, we have acknowledged some changes and arranged for some 

[ Page 765 ]

changes within the funding formula. There are changes that relate to what we recognize are...like the number of kids who come into the school system -- we have to accommodate them. So we have fixed costs in all districts and there are -- no question about it -- economies in large districts relating to some of those fixed costs and also to where a district is. But we have also made some changes in respect to learning assistance that adds funding based on the fact that a student requiring learning assistance should not necessarily be in the economy-of-scale equation. I know, too, that the discussions that we've been having with school districts provide us with information that informs our pending review. But as I've noted earlier, the fiscal framework has been reviewed each year by officials for changes that have taken place each year.

J. Dalton: I have at least one other question I wish to ask along the same line, but I have my eye on the clock. I'm not suggesting that we're going to prematurely adjourn, but I would be prepared to move adjournment at this time because we do have other material to cover -- and we're certainly not going to finish it today, I can assure the committee. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to suggest that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before giving the floor to members of the committee, I will tell you that the opposition critic and the member for Okanagan West and I had a brief conversation following adjournment. We discussed how we might organize the estimates to facilitate and channel the discussion on particular topics at particular times, which would make it more convenient for the work schedules of senior staff of the ministry.

This is an informal arrangement. There's nothing formal about this in any way, but I'd like to propose that if it's agreeable -- and it would only be done by agreement -- we deal with courts, motor vehicle and police matters. Let's see if we can get through those today. Then on the next day, which I anticipate will be next Tuesday afternoon -- I say anticipate, because one never knows what the House might do with its business -- we will move in this order: Corrections, criminal justice, legal services, liquor licensing. Throughout this, if there are other issues relating to general ministry issues, we can deal with those as well, of course. But if we can channel the questions in that order, it might be helpful to all concerned. If it doesn't work, we'll sort through it, but let's try. That is my hope.

Secondly -- unless the members want to respond to that....

A. Warnke: As the minister indicated, just after our adjournment the third-party representative, I and the minister agreed to this. Perhaps it might be even more efficient to proceed through these various categories seriatim. I have not had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues, but I believe it would be appropriate to proceed in this manner.

C. Serwa: I appreciate and welcome this opportunity and initiative. There is nothing here that I have any opposition to. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. It gives my other colleagues the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Attorney General. I think it is efficient as well, and I certainly welcome it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's great. That will help us. I hadn't really thought it through, but it will help other members of the House who are in the other committee. They may want to comment on particular elements of this debate, in terms of when they should arrange their trade, as it were, to be in here.

May I then proceed by answering a question that was asked this morning with respect to federal cost-sharing on aboriginal projects? Firstly, there's little or no formal federal cost-sharing on aboriginal programs, but there are a couple of items I can mention. The native special constable program, which is a total of about $2.6 million in B.C., has a 46 percent federal and 54 percent provincial contribution. The total budget for the Native Courtworker and Counselling Association is $2.3 million. We contribute half of the $2.3 million, and the federal government provides the other half.

The federal government also cost-shares with the province on a number of programs -- but not to that extent -- such as legal aid, the Young Offenders Act, victims' funding and the RCMP, which I did mention this morning. There is also an exchange of services for adults in custody, in terms of which system they're in.

[ Page 766 ]

As members know, the federal government has capped most of their sharing programs. With increasing costs, their percentage continues to decline. If the trend continues, it will lead to a situation where there will be very little, if any, cost-sharing on any programs in this province -- or any other province, for that matter.

C. Serwa: This morning when we broke, the minister was talking about a native justice system. It may mean something different to the minister and the ministry than it does to me and the public at large. I was wondering if I could ask the minister to elaborate on what he sees evolving in the justice system. The minister spoke briefly, but more on the sensitivity of the Corrections end of the justice system than on the actual justice system. Do you see a separate court system, like a magistrate system, dealing with certain offences within the parameters of the federal Criminal Code? How do you envision that that will occur?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would resist any move toward a separate system. If the overall justice system is appropriately designed and fits the needs of all citizens of this province -- which it should -- then there can be different ways of dealing with some of the native issues. I mentioned this morning an obvious example relating to probation, which is an issue there. There are experiments going on at this very time with respect to the south Island project, which is between the ministry and native people on southern Vancouver Island. I wouldn't want to stand here and predict the design of the program. That's something that will evolve through discussions.

My own view is.... If you go back to the Manitoba inquiry on the shooting in the city of Winnipeg, one of the recommendations was for a separate justice system for native people there. I hope we don't ever get to the position here where the demand would be for that response. I hope that our system can be sensitive enough to the province that we will never have to face that kind of question.

C. Serwa: Listening to the minister this morning, I agree wholeheartedly with his reference to pride being the foundation for native people. I certainly discovered that on trips around the province on the native language, culture and heritage initiative. The minister is very correct about that.

My concern is with accommodation in the justice system without compromising the justice system. How much accommodation do you see in the justice system for cultural difference? Should that cultural-difference accommodation be restricted to the aboriginal people, or is there a danger of the recognition that there are cultural differences on the part of other people who now make the fabric of Canada?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sensitive to the need for an integrated justice system that responds to the needs of all British Columbians. It may be that, in certain procedures and courts, there needs to be some recognition of language difficulties. There are a whole series of issues like that, but I don't think I can stand here this afternoon and describe, in any detail, the nature of where this may lead. What we need to keep as a goal is a system that is actually accessible to everyone in this province in an equitable fashion. I talked about that earlier this morning.

It is crucial that the system not just be accessible to those of us who have some familiarity with the law or with the systems, or who have some comfort with the language and have grown up with it, and so know and are not intimidated by the system. Many people don't have those advantages, which probably most of us in this room do have. What we need to do is make sure the court system works in a way that doesn't raise any impediments for anybody in our society.

C. Tanner: I have a question of procedure here. The minister didn't mention, when he was talking about how he was going to proceed, either the elections branch or the liquor branch. When does he have plans for those?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I did mention liquor licensing. What we will do is liquor licensing and liquor distribution -- it makes sense to do all of that at the same time -- at the tail end. It was seventh on the list and would be following the legal services branch. In respect to the elections branch, we could do that preferably after. It's not on the list, I agree, but let's just put it on the list after that particular item.

A. Warnke: My understanding is that this is not an exhaustive list; perhaps we could confirm that. This is the first seven, after which we essentially open it up to various questions that may well include elections or some other aspects not covered here.

There are some questions with regard to the courts that I think we could address. Since we do not want to delay longer than necessary, I have some very specific questions I'm sure the minister is aware of -- one we've already entertained very briefly in question period. I was actually pleased with a couple of the remarks made by the minister on it. Nonetheless, it concerns a very recent development where Crown prosecutors met in a formal meeting and overwhelmingly, by 96 percent, voted in favour of withdrawing their services after June 15, if the situation meant that certain issues were not addressed or resolved. What came to mind -- and I think it is appropriate here -- is that maybe the Attorney General could indicate, in the estimates and in the budget accommodation, whether he sees something that could accommodate or help facilitate any resolution of this proposed strike action.

[2:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first thing I will say is that I would have expected this question in the criminal justice section of the estimates debate, which will come on the next day. We're all feeling our way here, and I think we should be relaxed about it and not too worried. But we might be able to get into a more detailed discussion of the entire criminal branch on the next day.

[ Page 767 ]

In general terms, let me just say that I've acknowledged in the House and outside the House that there is a legitimate concern on the part of Crown counsel and prosecutors with respect to their standing, both financially and in terms of how their work is valued in our society. Given the workload, there is also some concern -- I think legitimately expressed -- about their ability to do the kind of job they're able to do and would like to do,.

They have formed an association, the Crown Counsel Association. I have met with their representatives, and we as government have agreed to do something that hasn't been done before -- that is, to sit down with them to talk about their concerns. They have chosen not to try to move in the direction of becoming a certified bargaining unit; they prefer not to do that. Legislation precludes it now, but they haven't asked that it be amended, so they clearly want to continue to function as an association without the protection that certification would give them. They have a number of issues on the table. As I have indicated, many of those issues are really quite legitimate.

I'm concerned about redressing some of the inequities that developed as a result of the contracting-out that was done almost a decade ago, and about the range of the pay schedule, which -- I think legitimately -- they argue is not entirely appropriate. I think they agree that we have tough times in British Columbia. We're all getting tired of saying it, but it's true. They -- if I read what they tell me correctly -- have acknowledged that they can't fix all of our problems in one year, but my commitment and the government's commitment is to do our very best to work toward redressing some serious and legitimate concerns.

A. Warnke: Going through my notes, I do have this under the criminal justice branch, and quite appropriately. We could perhaps get into the details of this on the next day. I was actually thinking of the effect on court services, and I think the minister responded most fully and to my satisfaction on this matter.

There are a couple of other matters. Two of them are pressing, but what I'd like to raise here is that I think might be appropriate.... Again, it sort of fulfils what I was saying this morning: perhaps now is a good time to elaborate on and describe certain features of the administration of justice. What I have in mind here are the section 96 appointments. This concerns federal appointments through the Governor-General-in-council -- in other words, the federal appointments of our senior judiciary. I would appreciate if the minister could explore that, or maybe tell us whether there has been any change of thinking with regard to section 96 appointments. Could the minister elaborate on what the present government's position is with regard to section 96 appointments, recognizing that it has been a contentious area in the last decade or so?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I trust this is not an invitation to reopen the Meech Lake debate. If it is, I'll decline.

Of course, the federal appointments are made by the Minister of Justice for Canada. As the members know, there is now a combined superior court in the province. The procedures have been amended ever so slightly since the discussions of 1987 around the role that provinces might play in respective superior court appointments. Nonetheless, the decision and the authority now reside entirely within the federal Justice minister's area of responsibility. The practice is that there is some consultation. There is no veto right of the province yet, but there is some "limited form of consultation." I think that is probably the way I would describe that best.

In the longer term, there is clearly a desire to have more than that at the provincial level, while recognizing that this is indeed a federally appointed court. Whether or not this ends up being part of the constitutional discussions this year, who knows.

A. Warnke: Indeed, the Attorney General has answered this question most fully. Perhaps it is redundant to a few people, but this is an important area, because there has been some confusion in the eyes of the public as to who is involved in the actual appointments. It's extremely important to clarify that.

On a more concrete level, when the minister introduced his estimates.... What shows up here is an increase in the estimate. We've gone past the $100 million figure for the court services branch. It isn't my objective to be critical here at all. It's just to press and clarify the factors that have gone into the increased anticipated expenditures. Perhaps the Attorney General could describe that a bit.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: So that it's on the record, I'll just give the numbers. Given that we have a Hansard recording of this, it might be useful to have all of the information. The budget for the court services branch has increased from $106.16 million in '91-92 to $115.11 million in '92-93. This is a $9 million increase, or 8.4 percent.

It's accounted for in the following way: firstly, the restoration of a 3 percent budget cut in '91-92 that totalled $3.7 million. That was cut, but the cuttings were never approved; in other words, there was approval for cutting the budget, but there was never an approval for implementing the cut. While the budget was cut, the programs continued, and the $3.7 million was spent. That immediately reduces the $9 million by $3.7 million.

Secondly, there is funding in this year's budget of $1.53 million to operate new courtrooms in Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack and New Westminster, as well as to increase the capacity of family and small claims court at Robson Square; $100,000 to meet the increasing demands for court interpreters in the lower mainland; and $3.6 million for facility cost increases and minor capital improvements to maintain court facilities throughout the province.

FTEs increased 2 percent, from 1,260 to 1,290, people for the operation of the new courtrooms. No full-time equivalents were included with the $3.7 million budget restoration. As I indicated earlier, none were cut to coincide with the proposed cut last year. That should 

[ Page 768 ]

total $9 million, which is the full amount of the increased activity this year.

A. Warnke: My understanding is that we will proceed through these various categories seriatim not all at once. If someone else has a question on the courts, I would then defer to that.

D. Jarvis: I don't know if this has to do with the courts, liquor or what. It is a personal situation, and you probably wouldn't be too familiar with it. Approximately a year and a half ago in Vancouver, my cousin, her husband and two of her three children were killed in an auto accident by a driver convicted of impaired driving. He had had one impaired driving charge. He was under suspension for a second impaired charge when he killed members of my family. Subsequent to his going to court, he was involved in another accident while impaired, and injured other people.

I was wondering if there is anything in the department -- I don't know how to word this -- where you may be considering some penalty or incarceration when there is a definite or a potential violation of an impaired charge, as well as a continuance of one. Taking it on their own and going out.... I haven't worded that very well. Do you grasp what I'm trying to get at?

Hon. C. Gablemann: My first reaction is that I don't want to deal with the specifics of the case.

D. Jarvis: I didn't ask you about that specific case.

Hon. C. Gablemann: What the member is doing is trying to use that as an illustration to deal with a larger problem. It's a problem that a lot of people in British Columbia are concerned about. Apparently this is a situation where people who have had impaired convictions will sometimes drive in illegal situations. This is an issue that has been identified in the ministry. In my mind, it is one that we need to deal with. I'm just not able yet to talk about any specific programs dealing with that. May I just say that, in general terms, we're very aware of it and concerned. We'll be attempting to deal with it in the near future.

[3:00]

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to come and try out this new room and new process. It feels rather strange. In following the agenda that we have -- it's a good idea if we can work it out -- I hope this is the appropriate place for me to continue the questions from question period. I'm interested in the approach the government is taking on the appeal of the Gitksan decision. I really want to get some clarification, and this appears to be a better way to do it. In the statement the minister made in the House, he clearly indicated that the government recognizes something called aboriginal rights. I'll stay away from title. He made the statement on behalf of the government that title was never extinguished. This appears to be a direct contradiction of the decision by the Chief Justice in the Delgam Uukw decision -- at least in my interpretation.

I'm interested to know whether the government thinks it's possible to stand in the Legislature, in committee and in public meetings and say that we believe aboriginal title exists and was never extinguished, while at the same time arguing against the appeal and in support of the original decision in the courts. It is difficult for me to imagine a provincial government arguing something in court that appears to be directly contradictory to what it is saying publicly. I'm wondering how the ministry has been able to resolve or feel a sense of comfort with that issue. Or do I understand that the government is changing the argument it's going to make before the courts?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Perhaps I'll go back a bit to try to put it into context. What we've been dealing with in these questions has had to do with the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en case itself and not with the more general application of the government's policy on aboriginal rights. We have been talking specifically about that particular case.

I'm going to put this in very simple terms, because that's how it works for me. The Gitksan Wet'suwet'en argued in the original trial that they owned all of their traditional territory outright. That was theirs. From our point of view, we might say that they were arguing that they owned it fee simple. The province took the position at the time, as the member well knows, that aboriginal rights were extinguished. That argument essentially succeeded. At the time, Justice McEachern added the fiduciary obligation element to the case. Nonetheless, the essential argument -- do the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en own it, or does the province? -- was decided in the province's favour, based on the success of the extinguishment argument.

The new government has a slightly different position on extinguishment than the previous government had at the time of the trial. Put in very non-legal terms -- which is easy for me -- our position is that aboriginal rights were not extinguished in blanket fashion. By whatever legal argument one might make saying they were -- whether it's the proclamation of 1763, a combination of other issues or the activities of the Crown -- we say that aboriginal rights were not extinguished.

In the appeal of the case at hand, we will be arguing that extinguishment has occurred on the fee simple land in the traditional territory. This may be where the confusion arises. We are arguing that there has been extinguishment on the fee simple land. This is where sui generis comes in. With respect to non-fee simple land in the traditional territory, we are arguing that different levels and expressions of rights exist in different parts of that territory. The rights in traditional village sites will be different from the rights in traditional hunting or fishing sites, and they will be different again from the rights in other parts of the territory where there may have been little or no activity historically.

The important thing here is that because we want to move the definition of those issues out of the courts and into the bargaining process, we are asking the court to assist us in agreeing with our position that some rights exist. They are not outright ownership, which is what 

[ Page 769 ]

the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en are arguing in the appeal; they are arguing that the McEachern judgment was completely wrong. We are opposing that. But we want to have the court establish that there are some undefined rights of a kind that the Latin term sui generis gives meaning to. Translated, that would mean rights unlike any others, which you can't compare them to.

I've wandered a bit here, but essentially we're saying that we don't agree with either the position adopted by the province in the trial court or by the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en. We continue to oppose their claim that they own their territory outright. We do not support the trial judge's decision that there was outright extinguishment. We argue that there was outright extinguishment on fee simple lands in that territory, but there is some form of continuing aboriginal right in the remaining territory yet to be determined. The best way of determining that is by negotiation.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I thank you for the answer, because it does provide some clarification. I don't think there is much serious argument beyond the Gitksan case with regard to the 7 percent or so of British Columbia that's been alienated fee simple. Most people would recognize that any aboriginal interest in that land has been alienated or extinguished.

The question then becomes: what of the 93 percent of British Columbia that remains under the jurisdiction and control of the Crown? Clearly the extent of rights that we're talking about defining becomes critical. The government says that in its opinion there's no difference between aboriginal title and interest in lands, so be generous. That doesn't give a very clear indication of the government's intent. Your words clarify that at least there is a distinction, although they don't seek to make those distinctions.

When we ultimately ask British Columbians to form an opinion on these issues, someone is going to have to give them a better sense of the extent of the rights that the government sees aboriginal people having and the extent of the rights that aboriginal people themselves believe they have. People will then have to sort out in their mind their own belief as to the extent.

The government is wise to move away from "title" and use the term "rights," because it's a more acceptable term. People feel more comfortable with the word "rights" than they do with the word "title," and I don't argue with that.

I guess both of us have limited backgrounds here. I'm not certain that the government is in a position to go into an appeal suggesting that it doesn't particularly like either side of the argument so it would like to bring forth a new argument. Can the Attorney General tell us whether or not that opportunity exists in the appeal, in his opinion?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're running the risk of having an amateur-hour reprise in advance of the appeal itself, and I would not want us to get into that. I was simply trying to give some indication as to what the instructions are to our counsel. In general terms I can assure the member that there is considerable precedent for varying the position between the trial court and the appeal court. That question was thoroughly canvassed, as you might expect.

I expect that the factum is going to be filed tomorrow. It's scheduled to be filed tomorrow, although given the holiday this week, the opportunity to go a day or two longer exists. It will then be a public document, and the complexities of the legal argument will be there for the public to review. Rather than getting into a bit of a debate about the arguments that are going to be used in court, I am quite happy to try to convey to the members our general approach on the issue. I've tried to do that, but I don't want to get into the details of the case itself.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly recognize the hazards of our having an amateur-hour debate over the Gitksan decision in committee, and I too will try to stay away from that. However, the government raised the issue quite clearly by way of two ministerial statements in the House. Those questions having been raised, they now should be answered to the degree that the government is comfortable. I have more of an understanding of the approach that the government is taking -- not that I agree with it, but I understand it better, and that's important.

Having come this far, the next logical step for the government is to start to clarify the kinds and extent of those rights that it is prepared to recognize and that it believes exist. Whether this issue is on the front page of the paper today or not, the fact of the matter is that it's one of the significant issues troubling British Columbians around the province. There are areas like the Hazeltons, where it's more than an issue that's on the back burner. It's one of the issues that confront people day in and day out. The sooner people can understand the approach that this government is taking, the sooner they can start to decide whether they support it, whether they're comfortable with it, or whether they would like to encourage the government to take another approach.

So I guess what I'm asking, perhaps not today, is whether the government will start to clarify its position. I would suggest to you that so far it hasn't. As I've read columnists and talked to people who appear to have been pretty focused on this issue over the last three or four years, the response to the ministerial statements was all over the map. It was from, "Gosh, they've gone back to Bill Bennett's position," to: "No, nothing has changed." I don't think it's useful when we throw out a bit of information that leaves everyone more confused and more uncomfortable than when they started.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I too was going to raise the perplexing response on the part of columnists and other commentators, without naming them, which really were all over the map. That may come from the fact that none of them asked us any questions about what we were doing. It may be that they didn't know what we were doing because they didn't ask us; that may be the simple answer to that question.

In respect of the development of the government's position on aboriginal affairs, that discussion should properly take place in the estimates of my colleague, the 

[ Page 770 ]

minister responsible. My responsibilities in this area are strictly related to the case, and my ministerial statement was designed to be on that narrow ground as well.

[3:15]

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs tried to amplify some of the reasoning around the particular instructions in the case. We thought it important to do it last Wednesday, because on that day the positions were being exchanged between the parties. Once that happens, it becomes public. We felt an obligation to tell the House before it became public through some other mechanism. That was why we did it in that way. I'm sure that the appeal will be covered extensively and that the position of the government in respect of the particular legal case will become clear. I'm certain that in the Aboriginal Affairs estimates we'll get further clarification and definition by the minister, and we'll go from there. But it's not my responsibility to talk about those issues.

J. Weisgerber: I don't want to jump to the defence of the columnists, but there is a fair body of legal opinion around the province that seems to be at least as confused as they were. I would suggest to you that perhaps a bit of the responsibility may well lie with the material that was tabled. In all honesty, it was not something that made it easy to understand -- based on these statements -- where the government was going. We will pursue this at some length with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, as the minister would know. It's often difficult to pass on with the assumption that an issue is going to be handled by another minister, only to be told when you get into the next set of estimates: "Gosh, you missed it; it was the guy who went before you who looks after that issue." So we'll use a little bit of caution as we move through this first set.

With that, following the outline that you have, thank the minister for his answers and will come back perhaps a bit later in the estimates.

K. Jones: Mr. Minister, I really appreciated your sensitivity towards the aboriginal peoples earlier, and I'd like to ask whether your government has had an opportunity to look at an area that seems to not be as well known as the aboriginal area, that being the needs and the aspirations of the Metis people here in British Columbia. They've experienced considerable persecution, considerable derogatory comments to their children and a great deal of difficulty within the court structure and our civil processes. They are now starting to come together and to want to maintain their cultural background and have some issues rectified. They are looking at establishing a form of self-government, with institutions that would address areas within your general area, such as court workers, counselling, and substance and alcohol abuse support. I was wondering if you had had the opportunity to have any input from them and whether you have any programs that will be specifically addressing the needs they feel need to be addressed, particularly along the lines of their being able to sustain their own institutional processes similar to what you were talking about with regard to the aboriginal peoples.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have not had any meetings personally with any representatives of the Metis peoples or their associations. Should they seek such a meeting, clearly we would be responsive to that. In terms of particular programs that are designed for non-status natives and/or Metis people themselves -- there being a difference, I know -- I don't think there are any, per se, aimed directly at a particular group so identified. What happens is that we try to develop programs that are sensitive to people who do not have complete and fair access to the system. The best way I can answer that at this stage is to say to you that if you or the association want to come to us to talk about particular ideas or proposals, we would be amenable to that.

A. Warnke: I don't mind the exchange of my colleagues at all on the matter that was just raised, but I do now want to return to a couple of questions I have for the minister with regard to the courts. One is just straightforward nuts and bolts, but I am interested in it, and then I'll follow up with another question in a moment. The nuts and bolts one is that the minister made an announcement for the construction of new courthouses. I can appreciate the demands made upon his ministry for building as many courthouses as possible, and I suppose I have in the back of my mind a colleague of mine who will end up asking this question anyway. I would like the Attorney-General to outline the criteria by which the ministry selected the sites for the new courthouses, keeping in mind that the colleague who will likely want to have the question asked anyway is from Chilliwack.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the answers to where we decide to put courthouses is demand. Another issue is proximity to and connection with policing. It's very important to have the police detachment adjacent or close to a court facility. We try to pick sites that are appropriate from a cost-benefit perspective and that are acceptable to communities. I suppose there are other criteria, but I've only been here five months and haven't heard of any yet.

A. Warnke: I'm very pleased that one of the criteria I did not mention was patronage, and I commend the minister for that.

A more elaborate question is this. I want to have this qualified a little bit, perhaps beforehand: I'm under the impression that any discussion of the family maintenance enforcement program, which I am interested in, probably would be taken up the next day, as we deal with legal services.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The people who deal with it are here; if you like, we could deal with it right now. It wasn't slotted in particularly. It's one of the areas in management services, and I thought we would do that at any point throughout the proceedings. The people responsible are here throughout. It's your agenda too. We could do it now or at the end, whichever you like.

[ Page 771 ]

A. Warnke: Very good. Since we do have the opportunity to discuss the family maintenance enforcement program, I will turn to it a little later.

I'm also under the impression that discussion of the family court and some of the anticipated changes would be appropriate now. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I would like to elaborate a little on what my interest here is. A number of people have approached me -- and, I'm sure, the minister as well -- advocating some significant changes in the family court. 

[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]

The family court, unlike lower criminal courts, is distinctly modern, to reflect the concerns for marriage, family life, and so on. I think the family court was established with the purpose of essentially preserving family life, yet recognizing that when efforts to preserve the family fails, the court must provide proper or fair adjudication of disputes over the rights and duties of the parties involved. In this context, the family court is involved in adjudicating conflicts.

Adjudication is primarily concerned with establishing, I suppose, who is legally right and wrong in a single issue. But at the same time, the welfare of those involved is not simply one of keeping with the verdict on a disputed legal point. Somewhere we have to be concerned about the interests of the broad community, in taking into cognizance the changing nature of the family, and finding and striking some sort of balance between the strict adjudicative role of the family courts and perhaps some of their psychological, therapeutic objectives. Nonetheless, it has certainly made an impression upon me that changes in the family court are absolutely essential. It is with this in mind that I do want to raise this with the Attorney General. At the outset, in a more general context, could he outline the changes he sees in the role and nature of the family court?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this stage I would actually be interested in hearing from the critic as to what kind of changes he would propose we make.

An Hon. Member: It's your government. You've got to do it now.

J. Weisgerber: While the members are deciding who's going to recommend what to whom, I was wondering if I could ask the Attorney General to table in these buildings tomorrow a copy of the factum that is being presented in court. It would be of interest, I'm sure, to the opposition parties and to the media to have access to one or more of those documents tomorrow.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give an undertaking about tomorrow, because I'm not certain about the formal filing and the timing. We can't do anything until after it's formally filed, but I'll undertake to ensure that the member gets a copy of the factum at the earliest appropriate time, if that's satisfactory.

A. Warnke: And the official opposition.

C. Serwa: While we're on this topic of courts, I've got a series of questions on courts and court costs. The first question, though, is very parochial in nature.

I come from the fastest-growing community in the interior of British Columbia. It's also the largest population centre in the interior, with recognizably the poorest court facilities in British Columbia. The new courthouse has been announced. I understand it's on stream and that the planning is going on. Would the minister please confirm that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would be delighted to confirm it.

C. Serwa: I am almost regretful in asking the series of questions that I have. Nevertheless, with respect to court services, I notice an almost 10 percent increase in costs. I wonder if the minister would illuminate me on what the big cost-drivers are in court services.

[3:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may have been away when I went through the precise number of dollars which made up the increase this year. There was, if my memory is correct, an 8.4 percent increase in the budget. That's a $9 million increase, $3.7 million of that was accounted for by the fact that last year's budget had a cut in it but there was no actual cut in delivery -- part of the pre-election manoeuvres, I think. So while it looks like there was a $9 million increase and a significant percentage increase, $3.7 million of that, or approximately 40 percent, was accounted for by money that was cut but continued to be spent; so in fact it wasn't cut. Another $3.6 million -- again from memory and the earlier discussion -- is accounted for by the additional facilities in a variety of courts, and I listed those earlier.

There were a number of other incidental costs throughout the system which the member can learn about by reading the Hansard recording of the debates. I went through every item.

C. Serwa: This was in the debates last year or in the current estimates?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: A few minutes ago.

C. Serwa: Okay, then I apologize for not catching that. It appeared that from the accepted inflationary cost factor and the increased utilization of court services, the figure was perhaps larger than could be accommodated.

A question relating to that: what is the increase in costs from B.C. Buildings Corporation with respect to building rental charges this year -- not as a dollar figure but as a percentage increase over the previous year? The reason for asking the question, while your staff are looking that up, is that your government has certainly indicated that Crown corporations will be responsible for paying a dividend, and B.C. Buildings Corporation has in fact done that in the past. I am trying to find out if we are engaging B.C. Buildings Corpora-

[ Page 772 ]

tion more in order to satisfy that, or if we are charging ourselves more and increasing indirect taxation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't believe we are doing that at all, but I'll try to come back with the numbers.

Let me clarify my earlier answer from memory, which, when I read the notes, was certainly misleading, if not wrong. I mentioned that $3.7 million was the cutback that didn't take place. The $3.6 million is actually for cost increases in facilities and minor capital improvements to maintain court facilities around the province. The $1.5 million was for the new courtrooms that are in place. You could look at this to see that we have a 2 percent increase in people and what amounts to approximately a 3.5 percent increase in the combined facilities and minor capital costs.

I would suggest that the line of questioning you appear to be pursuing isn't going to be very fruitful, because I don't think there are any additional built-in costs here that can direct more revenues to BCBC and give more revenues to the Crown. It's a circle anyway, and it doesn't get you anywhere. It's not part of this exercise.

The Chair: The member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I'm quite used to this Mr. Chairman; he's been Mr. Chairman to me many times. It's very pleasing to see you back in the chair again.

The Chair: Thank you. I'm getting used to it.

A. Warnke: The minister indicated -- and I do appreciate this -- that there is the prospect of examining the family maintenance enforcement program. There are a few issues that we could explore here. One report that was published not that long ago suggested that the family maintenance enforcement program contained several problems. I don't think that is a reflection of this government, and to be quite fair, I'm not even sure it's a reflection of the previous government. It may be a reflection of the kind of times we are in. We're having some difficulty not only funding the program but coming to grips with the social issues that surround it.

The report I am referring to was published by the Society for Children's Rights to Adequate Parental Support. They focused on problems of underfunding, governing legislation, inadequate collection practices and the feeling that there is gender bias in the legal system, which contributes to a number of problems. It's one area where I will have more detailed comments as to some of the input I've received on the proposed legislative changes. Underneath this is a concern about the number of payments falling into arrears. In some ways it is connected to the earlier question I asked. If the Chair does not mind, I'll elaborate a bit here.

My impression is that something has to change in the family court system, preferably to take lawyers out of the system. I'm not sure how that is to be accomplished. I'm not sure that lawyers are entirely responsible -- the Chair doesn't mind hearing that assessment. The perception is that somehow we've got to take some of the legalism out of these problems with regard to family breakups and so forth. I have to admit that the people who have contacted me see a certain element of the legal community that they perceive to be feeding on the breakup of families. When I push them far enough, they usually acknowledge that it is a very minor element. There is a concern here of how to address this problem of family breakdowns.

Back to the family maintenance enforcement program, the concern is that payments are falling into arrears. In effect this has an impact on everyone throughout society. It is not just an increased cost to the courts; it is an increased cost to enforce the orders. The impact is pretty well broad and general throughout society. Not only that, there are welfare costs, enforcement support payments, child support payments and so forth. I would like the minister, if possible, to elaborate at the outset as to where he sees the family maintenance enforcement program, its status now, where it's moving and what the government is contemplating in the coming fiscal year.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's fair to say that there have been difficulties right from the beginning in trying to establish a family maintenance enforcement program that works. A number of attempts have been made over the years. The former government made any number of efforts to find a way of dealing with it. The most recent action, of course, was to privatize the service. I mentioned this morning that I have a real concern with that program. I don't believe it's working as well as it might do.

One of the things I've done as a result of that concern -- and it's not just my concern; it's a concern in the system -- is to have an internal ministry review of the entire program. As part of that, we're looking at the report done by the Society for Children's Rights to Adequate Parental Support -- SCRAPS. Their report proposes a much stricter approach to collection. We're looking at Ontario's approach. Attachment of wages is a feature of their program, and there are pros and cons to that. Other models are being proposed in this review. We have made no decisions yet about how to get at this. We hope to reach some conclusions later this year. I can simply say that it's a very high priority for us, and we're determined to see whether a more effective system can be implemented in order to ensure that women -- because it's almost exclusively women who are the beneficiaries of the payment -- get the payment from the person who was ordered by the courts to make the payment. We just have to find a more effective way of doing that, and we're determined to do so.

A. Warnke: I would also agree that what makes it difficult to examine this program and come up with any sort of solutions is the fact that it has been in existence for only four years -- a very short duration. I believe it was initiated in the lower mainland in 1987 and throughout the province somewhere in early 1988, so it's only been in existence for a short time.

[ Page 773 ]

I'm still under the impression that it is one area where the funds have been increasing by significant amounts from the fiscal year 1989 to the present. In 1989 I think it was initially $2.5 million -- or something like that; I could be wrong. It has increased gradually every year to the figure of $6.5 million suggested here. There has been a gradual increase over each previous year.

Despite this increase, is there still a problem of shortfall? There seems to be some impression out there that there is still a lag in terms of adequate funds. With each incremental increase, is the minister satisfied that overall we're headed in the right direction in terms of where the funds are being allocated? Are there problems? Could the government stand some help here?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: All of those questions are part of the review we're doing. I'd just as soon await the results of that before speculating idly. I really do want to collect all of the information and get all of the advice I can, and see if we can do this in the most cost-effective way which produces the best results for the people who are owed the money.

A. Warnke: Very good. I just want to mention that I appreciate what the minister has said. I'd also like to defer to my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale.

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, it's with regret that I have to explain a difficulty that we've experienced with the procedure here. We have, with cooperation, attempted to have various items discussed this afternoon so ministerial staff could be accommodated and not have to come back at a later time. But because of the failure to have the sessional order processed that would allow us to have open substitution, we are unable to have some of our members who attempted to come here and ask questions have an opportunity to be substituted. The result is that we are unfortunately going to have to ask your staff to come back next Tuesday in order for those people to be accommodated. We hope that this legislation will very quickly get properly processed and that this whole process of open substitution can be resolved.

[3:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have any problem with that. I do have some problem with an apparent change in the agreement that we would proceed -- as we have in some cases already -- with substitutions. But if there's a need to bring the staff back on Tuesday, they'll be here.

A. Warnke: As I contemplate on it, yes, the question was asked.

In terms of the family maintenance enforcement program, I turn to a very basic point: the caseload of the enforcement officers. My understanding is that the caseloads of the officers are tremendous -- somewhere between 800 and 1,000 cases per enforcement officer. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but some people have impressed on me that they're unable to keep up with their caseloads. Does the minister have some comment on that? Would he agree that there is a problem that needs addressing?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, there's a problem, and we're addressing it. The enforcement officers have had -- and probably still do have -- caseloads as high as 1,100. This year's budget will reduce those numbers, we anticipate, to about 900. My other comments about a full review still stand. We're picking away at it, but there's a lot more to do.

A. Warnke: I understand the minister's comment, and I'm very pleased with the answer that he has provided: that there does seem to be some progress and that he's more than aware of it -- he's actually doing something about it. One of the reports he referred to by SCRAPS suggested that the family maintenance enforcement program ought to be run like a collection agency. I'm not necessarily suggesting that I favour that; it's an interesting idea. I've thought about it a little, and I'm wondering whether there are some problems with that. I would appreciate it if the minister could comment on whether the program should be altered in such a way. I hope this is not part of the review. Has the minister actually heard arguments about moving to a collection agency, or is this perhaps unfeasible?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Everything is on the table as part of the review. Some things will be easier to reject than others, and we'll try to develop an appropriate model. I just can't say at this stage what that's going to be. The report by SCRAPS will be part of the review. We will certainly take their recommendations into account. As I indicated earlier, they will take a fairly strict approach to it, up to and including denying drivers' licences to those individuals who fail to pay. There are a variety of remedies one could dream up, I suppose, if you wanted to sit and think about it. We want to recognize their ability to pay. There are some difficulties in all of this that we have to acknowledge, and I think we have to have a program that's sensitive but effective.

A. Warnke: Very good. I want to again express to the minister that I certainly do understand his argument, and I think he has touched on a few of the contentious areas. The one he mentioned about the ability to pay is an idea that has come up repeatedly. I suggest that that be closely examined. After all, the purpose is to ensure that payment is being made toward child support and to women.

Some other members may be interested in the family maintenance enforcement program, Mr. Chairman. At this point I would defer to those people.

C. Serwa: Just a brief question. In a review of the family maintenance program, the minister was talking about looking at the entire system. Is it the privatization aspect that you're looking at, or is it the recognition that interprovincial-type protocol agreements are necessary to be able to access some of the spouses who go to other provinces and some of the difficulties with that? There are a number of other elements that would result -- you mentioned drivers' licences, for example -- that may allow a more successful reaching out and getting 

[ Page 774 ]

the necessary funding commitment. Are you looking at that, or are you looking at everything?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think we're looking at everything, and that includes privatization. But the review is not driven by the privatization; it's driven by the fact that too many people are saying it isn't working at the present time the way it was designed to. In respect of the interprovincial issues, we have protocol agreements with the other provinces so that collection across boundaries can be achieved.

C. Serwa: That satisfies me on that particular question.

I have one other question with respect to the court system. It concerns the public defender system that was proposed. Would the minister elaborate on that particular approach?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess we will wander all over the map. I don't mind answering that now, given the comments by the member of the official opposition earlier -- it's academic anyway, I think.

As I think I've indicated to the House before, we have some serious financial problems with respect to legal aid. The budget has been expanding at a rate beyond the province's ability to maintain. We also have some problems in terms of delivery of appropriate levels of service in some parts of the program in some parts of the province. So we have undertaken to do a review, which is underway right now, as I mentioned to the House a few weeks ago. Despite some comments I made inappropriately to the benchers of the Law Society, we are not looking at what is understood to be a public defender model. I did say that. It's one of the mistakes I've made, which we all make on occasion.

When people think of the public defender model, they think of the American system, where the state actually contracts lawyers to act as lawyers for people who need legal aid. We have no intention of developing a system in British Columbia that would model that American system. We have a system in place where a society runs legal aid under legislation to keep it at arm's length from the government. The society is given a budget. It is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that legal aid is provided around the province.

It has become very clear to us, and very clear to government even before the election, that as a result of the decision of the previous government to double the fees for legal aid lawyers last July, the costs are, as I said, out of control in a sense. Therefore we want to look at whether there are more effective ways of delivering a more effective system at a cheaper cost. We think there are. We've asked the Legal Services Society to come back with some proposals to us. We've got an individual working with the community groups, lawyers, legal services people and everybody in the community with a view to finding a model that fits into the budget and also delivers effective services.

I should say that I'm also interested in seeing whether these services can be delivered through community-based programs wherever communities are able to actually organize themselves to deliver legal aid services. Not all, by any means, but a lot of what is done through legal aid can in fact be done by paralegals. People do not actually have to be lawyers. Obviously there's a lot of court work, and you need lawyers for that and for other elements of the process, but there is much in the system that could be provided by paralegals. I give the example of an agency that I think is doing good work in this respect: the Westminster Community Legal Services Society, a community society which employs paralegals and, I think, a lawyer or two. They deliver a form of service to the community which in some other communities is handled by legal aid offices in many respects. I certainly know that is true of my own community.

Some communities augment those community societies by providing staff lawyers to augment their services, and they can actually do a fair amount of the legal work, including court appearances in many cases. I don't think anyone would ever argue that all legal aid work should be done by staff lawyers. There will always be a role for the tariff or fee-for-service lawyers, particularly in tougher cases. The example I cite all the time is that you're not likely to want a staff lawyer handling your murder charge. You may want to get someone else to handle that kind of case, and many others of course. So there will be a mix. I hope it's more community-based, and I hope it's more responsive to community needs. I hope it suits the regions of the province more effectively than it does now in many cases, and I hope it's done for a heck of a lot less money than it looks like we're going to be spending if we're not careful.

C. Serwa: I always hate to say this, but I have to applaud the minister for his comments and the direction he appears to be taking on this very important issue -- legal representation and cost-effectiveness. The reason for the question was that particular remark and the expressed concern that it was layering another bureaucracy in the legal system, and the expensive connotations that had. But certainly the options you're exploring and the call for input should be beneficial for the cost-effective delivery of services. Thank you very much for your response.

C. Tanner: In a previous jurisdiction in which I functioned 20-odd years ago, they had a system of using special lawyers' trust accounts for financing legal aid. Has it ever been thought of here?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The trust account revenue funds a number of programs in British Columbia, including some portion of legal aid, and in particular last year a $6 million contribution was made to the Legal Services Society. It is a very small portion of the money required for legal aid. Given interest rates at the present time, and given the way the banks actually pay interest on these accounts, there's not a cash cow there for us to look at, unfortunately.

C. Serwa: In an effort to control court costs, is the ministry exploring technological innovations that will result in a more efficient delivery of legal services?

[ Page 775 ]

At the present time, perhaps for the protection of those involved in the system, it's a very complicated and time-consuming fact. When I came home the other day, for example, a lawyer from Kelowna had made the trip to Vancouver, and when he got to Vancouver they found that someone didn't turn up, so he had to return to Kelowna. It's a very expensive operation for the client. The court system seems to be full of these anomalies, where you tie up a judge and staff and someone doesn't show up, and then it's all gone. So what are we doing in that direction?

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the latter question, I suspect we will always have that problem with us as we try to schedule the courts in such a way as to maximize their efficiency, without ever knowing whether a particular case is going to actually end up at trial. It gets settled on the courthouse steps, or any number of other things can happen; somebody's lawyer didn't arrive. A million things happen, and we're never going to get to the situation where you can predict every trial and its length, and therefore be sure of avoiding the kind of problems you're talking about.

However, let me go back to the first question, because I think ministry people are quite excited about a proposal being developed now for what is called ICPS, which is a term members will become more familiar with over the years to come. The initials stand for Integrated Case Processing System. That is a computerized mechanism for keeping track of cases as they proceed throughout the system, right from the issuance of a warrant or a ticket or whatever, to the final outcome of the particular case, so that you will just be able, through this computerized system, to pick up on the status of a particular case. And it will do a heck of a lot more than that. If others were able to speak in this room today, you'd probably get a really good illustration of a technological marvel.

Without having asked the assistant deputy minister for court services, I'm certain that if members would like a briefing on the ICPS, he would be delighted to provide such a briefing, and I think it would really be worthwhile. We did this a few months ago, and I think it's the use of technology in a really effective way to try to increase our efficiency and make sure the public is better served.

A. Warnke: I see the afternoon is certainly travelling by very quickly, and much of what is discussed is pretty fascinating. Perhaps just one final question or comment on the courts. This again comes out of the Access to Justice report of a couple of years ago, where the view was expressed that what we needed to do was to have more cases dealt with in the communities where the problems originated. I'm wondering whether the minister could briefly mention whether there has been any real progress in facilitating those cases in other parts of British Columbia aside from the lower mainland.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The province has done a couple of things to try to improve court services in other regions of the province; one issue is the development of the masters' program. We now have 15 masters around the province who are able to deal with issues in a preliminary way in the regions. In addition to that, in the regional court system the integration has meant that a particular judge in a particular community can hear the full range of issues. Rather than having to go, say, from Prince George down to Vancouver to get into the right court, you can actually stay in Prince George and have your case attended to. 

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

R. Chisholm: I have sent letters to the minister inquiring about the courthouse in Chilliwack, which was promised by the previous government. At present we are sending cases outside of Chilliwack to be tried, because of the facilities there. Individuals who are in the process or in cases at the present time are being interviewed and detained in the hallways. The building is quite inadequate for its purposes. My question to the minister is: is this courthouse to be replaced? If so, when? If not, how are we going to assist, and have cases sent to other jurisdictions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the present time I understand that there's one courtroom being built to deal with the current problem. In addition to that, there will be a new court facility in Chilliwack. The estimated date of completion -- I'm not absolutely certain -- is hopefully 1994, but it may be thereabouts. The answer is that we're dealing with the immediate problem as best we can with the addition of a courtroom, and we're dealing with the longer-term problem by the construction of a new facility.

R. Chisholm: The second part of that question was that people are being interviewed in hallways, and they're being detained in inadequate facilities. What will be done about that situation? Because it is quite deplorable. Community services are interviewing, literally, in the hallways.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that I can give the member an answer that will completely satisfy him, other than to say that we're trying to deal with the situation as best we can. We recognize the problem, but we can't build a new courthouse overnight. We can't solve the problems overnight either, but they're being worked on expeditiously.

A. Warnke: Unless there are further questions -- I don't see any, and time is moving on very quickly -- I would like to move to the next subject. This concerns motor vehicles.

There is a question at the outset that I would like the minister to respond to -- whether this is reflected in his proposed budget. We have seen an increase in death on our highways. He was quite right to mention that in his earlier remarks. If I could focus on one aspect in particular -- the increase of accidents involving trucks, especially commercial trucks, large transport trucks.... The impression has been given in public that increas-

[ Page 776 ]

ingly there seem to be problems with regard to checking trucks for safety maintenance. Indeed, a couple of people have certainly been very articulate in bringing to my attention that there have been ways in which large commercial trucks may have actually circumvented the system, but without doing anything that borders on illegality. The fact is that there seems to be an impression that attention to commercial truck inspection is not rigorous enough.

I would like the minister to comment on the awareness of the increase of such accidents -- and some spectacular ones have certainly hit the press in the last two years -- and the efforts being made to ensure that this does not become a serious problem, and whether there is some attempt to address this very concrete case and ensure that trucks are being monitored properly.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this stage, I'll just give a general answer; later, if there are more specific questions, we can get into that. We are dealing with the question of commercial truck safety in what I think is a fairly aggressive manner. It's going to be part of the traffic safety initiative program we are developing. We've also been working with the National Safety Code requirements, which will bring in a regime that will ensure stricter requirements for the trucking industry in safety issues. We are enhancing the capacity of the safety inspectors in terms of the number of inspections. It's very much on the agenda. It's obviously been an issue since Kamloops and the Kicking Horse incident. There have been others. I think we're moving in a fairly aggressive manner to deal with those issues.

A. Warnke: In terms of regulation, I would like the minister to respond as to whether there are any problems in terms of receiving truck traffic. I guess I have the province of Ontario in mind, because it's been brought to my attention. I don't want to get into specifics either. A more general comment is certainly most appropriate, and that would certainly satisfy me. I was wondering if the minister could reflect, in terms of regulations, on whether there is something out of sync with the other provinces, especially Ontario -- given the amount of truck traffic up and down the west coast. Are there any problems here as well with regulations, and perhaps vehicles coming from California and the western states and somehow getting around the system that way? I would appreciate it if the minister could make a comment along that line.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators has a very aggressive program to work on common standards not only across the country but throughout North America. This is because truck traffic is interprovincial and international in North America. This council has been working on a program to try to get common and tough standards across the continent.

I don't know if that answers the question particularly. I don't mind admitting to members of the committee that I'm not particularly up to speed on this. It may be that members will want a more detailed response. I would be happy to come back later with more specific information.

A. Warnke: That is most satisfactory. I certainly understand the minister's situation. It is an opportunity to bring it to the attention of the ministry.

The minister also referred to the number of traffic accidents. Since we're on the subject of motor vehicle inspection in general, there has been plenty of discussion about the re-emergence of very aggressive testing of automobiles. I would like the minister to make an assessment as to where we are going in terms of reintroducing inspections for automobiles.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members know, we used to have a system in parts of British Columbia that provided mandatory vehicle inspections. That program was phased out some time ago.

There is a development called AirCare, which is a lower mainland initiative to try to curtail, reduce and eliminate, if possible, the noxious fumes that automobiles produce that lead to the smog everybody sees when they go to Vancouver. By many people's account, this smog is worse even than in L.A. Part of that program is an optional additional lane in each of the testing stations that will be available for mechanical inspection as well. We have designed the program in a way that will allow for expansion in the future if this mechanical testing program indicates good results. It would be useful to expand the AirCare facilities to actually provide mechanical testing. Then we would be able to do that as part of this other program.

[4:15]

In addition, there is an inspection program in place now which is not done through the same kind of system we once had. Whether or not that's an effective way of dealing with it is an open issue at this stage. We will have an opportunity to assess the stations once the AirCare program is up and running.

I don't know whether that answers the question, but I hope it's a start.

A. Warnke: I do have a couple more questions, but I would like to defer to others who have questions in the area of motor vehicles.

C. Serwa: I note that there is an actual reduction in the budget for traffic safety and licensing; that's before provisions for inflation. At least in my book of estimate supplements for the year ending March 31, 1993, there appears to be a $300,000 or $400,000 reduction in that budget. While I applaud your diligence and aggressiveness in traffic safety, I would like to know where the cuts are coming from in that particular area.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to the question is twofold. Some of the activities that took place in the motor vehicle branch now take place under the auspices of ICBC. In addition, some of the traffic safety initiatives that we are talking about bringing in this year are to be funded by ICBC.

[ Page 777 ]

C. Serwa: Just a few comments with respect to private-passenger vehicle mechanical defects. I looked at that, and it was rather interesting to note that when the mandatory mechanical testing in Vancouver was abandoned, the actual accident rate caused by mechanically faulty vehicles decreased. It seems to rise and fall obliviously from 1.5 to a maximum of perhaps 2.5 percent. When I addressed this question, my concern was that if we made some sort of a high-profile provision to test vehicles on a mandatory basis, we would not be doing justice to the actual cause of the accidents.

I believe 75 to 80 percent are caused by simple driver error. They are not accidents; they are incidents. That's where the focus of education certainly has to come in. I note that the minister has increased fines, trying to get that educational process through the pocketbook. In the long term, I think continued educational programs are necessary. I think that a change in attitude is also necessary, so that a driver's licence is a privilege and certainly not a right. Abuse of that privilege, whether it's through driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without due care and attention, or driving not in accordance with the traffic safety laws and regulations, should cause serious implications for the driver of that licence. At the present time, we don't seem to have taken the appropriate steps. Perhaps the minister would comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: A series of initiatives needs to be undertaken, but I agree with the member when he suggests that the basic issue is to educate the motoring public about their responsibilities and their attitudes on the road. I think that is very much a part of it. We have some very serious statistics coming out of intersections. There are 13 intersections in the province that are known to have an incredibly high incidence of traffic accidents. We think we can develop some programs to deal with the running of yellow and, in fact, red lights through some of these intersections. Speeding is clearly a very serious issue and the cause of many accidents. I assure the members that we will be bringing in a comprehensive program. I wish it were available to do by now, but we're not quite ready. But it will be a comprehensive program dealing with traffic safety.

Approximately 2.1 percent of motor vehicle accidents are attributable to mechanical defects. The member mentioned that the rate went down when mandatory testing was abandoned in parts of the province where it did apply. The rate goes up and down all the time, and in fact the rate went down across the country. If I understood what I read about this some time ago, the rate went down across the country at the same time, and it didn't appear to have any correlation to the program here. I know that's an ideological heresy for me to say, given the position that we took on the mandatory testing stations at the time, but I think the statistics are such that we need to do more work on this. As I mentioned earlier, the work will be done in conjunction with the AirCare program, in terms of finding out if we can eventually add mechanical testing lanes to the stations as well.

Just while I'm on my feet, I am going to go back to the courthouse question from the member for Chilliwack and just indicate to the member that 1994, in fact, is the target date for completion of the new courthouse in Chilliwack.

C. Serwa: The minister rightfully pointed out probably the appropriate way to express the concern, with one lane in the emission testing stations available. It is quite a program, where the headlights, the brakes and the emergency brakes are all tested. From that we will ascertain records and determine if more expansion is required in those systems. On the topic that the minister raised with respect to accidents, could he tell me what percentage of accidents occur in intersections and what percentage occur on the open highways? It seems to me that the majority of accidents occur at intersections with failing to yield right-of-way, failing to stop at the stop sign or at the amber, or, as the minister says, at the red light. For my knowledge, I would like to know the relative percentages and the types of accidents.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Intersection accidents account for 45 percent of all accidents in the province, and speeding accounts for 19 percent. If you were to ask me about drunk driving, or a whole bunch of other questions, the numbers are going to add up to more than 100 obviously, because they're multiple sets of issues. But in terms of the intersections, we're looking at 45 percent of the accidents in this province.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I'll read this headline: "Tough New RCMP Policy Faces Speeders." On the basis of the minister's comments of 19 percent occurring from high speed -- and I don't know what that means -- it seems to me that the real challenge is the intersections; that's where the real problem and the real hazard is. In this particular case, the policy initiative from the minister indicates: not one kilometre above the speed limit. The reality is that the error of an ordinary speedometer is at least plus or minus 5 percent, if not more. If the tires are worn, or if they're new, they can cause a variation. Oversize or undersize tires is another variation. The normal limit allowed, I believe, was approximately ten kilometres, which is in keeping with some of the variations. This stiff initiative on the part of the ministry seems unrealistic with respect to the latitude that we have in the devices that measure speed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members need to know that this was an RCMP initiative -- the one that he refers to. I think he was quoting from the headline in the Province: "Tough New RCMP Policy Faces Speeders." I guess the law is the law. If the sign says "80 km/h," then 81 is breaking the law. That's how the RCMP can deal with it if they choose. If you talk to RCMP officers who do traffic patrol on Highway 1, the freeway in the valley and those kinds of routes, and talk to them about the situations they have to deal with when they try to pull mangled bodies out of car accidents, you can understand their concern about speeding. I said a few minutes ago that 19 percent of the 

[ Page 778 ]

accidents in the province were attributable to speeding, but a far greater proportion of serious injuries and deaths are attributable to speeding. It is literally a killer, and I think it's understandable that RCMP enforcement units would want to try to deal with the speeding issue in a dramatic way.

I think they managed to get everybody's attention by the zero tolerance, but members need to know that this was not a directive from the ministry. This was the RCMP deciding that they need to get tough with speeders because they see the results of excessive speed daily.

C. Serwa: On that particular point, if that is the initiative, the reality is simply this: in the early 1950s the speed on the Okanagan highway system, which was one lane of pavement 12 feet wide with wide gravel shoulders, was 50 mph. On that same highway system -- it expanded to two-lane and then four-lane -- speed limits are imposed at 60, 80 and 90 km/h. It's still not up to that original speed limit. I appreciate and understand what you're saying with respect to a head-on collision and the twisted metal and what transpires, but in reality, that occurrence would exist at a speed of 30 or 40 mph as well. That's a closing speed of 80 mph, for example, so I don't think we're going to get away with that.

Either we have to be more realistic in our speed limits on our highway systems, or we're going to have to allow some latitude, because zero tolerance doesn't make any rational sense whatsoever. As the minister in charge of the former Solicitor General's responsibilities, which is RCMP policing, it seems to me entirely reasonable and in a responsible manner. I applaud them again for their commitment to safety on the road, and for the reduction of accidents. But in this particular case, it's clearly not possible because of the design parameters of the system that I've talked about.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that, and I think all members do, but I don't want to stand here and undermine what are really very legitimate efforts by the RCMP to deal with what they perceive, and we all perceive, to be a serious problem. Clearly they've managed to get everybody's attention, and if that helps save some lives then it's all been worthwhile. As far as the actual application of the zero tolerance, I think time will tell how that actually works.

[4:30]

M. Farnworth: I'd like to return to the topic that the member for Chilliwack was talking about a few minutes ago, and that was court services. I was at the selection committee for the Ombudsman, so I wasn't able to be here for that whole debate. I'd like to ask about the provision of court services in Port Coquitlam and the location of the new court house. What sort of time-line can we expect? There has been considerable interest now that the decision has been made to construct the new courthouse.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this stage the best answer I can give the member is that we've made the decision -- as the member knows -- about the location, the Port Coquitlam choice. There are still a number of hurdles to overcome prior to being able to get ourselves onto a time track which will produce a completion date, but it's a high priority. The existing facilities are not sufficient, and we will be moving on that as quickly as we can, having made the decision about the community.

K. Jones: Is the minister aware that the Highways department establishes the posted speed limits on the highways -- I was given this information from a senior Highways ministry manager -- on the basis of 85 percent of the actual speed of the vehicles on that road, based on their tracking of it. They would then post it, or readjust it upwards or downwards, based on what the traffic speed is. That would make this question of zero tolerance enforcement rather a difficult one on the basis that it's based on 85 percent of what people are actually doing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The questions can be better dealt with in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates, but I can assure the member, just so there isn't any lingering uncertainty about this, that that is not the case. In fact, highway speed limits are determined before the roads are even built. They are built to certain standards, and those standards have speeds attached to them in most cases. The logical absurdity that would come from the policy suggested by the member is that after a year of no speed limit to see how fast people drive, you'd calculate 85 percent of that. It doesn't work that way at all. New highways are constructed with a speed limit determined by design questions more than anything else.

I think there are instances when -- and I know this from my time as an MLA in my constituency -- you have a particular speed posted that fits the technical and design requirements. There may be a community concern about the posted speed, and then the RCMP and the community may lobby to have the speed changed in a particular zone. That happens on occasion through the Highways ministry. The RCMP are often involved in that kind of question, too. But the 85 percent rule is a figment of someone's imagination.

K. Jones: I'm afraid that you're casting aspersions upon a member of the Highways ministry. It was a direct quotation that I received from a person who administers a major part of our highways system in the community. You may want to check your information before you make such an aspersion upon their integrity. When I asked them how they determined the speed, that is the fact that they quoted to me. It was a question of where they could reduce or increase the speed beyond the original design speed. I was told that they did it on that basis.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are instances where highway speed limits are changed. The Pat Bay Highway is an example of that. Portions of that road have gone from 80 to 90 kilometres an hour. I guess that's close to 15 kilometres, so maybe that's the source of the member's comment. That's not as a result of a decision 

[ Page 779 ]

that the posted limit should be adjusted to reflect the fact that people are driving faster. A change like that would come about because from an engineering perspective the highway could take it and because from the highway perspective that would be an appropriate speed. The RCMP would be involved in commenting on the appropriateness of that kind of decision. If I can put it this way, the public's request that the highway speed be adjusted is often a contributing factor to initiate a process to review the speed limit. The member can deal more with the Minister of Transportation when the estimates are up, but I can assure the member that there is not a policy in place which determines speed limits based on 85 percent of the speed that people drive. That is not the way it happens. If it were, it should change.

P. Ramsey: It is interesting that we have had so many questions all of sudden on the subject of speeding. I suspect it's because, as hon. members and private citizens, it's an area of the law with which we have found ourselves in conflict, either intentionally or inadvertently -- I'm sure inadvertently for all members here.

I did have a question, though. Earlier in this government's term, there was some speculation about making amendments to the justice code to prohibit the use of radar detectors. Is there any action planned in that area as a way of reducing speeding on our public highways?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The issue of radar detectors is an interesting one. It has been before previous cabinets on many occasions. I understand there have been heated debates about the issue. The government has yet to make a decision about a whole range of traffic safety initiatives. When we do, there will be a clear indication as to the government's position on that particular issue.

C. Tanner: The Pay Bay Highway, which you mentioned just now, is one of the worst highways for problems in the province and not only from a buildings point of view. I have picked up a ticket or two down there. The hon. member is correct that there might be a few of us here.

One of the problems on the highway is that you're going through three or four jurisdictions. Consequently, there's not a consistency of enforcement. Has the government given any consideration to having a highway patrol patrolling not just the major highways in the province but particularly ones that are highly used?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer is no. There hasn't been any consideration to a highway patrol on the Pat Bay Highway or on other similar highways. I understand the concern. It's a concern that comes from the fact that we have different police forces in the various communities on the lower Island. Perhaps it's an issue that can be addressed as we deal with some of the other issues in and around policing the lower Island.

R. Chisholm: It seems to me that we are fining people double fines, but I get the impression that we're not enforcing it too well. Is there any thought on enforcing it and getting up to date on enforcement of fines that have been delivered to individuals? That's the first question.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is referring to fine collection. I was astonished -- within weeks of assuming the responsibilities in November or December -- to learn of the immense amount of money that goes uncollected in fines at the present time. If my memory is correct, something in the order of $60 million -- that was a few months ago -- remained uncollected. The system only allows us to deal with that every five years, when a driver's licence is renewed. That's the first opportunity. The current system allows us to effectively capture people, as it were, to ensure the....

C. Serwa: Don't tell Glen Clark; he'll increase the deficit.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish I could stand up here and give you an outline of the plan of action to deal with that. There is a considerable amount of work underway within the ministry to deal with the problem of uncollected fines from a variety of points of view. The member's interjection about the Minister of Finance is actually not the most important issue here. It is an important issue in terms of revenue to the government, but the really important issue is to ensure that drivers don't feel they can speed with impunity and not have to worry about the consequences of their action, which, among other things, develops a healthy disrespect for the law, which is not a useful thing in our society either.

We are working on some programs to deal with fine collection in a more effective way. Obviously, you could do it in some ways that would capture people every year -- through decals or whatever. But there are some expensive issues involved. You have people selling car insurance in private offices in communities all over the province. Whether their computers could be on-line with the computer system that determines whether a fine has been paid or not.... There are a whole series of technical problems along those lines that make it difficult. I just want to assure members that we see it as a serious problem, and we are going to try to find a solution.

R. Chisholm: At a certain point, couldn't a person's name come up on the computer after they've received X amount of tickets and, at that point, possibly be introduced to a defensive driving course that is enforceable in this province? In that way, we'd start educating our drivers. This punishment five years after the fact really isn't very constructive. If they get X number of tickets and are forced to go to a safe-driving course, which could be instituted through the private driving-school system, it might be more effective.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm open to suggestions on this issue. I can't comment particularly about how we 

[ Page 780 ]

might implement such a suggestion. Clearly we need to do something, and we're going to do something. If members have any proposals or ideas they may want to communicate directly with me, I'd very much like to hear from them.

The idea of mandatory driver training for repeat offenders has some appeal. I suspect there are problems with it as well; nonetheless, I'm open to receiving suggestions like that and others that may help us deal with the problem.

I just need to reemphasize that driving habits in this province are appalling and atrocious. They cause us far too much hurt in terms of people's lives and far too much cost in terms of health care and other costs for us to tolerate what goes on any longer. We are determined to get at it. Part of that is the whole question of dealing with repeat offenders and people who have this disrespect for the law and who don't pay their fines. As I said earlier, we're going to bring in a comprehensive program. It won't solve all the problems -- we're never going to solve all the problems -- but we'll go a long way toward working out a solution.

C. Tanner: When the minister was telling the committee what he was up to in his department, he mentioned that he had just signed a ten-year or 20-year RCMP contract. Is that the master contract under which various municipalities would have an inferior -- if there is such a word -- contract, or are you talking about the provincewide contract?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking about both. Without commenting on the value judgment you're making, it's both.

C. Tanner: That was a poor choice of words on my part. The contracts, I'm sure, are all of superior quality. But would the contract enjoyed in my community of North Saanich in Sidney be subservient to the contract that you have with the RCMP?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's part of the RCMP contract. It may be that you and I aren't understanding each other, so maybe you should try again.

C. Tanner: Maybe I should try one more time. North Saanich and Sidney negotiated a contract with the RCMP at a rate. Is that rate set by themselves and the RCMP, or is it set under a master contract that the RCMP have with you?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's set under the master contract.

K. Jones: Are you aware that Washington State had lowered the highway speed limit to see whether that would reduce the number of injuries and deaths occurring on major highways. For the past couple of years, they have actually raised their speed limit to a speed higher than what we have here in British Columbia for major highways. They apparently have found no difference in the accident and death rate resulting from that raised amount. Would you like to comment on that in relation to our situation in British Columbia?

[4:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the whole of the United States, during one of the oil crises some years ago, went to 55 kilometres as part of a national program to try to deal with self-sufficiency fuel in the United States. Their fear was that they might be cut off from Mideast oil. Clearly the higher you drive, the more fuel you use, or the faster you drive, the more fuel is consumed. That's what that program was about. I don't think it was a safety program at all.

The implication of the question, given that they've raised the limits again, is that we should also raise the limits. My understanding of speed limits, again from memory, is that in this province some highways are as high as 110 kilometres, which, compared to American highways, is probably high. I think most of the freeways are at 100, which is 62 miles an hour -- a pretty good speed. Many of the two-lane highways that are properly engineered are at 90 kilometres an hour, and others in more built-up areas are at 80 kilometres, or 50 miles an hour.

If I hear the implication of the question, it is: should we raise our speed limits in this province? My own reaction is that I don't think we should.

K. Jones: I'll just give you an example. The I-5 in the United States flows right into the 99 freeway -- the Deas freeway -- in Vancouver, coming in through the lower mainland from the south. On the south side of the border the speed limit is 65 miles per hour. Once you come across the border, you're down to 100 kilometres or 61 to 62 miles per hour, and very shortly you get into an 80- and 90-kilometre-per-hour area in Richmond -- areas that cause most of the people to just ignore those speeds. The average speed on that freeway coming into Vancouver during rush hour, except when it gets to the bottleneck points, is 120 and 130 kilometres per hour. If you don't travel at that speed, people are passing you, driving you off the road and everything else. That's a fact of life for people commuting into Vancouver. Something needs to be done to address this. You say you're putting in a zero tolerance process. That means that you're going to have people crawling in there at 80 kilometres per hour. Somebody's going to be pushing people off the road, because I don't think you can police it from there. Are you going to have aircraft over top of this freeway? You don't have the car capability to travel up and down there to maintain those speeds.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a number of questions there, most of which should go to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

K. Jones: It's with regard to the enforcement question that's been brought forward to you, which we're discussing at this point.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I appreciate that, but the first questions were about 65 on the I-5, then down to 62 and a bit on Highway 99, which is a pretty comparable 

[ Page 781 ]

speed. I suppose we could go to 105 on there to make it comparable, but I'm frankly not interested in accommodating that particular suggestion.

The traffic volumes increase as you get closer to Vancouver, and clearly when you've got that kind of volume, with the design of that particular route and the tunnel, which needs to slow everybody down, I think the speed limits that are in place are appropriate.

Now it comes to enforcement. I'll just say to you, impressionistically, as somebody who used to live in Vancouver in the sixties and seventies and who goes occasionally to Vancouver, that I'm scared stiff to drive in that community now, having become used to the slow pace here on the Island. This doesn't deal directly with your question, but it deals with it in a general way. Driving down Granville and having to go 70 kilometres an hour in a 50 zone just to try to keep up with people is pretty scary when you've got three lanes of traffic going both ways during rush hour. I find that kind of situation pretty difficult to handle.

Similarly, on the freeway down from the Oak Street Bridge, down 99 to the border and to the ferry, it's clear that the speeds we see are occasionally pretty excessive. It bothers me. We pay a pretty high price for some accidents as a result of that speeding.

I suppose that traditionally police forces have adopted different views toward traffic movement. If you're in Montreal, you'll see that the police encourage you to go faster and faster. The quicker they can get the cars out of town or into the town, depending on the time of day, the happier they are. You get the impression that it doesn't matter how fast they're going, as long as they move. That's a view that many people hold -- that what you should be doing with traffic is getting it out of wherever it is as quickly as you can. I think we pay a horrible price for that sometimes, and I must say that if the standard is 50 kph, then that's what we should be driving at -- not 70.

C. Tanner: Could I just pursue with the minister the RCMP agreement? If the RCMP have an agreement with the minister and his ministry, then the minister is the person who dictates to the RCMP what he expects of them. I'm just wondering, since the occasion of the enforcement of this new speed limit is coincidental with his appointment as minister, whether or not the ministry instructed the RCMP to make this decision, rather than the RCMP themselves.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I might get the member to give me that again. If you're talking about the enforcement of speed limits on highways and zero tolerance, I first heard about it when a reporter asked me about it. It was an RCMP initiative. To the very best of my knowledge, no one in the ministry has had any discussions with the RCMP about that particular enforcement decision that they appear to be making.

In respect of how a municipality with an RCMP service in that municipality is affected by the new contract, the new contract actually allows for more local government involvement in giving direction to the police in the community.

C. Tanner: This is the point I'm making. The question about the negotiation between municipalities and the RCMP was to clarify in my own mind the fact that the province has an agreement with the RCMP, and that the RCMP are answerable to your department. If they're doing something of which you don't approve, you can restrain them.

What I'm suggesting -- and I think other members are suggesting, too -- is that the RCMP's no tolerance on speeding, while it might be easily enforceable, is totally impractical in the situation in which we find ourselves on the highways today. I think many members are suggesting to the minister that he should question the RCMP as to why they're doing this when, with the best intentions in the world, we want to stop accidents, and speed makes accidents worse. Whether speed causes accidents is questionable, but the fact of the matter is that the RCMP are imposing upon members of the public an intolerable imposition, and there should be some tolerance allowed. You can't categorically say to the public: "You're going to stop speeding, you're going to stop today and you're going to get a ticket if you go one mile over the speed limit." I'm suggesting that the minister should instruct the RCMP to review that policy.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have periodic meetings with the deputy commissioner of the RCMP who is responsible for the force in British Columbia. We talk about a wide variety of issues of concern to the government, and you can be sure that this will be one of the topics that will be talked about at our next discussion.

In case I'm making the wrong impression, I just want to reinforce that.... I indicated earlier that I think there's some very real good coming out of the RCMP announcement, in terms of once again drawing the public's attention to the fact that speed kills. The point that members make about tolerance -- the member for Okanagan West makes legitimate points about speedometer readings not being entirely accurate in many cases, and that for those reasons and others there needs to be some tolerance -- are appropriate. But I don't think there are very many of us -- me included -- who don't look at a speed sign that says 80 kph and then drive 88 or 90. That's just a standard reflex action for most drivers in this province. If we're driving 88 or 90, then the speed limit should say 88 or 90 if that's appropriate. It doesn't; it says 80. Police are here to enforce the law. If the speed limit is incorrect, then it should be adjusted. I happen to think that the speed limits are pretty appropriate in most cases. Inevitably there will always be some tolerance; it's the degree of tolerance that I think we need to be concerned about.

E. Conroy: I'd like to regress a little and first of all thank the minister for his openness in admitting and in trying to come to grips with the idea that speed really does kill. I'd like to enlighten people and hopefully enlighten the ministry somewhat in terms of the safe driver program and the situation it involves. When I was younger and a little more foolish, there was a point in my career when I got a notice from the ministry 

[ Page 782 ]

suggesting that I take a safe driver course. Well, the nuts and bolts of the situation were that I stalled off long enough that I fell between the cracks, and I didn't have to do it. I want you to know that that's still alive and well, and the word is out there on the street that if you just ignore the notices long enough, you will fall between the cracks and you won't have to do it. I hear the minister's sincerity in what he's saying, and I believe it and agree with it. I think he could take it under advisement that something has to be done to tighten that up a little, so that when people with a number of driving infractions get to the point where something has to be done, there is a mechanism in place to make sure that is carried forth. Right now there are a lot of people who fall between the cracks, and that never happens.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the notice that the member would have received about the training program was a suggestion rather than a mandatory requirement. The procedure now, certainly, is that there is not a mandatory requirement. Perhaps there should be, and I would, as the member suggests, take that under advisement.

There is also a rule in place that when you receive 15 points, you have your licence lifted. I know that anecdotally there are stories around about how that isn't always the case. We need to ensure that it is.

One of the other members -- I think the member for Okanagan West -- suggested earlier that driving is not a right but a privilege, and I share that view.

[5:00]

A. Warnke: I didn't think we were going to get so wrapped up in speeding.

There was one point the minister made that I think is still worth accentuating in the context of fines and that sort of thing, and especially given some of the publicity recently about the sudden increase in fines. It's almost a temptation to ask the rationale for it, but I think the minister already implied one, despite what some people might cynically see as a way of generating revenue. I would like to ask how much they anticipate they can raise through the increase in fines. The minister did say a little while ago that the purpose is not necessarily to raise money or what not; it is really the safety end of it. Perhaps the minister will make a comment on it, but he made allusion to that a little while ago, and I really respect that. If the minister would care to make a quick comment on it, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first part of my answer is going to be my own: I hope that these increased fines produce less revenue. I hope that the result of increasing fines and the traffic safety initiatives program that we're going to develop will mean that we collect less because people violate the law less. That's really my objective. However, we live in a real world, and the calculation of what the revenues would likely be as a result of the increase of fine levels is approximately $15 million. I can't give you the amount of additional costs in enforcement that come with that whole package. There certainly are elements there.

A. Warnke: I want to thank the minister for that specific answer. I have only one more question on this, and then, the way the hour is moving so rapidly, I think we could move into the next section. But there is something still outstanding. The member for Okanagan West picked up on something I noticed as well: the decrease of anticipated expenditure for traffic safety and licensing. I'm glad the member for Okanagan West picked up on it because now I don't have to ask it. But there's a flip side that I would like the minister to explain, and that's the anticipated $2 million increase in expenditure with regard to management services under motor vehicles, from '91-92 to '92-93. Would the minister account for the increase?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The increase, as the member notes, is close to $2 million. It provides for increased costs of fine collections, which I alluded to a moment ago, and communications and building occupancy charges. The increase also reflects substantial systems upgrades to keep pace with the revenue collection. This again goes back to the other issue that I talked about before in terms of collecting revenues. Hopefully, as a result of spending $2 million, we will have a system in place that will generate a heck of a lot more than that in terms of unpaid fines and increased efficiency and effectiveness.

A. Warnke: I would like to move on to the next section with regard to policing. In his opening comments the minister outlined that the contract has now been signed with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, extending it for twenty years. I'm under the impression from my rough notes that the contract is something like $112 million. Perhaps the minister could confirm that later. But there's something else. I certainly recall a number of people bringing to my attention the thought of a provincial police. Has there been any sort of discussion along that line, or did the minister or the ministry or the government decide it was perhaps a better option to renew the contract with the RCMP? Was it cheaper, or were there some other factors? In other words, would the minister provide some kind of an explanation and rationale for maintaining the contract with the RCMP?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first thing I should say is that the decision to enter into negotiations to renew the contract with the RCMP was made by the previous administration, and it was largely -- not completely -- complete through a four-year process, if my memory is correct, when the election brought us to power. However, I should say that we are completely happy and satisfied with the RCMP as the provincial force in British Columbia. Estimates are that we would be spending an additional $50 million to $60 million a year if we had our own provincial force. Beyond that, there would be some significant start-up costs to deal with. There is some very real value in having an integrated provincial and federal force operating here in British Columbia. It's cost-effective; it's policing-effective; and the new contract gives us a number of benefits that we would not otherwise have been able to achieve.

[ Page 783 ]

A. Warnke: Since this is a recent issue, perhaps it is worthwhile to address for a little while the claims of excessive force by the police. I recognize that perhaps the city of Vancouver is the focus of a lot of this attention, and they obviously have their own strategy as to how this should be addressed. I wonder if the ministry has also entertained how this particular problem is to be addressed. First of all, there's the claim of excessive force by the police, and then there's a broader issue that I think is extremely important, which is how the police go about policing themselves. Once again, there's a distinction between what exists in the city of Vancouver and what exists elsewhere, complicated a little by the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think it's appropriate here, given the public concern for this issue, for the minister to outline how these two problems -- especially the latter, about how police go about policing themselves -- are being addressed through the ministry.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member knows, the B.C. Police Commission deals with complaints out of the 12 municipal forces that exist in British Columbia. One member of the commission is designated as the complaints commissioner, and that process exists for complaints in municipal forces. In respect of the RCMP, the RCMP have a civilian complaints process as well, which exists for that purpose. The Police Act has a number of procedures available, including the possibility of the minister becoming involved at a particular stage.

With respect to deadly force -- the member used the term "excessive force" -- there have been discussions about this and other issues on the public agenda for a long time. The B.C. Police Commission and the ministry's own police services branch have been involved in discussions on this issue with police chiefs around the province. Standards are being developed in conjunction with the respective forces. The Police Commission undertakes to evaluate these issues on an ongoing basis. We take advice from them. They work in very close cooperation with the police boards and police chiefs in an effort to try to ensure that public values and attitudes are communicated effectively to the police and police needs and requirements are communicated back. That way we reach a kind of balance that suits the public agenda.

A. Warnke: One aspect of this section would be to address problems of assistance to victims. I realize that we're getting a little short, but perhaps I will just elaborate a bit. A body of thought has emerged in the last decade that states that in discussing the administration of justice, we need to increasingly turn our attention to the implications for the victim. Maybe in the past we have not paid as much attention to the victims of crime, and this needs to be seriously redressed, especially given the increased rate of crime in the province and throughout Canada. I suppose that in some ways British Columbian and Canadian society is changing. We could say it's due to economic factors, population pressures or whatever, but there does seem to be an awareness of crime and sometimes an increase in crime as well. I remember we discussed this a bit when we discussed the interim supply bill last month, and I recall some of the minister's responses.

I want to follow up on the programs for assistance to victims at this time. In looking at various types of crime, I'm still quite concerned about the increase in property crimes against individuals. Canadians generally and British Columbians specifically.... In certain areas of our province we have an intolerable rate of breaking and entering and that sort of thing. While it's not as traumatic as some of the crimes we see in the United States, to many people who have grown up in Canadian society and who have not been victims of crime, to suddenly be the victim of a break-and-enter has a tremendously traumatic effect. It takes some tremendous adjustments.

We're seeing more crimes of violence against individuals, such as wife assault, and more sexual assaults. I must admit that I'm even having some difficulty adapting to the proliferation of these kinds of crimes -- not that I want to put myself on a pedestal, but I must admit that this is totally alien to my way of thinking, the way I have been brought up. Maybe I'm naive or something. I must admit that I wasn't aware of these kinds of crimes. I would hope that is the way to describe most Canadians 20 or 30 years ago, that it was unusual. However, there is a perception that maybe it wasn't all that unusual many years ago. Perhaps some of us were naive. I am nonetheless disturbed by the increase of these crimes. I do not think we've paid enough attention to victims of crimes, whether it's assault, property offences, and so forth. So any move made by any government in the direction toward establishing a victim assistance program, in my mind -- and I think that it's pretty well shared by all members -- is a correct move.

[5:15]

We're running out of time. At the outset, I would like to ask the Attorney General how he sees the state of the victim assistance program; the course we are embarking upon in the coming fiscal year and what his ministry is allocating to it; and how much of a priority the ministry is giving to the victim assistance program.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before I talk about victim assistance -- and I will in some detail -- I want to relay some statistics in terms of crime in British Columbia. There are some public perceptions that don't mirror at all the statistics, and it might be important to relay some of the facts.

In the five-year period between 1987 and 1991, the percentage change in violent crime was a 26 percent increase; the increase in property crime was 21 percent. These increases in B.C. are, in fact, consistent with the increases across the country. The patterns are the same across the country. B.C. has traditionally had a higher crime rate than the rest of the country, and our position vis-�-vis the rest of the country is not changing. We still have too high a crime rate, but it's not getting worse than the rest of the country in proportionate terms. There is a lot more information, and I won't take the committee's time to deal with it. But break-and-enter, interestingly, is one of the property crimes that had an 

[ Page 784 ]

increase in this period of 9 percent. Virtually every homeowner in British Columbia would dispute that, just from their emotional reaction to what they think is happening. While there are a lot of break-and-enters -- it is just over a third of the total property crimes -- the increase is less for B and E than it is for any other property crime, interestingly. Motor vehicle theft is up 124 percent; that is the real driver of percentage increases. There is a lot of interesting information here, if members want to pursue it another time.

In terms of victim assistance programs, let me just tell you that we share the member's view that this is an important issue. It is recent in its development. Let me tell you what the financial numbers are in this area. In 1991 and 1992, for the victim-witness program under the Crown prosecutor, we spent $445,000. We added $785,000 this year, to bring it to a total of $1.2 million -- a significant increase. In community-based victim grants, last year we spent $943,000; we added another $700,000, for a total of over $1.6 million. For wife assault programs, last year we spent $168,000; we added another $100,000, for a total of $268,000. I need to mention here that other ministries.... The Women's Equality ministry also has some programs in respect to wife assault. For victim service volunteer training and coordination, in 1991-92 we spent $254,000; we added $300,000, for a total of over $500,000. For police-based victim services, we essentially doubled it from $700,000 to over $1.4 million. For sexual assault, community grants stayed the same at $362,000 last year and this year. The same goes for Corrections, for the assaultive men's treatment program, an issue that was raised by one of the members in the interim supply bill, if my memory is correct -- we spent about $442,000, and we're continuing to spend that amount. In total, we've added $2.6 million to a previous expenditure of $3.3 million, for a total of just short of $6 million for victim assistance programs. Given the financial situation in this province, I think this shows a very real commitment to victim assistance.

A. Warnke: The numbers provided by the minister about the government's commitment are quite reassuring. From my point of view, it certainly commends the government's direction in this.

Mr. Chairman, we are coming along in time. I do have a number of questions. I suspect we'll be taking it into the next day. Perhaps there are members here who would like to ask questions. I would prefer to defer to them now.

J. Weisgerber: If I can, I'd like to move back to motor vehicles. Unfortunately I wasn't here when you were discussing that issue. It's a relatively local issue for my constituents. Dawson Creek is a transportation centre. There's a lot of tank-repair work and large-automotive repair done there. The difficulty is that the community serves a fairly substantial area in Alberta. For the last 18 or 24 months I've been trying to arrange through successive ministers some kind of accommodation that would allow empty commercial trucks to travel into British Columbia and purchase repairs or other services on their equipment and take the truck back. The best we've been able to come up with is a permit system that requires the operator to purchase a permit to come into British Columbia and a permit to go back out again. Conversely, a British Columbia truck has no difficulty driving with British Columbia-only plates to Grand Prairie -- 50 miles across the border -- for similar types of repairs, should they want to purchase them in Alberta.

One of the reasons I've heard for this is a lot of hangup about licensing to ensure that the vehicles are properly insured. Those same reasons don't seem to affect someone coming in with a private passenger vehicle. We don't seem to have a great deal of worry that a car driving into British Columbia with Alberta plates on it may not have insurance and may not have a licence.

I know that the minister is listening with one ear, so I'll keep the conversation going, hoping that he will soon get the answer that he's looking for with the other ear.

It is an issue that probably faces a lot of border communities, but particularly the Dawson Creek and Fort St. John areas. Whether there is an answer or whether the minister will simply give us an undertaking to look for a solution.... You have a very good employee in Dawson Creek, Howard Emslie, who has been working on this thing for a couple of years. He gets close and then is sent back to try again. With that, the minister maybe now has some information for us.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for Peace River South knows the situation that I'm in. He has been in it himself on occasion, when he may not have had the answer at his fingertips.

I may not be able to deal with this fully at this particular time. There is the ability to purchase a non-resident permit at the weigh scales, which would enable vehicles from out of province to come in for this purpose. That regime is established in order to make sure that British Columbia requirements are met, in terms of ICBC and other issues.

It seems as if that's not enough to solve the particular problem the member raises. I would undertake to have further discussions, perhaps outside the estimates process. The member might even wish to talk directly to the motor vehicle people to see if we can resolve it. I'd be happy to help with that.

J. Weisgerber: I've pursued this thing through various channels. The issue is that mainly private business people -- small truck operators, etc. -- want to purchase the service. They have choices. They're not forced to come to British Columbia to get the service; it's more convenient for them to do so. Some of the services that we have are better. I think it costs about $37 for a permit. If you have to spend $70 for permits to get into British Columbia to make a purchase on which, even though you're a non-resident, you're going to be asked to pay sales tax, then the decision becomes pretty easy: you simply turn your truck in the other direction and go somewhere else for service. The core of this issue is providing for the service industry, and it's a significant one in Dawson Creek -- as few obstacles to 

[ Page 785 ]

cross-border trade as you possibly can do. As I mentioned earlier, British Columbia residents don't find themselves faced with those same kinds of inhibitions if they want to drive to Grande Prairie to buy services. I'm not certain that we've looked at this issue as creatively as we could, as a government. I'm really appealing to the minister, when the issue comes back to him again next time, to look at it and see if we can't find a solution.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would agree to do that.

On the fees, I think they're based on weight and size rather than on a flat scale. I also understand that the permit system, which is really designed to deal with licensing and ICBC rules and regulations, is the same system that other provinces have in place. If you want to drive through Alberta you have to get a permit from them, I understand, in the same way as we would issue a permit to an Alberta truck.

I see that the member wants to get to his feet to tell me I'm wrong about that. I may well be, and if that's the case we'll continue the discussion at another time.

J. Weisgerber: The issue here is our commercial vehicles that are unladen: they aren't hauling any merchandise or involving themselves in commercial operations; they're simply moving an empty vehicle for service and back again. If you want to drive through Alberta with a loaded truck you've got to buy a permit, but if you want to drive 50 miles into Alberta to purchase a service for your truck you can do it without a permit. That's the difference; that's the distinction between what we do and what they do.

Again I would suggest that the questions about whether he's properly insured or not.... We don't seem to have the same bias against someone with a camper truck or a fifth-wheel trailer if it has an Alberta licence plate. We assume that it has proper licence and insurance. But we're unwilling to make the same assumption about an empty gravel truck that wants to come in and buy a new set of tires. That's the kind of argument that, as we move to a solution, ultimately sends it back and says no, we can't do it. That's the difficulty.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll have another look at this and see what we can do.

A. Cowie: Regarding crime going across municipal borders, taking greater Vancouver or greater Victoria, it's well known that crime goes from one jurisdiction to another and people have problems with it. Would the signing of the RCMP contract preclude any future consideration of regional policing?

[5:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In areas now served by the RCMP, or in areas now served by municipal forces?

A. Cowie: In Delta, for example, if you talk to the police chief he'll concede -- he used to be RCMP -- that there are many efficiencies if you go into regional policing. In fact, he has spoken on this and is in favour of it. In Vancouver, the police chief will talk about the efficiencies of regional policing.

There are also some disadvantages. I understand that. There's a lack of local autonomy in some of the smaller municipalities. My main concern is.... I think some day we will go to regional policing, because the costs are horrendous for municipalities. The costs of policing are going up and up. This is one way of.... There are some management efficiencies that one could have that way. I just want to make sure that.... Would the contract preclude this if it were to be thought about again in five years time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, if I understand the term the way the member is using it, the contract would not preclude moving toward more regional policing. We're not talking here about amalgamation of police forces in a single uniform under a single command; we're talking, rather, about the delivery of the policing service in a more regionalized way. We can do that with the current contract. There's no reason why we can't. In fact, to put it more positively, we should be moving toward more coordinated services in the lower Island and in the lower mainland in order to achieve more efficiency and more effectiveness.

A. Cowie: I wouldn't even want to preclude the fact that some day you might have one police chief and then smaller systems in the municipalities. But I recognize that that may be too advanced at this time. So I won't even get into it.

There is another question that comes up from time to time in the municipalities, and that is getting more efficiency out of the fire departments -- and perhaps using some of the fire department services linked with the police services. There are a number of municipalities that have combined fire and police services. I'm wondering if the minister has any views on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is a combination of fire and police services in Esquimalt at the present time. There's some very real value to that kind of service, but it's not a decision that I would take and impose on the municipalities. That's a decision they would want to take on their own. We've had other amalgamations, fire and ambulance, which no longer exist effectively. Those are decisions for local authorities and councils to make. Having said that, I think there's some very real benefits to the Esquimalt model.

C. Serwa: With provision to the contract, several years ago when the Okanagan connector was opened, we petitioned government -- our government at that time -- for additional RCMP to patrol that particular section of highway. The end result of that investigation proved that although the funding was available, RCMP officers were understaffed by 5 percent. Apparently there was a limitation of the training program, perhaps in the Regina facility. Are we assured that we will be able to get the number of RCMP officers our growing province will require?

[ Page 786 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to the question is yes. The complement will be up to strength to deal with the issues the member raises.

The proposal is that the committee essentially comes to an end every day at 5:30. This morning we went until ten to 12, which seemed to work quite well. I think we may evolve into a system where this committee actually ends up going to quarter to six, but the agreement has been 5:30 to start with, at least, so that we adjourn just prior to the committee in the House adjourning. Given the agreement that we complete our work at about 5:30, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:36 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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