1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament 
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. 
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 3

[ Page 5311 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

J. Weisgerber: This is Secretaries' Week, and I'd like to ask members of the House to join me in welcoming and congratulating secretaries all across British Columbia for the contribution they make to this great province.

C. Serwa: On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and myself, I would like to introduce some very good friends from the great constituency of Okanagan-Boundary: Jim and Joan McGuinnis, and Lloyd and Gloria Thomas -- fine people. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. T. Perry: I would like to acknowledge the recent presence in the precincts of Dr. Julia Levy, chair of the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. That gives me the chance on behalf of other hon. members to congratulate her and her company, Quadra Logic, for achieving the first licence for a new innovative pharmaceutical product in Canada in years -- a product of B.C. science and technology. I'm sure all members would like to join me in giving her good wishes.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce 33 grade 11 students from French immersion classes at Earl Marriott Secondary in the riding of Surrey-White Rock, and their teacher, Muriel Haack. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just noticed, on the floor of the House, one of my predecessors. I'd ask members to welcome Mr. Alec Macdonald, QC.

C. Serwa: There is another group of very special people with us in the gallery this afternoon: Mr. Don Boehmer from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Bev Milton from Ottawa, Ontario; and Bob Donaldson, a local boy from Victoria.

L. Reid: I'd ask the House to join with me today in wishing Pat Somerton of our Legislative Library a splendid birthday.

Ministerial Statement

MINISTERS' OFFICE EXPENDITURES

Hon. B. Barlee: On Monday the Liberal opposition and their leader alleged that I was the only cabinet minister on the government benches able to practise thrift and bring a minister's office in on budget. Unfortunately the opposition is wrong, and again, unfortunately, the Liberal opposition did not do their homework. The opposition examined the estimates books released on March 26, 1992, and on March 30, 1993, and erroneously concluded that 18 ministers had overspent their office budgets by between 3 and 10 percent. The alleged publicly....

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister in a ministerial statement, but the definition of a ministerial statement does require the statement to be confined to the administrative matters within the ministry. I hope the minister will continue in that vein.

Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. There is, however, a difference in which I think the taxpayers would be certainly interested. They allege that there was an overspending of $370,000; that is incorrect. My frugality is not unique. All the other ministers, with the exception of two, were not over budget but were under budget. I have handed out a statement from the comptroller general which says that collectively the cabinet did not come in $370,000 over budget; collectively the cabinet came in $404,000 under budget. I admit it was only a $775,000 error by the Liberal benches. But the other two ministers who came in fractionally over budget....

The Speaker: Order. I have allowed the minister to continue, hoping that he would very quickly get to administrative matters within his ministry. If he cannot do that, then I would have to ask the minister to terminate his statement. So I invite him one last time to please continue with his ministerial statement.

Hon. B. Barlee: Simply to set the record straight, when the actual expenditures are available and the books are closed for the 1993-94 fiscal year, I am confident that cabinet will continue to do as good a job this year as they did in the past year. I think that most of the cabinet ministers will be on or under budget, with very few exceptions.

F. Gingell: I am pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the statement, to respond to remarks like "wrong again," from the Minister of Government Services, and to respond to other comments from across the floor, like "better research."

We were relying on information put out by this government. If this government is going to put out garbage and give us incorrect information, what does it expect? Are they going to now have a Peat Marwick report and spend another million dollars to deal with this matter? We only dealt with information provided by their Minister of Finance.

Hon. Speaker, your Minister of Finance isn't here to defend the numbers that his government has just admitted are incorrect. We are dealing with numbers produced by the comptroller general, under his responsibility. If they admit that the minister's figures are wrong, then surely he should resign.

[2:15]

I am really surprised that the Minister of Agriculture couldn't finish off his speech or his ministerial statement with the correct words -- calling for his own minister's resignation. Obviously it is deserved, because the minister does not have control of his 

[ Page 5312 ]

ministry. If you are going to publish financial information in such important documents as the supplement to the estimates, then try to get one thing right. Please try to get that right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to stand and respond to the most incredible ministerial statement I've ever heard from a Minister of Agriculture. One can only assume that he was chosen from cabinet because he was the only one who brought his budget in on target. That in itself is another incredible statement.

It is a sad situation when less than a month after the estimates are tabled, the minister has to come around behind the opposition benches before the House sits and hand out corrections. We really continue to plummet in the way the business of this House is conducted. Given his responsibilities and shrinking budget, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will be renamed minister of agriculture, fisheries and apologies.

The Speaker: For the benefit of all members, perhaps I could draw members' attention to the standing orders and parliamentary practice of this House in terms of the scope of ministerial statements being limited to policy or administration, and the replies being limited to the scope of the original statement.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS PRACTICES OF CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. A year ago in this House, when a question came up about his participation in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the Minister of Finance did the honourable thing and requested that the Premier remove that portion of his ministry from his jurisdiction. Given the fact that the Law Society of British Columbia is currently investigating the involvement of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services in certain business practices, will the minister now do the honourable thing and step aside from that portion of his ministry until such time as the investigation is complete?

Hon. M. Sihota: The question was answered yesterday.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member who is now the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services in this province was certainly the most vocal member of the opposition when it came to resignations in the past government. I'm sure that when the present member for Matsqui was Minister of Health and stepped aside during an investigation into his past practices, the present Minister of Labour was shouting for that resignation. Clearly the Minister of Consumer Services does not have the moral authority to continue in that portfolio while there is an ongoing investigation by the Law Society. Will he admit that he is not above the law and step aside until such time as that investigation is complete?

The Speaker: Before I ask the minister to answer, just for the clarification of the House, the member in no way intended to attribute any improper motives to the minister to whom he was addressing the question?

G. Farrell-Collins: Clearly, all I am asking is for the minister to do his duty in his responsibility to the people of this province: do the honourable thing, and step aside while that investigation takes place. We just want him to do that until such....

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe the question is related to a breach of the law. I'm not aware of any allegations of that nature.

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Deputy Premier has now had 24 hours to reflect on a statement she made yesterday in the House with regard to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services: "The members of the executive council...give their full support to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, without reservation." Does the Deputy Premier still believe that no one in that cabinet can see anything wrong with the actions of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services? Today, does she stand by the statement she made yesterday?

Hon. A. Hagen: Our executive council has expressed and continues to express its full confidence in the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services to carry out his duties in the interests of the public and the citizens of British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: A supplemental. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has lost the confidence of every British Columbian except this government. He used inside knowledge from his law practice to lure people to do business with his father.

The Speaker: Order, please. As all members are aware, offensive words against another member are clearly unparliamentary. In the interests of the House, I would like the hon. member to withdraw those words and then proceed with his question.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I'm not quite certain which words you refer to. The fact of the matter is....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair must ask you to withdraw the words that you used in your preamble. If the member would withdraw 

[ Page 5313 ]

those words for the House, he could proceed to ask his question.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I will withdraw whatever you found objectionable, but it would be most helpful to know what it was.

The Speaker: The member can appreciate that the Chair is not going to enter into debate with the member. The words that were spoken were unparliamentary, in the Chair's view, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw them and proceed with his question.

J. Weisgerber: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

My concern to the Deputy Premier is that most British Columbians, I think, see....

Some Hon. Members: Withdraw!

J. Weisgerber: I've already withdrawn my statement. Now I would like to ask a question.

The Speaker: The member has withdrawn the statement. The House will please allow him to ask his question.

J. Weisgerber: I believe that British Columbians are offended by the actions of this minister. He used his law practice in order to cause former clients to do business with his father, whom he describes as having an unsavoury business reputation. Will the minister find her moral compass and ask this minister to resign?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party has drawn allegations from a newspaper story. On behalf of cabinet and the whole caucus of this government, I have expressed our unqualified support for the minister to carry out his duties as he is sworn to do. We stand by that statement, and that is our moral compass.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, Leader of the Third Party.

J. Weisgerber: The people of British Columbia have the right to expect the highest possible standard from their elected representatives. While in opposition, the NDP were very quick to call for resignations. It's now evident that this minister's actions were inappropriate and unbecoming to a minister of the Crown. Has the Deputy Premier called the Premier to discuss this very serious issue?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, we are dealing with the minister's responsibility to carry out his duties as the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. The Leader of the Third Party is moving into territory that is not related to the minister's responsibilities. We have full confidence -- I stated it yesterday, and I continue to state it unreservedly -- in our member as a representative of our government who carries out his responsibilities to the citizens of B.C.

IDEOLOGY OF NEW AG DEPUTY

A. Warnke: It's an interesting view of ministerial responsibility over there, but I'd like to switch topics.

I'd like to address my question to the Attorney General, concerning the appointment of Maureen Maloney as deputy minister. Given that Ms. Maloney has been providing advice to the NDP on taxation policy, would the Attorney General confirm that one of her primary functions will be to assist in drafting legislation on taxation and resource expropriation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I will not confirm that, because it's not the case.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: That's a puzzling answer from the minister, given that one of Ms. Maloney's areas of expertise is taxation policy. But we have to also ask whether the government's appointment of Ms. Maloney actually does reflect an intent to tax personal effects such as jewelry, watches, china and silverware.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Like a very limited number of members of the press, the member of the opposition is reaching exceedingly in this matter. Maureen Maloney has been the dean of law at the University of Victoria. She chairs the Council of Canadian Law Deans, is a very well-recognized leader in this country on justice issues and has been appointed -- effective May 17 -- as deputy minister in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, Ms. Maloney is quite well known for her views on taxation of wealth and personal assets. Also, in a very recent article, Ms. Maloney stated that the distribution of wealth should be reflected in taxation provisions and that RRSPs are heavily biased in favour of high-income taxpayers. I would like to know if this government is actually planning to negotiate with the federal government for a provision to impose a provincial surtax on RRSPs?

The Speaker: From the subject matter of the question, the Chair still did not hear to whom it is addressed.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, the question is clearly to the Attorney General as a final supplemental.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no, but when the Minister of Finance comes back, he can add to that answer.

PREBUDGET CONSULTATION ON PROPERTY SURTAX

A. Cowie: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Assessment Authority comes under Municipal Affairs; property taxes relate to 

[ Page 5314 ]

property assessment. Was the Minister of Municipal Affairs involved in advising the Minister of Finance about the ill-fated property surtax?

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

A. Cowie: It clearly comes under the minister's mandate. I can't understand why he can't answer the question.

A supplementary question. The new deputy Attorney General, Ms. Maloney, is known to be somewhat of a tax expert -- of course, with a very socialist leaning. Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs confirm that Ms. Maloney advised on the ill-fated tax and, in fact, was the author of the property surtax legislation?

He can't even answer that one.

IDEOLOGY OF NEW AG DEPUTY

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. I quote a statement by Maureen Maloney: "Wealth taxation plays a role in impeding the large concentration of wealth." What steps is the minister taking to assure Asian investors that this government isn't intending to impose a wealth tax on people investing in this province?

[2:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was hard to get the connection there at first. To assure the Asian investors, who remain important to this province, the Premier is on a trade mission talking to them about our tax policy. He's carrying a new publication that talks about the investment climate, and it paints a very positive picture. He'll be talking about the good management of the ministers' office budgets as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: He'll be quoting from the Peat Marwick study on investment, and he'll be saying that investment is up substantially, with a greater number of participants from overseas investing -- $4.7 billion. He'll be reporting that more firms reported greater profits this year than last year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the minister to complete his comments.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I'm happy to oblige. I am going to give only the highlights of the report. More than half of the....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret, hon. minister, that you cannot read reports as a reply to questions.

W. Hurd: Another quote from Maureen Maloney is that "inherited money is the main reason that most rich people are rich." Is that the message the Premier is selling to the Asian investment community when he is travelling around in the hot-tub circuit?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm sure the Premier will be saying exactly what the Attorney General has said, which is, in effect, that Maureen Maloney has been hired for her expertise in the administration of justice.

Hon. A. Petter: In response to the Leader of the Third Party's statement on Monday that there was no confidentiality agreement signed by the previous government in the Nisga'a claim, I seek leave to table the Nisga'a comprehensive claims framework agreement -- signed by the Leader of the Third Party -- including paragraph 7.2, the confidentiality clause, which I have noted for his benefit.

Further in response, I seek leave to table an article from today's Terrace Standard. The article is based upon an interview with the Leader of the Third Party several weeks ago, in which the Leader of the Third Party is quoted as saying that he regrets having signed this agreement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Okanagan West rises on a point of order.

C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The minister knows full well that he is allowed and able to table documents, but not to make an associated speech along with those documents. Perhaps he could be made aware.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order is quite well taken, and it should be a reminder to all members who are tabling documents that it is really only permissible to mention the title of the document.

Is leave granted for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs?

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Sihota tabled the annual report of the Industrial Relations Council for the year 1992.

Hon. D. Miller: It's my pleasure to table the Forest Service's five-year forest and range resource program for 1993-98. I would commend the report to the House.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, pursuant to section 7.1(5) of the Provincial Court Act, I have the honour to present the report of the compensation advisory committee, 1992, respecting the remuneration of judges of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

By leave, I wish to make the following motion: that the report and recommendations of the compensation 

[ Page 5315 ]

advisory committee, 1992, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations for the purpose of recommending a resolution to the Legislative Assembly for the fixing of salaries pursuant to sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Provincial Court Act.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Motion without Notice

AMENDMENT OF SESSIONAL ORDER FOR COMMITTEES A AND B

Hon. M. Sihota: I seek leave to move the following motion:

"Be it resolved that the sessional order of this House authorizing the Committee of Supply to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B, passed on March 31, 1993, be amended as follows:

"Rule No. 1 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

1. The standing orders applicable to the Committees of the Whole House shall be applicable in both sections of the Committee of Supply, save and except that in Section A a minister may defer to a deputy minister to permit such deputy to reply to a question put to the minister.

"Rule No. 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

2. Subject to paragraph 3, within five sitting days of the tabling of the main estimates, the House Leader of the official opposition and the House Leader of the third party may jointly advise the Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial estimates which they require to be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial estimates shall be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply.

"Rule No. 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

3. All estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those estimates which shall be referred to Section B under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this order and such other estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be governed by the provisions of standing order 60A. Practice recommendation No. 6 relating to consultation shall be applicable to this rule.

"Rule No. 9 To Be Added:

9. Section B is hereby authorized to consider bills referred to committee after second reading thereof, and the standing orders applicable to bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such bills during consideration thereof in Section B, and for all purposes Section B shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section B shall be made upon motion without notice by the minister responsible for the bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice recommendation No. 6 relating to consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals."

Leave granted.

On the motion.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I will briefly speak to the motion. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the House Leaders of both the opposition party and the third party for their consultations and input into the development of the motion which is before the House.

I believe this motion represents a very modest but nonetheless significant reform in the way estimates are dealt with by this House and by the committee that sits in the Douglas Fir Room. Much has been said in the past about the importance of trying to generate more informative dialogue during estimates, to ensure that all members have a deeper understanding of the policy considerations going into the decisions reflected in the estimates.

Some time ago it was suggested that opportunities should be given for deputy ministers, and perhaps other officials, to answer questions primarily of a technical nature, rather than simply leaving matters in the purview of ministers. I know that Mr. MacMinn has contributed to the development of that idea. I think all of us appreciate the reform that would flow from implementation of that idea. After some discussion with the House Leaders, we've decided to move in a careful, calculated and methodical way toward allowing a deputy some scope to answer some questions during the course of estimates. I hope that this will be seen as a modest and progressive change in the way in which we engage in deliberations in this House. Should it work with success, I'm confident that over time we will be able to expand on what we're endeavouring to do in this session.

Accordingly, hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be moving this motion, and once again let me reiterate my appreciation to those who assisted in the development of the idea.

J. Dalton: The official opposition has some concerns with this motion, hon. Speaker. Before I get into those, I want to thank the Government House Leader for providing me with a copy of this prior to bringing it into the House, so that I have had an opportunity to examine it.

Back on March 31, as is referred to in the preamble to this motion, we had a debate in the House on a previous motion. I suppose it could be said that we lost that round, but that doesn't mean we should not voice -- and I'm doing so now -- concerns with some of the procedural and substantive aspects of this motion. So let me go through them in order.

Rule 1 is repealed, and the essence of the revision, as in this motion, will provide that a minister may defer to a deputy minister to permit such deputy to reply to a question put to the minister. Our concern with that is the lack of ministerial accountability in this rule. It is clearly understood in parliamentary process that in the estimates the ministers must be held accountable for their budgets. That is the reason we have the estimates process. Questions are put directly to ministers, and responses come directly back from ministers. In this House, in the Committee of Supply, of course, deputies 

[ Page 5316 ]

are available for consultation, but deputies do not answer questions directly.

Let me add to our concern on this point. It would seem to me, in my interpretation of deferring to a deputy minister, that all questions could be deferred to the deputy. So we could have the rather sorry state where somebody would be putting questions to a minister who could then deflect each and every question to a deputy. And I have to ask: what happens to ministerial accountability in that regard? A minister cannot and should not delegate and deflect both the responsibility and the accountability that that minister has. And deputy ministers, I would add, should not be placed in a compromising position whereby they may, on the direction of the minister, have to answer awkward or difficult questions. We have no idea how this process is in fact going to work, but to start, I do have to raise that concern with the House on this motion.

[2:45]

Let me just quickly comment on the other provisions that are found in the motion of today. We, as House Leaders, have had consultation on the second point about three ministerial estimates being referred to Committee B -- which is in fact in this House -- and we understand as well that on joint consultation, once those next three ministerial estimates are covered off, we can add to that by joint consultation and agreement. I have no difficulty with that, as long as we adhere to the agreement that has been put into place in that regard.

Let's move on through the next two items that are also in this motion. Rule 3 -- the rule of March 31 -- is also repealed and a substitution entered whereby all estimates shall be referred to A except those referred to above, and those are the three ministerial estimates that the leaders have already agreed to. However, it should also be stated in the record that other ministerial estimates can be referred -- and, I would submit, should be referred -- to section B once those three ministerial estimates are finished. Our main concern is that the appropriate venue and avenue for estimates is in this House -- in the Committee of Supply in the chamber itself.

With regard to the Douglas Fir Room, as it's commonly called -- the committee A that's found in this motion -- there are other problems. We brought these out in the debate of March 31, but I want to reiterate them for a moment. There are problems of public access to the other committee room. It is not a large chamber with a public gallery such as this one. There are problems with the members accessing the other room. It is not an easy process for people to go in and out of the Douglas Fir Room. I would add that Hansard has difficulties keeping track of members who wish to go in and out. I would suggest that no member of this Legislature should be fettered in any way, shape or form in his or her rightful access to the estimates debates. Whether they're going to participate directly or be an observer, it matters not. But no member should be fettered from having reasonable and plausible access to the estimates debates. That is a concern I wish to restate.

Hon. Speaker, one more point. With the amendments incorporated in this motion, we've added rule No. 9, which will be added to the previous eight. I want to voice one other concern. The essence of rule No. 9 would be that Committee B -- which is where we're physically located now, but it would be in Committee of Supply -- would also be designated a Committee of the Whole, if we approve this motion. Even though we have agreed in our informal discussions that both the official opposition and the third party must be consulted -- and I have no doubt that the government will honour that commitment -- there could be a difficulty with legislation at the committee stage being conducted in here at the same time as estimates in section A in the Douglas Fir Room, as it's commonly referred to. Again, I have a real concern with members of this House being divided between covering debate of legislation in committee stage -- which, of course, is the right of any member -- and covering estimates in section A. That is an awkward provision.

I would also add one other point. Practice recommendation No. 6, which is referred to in the new rule No. 9 in the motion, provides that there should be consultation between the government and the official opposition. It does not read that there "shall" be consultation. Again, I am not imputing any lack of faith to the government; I know that they will honour their commitments. But it should be put on record that the word "shall" does not appear in practice recommendation 6, even though "consultation shall be applicable" is stated in the new rule 9. We wish that point to be on the record.

Those are the concerns the official opposition has. I might add that even though some members opposite will no doubt say we are standing in the way of progress, that is certainly not the case. We are more than happy to allow the business of this House to move forward, but we are not in any way, shape or form going to agree to any usurping of our authority or our responsibility -- which is more important -- to ensure that all budget estimates are properly conducted, and that questions are responded to by ministers and not by deputies. We have a great deal of difficulty with that process.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand and reply to this motion. As a member who sat on that side of the House in the former administration and who sees it from this side of the House in this go-around, I'd like to use some words that were uttered by the first American on the moon not too many years ago: "A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind."

I view this initiative in a very positive light. It's not a small reform; it's a fairly major step. It's a very positive step, filled with opportunities. As I listen to my hon. colleague the House Leader of the official opposition speak out, I'm not certain that we were at the same discussions. All the points he covered were discussed with the Government House Leader and me, and a good, healthy spirit of cooperation certainly exists. I'm not concerned with the future of this particular initiative.

[ Page 5317 ]

Listening to that reminds me of the charts they used in the old days when they were sailing on the ocean. At that time they didn't realize that the world was round; they saw an abyss and the steaming, frothing water going over the edge. Therein lay the caption: "There be monsters." That's perhaps what the Opposition House Leader sees. The fact is that there is a tremendous opportunity here for a great form of leadership, a more responsible form of leadership, to conduct the affairs of government. What we're hearing about is a lamentable lack of television coverage, and that's the sour grapes of this whole issue.

But the point of the whole exercise is to get the people's business done and win back, not for one party or the other but for the Legislature, the credibility that politics and politicians rightfully deserve -- a major step forward. I am very proud and applaud the Government House Leader for working hard to make this initiative possible, and it's a dramatic milestone in the history of this Legislature.

Motion approved on the following division:

Orders of the Day

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

[3:00]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)

On vote 25: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).

K. Jones: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Jones: Today visiting with us in the gallery are 52 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in Surrey. They are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Sharon Douglas and Ms. Diane Hamm, as well as several parents. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

D. Schreck: I rise to debate the Ministry of Education estimates, and I will attempt to make my remarks brief but to the point. I wish to touch on the importance of teachers to our education system, and how we frequently attack them and don't recognize the vitally important role they fulfil. We would all be worse off and couldn't really have an educational system without the role that teachers fulfil.

Second, I want to explore the question of administrative costs and, in particular, what are perceived to be the rather high compensation levels of some administrators.

Third, I want to question the minister on the tie between the secondary education system and preapprenticeship programs in the advanced education system.

I will allow time for the minister to respond to each of these points and touch on them briefly. Earlier in the debate all three of these points were touched on briefly but not uniquely focused on.

I am particularly concerned with the question of teachers' morale. Many of the teachers I talk to feel constantly under attack, and that it is popular to criticize teachers for the hours they work, for the professional development they receive and for not solving all of society's ills. Yet if teachers were to be paid straight time -- without counting time and a half or double time -- for hours worked outside the school marking papers and doing curriculum development on evenings and weekends, the majority of teachers I personally know would work in excess of the 1,850 to 2,000 hours a year of most other people who work on an hourly or salaried basis. That is not generally understood.

I notice that the minister, in her opening remarks and several times during the debate in the last couple of days, has acknowledged the extracurricular activities, the vitally important role and the commitment of teachers. All too often that acknowledgment is made incidentally by all of us in society -- not only in this House. I sometimes fear that because we all at some point in our lives went through the education system, we consider ourselves to be experts in education. Rather than the odd pat on the back for teachers that occasionally surfaces above the noise of conflict in the education system or the collective bargaining process, we'd be far better off if we devoted more time to the excellence in education through the devotion of the overwhelming majority of teachers. Instead, the controversy and the collective bargaining noise become the background sounds through which it only occasionally emerges.

I would very much appreciate hearing the minister comment on what her ministry is doing to make the 

[ Page 5318 ]

public more aware of the vitally important role of teachers and to educate all of us that teachers are extremely committed to the task they perform, and that on an hour-by-hour basis they work more hours than most of us do.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd like to thank the hon. member for the focus he has put on this afternoon's debate.

It is very true that we often hear about difficulties in the system. As I have said over and over again in speeches as I've travelled around the province, there are 550,000 students in our schools who are learning every day. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to briefly tell the story of a teacher in your riding, hon. member, with whom I happened to have a conversation last night.

It's a very simple story about what happens in the classroom. She's a primary teacher, and she told me about some concerns a father had about his young son going into her class. Because of the two age groups in one class, he felt that his little boy might not be challenged. She had just had an opportunity to have a discussion with the parent, as part of her reporting. It was seven months into the year. To put it mildly, the parent was thrilled with what his child had learned that year. I wanted to add that little story to your story about all the work teachers do outside the classrooms. It is very fresh in my mind, from last night. That teacher was empowering her children to be very dedicated learners. Her satisfaction with that is something we all want to celebrate.

How do we get that story out? We get it out every month through our deputy minister's newsletter that goes out to every school, in which there is a focus on some aspect of what is happening in our schools. It provides information about programs and services and an educational focus, which is part of our work. It always highlights some initiatives that we find in our schools. Again, such small stories tell the big picture. Our ministry works with all of the partners in education around ways in which we can assist in communicating to our public what is happening with our children, how they're learning, what new things are occurring and our success stories.

As a mandated part of our School Act, we have a requirement for every school district to publish an annual report, and that is an accountability report that also refers to teachers' successes. It also usually gives some profile of the wide range of activities that are part of every school. For example, in the riding of the member for Comox Valley, there is a secondary school that does a wonderful newspaper -- one of the best I've ever seen. I have sent that newspaper to other districts as an example of the ways in which young people report -- sometimes more thoroughly and in a more balanced way than our wonderful press gallery reports -- on what's going on and what the issues are. We do an annual report, which provides that balance.

The means of getting the story out, though, I think happens through parental newsletters that go out from schools and in a lot of small ways that we don't see. We're trying to work with the teachers, support staff, trustees, administrators and parents to get more information to the public about our schools and programs and the work teachers do. I mentioned yesterday that one of the newest publications, in cooperation with the lower mainland school districts, introduces parents from our diverse cultural community to our schools. That has been made available in nine languages. It's a very useful document, whether you're reading it in English, Punjabi, Cantonese or Mandarin.

Those are just a few of the ways in which we are working to ensure that the celebration you dealt with today is one we all share in.

D. Schreck: I appreciate those remarks from the minister.

On my next topic, administrative costs and salaries, I have a bit of an appeal for more accountability with regard to what is happening -- together with a bit of a mea culpa -- just as I have made an appeal about not stereotyping all teachers and constantly putting them in a defensive position and on the attack, and how we need to celebrate the contribution and enormous number of hours that teachers put into our children and their profession. So it is with all occupations. I recently did what I could to make the public aware of administrative costs and salaries in School District 44. I don't apologize for that, and I'm going to elaborate on it in a moment. But I think it is very important, when raising concerns like that, that they not be interpreted as a general attack on all principals, all administrators or all superintendents. It is always wrong to stereotype any class of people, be it by other criteria on which we prohibit discrimination or by occupational group.

[3:15]

Having said that, I became aware in School District 44 of concerns over the budgeting process. There was a great deal of public noise about difficulties in adjusting to the block-funding formula and the standards that are accepted throughout this province. But nothing was said about the fact that administrative salaries were being increased by exactly the amount that had been negotiated with teachers. In one year, comparing fiscal year 1992-93 with fiscal year 1991-92, the increase in administrative costs and salaries was approximately 18 percent, for a total cost increase of almost $3 million, at a time the public was being told there was no money available within the school district. In fact, I learned that one salary increased -- in total compensation cost, not just salary -- by more than $40,000.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

There may be a sound basis for that and there may not be. But on the face of it, when my constituents see compensation levels in six figures and generous fringe-benefit packages and perks, they want to be assured that that is contributing to value in education -- and I want to be assured.

Under our current legislation, I was only able to discover that information by using the Financial Information Act, which doesn't give access to that information until more than a year after the fact and only makes it available in very limited form. I'm looking forward to the extension of freedom-of-information legislation promised in the throne speech, for I think all citizens 

[ Page 5319 ]

should be able to have their school board answer questions as to the salary schedules of both people in the bargaining unit and managerial staff. All citizens should be able to know from their school district how much money is being spent on special needs, the French program or any other program in which they are interested. They shouldn't have to wait until more than a year after the fact to then get very aggregate numbers, and have access to that information depend on the whim of a board or administrator. So I support the hint that was given in the throne speech, and I urge the minister to continue her support for access to information within education.

My particular question today, hon. Chair, is on the matter of administrative salaries in excess of $100,000. In the budget speech our colleague the Minister of Finance indicated that public employees in the direct employment of the provincial government who are making in excess of $100,000 per year would have their compensation frozen. I ask the minister: how many superintendents or other administrative staff in British Columbia are making over $100,000? And what has the minister done to extend that policy, applied to deputy ministers in this government, to senior administrative staff in the school boards?

Hon. A. Hagen: Our information, through the Financial Information Act, indicates 36 administrators in the B.C. school system with salaries -- total compensation -- that are in excess of $100,000.

I might just comment a little bit more on the issue that you have raised as the MLA for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. There are some important principles that we want to make very clear as we look at how school districts, as well as ministries and governments, structure their work. I've said over and over again -- and I want to state it very clearly again -- that as we plan for our work in education, it is important that we keep our eyes on the children. Therefore, as decisions are taken, the important issue is that we look at ways in which those decisions help our children get the very best education they can.

There's a lot of confusion around what we call the resources in the classroom and what we call administration. It's very important for us to remember that a school today has teachers in it, and they are in fact the largest number of employees in any school district. They work, in large measure, in the schools. They are supported by the secretary, the bus driver that gets the kids there, the support staff that assist with supervision or with assistance for special-needs children. And groups of schools will be supported by people who bring particular expertise: perhaps the counsellor or the speech pathologist, people who are very important to the range of services that are in a system. They are all providing resources for children, and so indeed are the principals and vice-principals.

As we look at administration, they are the people who do the big planning at the district office. In large measure, their portion of the school district's budget is relatively modest, and I've been encouraging that percentage to stay modest. We don't want to have a lot of people who are not really providing services directly to children. But as we look at boards' budgets we need to be very clear that they are complex structures with district staff, perhaps area superintendents and staff, and people who work within the schools. All of those people are important, but the planning should be around where the service impacts upon the learning of children. The farther away we are, the more I have concerns. So I am urging boards to look at the ways in which we can get close to the children. Some districts have done that with a major restructuring, delayering and flattening.

Another thing that is important to comment about is that the education funding review said that the issues you raise around accountability and reporting were on the public's mind. My ministry and I have done some work around recommendations that will be coming forward to do better in that regard. We have been working with the auditor general. I have established an accountability and reporting committee which will be working on the very issues that you have raised -- access to information, how we understand how a board uses its money, and how they understand how we allocate that money -- so people can make judgments about the way in which we are all being stewards of the taxation dollars that go to our children. I know that out of that work we will have some improvements -- supported by the districts and by our government -- for next year, so that people will have easier access to information. It will be presented in such a way that they can understand it more easily as well.

D. Schreck: I appreciate the remarks of the minister, and I must share with all of the hon. members in this House my respect for the minister. I know that her quiet and effective style is frequently not as noticed as the more bombastic style of some of us; but such a quiet and effective style can frequently be extremely effective. I know that my colleague is working very effectively to bring the concerns that I've raised under control. I look forward to seeing not only the results that have just been mentioned but also the recommendations of the Korbin commission, which I understand will be coming before this House in the weeks ahead, certainly before the end of the session. I know we will find recommendations there that will also help us to increase the accountability of the entire system.

My last area of questioning is a matter about which a number of my constituents have raised concerns. My constituents point out that a lot of our children do not go on to obtain BA's or BSc's or other degrees from the university system; they go into trades. Quite frankly, even if one doesn't look at it from the point of view of a classical Greek education to be a well-rounded citizen but from the narrower perspective of preparing for work.... From both perspectives, the major thrust of a good deal of our education system is for individuals who are not going on to college or university. These constituents point out to me the European model of more closely tying pre-apprenticeship programs to what in this province is within the purview of the Ministry of Advanced Education: job preparation and apprenticeship and getting into various trades. It is the perspective of many of my constituents that the flow of 

[ Page 5320 ]

preparation from pre-apprenticeship to apprenticeship and the link between our education system and our advanced education system is not as smooth as it ought to be. I would very much appreciate the comments of the minister on how that linkage is being made smoother.

In particular, I think about the comments of a constituent who sat in my office just this past Saturday. He taught shop for many years and had been the head of the department in a school in Vancouver. All of his students managed to get accepted into the apprenticeship programs at BCIT or PVI at the top of the list because of the excellent job he was doing, based in part on preparing his own curriculum materials. This constituent identifies part of the linkage problem between our education system and advanced education as not only access to how the whole apprenticeship model flows, but also the difficulty with curriculum materials -- the lack of curriculum materials prepared by practical people who understand the system.

I would very much appreciate hearing from the minister how the pre-apprenticeship-to-apprenticeship system is being addressed to make it more acceptable to my constituents and what's being done on curriculum preparation for the pre-apprenticeship program.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm really pleased that we are doing a lot of work in this area. The number of young people within our secondary school system who are currently involved in career prep programs has doubled in the last couple of years, and 68 of the 75 districts have programs in place for a whole range of career preparation.

The member is speaking particularly of an apprenticeship model. We have a lot of work to do in that area. It was a part of the curriculum that was virtually abandoned in the 1980s in B.C., and there's a lot of rebuilding to do. We currently don't have nearly as many students as we would like in the apprenticeship system in the secondary school and then transitioning into the post-secondary system. I hope the member will ask my colleague in Advanced Ed about that. However, curriculum is being developed. There is a Passport to Apprenticeship program that permits students in a career prep program to register their work experience and summer work with the apprenticeship system. They can claim this banked time for their indentured time as an apprentice. We have a number of cooperative education and partnership programs that tie into the development of apprenticeship and other career options. Just to give you some statistics, there are over 400 hundred partnerships between schools, business and industry that we know about -- and that's the first of our inventories. We believe that's understating the numbers.

Cooperative education is another major initiative in many of the school districts. Hours of work experience are credited to some of the requirements for graduation. It is funded jointly by the school district and through federal grants.

To give you some idea whether we're meeting the needs of our students, the increased enrolment in the secondary schools was almost twice that of the elementary schools last year. That's not in-migration or immigration; that's young people who are finding that the programs offered in the secondary schools are more appropriate and relevant to them. They're more satisfied with their learning. There are more options available, and students are staying in school. The work between the Education ministry and the Advanced Education ministry in this area is vital. Yesterday someone talked about our two ministries being one. In this, we are one; we are working on a number of transitions in the school system that take people from the secondary into the post-secondary area with credits.

[3:30]

Hon. member, it's important to recognize that we should see this as a full-spectrum type of service not only in apprenticeship but also in the academic area. There are all kinds of apprenticeships that we might serve. The more broadly we look at the transition from school to work to ongoing training, the more we are going to be able to contribute to the lifelong-learning elements of our education policy. Apprenticeships can be served in science, as well as in carpentry and in plumbing. If we break down that idea that there's an academic course and an apprenticeship course, and we think of all these activities as apprenticeships into the world of work and the training it requires, then we will break down stereotypes about the value of work. I have often said that the worker I value the most is the carpenter, because he or she builds with an eye of the artist, the skills of tradesperson and the technical and academic knowledge that comes from years of study. We need to build some of that respect for skills in whatever field people work in.

F. Gingell: First, I'd like to deal with a general discussion about the question of block funding. Last year I went to your ministry's offices to get briefed on how the block-funding system worked. As you may remember, I used to do a lot of work on the question of education finance when I was a school trustee. I found the block funding to be the most ridiculous, complex and aggravating system that I could possibly believe. It was just an opportunity for every school board and district superintendent of schools to come in and argue a series of special cases which meant their board should be treated differently from other boards.

Going back to the 1960s and early 1970s, there was just one sum: it was the same whether you were in Dawson Creek, Surrey or Delta; it didn't matter. Some expenditures that they had were greater and some were less, and there were additional grants -- from memory -- for special things like the operation of buses, because every district was very different there.

I know that you hear a lot of complaints about the problems of school districts that are growing and have new students coming in every year that aren't included in the count. That was the case in Delta when I was on the school board, but that was more than compensated for by the fact that we were hiring teachers at the time, and our average salary costs were substantially lower because we had a greater number of teachers at the bottom end of the experience scale.

[ Page 5321 ]

I'd be most interested, Madam Minister, in your thoughts about the block-funding system and whether it's time to find something that's much simpler, to get rid of all the bureaucracy involved with this very complex series of calculations and get down to something that is more easily understood.

Hon. A. Hagen: I can first of all respond by saying that one of the first initiatives I took as minister was to look at the funding system, and we are well down the road in our ongoing work in dealing with that system.

Secondly, I want to speak to the comment about how districts use the system. Fundamentally, I believe the system is sound, and that's what the funding review affirmed through a very extensive discussion with a provincial advisory group in five regional meetings that involved local advisory groups, input from the community and a very extensive set of briefs that came in.

We do audit very thoroughly the funding that goes to districts. Those audits are based on the enrolments of districts, special programs of districts such as English as an additional language, and the special-needs students and programs that are offered for those students. There is an accountability and auditing approach that we take and that I encourage my ministry to follow with rigour so that we are assured that the dollars made available to school districts are indeed providing the services that school districts have advised us they need for particular children.

We are currently reviewing the distribution system, with a broader base of people to assist us both in the policy issues around that and in the technical work that needs to be done. We could get into the system. I know we briefed the opposition critic on Education, and he seemed to find that the briefing enabled him to have a very good knowledge of how the system works. We'd be happy to provide you with any additional information that might help you. But there is a balance between simplicity and complexity in our ability to indeed accommodate the diverse needs of districts.

We have made some changes, though, that allow us to make adjustments throughout the year. Let me just quickly outline them for you. We adjust enrolment after September 30 where we have rapidly growing districts. That doesn't happen to be Delta right now, because yours is actually one of the few districts in the lower mainland that is not growing. In fact, your population is going down a little bit. We're the only jurisdiction in Canada that does do this. We recognize that those are pressures, and we have provided additional resources to school districts that are experiencing that growth.

We are also providing additional funds for districts if there is a significant influx of English-as-an-additional-language students, because the assessment and placement of those children to ensure that they are well started in our school system, learn the language quickly and get integrated into the schools that they are attending is an important part of their academic success.

We have a very extensive program of capital planning that involves all school districts in an iterative process, and we have recognized that growing districts need some additional resources for that. Surrey and Richmond, for example, are districts that have huge capital pressures right now because of growth, so we've provided funding for that.

Fundamentally, I'm saying a finance system for education is a dynamic system. It's one where we need each year to look at what improvements we can make. But I share your view. I would like to see us get some of those policy and accountability questions in place and then review them at the end of two or three years. That would bring some greater stability to planning by school districts. We certainly are going to aim for that as we work this year with the finance advisory committee, our technical committee and our accountability group to further improve the system.

I'm satisfied that we have made excellent progress, that we have a greater understanding of the system than might have been available to you when you were first briefed last year and that we are making good changes with good auditing and accountability mechanisms in place.

F. Gingell: Hon. minister, immigration is within your jurisdiction. Immigration, of course, is under the control of the federal government, but it has a dramatic effect upon your Education ministry in the area of English as a second language. Can you briefly advise us of the arrangements between the federal and provincial governments relative to English as a second language? Or I heard you use the term EAL -- English as an alternate language, was it, or an additional language? What are the arrangements for funding to the province to help cover costs resulting from federal government decisions, and are there any ongoing negotiations with the federal government for changes?

Hon. A. Hagen: A very good question, hon. member. For our students in the K-to-12 system, the federal government does not contribute to the cost of providing English-as-an-additional-language support. If we have students in the adult programs, there is some support for them -- usually on a first-year basis, when they are new immigrants.

I've expressed enormous frustration with the foot-dragging of the federal government with respect to cooperative efforts. We have long sought to have federal-provincial agreements on immigration, and fundamentally we haven't been able to get the federal government to come to the table. They work with us around some of our immigrant settlement programs. They've been very impressed with the work of our ministry because we are getting excellent results out of our consultations and the programs we're funding to assist with settlement. But we haven't gotten very far in the whole area of a federal-provincial agreement on immigration and immigration services. Actually it's the same around cost-sharing in other areas, where there is a responsibility on French language instruction and -- for my colleague in the post-secondary area -- on student loans and the whole issue of training.

I don't know whether you have seen reports recently of a federal cabinet document made available to the Council of Ministers of Education, which indicated that the federal government had a whole education and 

[ Page 5322 ]

training initiative that they were talking about in what I call their back rooms. They had not done any homework to find out what the various Education ministries across the country were doing. Some of the material in that document showed their woeful ignorance of a lot that was going on. Right now we fear they're about to pull out of the three-year funding arrangement with the Stay in School program, which we have used as a lever in assisting students to stay in school. That's very typical of the federal government. They start something, they get into it for a short time -- it is a legitimate collaborative effort in respect of our provincial and national goals, especially in relation to education and training -- and then all of a sudden it's gone. We don't know what's going to happen with it.

In this whole area we are not getting at-the-table, let's-get-down-to-the-issues cooperation. I think it's political foot-dragging, if I may be so bold. Somewhere along the line, during the next election, there's going to be a wonderful big vision. But it's the slow and steady tortoise -- planning and working on these issues -- that wins the race as far as our kids are concerned. Our ministry has established a career prep program, an immigrant settlement policy, a coordinated effort with the multicultural community, and resources for youth, women and families. But we're not getting anything back from the federal government around the way in which all these initiatives can assist with English-as-an-additional-language programs. That means getting parents into the schools to deal with language, so the whole family can communicate well.

[3:45]

I believe, as I often say in this House, that the efforts we cooperatively make as a government are important. I encourage you to write your federal Member of Parliament, who is a member of the governing party, and express your concern about these issues in support of our efforts. I'm sure your voice, as a distinguished member of the Legislature and Leader of the Opposition, can assist in getting us to talk about these issues at a table -- not them in Ottawa and us here -- and to look at ways of levering the resources available in their budgets, and the resources and programs we have available, to assist in those areas, whether it's for children, for adults or for families that are new to our country and getting settled.

F. Gingell: Hon. minister, I would like to inform you, carrying on from that subject, that I did have a discussion on this matter with the Hon. Paul Martin. He informed me that the federal Liberal Party's policy is to recognize their responsibility, from immigration to these other issues. Perhaps later this year, in a set of circumstances that I know would be welcomed by all members of this House, that particular member may be in a position to do something about it.

Dealing with the issue that never goes away -- whether K-to-12 education should be funded by property taxes, a subject we've all talked about for many years -- I know that your party's policy has been that property taxation is an inappropriate means of funding education. I know that position is put forward in the Spangelo report, and I wonder whether your ministry has any plans or thoughts on how to bring that about, and whether it is an important issue for you.

Hon. A. Hagen: The issue of taxation on property for school purposes has been around for a long time. In 1975 a member of the Richmond City Council actually proposed a balance between local property taxes and provincial resources for sharing education costs.

It's interesting, hon. member, that British Columbia has, if not the lowest, very close to the lowest percentage of the total cost of operation of school districts coming from the residential tax base. If I, living in urban Vancouver, were to compare my taxes with the taxes of a person living in urban Toronto, for example, I would be literally thousands of dollars ahead of what they would be paying. The portion of education operating funds that comes from the residential tax base has remained relatively constant at less than 15 percent, ranging from 11 percent to under 14 percent. Over the years it has actually come down. Again, my taxes -- and I live in an average house in New Westminster -- have remained relatively flat in respect of education, even though my assessment has gone up something in the order of 25 percent.

What comes from the local tax base is a relatively small portion. I'm talking here about the net after the homeowner grant, because we need to look at what the taxpayer really pays. That gives us an honest reporting. We should be looking at apples and apples here.

F. Gingell: We won't mention that to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. A. Hagen: He was looking at apples and apples and all of our ministers' budgets in terms of what was in the estimates last year and what we spent. Let's be clear: what we spent, as related to what was in the estimates book, saved the taxpayers of British Columbia $400,000 for 18 ministries. That's not bad.

On the issue of who sets the taxes, those are questions that the funding review looked at. It's fair to say that it's a governance issue; it's tied into other policy issues that we need to look at through the Korbin commission report around the bargaining question and so on. Those are active issues that we need to discuss, and I think it's fair to say in this House that there's not a consensus. The funding review group certainly didn't find a consensus.

As I've travelled around the province and talked to boards, there are different views; and when we really come to those decisions, they are taken by the Ministry of Finance as taxation decisions. But it's fair to say that I have a considerable interest in them, because along with my co-governors, the school districts' policies relating to our respective responsibilities are ones that we need to actively discuss together.

F. Gingell: I have one last question, and of course it's going to be more of a statement than a question. In fact, I don't think it will require a response.

Every MLA, I'm sure, will get up and tell you about the problems of their own school district and why they can't get by with the funds that have been allocated. 

[ Page 5323 ]

Delta School Board met last night until quite late, I understand, to deal with a $3 million shortfall. As you so correctly stated a moment ago, Delta is one school district that is shrinking fractionally. It's going to shrink this year about 0.6 percent, and the increase in its block funding was approximately 0.1 percent.

You can appreciate, hon. minister, that a 0.6 percent shrinkage in the school population will not change their costs in any measurable way at all. Their block funding is increased this year by $90,000. As the result of actions by this government and no one else -- the increase in the provincial sales tax and the inclusion of some new items -- their costs for this coming year will increase by $85,000. The increase in the Medical Services Plan premiums -- the portion that the school board will have to pay -- will cost them an additional $16,000. Their B.C. Hydro bill is going up by $33,000, which, if you study the financial statements of B.C. Hydro, is caused only by the corporate capital tax, because they have lower interest costs. As the costs of borrowing have come down, they didn't need any rate increases. In fact, as we all know, B.C. Hydro made $180 million more than the BCUC allowed amount and had to put it into a rate stabilization account. That increase cost them $33,000. Their Workers' Compensation Board costs for 1993-94 have gone up by $42,000, and because there are vehicles that belong to the school district, their ICBC premiums have gone up by $6,000.

That all adds up, hon. minister, to $182,000 -- increases which I honestly and sincerely believe are caused by actions of this government. Their block funding, as I understand it, has gone up by $90,000 or thereabouts. So the increases caused by this government are double the amount of the increased funding, and that's very hard for me to defend. I'd be most interested in what defence you can bring to that question.

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I can correct the member, or give our figures for Delta. They have a drop in enrolment of 1.5 percent. If in fact there is a difference and more students arrive in September, those students will be funded. So let's just be clear about that. These are estimates, and the board may have a revised estimate. But the funding has been based on a drop of 1.5 percent.

The increase in funding is $136,000. I think you gave a figure of $70,000....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Hagen: No. That's the operating funding for Delta.

In the block funding for this year, there is $12.8 million for the province for non-salary increases. That was the only adjustment, if you like, in the block for the incremental costs that you are talking about. So some portion of that has been factored into the block funds for each district, depending on the population.

In addition, besides the block of funds that we had last year, there is $8 million for the school year for education change initiatives. It's an allocated amount, but it provides relief for the districts which have been providing some of those initiatives for educational change out of their block. That's allocated on the basis of enrolment and the number of schools, and the districts learned about that very early on.

It is a difficult year for boards, and in correcting or clarifying some of those figures, I want to acknowledge that. I know that your board provides a very excellent system. It's a board that works in excellent relationship with its staff, with the human resources in the district, and they have been excellent managers. I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that and to recognize it as we discuss the resources that are available to it.

D. Symons: The first comment I would like to make is that I had hoped to be the speaker after the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, because I wanted to respond to him; but I deferred to our leader. I'd just like to thank him and you for the comments regarding the importance of classroom teachers. Having been a teacher in high schools in Vancouver for 29 years, I can certainly testify that the classrooms are really where it's at, and that's where the attention of the ministry and of the education system should be. Indeed, many teachers do work long hours with students. I think most parents who have kids in school understand this and appreciate the fact that teachers are there. But sometimes people who don't have students in school think the teachers work from nine till three and that's it. My wife felt very strongly about the number of times I brought great amounts of homework home and the time I spent on my work. She didn't realize that when I got into politics I sort of jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire and that I'd bring home even more than I did as a teacher.

The majority of teachers do work very, very hard. There are a few that possibly do ride the system. I guess that happens in any profession where there are some who don't put their all into it. But I rather suspect -- from those I know that were like that -- that they're not very happy campers, because indeed the students know it and their fellow teachers know it. You don't really have an easy job of it if you don't really throw yourself into the job.

That said, I would like to move on to a different topic. In our district of Richmond we're going through a procedure where the board is looking at the possibility of changing the junior and senior high school format into a sort of integrated 8-through-12, rather than 8-to-10, and a senior 11 and 12 -- an integrated secondary school system.

[4:00]

First, does the ministry have any preferences about that? I think it's within the purview of the particular district, but is there something the ministry prefers in the format of secondary school systems? Secondly, if Richmond does, for instance, go into a totally integrated secondary school system, there would be some costs involved. Junior high school labs would need to be updated if they go into high school programs; shop and other supplies would be required to upgrade the junior high materials to the necessary senior high materials. Does the ministry cover such expenses if the district was to so change? How's that going to work? So I have 

[ Page 5324 ]

two questions: the preference about the format of the high school system and whether there's any covering of expenses for upgrading.

Hon. A. Hagen: Your district is doing what a lot of districts are doing, hon. member. They're really looking at the way in which they can provide space and good educational programs in the most effective way.

The answer to your question regarding preference is no, but we share with the district the goal of good educational programming and cost-effective use of facilities. A number of changes are occurring: junior-senior secondaries in one school, and in some instances it's middle schools and a 9-to-12 secondary school. Each district sits down with its communities and works that out, and we work with the district. Certainly we're working very extensively with Richmond, because it's a growing district and there are changes around how they want to organize their schools.

On the question of equipment, as schools are built or added to and the purpose and the configuration changes, there are equipment allowances. Those are factored into the capital planning for those districts. If you want more detailed information on that, it probably would be appropriate for us to deal with it in some other way than for me to try to explain all of that. But the allowances for approved additional space include equipment; so if it's approved, there are ratio allowances for the necessary equipment for those schools.

D. Symons: I'm not quite sure whether this may involve capital expenses, so my question would still stand on the funding of any necessary internal changes, without necessarily any capital expenses in doing that. Would equipment and upgrading of shops come under that category?

The other one is: has the ministry done any studies on the cost-effectiveness of the various configurations of grade groupings in schools? You mentioned the middle-school system and the senior. Do you share this information? I asked for a preference. I'll now ask whether you can share with the boards, from studies done, which is the most cost-effective for the district.

Hon. A. Hagen: Actually, the districts provide us with a good deal of that information, because they have done some of those studies. I want to emphasize again the very close working relationship between the districts and the ministry. Very often the districts themselves look at the demographics and at the stock they have, which varies from district to district, and at districts that have established different configurations -- junior, senior, combined, middle school. They then come to some decisions for education programming and use of facilities.

Like a lot of things in our province, hon. member, there isn't necessarily one way; there are a number of ways. One of the reasons that we have different districts and that we have established this long-term planning process is the cooperation between us as funders, with the responsibility for the whole province and each local district.... We are very concerned that we look at cost-effective decisions.

I can think of one district that decided to go into middle schools on the basis of that study, and they were getting schools on stream and saving -- I can't recall the figure -- a considerable amount of money in capital projects over five or ten years. The combination of those decisions was pretty powerful, because they were getting the schools they needed sooner and seeing those savings. And, of course, they did look at the most effective programming.

All of the models seem to work in the communities. If you believe that the model is going to serve, and you have teachers who believe that, very often that's exactly what happens. It's one of those things where motivation and commitment are part of the self-fulfilment of a prophecy that this is going to be a good learning place.

J. Beattie: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Chair.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: In the House today is a stage band from the Summerland Secondary School in my constituency. The stage band is in Victoria for only one day. They will be performing in Abbotsford on the weekend, and they're carrying on a great tradition of musical excellence in the municipality of Summerland. In fact, recently they came in second at a concert competition in Moscow, Idaho. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ken Ireson, and their chaperon Mrs. Waterman. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

D. Symons: Having passed one of those milestones of aging yesterday, I hope the interruption will not have broken into my train of thought.

I wonder if the ministry might act as a clearinghouse for gathering information of that sort, rather than the boards having to look around for other boards that have done something. It might be good to have one place where people could look for and bring information that the boards could share with each other.

The other part I'm curious about is the fact that you mentioned a district where they're using the middle school format and they found that it's going to save them a considerable amount of money. Will the funding formula then be adjusted, so that money will not really accrue to the district as extra money? Or will it come back and be redistributed through other boards in the province? How does that work?

Hon. A. Hagen: Very simply: we do share, and the only thing that's being saved in that district is capital funding. They are going to continue to need funding, because they are a growing district, too. So it might help them get their next share of the pie a little faster, because they've done some good work in spending money wisely. But operation and capital funding are quite separate, and there's nothing that accrues to a district that finds some good ways to get their facilities on stream.

Just to emphasize: we are a clearinghouse for design, for models of programs. We probably have one of the closest working relationships you could imagine. I 

[ Page 5325 ]

could give you some information about how that long-term planning process works. Our facilities people in the districts and in the ministry, by region, have regular meetings in addition to all of the informal work that goes on.

It's a good opportunity for me to commend, as I should do as often as I can, the superlative staff in our ministry, because they are tackling a really big load here, whether it's facilities or programs. Let me put in a plug at this stage of the game for the facilities people, who have a huge capital program and about whom I hear excellent comments as I meet with officials and board members from the various districts of the province.

D. Symons: Thank you for that answer, and I am encouraged by it. My interest was that there might be some carrot or incentive for boards to look for ways of rearranging and saving a little bit. You know, if they could profit by it, that would encourage them to look for ways of saving money; whereas if it were taken from them, that wouldn't be the case.

You mentioned financing a moment ago. For my benefit and that of others that may not quite understand it, I'm wondering if we could go through the steps involved in the capital construction of schools. As you mentioned, Richmond is a very fast-growing district. I know Cambie School is slated to be replaced, as it's a very old school. It doesn't meet current earthquake standards or the needs of that area. Richmond will need many more schools in the next while. I don't totally understand -- and maybe others don't either -- what's involved from the conception of needing a school to the completion of building that school.

I can imagine that the first step is identifying the need by the demographics of the area, and that's usually done within the boards. Who does the initial building plans? Is that done within the district? Do they conceive a design and put it out for tender? At what stage, then, does the Ministry of Education become involved in that designed building once the need for the building has been established?

Hon. A. Hagen: I have here capital budget instructions for school districts, and I would be happy to make a copy of that available to the member. But very briefly, there is a five-year planning window. We're extending that, actually, to an eight-year planning window. As I've mentioned in the House, we are trying to get to the point that when the kids arrive, there's a school there, rather than having to house them in portables. We're working very diligently toward that end.

Each year there's a capital envelope. Fundamentally, I see that as having three key elements: site acquisition, a planning process, and then the actual tendering and building. In terms of the planning and tendering, there are space standards and entitlements that are clearly set down in this document. The unit cost rates are set by the very best of quantity surveyors, who annually update those figures for the province and by region.

That's a very brief overview of how it works. Then there are various factors that affect what goes into a building. We talked about those a moment ago when we talked about equipment. But if you're interested in knowing more about this, hon. member, we'd be very pleased to make available to you the ministry bible on capital budget processes.

D. Symons: I hope that our critic will have a copy and I can borrow from him. I would be delighted to look at that. But if I may continue a bit, because you explained quite quickly what might take pages from there.

At some stage, then, the board has come to the need for this, the building has been designed, and they submit this to the ministry. I suppose the board and the ministry come up with a figure that would be acceptable. Does the board put that out to tender? Once that's done, what about the funding? I'm curious. The money isn't put in the estimates for the board that year; it's separated out, so bonds are sold to fund this. Are these bonds for this particular building, or are they just a large sum for all the capital construction of schools in the province for that particular year?

Hon. A. Hagen: You're right, hon. member, the boards manage their building. The planning and tendering is their responsibility, within standards and costs that are acceptable to us based on the entitlements and unit costs that I talked about. I can go through the process again for you if you like. During construction, projects are financed by short-term borrowings. When the construction is complete, the projects are financed by a 20-year debenture arranged through the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority. The school districts receive, as a separate item in their budgets, the debt service cost to pay the interest on the short-term borrowings and the principal and interest on the longer-term borrowings. If you've ever been to a school board meeting, you will have gone through first, second, third and final reading on those debentures. This year the total debt servicing for all of our capital work -- new buildings, refurbishing of old buildings, buses and major capital acquisitions -- is $281.5 million.

D. Symons: Then this whole process is all public knowledge: the public can attend board meetings, discussions of building committees and so forth. As you say, if I attend board meetings, I'll hear the talk on debentures. The public is involved in all stages from conception to actual funding and the bonds that are used for building. I didn't get the answer I was after. When the money comes, are there certain bonds for that particular building? If we do Cambie school, for instance, and at the time we are doing the long-term 20-year debentures.... Or is it just a large pool of money that's put aside for construction throughout the province that year?

[4:15]

Hon. A. Hagen: You're getting into some fairly technical details, but it's my understanding that each year the capital projects of the district are put into a debenture bylaw for the amortization of the interest 

[ Page 5326 ]

and principal for the project when it is completed, and passed. In terms of the process, I would imagine land acquisition might be in a closed meeting because of its particular nature. By our requirements, tender openings are open to the public, but board policies govern the management of their capital work.

D. Symons: Just a final question. This involves a particular school in Richmond. London school has a real problem. They had a fire a few years back, and in the meantime the building has become almost uninhabitable because the repairs didn't solve the problem. The district area has grown so much that the school really needs to be replaced. With ministry approval, they recently built a village of portables out in the back so the school could move into the portables and away from the building so the needed construction could be done. Unfortunately this has been postponed. A cynic might think that it has been postponed in such a way to allow it to go into this new financing authority under B.C. 21, rather than doing it in the time frame that the school board had been led to believe was taking place. I wonder if the minister might reassure us that this is not the case.

Hon. A. Hagen: I spoke earlier about the cooperation between the ministry and a school district, including yours. For the Charles E. London Junior Secondary school, the original cost came in very much over the entitlements and unit costs. The board agrees that the cost must be reduced. The board and ministry officials have been working really hard on this. Everybody agrees that the project needs to proceed. I've been watching it closely, and I have been hearing from constituents in your riding. I'm hopeful that we're getting close to being able to proceed. It's a very high priority with the ministry. I want to assure you that it's in that priority list. We just have to get to the point where we're within the appropriate range of costs for the facility.

C. Tanner: Just one final question, following the questions of the member to my left.

An Hon. Member: To your left?

C. Tanner: Yes, on my left. I don't like using that term, but he is on my left.

Interjection.

C. Tanner: The factual is coming any moment now.

For my satisfaction, could the minister confirm that all capital projects need the permission of her department before they proceed?

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, and Treasury Board is part of the decision-making as well.

C. Tanner: Roughly how long does the process take? Are we talking about months or years?

Hon. A. Hagen: It depends on the size of the project. I think it's fair to say, too, that it depends on whether the districts get the work done that's necessary in order for projects to proceed.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry, I meant the in-house process, in your department. Does that take a long time after the school board has done their thing? Incidentally, can you initiate those projects, rather than the school board?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me go through this again. I'm not sure if you were listening, hon. member, when I was talking to your colleague to your left. School districts are operating on a five-year capital plan. They develop that plan, and we work with them in rating the priority of those projects. Just to give you some idea, the plans exceed the capital envelopes we have had available. That's to be expected.

We also submit a five-year plan to Treasury Board. It's an annual, repeated process. When I became minister, one of the tasks I undertook was that we would move that process forward as rapidly as we could for school districts. We do the work to get our proposals to Treasury Board. Those proposals look at the coming year, which is the one we're dealing with now in our estimates. The Treasury Board reviews that plan and makes decisions. I announce the capital envelope as early as I can, and then as soon as the information is available, we get it out to the districts. We fundamentally nurture that process throughout the year, depending on where the school district is in its development.

But if I can go back: get the land, if it's a new project; you do the planning; and you build the building. Our goal is to have those things march along. Fundamentally, it might take three years for all of that to occur. If roadblocks occur, sometimes it takes a bit longer. We've had them in both districts that we've just been talking about, but the goal is to acquire the land, do the planning and then build. It will probably take us two capital envelopes, maybe three, for all of the processes to be complete.

C. Tanner: I was just finishing up when my fellow member was asking that question. I actually have three questions, and they're all different. The first one is to follow up on the question that I asked the minister yesterday. In your reply, in talking about the internship in my school district, the unique partnership that we have only in School District 63, you said in the Blues, "We offered our good offices in terms of partnerships to enrich a district without it necessarily coming out of the core funding for the district that we're responsible for," and that you were going to check with your department.

I appreciate that the minister is under some duress right now because she has to spend this time in the House, but has she been able to ascertain from her department whether or not there has been any help, and if not, could she give me some assurance that she will be able to in, say, the next week?

[ Page 5327 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm only able to advise you that the discussions flowing out of the meeting that I had with the board are continuing, hon. member.

C. Tanner: My next question concerns French immersion. I'm sorry to be jumping around, but there are three specific questions that I want to ask. We'll see how good the minister is at being as diverse as she was yesterday. Could the minister explain whether the French immersion education program offered in many districts throughout the province is required to follow the philosophy of the Year 2000 program.

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes.

C. Tanner: Anticipating the minister's answer, I have a second question. Could the minister explain what extra budgetary provisions have been set aside to assist French immersion teachers in their preparation of the Year 2000 teaching philosophy? I refer here specifically to the additional hours needed to rework lessons, plans and units, and the additional costs involved in producing French resource materials which take the Year 2000 philosophy into account.

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, we should remind ourselves that the primary program is the only one in place in our schools at this time. We're in an incremental process in terms of changes that are taking place. So we're looking at K to 3.

The French immersion teachers are a part of the regular complement of teachers in the district and would enjoy the same kind of in-service and professional development opportunities as any other teacher in the district. In the ministry we have learning resources in our second official language, just as we have in English, so the learning resources that are needed are a part of what we have available for the students.

I'm not sure if there's some specific issue that you are wanting to pursue, but I hope that that deals with the general thrust of your questions. If there is something more specific that is an issue, perhaps you could identify it.

C. Tanner: Yes, there is. Is the minister aware that educational French resources in B.C. are scarce? This is particularly difficult for French immersion teachers, who have to spend many hours and days -- in fact, years -- often on voluntary time, having to put together curriculum development by French immersion teachers, and now suddenly a whole new educational concept has been imposed on the teaching community. The French immersion teachers are back producing most of their own material once again. Can the minister indicate whether she is aware of the extra burden the new teaching philosophy is having on the French immersion teachers, and would she indicate to the House what provisions will be made to facilitate the transition for these teachers?

Hon. A. Hagen: First let me note that French immersion programs have been in existence in B.C. since 1977. This is not something new, nor are these programs in your district or in other districts new, nor are we talking about major changes that have had an effect on the how of teaching through all of the districts, although it's fair to say that many teachers are operating their classes on the philosophy of empowering learners, encouraging them to be critical thinkers and problem solvers, and working on cooperative learning. Many of the processes of learning are in place in our districts and have been for many years. If there are particular concerns to French immersion teachers in your district, I don't think we can relate those to education change. As I say, we're getting close to the twentieth year of French immersion in the province, and there's nothing new about it.

We are continuing to develop resources for our French-learning students, just as we're continuing to develop resources as we broaden the scope of languages that are offered. In this budget year we have money for additional French-language learning resources which will be added to the resources already in our learning resources branch. We are also developing French-language versions of the reference sets, which are the way we provide for standards at particular ages that will have teachers -- in cooperation with students and parents -- measure students' learning appropriate to their age.

Additional resources are added annually as a part of our learning resource budget. As we develop new program initiatives, the French immersion teachers will be -- as are all the teachers in the district -- a part of the change initiatives. This year we have $8 million in our budget for education change, which is allocated across the districts on the basis of the number of schools, teachers and student; so your French immersion teachers share in Saanich's share of those additional resources for education change.

[4:30]

I want to note that we are not imposing changes on teachers. There is an education philosophy which is broadly accepted by teachers. Those programs are being developed incrementally in cooperation with the school districts and with the administration, teachers and support staff. There is a very intensive developmental process in which those teachers you are speaking of, I'm sure, are very much a part.

C. Tanner: I would emphasize to the minister that I am not speaking specifically about my school district. I am speaking about French immersion across the province.

Year 2000 is changing some of the material needed to teach French. Whereas when it's in English there is material available, that material has to be interpreted in French. And therein lies the problem. I think a lot of French immersion teachers are spending a lot of their own time -- because they are dedicated to the work that they are doing -- in doing that translation and getting material ready because of the Year 2000 philosophy in the lower grades. That's the question that I would ask the minister specifically to address. Does she recognize that problem, which exists specifically in the French immersion courses for the younger classes as related to 

[ Page 5328 ]

Year 2000 education? The minister has pretty well addressed some of it, but I don't think she's specifically recognized the fact that I'm saying it's a little worse for French teachers than it is for the others who are making changes.

Hon. A. Hagen: If the point you're making -- and I appreciate that you're speaking for all of our French immersion programs -- is that we still have work to do in providing learning resources for the French immersion teachers and that there may be less available to them than to other teachers, I think that is a fair comment in respect to that.

I want to assure you that we are working diligently to add to those resources. I've been out in our learning resource centre, and there's a pretty impressive array. A lot of it certainly is material which would be very much for our primary students, and this is an area where the federal government provides assistance to us as well. So we use federal dollars to develop those resources. I appreciate your perspective. I want to assure you that we're working hard in the ministry to make sure that the range of resources needed in those classes is available.

C. Tanner: I thank the minister, and I appreciate the fact that she recognizes the problem that I've brought to her attention.

My third question is far more encompassing and, in my view, is one of the most important questions that this minister has to address within her ministry -- that is, the matter of pensions. In British Columbia there must be a large number of teachers who are getting to an age when they could conceivably retire early -- apart from the member on my left, who has apparently already done it. Has the minister ever considered a policy whereby teachers would retire at, say, 55 instead of the regular 60? One thing it would do is get older teachers out of the system. After 35 years they probably need a rest anyway. More importantly, if they want to retire early with slightly less pension, it seems to me that you would be paying a lower salary for the new teachers who would come in at the bottom of the system. Secondly, and equally as important, it would give the opportunity to employ a lot more younger teachers.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me provide some information for the member. If a teacher is 55 and has 35 years of experience, she can retire. Boards and their teachers can negotiate early retirement plans. As the employer, that's something the school board can do. If you are talking about the teachers' pension plan as it comes under our pension responsibility, you would need to talk to the Minister of Government Services, who is responsible for that issue. I can advise you, if the Chair allows me to, that that minister has been consulting with representatives of the teachers on the issue that you represent here today.

C. Tanner: As a philosophy, is your department encouraging teachers to take early retirement? That's number one. Number two: is there a cost to your department if a number of teachers retire, or is the cost to the government in general?

Hon. A. Hagen: As a person approaching official retirement age, I would not be so presumptuous as to comment about whether I was encouraging anybody to retire. I feel that age is a wonderful part of one's life. I'm enjoying what I'm doing and feel that I'm contributing, and I think a lot of teachers feel that way too. So I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to take a position on that issue, hon. member.

With respect to the costs related to retirement, they are a part of the responsibilities of the Government Services minister under the superannuation branch of her ministry, and I think it would be appropriate for you to ask questions of her with respect to that.

On the last part of your question about any impact on us of retirement, I don't think so. Again, it's an employee-employer relationship. Any early retirement arrangements that are made with the school board are between them. How they deal with it within the block of funds that they have available is a responsibility they take when they're budgeting.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the minister being an ex-school teacher and enjoying the life she has now rather than the one she had as a school teacher. I would have thought this was a little harder than being a school teacher, which I consider one of the most difficult jobs in the province. My experience has been quite the contrary, quite frankly, but then maybe the minister has a year or two over me -- I don't know. I'm not going to pursue that any further.

Nevertheless, I don't think the minister should be reluctant to tell the House whether or not there is an incentive program to get teachers to retire earlier, whether or not they're getting boards to think about it and, if boards are suggesting it to the department, whether or not the department is encouraging them. It's my understanding that there have been suggestions from some boards that if they could retire some teachers, in the long run the board would be better off financially, but for the government as a whole, it would be more expensive in the short term but not in the long run.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm trying to be very clear. Boards and school districts can negotiate early-retirement incentive plans. In fact, that has happened. I'm long gone from any of that. My pension contributions as a teacher have rested there since 1962. I'll never get anything out of it, but I hope it contributes to whatever we need to have available for pensions.

The actual cost of pensions is borne by the superannuation branch of the Government Services ministry. To be clear, there can be negotiations between the board and their teachers for an early retirement plan. If there are some cost benefits or human resource benefits to that, the boards make those decisions, along with their teachers. As I noted earlier, teachers' representatives have been discussing this issue with the Minister of Government Services. It is in her domain to recommend a

[ Page 5329 ]

ny policy changes to the government. You may want to discuss the issue with her when her estimates come up.

J. Dalton: I'm glad the member for Saanich North and the Islands raised the question of pensions, because clearly the BCTF is on record as seeking a provincewide early retirement plan. Even though it's a Government Services responsibility, as the minister pointed out, we at least have it on the record.

I wish to put some questions to the minister on a topic I introduced yesterday, and would now like to get back into, dealing with the funding review panel and process. The Leader of the Official Opposition made some reference to it in questions earlier today. I think it's important for this committee to have some understanding of the minister's perspective on where this very important $509,000 survey will be taking us. Without question, I'm sure everyone will agree that the whole issue of funding our school system is vital to us as taxpayers, legislators, parents and students. Of course, it's also part and parcel of the search I know we're all undertaking regarding how to resolve the labour disputes in some of our school districts and the unsettling effects of those disputes.

If I can make reference to a comment you made in response to a statement made by the Leader of the Official Opposition earlier today in this committee about block funding.... I want your reaction to some comments that a secretary-treasurer of an unnamed school district has shared with me. In those statements, that secretary-treasurer does not seem to share the same enthusiasm, shall we say, that the minister seems to have for the block-funding process.

I might add as an aside that the minister did comment that I had a very good session with her officials on the process. For me, personally, it was certainly made much clearer. Again, I thank them for that.

However, let's look at the comments of somebody who works within the system: "The school district budgeting system is in chaos and is a useless exercise." This may have been stated in pique or anger, or whatever, but obviously here is somebody who is trying to massage the figures within a school district and is expressing some real concern. He goes on to say that districts are facing very difficult problems with a fixed income, no knowledge of this year's teachers' salaries and no knowledge of next year's teachers' salaries. Of course, that's a local bargaining issue, but it's all part and parcel of the funding difficulties that boards are struggling with.

I have one last comment, and then I'll allow the minister to respond. This secretary treasurer goes on to say that the role of school boards must be reviewed. He then gets into some discussion about the possibility of local taxation and things that are addressed in the funding review report, which perhaps we can touch on later. I'd be interested if the minister would care to reflect on the frustrations about the funding process that at least one secretary treasurer has expressed.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not sure I can comment on what may have been a secretary treasurer's view on a bad day, because he doesn't qualify that statement. Let me tell you what the funding process is in terms of boards knowing what their budgets will be in the coming year. In January, prior to the school year that is affected, we announce the global funding that will be available to schools. Most secretary treasurers can take that amount and, within a very close approximation, have some educated knowledge of their budget. They're a pretty skilful group of people.

In late February we give them information on their specific budgets, and it's a block of funds. As long as they are providing us with honest information and they have students to receive the programs, whether they're special needs students, English-as-an-additional-language students or the number of students, then that funding is available to them.

As for the bargaining issue, since last February the boards have had information on the budgets they would be dealing with for the 1992-93 school year. This February they got the information about their budgets for 1993-94. They are collectively bargaining with their teachers or, as some districts have, they may have settled last June. The member nods. Before the end of the school year and in place for the next school year, 45 boards have now arrived at agreements. Most of those agreements are for two years: the current school year and next year. So they're obviously looking at their budgets in that respect.

[4:45]

We are looking at the broader question of the role of school boards. Bargaining, for example, has been a local responsibility, and it's changed over the years. We're reviewing it, and the Korbin commission will be bringing in its report. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue of taxation and funding responsibility, as you know, hon. member. Taxation policy, as I noted, is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, but I'm keenly interested in it. There have been public comments that the issue of governance and the role of school boards should be discussed. As I've noted over and over again, policy discussions need to be clearly defined and articulated, and we might all want to engage in a dialogue about that. Until we have some of the policy review done, particularly around some of the major responsibilities of boards, then I think we will wait. If you have specific suggestions or ideas around changes or improvements, we would certainly welcome them.

Let me just note -- and I think you've received information about this -- we have set up the working groups coming out of the funding review. We are reviewing policy around funding where we have a technical group that will be assisting with the framework for distribution and where we're looking at accountability and reporting. If the secretary-treasurer has some perspectives that he would like to bring forward, I would certainly encourage you to let him know that we are looking at these issues with as much input as possible. That was a part of our funding review. It's a part of a philosophy of government, and we'd welcome his informed and thoughtful perspectives.

[ Page 5330 ]

J. Dalton: I have a few more questions regarding this funding review process, but I did promise the member for Prince George-Omineca ten minutes prior to his need to leave at five, so I will defer to him.

L. Fox: A few moments ago the minister spoke on part of what I wanted to address, and that's the announcement that you made with respect to the global percentage that will be applied to education. I've spoken to quite a few board members about this particular announcement. Their concern is that when the 3 percent increase to the Education budget is announced, a lot of the rationale is not printed for how that 3 percent is going to be achieved, or that there will be variables throughout the budgets. Much of the public perception is that if the school board achieved 3 percent, why couldn't it give 2.5 percent to the teachers, for instance.

I'm wondering if there is a need to revisit that process about announcing the global budgets -- or how we announce the global increases -- so that we don't create an image in people's minds that the school district is going to receive more money than they actually do when the numbers come down, because the perception is that it's 3 percent globally. The comment that many of them get through the negotiation process is: "Well, you got 3 percent. How come you're having such difficulty?"

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: I think your comment about the broad public may be true, but teachers and boards know better. They are the people at the bargaining table, and I don't think we should suggest that they don't know. I'm not impugning you in that regard, but I think you and I know that the people in touch with the system do know that there is a variation, they do understand the system, and we are doing our very best to have a broader understanding of that system.

Let me just go through the information that was available when the announcement was first made: there was no economic adjustment; the funding increase would be targeted to new students -- 2.5 percent of the 3 percent was because our school system was growing; we were providing money for education change; we were improving our school system in an incremental way by targeting money directly to school districts; and we were providing $12.5 million for the unique needs of districts. All of that information was there at the time of the Premier's announcement in January and my announcement the next day. We said we had a couple of new initiatives which were designed for students who might have difficulty staying in the system, like teen parents or children in the inner city -- in the conceptual sense, because we could have an inner-city school in Prince George as well as in a part of Vancouver.

We will always struggle with that, but the point I want to make is that those people who are involved in the system know full well that 3 percent is not something that is there equally across the system. Any teachers' organization or any board that would pretend this is the case is not being honest about their understanding of how the system works.

L. Fox: Obviously I didn't make my point clear. I wasn't concerned about those who are directly involved in the process, as the minister mentioned a few moments ago in response to the opposition critic. I'm well aware of the capabilities of the secretary treasurer to get the necessary information to the board members. I'm also aware that that information is shared with the teacher bodies. So it has nothing to do with that. Where it comes into play is when the negotiations are tough and, in the public's mind.... A large percentage of people only read headlines and not the other information. I've had trustees tell me that they have quite a job trying to get the real message out, because the public perception is that there's 3 percent. That's all I was getting to; the minister doesn't even have to respond.

My next question is one that seems to be arising more and more, and that's administrative costs in the educational system. We hear teachers suggest that a reduction in admin costs would help to increase their salaries. We hear members in the government suggest that administration is paid too highly. Last year this government lifted the legislation that froze those administration costs, but now I understand that they're looking at a similar freeze on $100,000 or more. That's all very interesting, but the thing that concerns me most is that when I look at comparable districts and try to analyze which district is being conservative in terms of administrative personnel and wages versus one that may be a little more generous, it cannot be achieved in today's formulas and reporting process. Every district reports its administrative fees differently. Is the ministry looking at a process which would provide uniformity in the reporting of administrative fees on a district-to-district basis?

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to just go back -- not to belabour the other question, but the public does have a right to know. One of things in the Premier's television program was a very simple graph that dealt with the various parts of the budget increase, with the amount of new money and what it was there for. We will always be challenged, but TV is what people watch. Because we all have an interest in this, I would encourage members to gain that information and share it. I think it is a mutual responsibility, regardless of which party we happen to represent within the House.

With the Financial Information Act, a standard reporting procedure comes into the ministry, and every person has a right to information about a school district's budget and salaries. I think more and more people are recognizing that this is available to them by picking up the phone or going into their board office. On a broader perspective, one of the issues that came through loud and clear with the funding review was accountability and reporting. That's why I've established a committee to follow through on the recommendations and those perspectives. I agree with you, hon. member, that we need a common approach so that the information is clear and everybody is able to look at it and understand it. I want to mention here that the 

[ Page 5331 ]

provincial auditor general is very interested in this issue. We have been consulting with him, and he will be an adviser to that committee. So its goal is to share what you're expressing, what I've heard, what the funding review heard and the means by which we can make that information clear, comparable and available. I think the Korbin commission inquiry will be looking at some issues in relation to that as well, and those recommendations will come into government's discussions and decisions.

L. Fox: Just one last question before I have to run. Yesterday, Madam Minister, you suggested that there had been no substantial change in the grossing-up formula from 1992-93 to 1993-94. As I understand it, that isn't totally factual.

Those four exceptions were not made last year. In fact, those exceptions were done without announcement this January. About the third week in January, someone from your ministry met with the northern interior school trustees and made a presentation, using an overhead projector, that included those functions. On January 21, 1993, the funding announcement was made, which included educational change funding of $14 per student that was supposed to be new money. That's my understanding.

[5:00]

In fact, with the adjustment made sometime after the end of January, that increase through this new money was less than what School District 56 lost through the removal of those four items from the gross-up. I understand this is consistent throughout the province, and I appreciate that it had to be done. The problem the school district is having with it is this: when your financial people were in Prince George meeting with the northern interior school boards, those particular functions were included in the gross-up, and some change was made after that. I wanted to leave that with you so that the school board knows I brought it to your attention. They understand it is consistent provincewide, and they'll live with it. I'm sure we'll manage. But they were concerned that it was changed without their knowledge and that it actually nullified the other initiative with the new money.

Hon. A. Hagen: I understand the member's interest in this and appreciate the information he's brought forward. As I committed to do yesterday, we're preparing some material for you. I hope we will have that by tomorrow -- probably tomorrow afternoon. So we will go ahead with our commitment to you.

J. Dalton: A few more questions on the funding review process. I do appreciate that there is, as the minister has observed, an ongoing follow-up process. I again wish to make a few points that I think are important to extract from this report so that we get some sense as to where the funding review panel and its report are taking us on this important question.

There's a comment on page 15 of the report about the disparity between bargaining outcomes and the economic adjustment factor. There are many things we could deal with from the report itself. But to make a long story short, as the minister knows, the economic adjustment factor for the 1993-1994 budget year is zero. Obviously it's going to cause some financial difficulties for boards. Let me fill in a bit of the background before the minister responds. The report comments that it would be useful for school district budget planning if there could be a link between the economic adjustment factor and a clearly defined economic index. The present system does not involve using an index. All we have at the moment is an economic adjustment factor, which is, as I say, zero. Does the minister contemplate looking seriously at this recommendation of the funding review panel for an economic index? Other comments on the same page indicate it would be helpful for boards to know that something will give them some salvation from a very difficult budgeting process. It would certainly be of great assurance to them.

Hon. A. Hagen: All the recommendations of the review panel are being considered. As I noted yesterday, I personally have strongly supported a multi-year process so that there are some indications to boards about what they might expect -- at least on a two-year basis; I'm not sure that we'd get to a three-year basis. I have made no secret of my support for governments working in that way.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for her response. I didn't want to necessarily extract that commitment from her again, because I know she made it yesterday. I just happened to be looking at the recommendation from the review about multi-year funding. I totally agree, so the minister and I are in complete agreement on that. There's some other useful information in that part of the report about the resource-costing model. I'm sure they will be looked at seriously.

May I make a couple of observations? There are several recommendations on page 27 which deal with the targeting of provincial funds. They suggest the targeting should be kept to a minimum, and I agree. If we're going to have some measure of local autonomy, obviously you cannot control the actual targeting of funds that go to school districts without some rationalization, although it may be justified to have more stringent reporting in some areas, which is also dealt with on this page. We might get to that in a moment.

One concern that I'm aware of is about the suggestion that section 129.1 of the School Act, which deals with restrictions on the budgeting for special education programs, should be replaced. In the next breath, the recommendation goes on to suggest commissioning a special study on the appropriate service levels for integrated special-needs students. People are concerned that if the ministry is contemplating replacing this section in the School Act, but the study itself has not yet been undertaken, there could be a hiatus or a vacuum created. Could the minister assure this committee that any possible replacement in that part of the School Act will only be conducted in the light of the special study that is called for?

[ Page 5332 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me deal with the targeting issue. As the member knows, there are some targeted funds for education change, learning resources, accreditation and school meals. There will be targeted funds for inner-city schools where those are required. On the issue of special education, we have been working very closely with advocacy groups that represent the wide range of children who are part of our inclusive schools and who are having the opportunity to learn in their neighbourhood schools. The issue you represented to us around legislation and our ongoing review has been well canvassed. My legislative package will be coming forward later in the session. I will be dealing with the recommendations of the review, and you'll be advised in good time. The whole issue of both the programs and the resources for programs that meet the needs of students with demonstrable special needs is a very high priority with me and with the ministry, and a lot of very good work has been going on. I expect to be making some announcements in very short order, which will address the recommendations of the review.

J. Dalton: I'm certainly encouraged to hear that, and I'm sure many other people are as well. That part of the report doesn't require a comment from the minister, because she referred to it earlier today.

There's some interesting information about improving access to information. I would like to go on the record saying that one of the big problems that school districts and the education system in general suffer from is the lack of good public relations and a good reporting system to the taxpayers, the parents and everyone who is rightly concerned about the quality and funding of education, but doesn't truly understand how their tax dollars are spent. That becomes a controversial topic in itself. I'm hoping the minister will, as I'm sure she will, pay heed to the recommendations set out there.

If any school districts happen to pick up Hansard and read this, they would be well advised to examine some of the thoughts set out there, because they reinforce what I've shared with some of the school boards that I've met with. If we can all become better at public relations, it's going to overcome a lot of the controversial things we see in the newspapers and elsewhere, which in part may be justified. On the other hand, I don't think we need to invite more problems in a system that already seems to suffer enough, from the public debate point of view.

I have just one other observation on the question of local funding and local taxation. The Leader of the Opposition got into some questions earlier about property taxation, so we have that covered. As far as local funding and local taxation go, does the minister look with some favour on the suggestion in chapter 3 of the funding review report? I'm raising this as a possible approach. Would the minister consider the recommendation that local taxation if properly implemented, could alleviate some of the financial strain that school districts are going through? This approach, if it's feasible, would probably help a lot in dealing with some of the local programming problems that go hand in hand. School districts face frustration when their local programming has to suffer because of financial constraints. Perhaps we can buy back into the system through some form of local taxation, if it's feasible.

Hon. A. Hagen: As minister, I want to be very consistent in terms of our policy development. When the funding review was tabled with me, the recommendation on which there was not a consensus was local taxation. I indicated at that time that we would undertake additional study in respect to that. Again, it's the Minister of Finance's responsibility as well as an area of interest.

One of the things that I think would be useful to you, hon. member -- we've been discussing the financial system quite extensively -- is an excellent paper by the Economic Council of Canada on our system of funding education. It ties in with some of the perspectives in the education funding review. I'm going to make it available to you. I think you'll find it very good reading. You're obviously a person who's interested in this issue. I know that when I read it I thought it was one of the best explanations of our system, and it gives it, in fact, very good marks. So I'll make sure that that's available to you, because it does help in your study of these important issues and policy developments.

A. Warnke: What I want to put to the minister are just a couple of questions. I won't be too long, because there are probably a number of members who want to put questions to the minister.

One general question that I want to start off with is in relation to her remarks a few moments ago about the multi-year process and that she, in fact, is in favour of it. So I just want to pursue one thing. Earlier this year I believe there were two press releases, one around January or something like that, which stated, essentially, that a five-year calendar would be legislated. Perhaps the minister has reviewed this. Nonetheless, one press release said that a five-year calendar would be legislated and that the ministry would then determine what the school year would look like. A later press release reflected, in the opinion of some people who've talked to me, that there seemed to be an arbitrary change in the number of school instruction days and so forth, as well as a change in date, without mentioning that there was a specific correction.

What I gather is that this has led to some confusion among administrators, staff and other people within the school system. This was brought to my attention, so I would just like to have a clarification here. This provides an opportunity to clarify some of the conflicting information that was provided in some of these news releases.

I'll put it in the context of a specific question: is the minister intending to follow up with legislation on her announcements regarding the school year calendar?

Hon. A. Hagen: It most definitely will be a part of the legislative package. But the policy announcements about the school calendar have been made, and they are very clear and explicit, because school districts need to know what's coming.

[ Page 5333 ]

I want to say quite bluntly -- unfortunately, there's nobody from the third party in the House -- that I inherited a mess in respect to the school calendar, and I believe we have resolved that mess. We've done it with the cooperation of all the people who are interested in this issue. We had a very extensive policy review. I've announced that we are returning to a provincially regulated calendar, and that calendar will be for a five-year period.

I have informed the public as broadly as possibly, and certainly every school district, of the actual starting dates and holiday dates for that calendar, starting in '93 and going through for five years. So the calendar is clearly defined, and everybody knows that this is the calendar that's going to be there, although it doesn't have the force of law until we bring in the amendments to the School Act a little bit later this year.

[5:15]

The calendar that we've established goes back, fundamentally, to the calendar that existed in the eighties. It provides a standard in terms of number of days that is as good as or better than any other province in Canada, and as the legislation is presented the elements of the regulation will be outlined in fuller detail.

I'm very pleased with the process that we used to do a policy review, because all too often -- and it's the reason we inherited the mess -- somebody in the back rooms or somewhere, in a non-public or non-consultative way, decides that they're going to do something, and they don't think their way through the issue. We've thought our way through this issue very carefully, and I believe we have established a calendar and regulations that, as they come forward, will be seen to bring stability to the system and a standard around days, hours and instruction. We have left some flexibility for boards, in consultation and with the agreement of their parent and worker communities -- to vary that calendar, because there are circumstances where a variation may be desirable.

Let me just give a hypothetical example, but it's a real one in a community where there is a variation. They take some of their long holiday over the spring break, because a lot of the people in that community work in the woods. That's when they're down and the men and women who work in the woods are not at work, so holidays occur then. They go to school longer in July and they take the rest of a traditional vacation in August. We've left that flexibility for local communities to have that autonomy.

It's a very good, flexible but standardized and clear calendar, and there's accountability for it. We, as the provincial government, are saying: "This is the standard. These are the days and hours that are a part of the school year." Everybody knows where we are as a result of that policy decision, and that will be in legislation later on.

A. Warnke: I want to thank the minister for a very elaborate answer. I wasn't quite clear about when it is likely to come into force. I gauge from the minister's answer that a specific date had not come into being. Could that be clarified?

Hon. A. Hagen: Very clearly, there's been no question. One of the recommendations from the policy review group -- which we adopted almost in their entirety with a couple of modest changes -- was for the '93 year to start. The calendar that was published when I announced the policy changes is from the '93 school year through to the end of '98. The dates are in every school district's hands, and I would presume that most school districts have advised their parents of the proposed dates, and those are the dates that you're going to see in the legislation when it appears before the House.

A. Warnke: I also wish to pursue a series of questions on one school that I gather my colleague the member for Richmond Centre had already raised. There's just one aspect of it that I want to elaborate on. As well, since this involves Charles E. London Junior Secondary School, I want to express my appreciation to the minister for some of the correspondence concerning that school.

I am sure the minister is aware of the background on it, but for the record, perhaps just a few points should be made initially. Charles E. London Junior Secondary School experienced an extensive fire, in the aftermath of which asbestos was discovered. As a matter of fact, someone pointed out to me that while it was still smoking, I believe one of the fire crew, if not the fire chief, and someone else had gone around the ruins and later reflected that that wasn't very smart, and that it appeared to be a health hazard of some significance as long as there was a fire. I'm under the impression that aside from a very extreme circumstance such as that, even with the presence of asbestos it's somehow in the construction where it's not to be considered unsafe. I'm not sure. Perhaps the minister knows something about that, and if the minister would just touch on that I would appreciate it.

To come back to the main point, the school did experience a fire. As I had a close examination of the school, it seemed to me pretty obvious that the building is in a state of rapid deterioration, in terms of mould and everything else. I'm sure it's not the only school to experience such problems, but they're certainly significant enough to take into consideration the fact that they could have a potential, if not real health effect on students and staff at Charles E. London.

My impression, as well, is that given the fire and the ministry's response to getting Charles E. London Junior Secondary School back on its feet again, an impression was created among many parents in the neighbourhood, who have children going to that school, that the ministry was committed to certain funds to get the school back on track again. Earlier this year the ministry suddenly announced that that commitment was simply not there. All I'm looking for here is a clarification.

I'm just suggesting that not only disgruntled staff but also parents obviously had that impression. A lot of people have said that it appears the goalposts have changed: the ministry made a commitment and then did not follow through. As I'm sure the minister is fully aware, nothing is potentially more frustrating for parents. I believe that over 400 names of parents and 

[ Page 5334 ]

staff have been gathered in the form of a petition with regard to this problem. Of course, nothing is more frustrating than thinking that one has received a commitment only to experience the frustration of trying to meet those expectations when that commitment has been withdrawn. That's essentially the background of the school. I would certainly appreciate it if the minister could respond to that.

There is another question that I would raise. Time is going by very quickly, and it has been impressed upon me that there are some decisions that have to be made fairly soon. Certainly some commitment by the ministry is needed by June 1, simply because they have to make plans to move an entire school. I would certainly appreciate it if the minister could respond to this particular case.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm sorry the member wasn't in the House earlier, because we did canvass this item very thoroughly.

Let me just address several factors. Yes, a commitment was made a year ago -- approved by Treasury Board and announced in Richmond -- for $9.44 million. The project is currently 41 percent over budget, and the board and facilities of the ministry agree that those costs need to be addressed. If you read the Blues, hon. member, you will find that I have indicated that there has been a very good and constant dialogue. I have certainly communicated that to you, I believe, and to members of the school community who have written to me. As they've expressed their support for the rebuilding, we have kept them very well informed. On the asbestos issue, if there was a hazard in terms of the building that experienced the fire, it would be dealt with on an emergent basis. If there is asbestos to be removed over the long term, it would be part of the renovation. I'm not sure which of those situations pertains, but those are the ways in which we would deal with it.

Because we went through a very extensive discussion about this earlier this afternoon, I really would encourage you to examine the Hansard record. Your colleague the member for Richmond Centre addressed the issue quite extensively.

V. Anderson: Just two brief mentions to follow up on the previous discussion. Because of the confusion about length and number of school days and contracts that were already in place for the current year, could the minister advise how this was sorted out? Or did it get sorted out? Various districts handled it in various ways, and parents have been very confused. The schools were officially open if the library was open, and there has been a lot of misunderstanding and uncertainty. Could the minister comment on how this has worked itself out in the current year? I understand it's going ahead. I'll ask the other part of that question: what effect does she feel that setting the dates, as they are now settled, will have on contract negotiations?

Hon. A. Hagen: My responsibility as minister is to set the standards for the school calendar and, as I said a few moments ago, I inherited an unholy mess. The issue in the current year has been resolved by school boards dealing with those standards. If there are collective agreements in question, those collective agreements are required by law to not be at odds with the School Act and the regulations. There has been good cooperation throughout the year to resolve what has been a difficult situation for some districts.

K. Jones: I'd like to explore the situation in collective bargaining. I'd like to start by asking the minister to tell us how many shadow bureaucrats are in the Ministry of Education, of the 12,000 government workers who aren't officially listed as civil servants, according to the Peat Marwick report.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I'm afraid the member will have to translate his question for me; I'm not sure what he's asking.

K. Jones: Perhaps we could use the definition in the interim report of the Korbin commission; they refer to them as personal service contracts. It's a means of disguising the actual size of the public service of British Columbia by providing distorted information that would be vital to the creation of public policy. These people are not officially listed as civil servants; they're under service contracts or some other arrangements. Is that a sufficient explanation?

[5:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: In our total complement of employees, there are 12 contract positions. I might note, hon. member, that I think I advised the hon. critic of this earlier.

There are 37 positions that have been added to the ministry for two reasons. We are bringing back into the ministry the educational technology staff. It was a fully-funded, privatized -- if you like -- operation under the former administration. We were paying the full cost of the operation. They are now back into the ministry, and I am very pleased that they are, because technology is a very important part of the initiatives for a modern education system, as I know you, with your background, would appreciate.

We are adding the six to our Jericho Hill staff, and that, as you know, is the residential facility for children who are hard of hearing and perhaps have other disabilities, who live away from home and go to school in the wonderful new schools that are their school home in Burnaby.

K. Jones: Just to clarify -- you said that there were 12 contracts in the ministry. Then you went on to mention 37 new employees and then six additional who are under Jericho. I'm a little confused as to which ones.... Could you explain that?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm sorry. I did confuse you, and it doesn't add up. In our total complement of 437 ministry staff, we have 12 contract employees. They are secondees. It's agreed that that's an appropriate way for them to serve the ministry and the children of British Columbia. I want to take the opportunity to note that 

[ Page 5335 ]

our staff in the ministry is now 437, and six of those are employees at Jericho. The others are bringing into the ministry staff that we've fully funded in a privatized operation.

Let me take the opportunity, hon. member, to tell you that the total number of ministry staff in British Columbia, per thousand, is the lowest in Canada. We stand next to Ontario and then the western provinces. We are often compared with Alberta. They have more than twice as many in their Education ministry as compared with ours.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that we do better than Alberta in most of the international tests that our children participate in. B.C. tends to stand highest in the international tests, and we're either equal to or a little better than Alberta. It's a good opportunity for us to look at some comparative statistics in relation to other jurisdictions, whether we're looking at our ministry or at the achievements of our children in our schools.

K. Jones: I'll give the minister an opportunity to get one more kudo in. Could the minister tell us what the ratio is between staff and pupils?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd be happy to tell you. It's 0.62 staff per 1,000 pupils. Statistics really are quite wonderfully unexciting things.

K. Jones: To the minister: you say you've got 12 persons under contract. Do you have any people working under contract doing computer programming, data processing or consulting in that field?

Hon. A. Hagen: We contract with B.C. Systems Corporation for those services.

K. Jones: Do you have people who are specifically assigned to you? How many would that be from B.C. Systems Corporation?

Hon. A. Hagen: I don't have that information to hand. If the hon. member would like to proceed with his line of questioning, I'll be happy to answer the question if we have the information here.

K. Jones: We could go on to these positions. How are these positions paid for presently? Which vote would they fall under?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me go back to the earlier question, because I do have a response now. Seven of the staff who deal with our corporate systems are from B.C. Systems Corporation. Within the ministry itself, we have 9.5 full-time-equivalent staff for the corporate systems. I think you may have had another question around the secondees and the specific areas in the ministry. I'm quite sure that would fall under ministry operations, and there are a number of categories there. If you'll wait a moment, we'll be able to tell you.

You were asking about contract employees and the particular areas from which they come. I don't know whether we have that information available, but I'm happy to deal with that. Those are specific personnel contracts -- is that what we're looking for? Maybe if you would phrase the question again. I want to be sure that we're providing you with accurate information, because we have statistics on the makeup of the ministry. We have people who come into the ministry working on educational programs from districts, and those come for a period of a year or two on specific assignments. But we're talking about contract employees as distinct from secondments, and I may have confused the two, so I want to be clear about the line of questioning.

K. Jones: We had 12 contract personnel that you mentioned, and then you mentioned seven from B.C. Systems Corporation. Is that in addition to those 12? Then you talked about 9.5 FTEs on staff. Are all of those cumulative, or are they included in the 12? My arithmetic isn't adding up correctly.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me try to be sure we get our labels correct. We have contract employees, and we have secondees. We have been working through one of the tasks the Korbin commission had, which was to look at all of these people who were there but not counted -- that's where your shadow allusion came from, and I recognize that. We have identified 12 contract positions that will stay as contract positions. That has been a subject of discussion under the mandate of the Korbin commission in order to be sure that we know how many people are there. I appreciate your line of questioning. When I was in opposition we used to ask, "How many people are there?" and nobody would ever answer the question. We really want to be sure that you have the information.

But that's dealing with the contract employees. The seven people from B.C. Systems that we're talking about are employees of B.C. Systems, who are seconded to our ministry to provide specific services. They are B.C. Systems employees in their equivalency, but seconded to work in our ministry. They're in addition to the 12, because we're talking about two classifications or two ways of describing people. Twelve contract employees and the B.C. Systems people who work in the ministry are seconded from B.C. Systems.

K. Jones: The minister mentioned 9.5 FTEs in addition. Were those FTEs within your ministry staff?

Hon. A. Hagen: With all these figures, I get a little confused myself. The B.C. Systems people are part of our corporate systems branch. In addition, we have 9.5 FTE Ministry of Education employees in the corporate systems area.

K. Jones: It's very complex when we're working with all these accountabilities of staffing, and I want to make sure we're all talking the same language. I appreciate the patience of the minister and her staff to get that clarified. I think it's very important that it be clarified.

I'd like to explore another area with regard to collective bargaining, and that's the problem that the 

[ Page 5336 ]

Korbin commission appears to have identified: that there is a great reluctance -- in fact, almost an abhorrence -- on the part of the BCTF towards any concept of provincewide bargaining. What's the minister's position with regard to that?

Hon. A. Hagen: Once again the member is into territory that is not my responsibility. I'm well aware of the policy position of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, as I am of that of the B.C. school trustees and CUPE. They've made that public knowledge. The Korbin commission of inquiry has a mandate. She is an independent commissioner of inquiry, and I know that she has been working with the affected parties as she carries out her mandate and prepares her report to government.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister to comment on the statement taken out of the interim report of the Korbin commission. It says: "Unlike other sectors where the parties agree on the need for change but differ on the changes needed, the parties in education are not in agreement that a new way of doing business is in order."

Hon. A. Hagen: Once again, this is not my area for comment. The policy positions of the various people who are a part of bargaining in the education sector are their policy positions. As a commissioner of inquiry, Ms. Korbin, will be commenting on any aspect of her mandate, and in the interim report she made that comment. She will be reporting her recommendations to government on education bargaining when her final report is tabled with us in, I anticipate, the very near future. I might note that the Korbin commission of inquiry was commissioned by the Minister of Finance.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I would ask him to think very carefully of the comments by the minister with respect to her area of responsibility.

K. Jones: It certainly is what I've been keeping in mind throughout this questioning. I've been very specific in not referring to anything but the sections relating to education in the official interim public report of the Korbin commission, which is therefore a guide to the ministry in order to assist the minister and her ministry in doing a better job in providing education to our children. That is the reason we are focusing on these issues, and why we're trying to get a response from the minister as to what directions we're going in.

[5:45]

It's not my intention to second-guess the Korbin commission's final result, but we do have a direction from an interim report. I would like to ask the minister to tell us what action she has taken as a result of this interim report to facilitate the commission in its desire to bring a new look to the entire scope of labour relations in the government, with specific emphasis on the educational end, which requires some guidance from the minister to bring the parties together. It seems that the Korbin commission is not getting that kind of cooperation from the parties involved.

Hon. A. Hagen: Last fall this government enacted the most progressive labour legislation in the country with the Labour Relations Code. The government is elected to make decisions, and we will make decisions around public sector bargaining. It is not helpful to presume the work of Ms. Korbin in dealing with the positions of parties. We recognize that it takes hard work and a diligent process to improve the climate and the methods of bargaining. We've set up a body to bring forward recommendations, and I know that the process involved intensive discussions. I do not want to presume the outcome of those discussions, but I assure you about the role of government, as we acted expeditiously in bringing in labour relations legislation. That legislation is assisting us right now in mediation processes toward the resolution of bargaining between boards and school districts. We will be acting decisively and expeditiously when the product of Ms. Korbin's work comes forward. The Labour Relations Code was the product of extensive work and consultation, which helped the government to bring forth the excellent legislation last fall. In our comments in the House, we should be acknowledging that the discussions that have taken place, albeit from different policy positions, are important to assist us in making good decisions and good policy for the future. I would not want to presume that the world would stay entirely the same from the time Ms. Korbin wrote the interim report to the time she presents her final report. I believe that process will be helpful to government and that we will be making decisions, setting policy, and dealing with legislation coming out of that process, just as we did with our excellent Labour Relations Act which was passed last fall.

K. Jones: What you say doesn't really help the process if you're not providing some guidance. The lack of cooperation by the parties necessary to bring forward some change to the system makes it almost impossible for the Korbin commission to function within the education area. In that the BCTF is not prepared to take an active role and consider new ways of dealing with collective bargaining, such as provincewide bargaining, there seems to be a missing factor in the formula to make resolution possible.

I'll just repeat myself: what specific action has the Minister of Education taken to try to bring the parties to work in cooperation with the Korbin commission so that there may be the resolve to have a new approach to bargaining in the province, so that we don't have the situation that we have today of continuous removal of educational services for our children?

Hon. A. Hagen: I can respond honestly to the hon. member that since I became minister I have met and worked with all of the people who are involved with education, in more ways that I can count. I've met with boards and teachers' associations across the province. I've learned about their perspectives in relation to a whole lot of issues, including issues related to collective 

[ Page 5337 ]

bargaining. I've heard from those boards and teachers' associations their views about how they think we can make our system work well in the future.

I have been fully apprised of the briefs that have gone forward to Ms. Korbin, who is involved in an independent commission of inquiry, a position that gives her very extensive powers and responsibilities to work with that sector. I have demonstrated, through consultative processes, that we do take the time to develop good policies. The school calendar is an excellent example. We inherited a mess, and we've now resolved that in a way that I believe the public and the partners in education see as bringing both standards and stability to the system.

We are in a process at this stage of the game where, as minister, I have gathered a great deal of information and many perspectives that will assist me in advising my colleagues as we sit around the cabinet table and receive the Korbin report and then deal with the decisions that will need to come around any improvements that we make.

Again, I want to come back to the Labour Relations Code, which provides us with the tools for expedited mediation in the settlement of disputes. It's new legislation. In the areas where the Labour Relations Board has been involved, they have, in many instances, successfully assisted the parties to reach a resolution without job action or very quickly after job action.

K. Jones: The Korbin commission's interim report states: "Employers argue that while each of them bargains separately without a central negotiating or coordinating authority representing school boards, the BCTF is effectively bargaining centrally." They go on to say that a large majority of the bargaining agencies for the school boards assert that the balance of power in school systems bargaining has shifted to the BCTF. Since the minister is responsible for providing all the funding that these schools and school boards are negotiating with, surely she has some responsibility to support the school boards.

I'll just refer to another factor that's also quoted here. "In April of 1992 the B.C. School Trustees' Association voted by a 2-to-1 majority to support the consideration of a provincial system of bargaining for teachers." Could the minister specifically tell us whether she's in favour of provincewide bargaining?

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair advised you earlier of the standing orders with respect to Committee of Supply. We are addressing the minister's office and the administrative responsibilities thereof. The matter you are raising is related to the minister in an indirect sense, but it is certainly not a matter that can be canvassed at this time. I would ask that you recognize the difficulty you're placing the Chair in with respect to standing orders. I would rule that you move on to another matter at this time.

Hon. A. Hagen: With your indulgence, hon. Chair, I would like to speak to one aspect of the member's last question. The system of legislation that we presently have makes bargaining the responsibility of school boards and of their employees. As minister, I have the responsibility to provide the school boards and their communities with information in a timely way that will assist them in carrying out their responsibility. Let me count the ways. Last fall, in meetings with all of the education groups -- the BCTF, the BCSTA and local or regional chapters of those bodies -- the Finance minister and his ministry gave those people full information about the economic picture in the province and the anticipated decisions that we would be taking around economic adjustments. According to law, after Treasury Board and government had made its decisions, I announced the budget decisions for the province and the school districts for 1993-94. That was added to the information that boards had the previous year for the 1992-93 school year, which is a part of the bargaining that is currently happening for all districts. My responsibility, assisted by my colleague, is to give to the boards the information that they need, and very specifically, the budgets around which their collective bargaining takes place. The law of our current system is that boards and their employee groups bargain. I've outlined my responsibility: it's informational -- and that information was available last year; it's also tangible in the budgets that are there. So I believe, hon. member, that I have discharged those responsibilities in a way that allows those who must make decisions at their collective bargaining tables to make them reasonably, responsibly and with the necessary information.

With that, hon. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress -- considerable progress -- and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada