1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 9, Number 6
[ Page 5409 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Clerk of the House: The House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the hon. Speaker.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Prayers.
BAISAKHI DAY
H. Lali: I rise to make my member's statement on Baisakhi Day, which is an Indo-Canadian social, cultural, religious and political day. Although the day has passed -- it was on April 13 -- I rise today to make my statement on it. It was with great pleasure that I read the speech that the member for Vancouver-Kensington made last year on this particular topic. He did a very admirable job.
Baisakhi Day is celebrated mainly in northern India, generally in the province of Punjab and specifically by the Sikhs. Baisakhi Day celebrates the completion of the wheat harvest. It dates back several thousand years, and it has been celebrated by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs throughout the centuries. Punjabis are direct descendants of an ancient tribe of Mediterranean people called the Scythians. The majority of the converts to Sikhism were from the Punjab.
Similar harvest celebrations take place in Europe today, especially in southern Europe, and in particular in Greece, where the Scythians originated. People who have their origins in India live in almost every country of the world and work in all professions. They are doctors, lawyers, judges, educators, civil servants, business persons, engineers, labour organizers, farmers, forestry workers, miners, taxi drivers, truck drivers and bus drivers. And of course, they work as politicians at all levels of government.
South Asians living in Canada have their origins in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Fiji, the Caribbean, England, the United States, Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. There are 500,000 Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs living in Canada of Indo-Pakistani origin: 200,000 of these live in British Columbia, and 130,000 of these are Sikhs; 65,000 live in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. There are just as many Sikhs, 65,000, living across this great province, with large concentrations in Victoria, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Campbell River, Duncan, Abbotsford, Mission, Kamloops, Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George, Fort Nelson, Fort St. James, Fort St. John, Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Smithers, Mackenzie, Terrace, Clearwater and, last but not least, the great interior community of Merritt, which is my hometown. Each of these communities has a gurdwara, a Sikh place of worship. My father was a pioneer Sikh in Merritt and helped establish the gurdwara there.
Baisakhi is celebrated on April 13. It is a very important day for the Sikhs, but it is also the birthday of the Khalsa, or Brotherhood of the Pure. April 13, 1699, was the day that the Sikh nation was born. On that day the tenth guru or master of the Sikh faith, Gobind Singh, transformed Sikhism from a pacifist sect into a self-defence fraternity. The guru called a special congregation on Baisakhi Day of 1699 at Anandpur in the Indian Punjab, and about 100,000 of his followers responded to his call. He was wearing a marshal's uniform and was fully armed, and he established a new order, beginning with the Five Beloveds of the Sikh faith. The creation of the Khalsa was the beginning of the revolution to overthrow the foreign Mogul empire.
In the time of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, Sikhs used to be initiated by giving them holy water to drink which had been touched with the guru's toe. This was to develop humility in the Sikhs, but now fearless bravery and skill in arms were required to meet the challenges of one's faith. Khande-ki-pahul, which means that the holy water is stirred with a dagger, was adopted to give the Sikhs courage, fortitude and the will to face the trials of an honourable life. He made those Five Beloveds drink from the same bowl. The reason behind that was that he wanted to treat all human beings as one. He eliminated caste from the Sikh religion. All decisions from then on were to be made in a democratic fashion. He also set new regulations relating to daily worship, marriage, the law of inheritance and other matters.
At this point I would like to congratulate people of Indo- Pakistani origin, in particular Punjabi and Sikhs, who celebrate Baisakhi in a very big way. I had the pleasure of going to the Baisakhi Day parade, which was put on by the Ross Street Sikh Temple. Some members of the opposition parties were also there. There were conservative estimates of about 25,000 people who showed up for these festivities; some liberal estimates were up to 50,000. In any case, there were a lot of people of various faiths there. People who were not Sikhs were also there, and the Sikhs really appreciated people from other faiths joining in celebrating Baisakhi.
V. Anderson: It's a privilege to join with the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet in recognizing Baisakhi Day. On April 10 I also had the opportunity to be at the celebration put on by the community of Vancouver-Langara where I live, and also from the Ross Street Temple. People gathered from all over the lower mainland and from around British Columbia; there was a large representation there on that important day.
In our multicultural community I think it's important that we be aware and share in these important community and religious celebrations of one another. It is important that we become aware of the meaning of these cultures and their religious expressions. When we look at the Sikh culture and talk about the foundation of the Khalsa, which our hon. member has already brought to us, it's important that we be reminded that the five symbols that we have seen and heard about on many occasions -- namely the kirpan, a dagger; the kachh, a particular style of underwear; the kara, an iron bracelet worn around the waist; the kesh, the uncut hair; and the kangha, the comb -- are all symbols of this faith
[ Page 5410 ]
and of the expression of brotherhood which they have with all people.
The Khalsa is the name of this brotherhood, and we should also be aware -- within the brotherhood and the sisterhood -- that the term "Singh" is added to each name in order to indicate the male members of that community, and the name "Kaur" is added to those of the women of the community. "Singh" comes from the term "lion" and "Kaur" from the term "princess." It's important to understand these expressions of the communities that we share. I might indicate in passing that members will receive a copy of the ecumenical calendar, which indicates the religious holidays of all of our communities and a brief description of them so that we might understand and recognize them.
[10:15]
I would also like to congratulate the Sikh community for the very important contribution they have made within our community in understanding and sharing with one another, and their contribution in bringing us together. When I worked in Ecumenical Action some 20 years, ago I was privileged to share with members of the Sikh community and over the years to go back to Ross Street Temple. It's a privilege to share and encourage and be part of the celebration of this important part of the history of the world as well as of our own community.
H. Lali: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Langara, who, in an eloquent and educated fashion, described some of the facets of the Sikh religion. I also thank him very much for congratulating my coreligionists.
It would be shortsighted of me not to say a few words about the founder of the Khalsa and his achievements. Gobind Singh was born in 1666; he died in 1708 at the age of 42. In 1699, when Gobind Singh created the Khalsa, he was only 33 years old. That is almost four years younger than myself, for perspective. On Baisakhi Day, guru Gobind Singh's message was to liberate India from foreign rule. Gobind Singh wanted to create a mass awakening and show his followers that they were strong enough to check the tide of political tyranny and religious persecution. Only later would events show that he had admirably succeeded in the mission he had undertaken. Under the Khalsa, self-defence was adopted as an article of faith.
In 1699 the Sikh nation consisted of a city state set up by Gobind Singh at Anandpur, where Sikhs ruled. In 1706 Anandpur fell. From 1708 to 1716, Banda Singh Bahadur overthrew the provincial Mogul rulers and set up a Sikh country in most of what is now Punjab in India. From 1755 to 1795, the Sikh nation overthrew Moguls in north India and set up a 12-chief confederacy in north India. In 1790, the Sikhs overthrew Delhi, which was the capital of the Mogul empire. From 1799 to 1848, Maharaja Ranjit Singh created Punjab, a Sikh nation with an area larger than that of present-day France.
In conclusion, Sikhs not only defended their own homes and families but also came to the help of others being oppressed. They rescued 25,000 to 30,000 women and girls, mostly of Hindu and Muslim origin, who were being carried away as war booty to Afghanistan by Emperor Ahmad Shah Abdali and escorted them safely back to their individual homes.
I would like to once again offer my congratulations to the people of Indo-Pakistani origin, in particular Sikhs, and I would like to specifically congratulate the people of my congregation in Merritt, the Merritt Sikh Society, and its president Mr. Rachhpal Singh Sandhu.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' DAY
L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to rise in this House today and raise an important issue which has its roots in the essence of our democratic traditions and certainly affects the members on both sides of this House.
The practice of private members' day, including the provisions to debate not only statements, but also private bills and motions in the hands of private members, has regrettably been usurped by this government and its House Leader, who are using the standing orders to hinder any debate other than the government's business.
One look at the backlog of the business before the House regarding private members, and it is easy to see that this government does not care about independence of thought. According to the Government House Leader, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, any other business before the House on private members' day, including Committee of Supply, is more important. Yet how many times did we see his predecessor close down the House on Friday afternoon so his colleagues could take Friday afternoons off? While they have the leeway to do so, regrettably this House Leader and his predecessor have ramrodded private members' business into relative obscurity each and every Friday morning and afternoon. Although Friday is entitled private members' day, in fact the government has the prerogative to obstruct private members' business by adhering to a discussion of the budget, including the Committee of Supply. What happens to the concerns of their constituents who cannot find a voice within the Legislative Assembly? In effect, it would appear that in shutting out private members, the government is also shutting out the constituents whom they represent as well, and in this sense precluding the ideal operations of democracy.
In his treatise on representative government, John Stuart Mill asked: "Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard? Nothing but habit and old association can reconcile any reasonable being to [this] needless injustice." Likewise, Walter Hinds Page declared: "There is one thing better than good government, and that is government in which all people have a part."
To this end, the official opposition would like to see parliamentary reform within the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in order to guarantee that the voice of all British Columbians will be heard in the Legislature. This collective voice resides not only in the ranks of the opposition, but surely must be ever present in the constituencies of all other private members.
[ Page 5411 ]
In its present form, standing order 25 permits this government to set the order of business in the House for each day it is in session. This provision clearly operates in conflict with the ideals of democracy. Every elected member should be entitled to represent the respective interests of their constituents and thereby effectively serve the people of British Columbia. As a private member, I believe there should be a provision in the standing orders to protect the sanctity of private members' days and to enable private members to speak without restraint by setting the order of business at least one day in the House.
In order to remedy the inadequacies of the current system, my colleague and House Leader, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, tabled a motion on April 21 which sets out an avenue of reform. His motion, which I wholeheartedly support, would amend the standing orders by deleting the reference to "Committee of Supply" in standing order 25, creating an opportunity for all private members to have their say.
I would like to see private members' business guaranteed to a greater extent by the creation of an official opposition day devoted solely to this purpose. Other legislatures across the country have established opposition days in order to guarantee the rights of private members. Nova Scotia has Wednesdays. In Prince Edward Island, Tuesday evenings and Thursday afternoons are set aside for private members' business. Even in the Legislative Assembly of NDP Saskatchewan the government designates every Thursday as private members' day. In Ontario, Bob Rae sets aside Thursday mornings.
It can be concluded that other legislatures have chosen to protect the rights of private members and recognize the voice of the constituents whom they represent. I believe a similar recognition needs to take place in British Columbia and advocate the consideration of parliamentary reform in order to effect this change.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I'm straining to resist partisan response to what I heard as many partisan attacks in the hon. member's statement.
The matter before us is a serious matter, but that serious matter is done an injustice if we ignore the history and the rules of this place. The hon. member, in advocating for the rights of all private members, overlooks both that history and the rules and practice of this House. I would point out to all members that on this side of the House, the government side, we have more caucus members who are not in cabinet -- commonly called backbenchers -- than in the combined opposition ranks of official opposition, third party and independents. When we talk about the rights of private members, we are talking about the rights of my colleagues, the 30-plus of us, as well as the opposition. This is not a partisan matter; this is a matter of House business.
The hon. member speaks of our defence and how we should all have equal voice. I would ask whether that member would pay the same attention to what is really the few minutes when the public really focuses on this House. It's discouraging to me, as I'm sure it is for many members here, to phone back a constituent and the constituent says: "Well, where are you?" You say: "The Legislature's in session; I'm doing the job you elected me to do." Often we hear that constituent say: "Oh, I wasn't aware of that."
There's a tendency for us to think that the world revolves around every word we speak in this chamber.
An Hon. Member: Only you.
D. Schreck: Oh, that it would be so. The fact is that attention is paid to question period, and if we do not take the effort to communicate it to our constituents, they do not know the amount of time and, some would say, hot air that is expended. They would much rather see us doing our work in our constituencies.
So I challenge the opposition. If the opposition is so committed to reform, the 30-plus members of the back bench on the government side would like to have our proportionate time in question period. We have 15 minutes in question period. Sure, let's talk about reform. We'll take eight minutes out of question period every day, and we'll see how committed the opposition really is to the rights of private members.
I hear those opposition benches attempting to heckle me down. They express their interest in the exchange of ideas in debate, along with the noise from those benches opposite. What other proposals do we have? I have asked members who have been around here for 20 years -- such as the Deputy Speaker, the Attorney General and members who may not have that experience but have more experience than the two-thirds of us who are rookies -- what has happened during their time. They tell me that they can't remember a significant amount of time ever being devoted to public bills in the hands of private members, and that there is ample time for debate in estimates and on government bills to represent the concerns of one's constituents, but that there is room for reform.
I look, for instance, at the bills on the order paper put forward by my colleagues, the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the member for Delta North. These are good pieces of legislation that we are interested in discussing. That will happen by reform among the parties by agreement, not by partisan accusations across the House. I offer, in my role as deputy Government House Leader, to work with members opposite to see that all private members do the best job for their constituents in this House. I'm looking forward to seeing those opposition benches support my colleagues in question period in the weeks ahead.
L. Stephens: It's extremely interesting to hear the remarks of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, and it is particularly interesting to hear his comments about cooperation in regard to private members' days. That's something we will hold him to. If he has any input into that process, he has certainly indicated his willingness to do that.
I was also interested to hear his comments in regard to the practice of this House. I will make one partisan comment, and that is that this government likes to bring
[ Page 5412 ]
forward what is done in other jurisdictions in this country. On this issue they're not prepared to listen.
Hon. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the importance of democracy and the need for equal representation -- and I stress that: equal representation -- on both sides of the House. Seeing as it is William Shakespeare's birthday, it's appropriate to quote from the play Coriolanus, when he asks: "What is the city but the people?" Indeed, where are the people if they are not allowed a voice in this assembly, including all private members on both sides of the House?
[10:30]
The present form of the standing orders was not intended to be used as a mechanism for obstructing the process of democracy. This practice does not appear to support this government's claim to openness and equal representation for all. I feel that one of the ways this imbalance can be corrected is by amending standing order 25 in a way that guarantees the sanctity of private members' days by removing the reference to Committee of Supply.
I wholeheartedly support the rights of private members' debate -- not only statements, but of public bills in the hands of all private members and the motions on the order paper. Let's see if the government that preaches openness for all has the courage to act on this proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE OKANAGAN
J. Beattie: It's a pleasure for me today to have the opportunity to rise and address my colleagues in the House, and to hear the response from the opposition on my comments.
I come from the Okanagan. As the hon. member for Okanagan East knows, it's one of the prime, beautiful places in British Columbia, an area that is also experiencing an incredibly rapid growth at this time. This being Earth Week, I think it's an appropriate time for us to reflect on grass-roots initiatives which are going on in the Okanagan and which are helping to keep B.C. green. Like everywhere else in the province, the Okanagan has a finite land base, and it also has quite a fragile environment.
Before I was actively involved in politics on an official level, I was quite active in the environmental movement. I worked hard with many people in the Okanagan to stop the application of 2,4-D in the lake system, which was an important victory for the citizens of the Okanagan, and also the uranium moratorium, which was brought up again this week by one of the hon. opposition members. That was also a good victory for this province.
How we plan to keep the environment, how we cherish and keep the region livable, is something that's very challenging in coping with the growth in population. There are some important initiatives, two specific initiatives which I'd like to speak about today. The first initiative is one that is being undertaken by the regional districts of the Okanagan -- the North Okanagan, Central Okanagan and Okanagan- Similkameen. They are working to commence regional growth strategy workshops in order to mesh their growth strategies so that the finite amount of growth that can be handled in the Okanagan will be done in a reasonable way.
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the ad hoc development that's going on in the Okanagan at some point attaining a critical level without us realizing what has happened. Should that happen, we would be in a very serious environmental situation in the Okanagan, given its fragile nature. The intent of the regional districts is to recognize the amount of growth that is possible, put all of the background information with regard to water, land and so on, and say: let's somehow try to coordinate this. It's going to be a real challenge, because at some point there is going to come a recognition that the growth in housing is something that stimulates the economy, and municipalities and certain regions are not willingly going to give up some of their development potential. Nevertheless, these first steps taken by the regional districts, which are allowing them to move forward in this planning, are very progressive and I'd like to commend them. The government is supporting them with $45,000.
A more specific development initiative was taken by the city of Penticton. They have done some pioneering work in managing growth. They have received support from this provincial government to develop a strategy that will address environmental concerns as part of their land-use concerns. The mayor and the council of the city of Penticton have been involved in developing a practical guide to protecting and enhancing the local environment. What they've done is to recognize that they've had a 3 to 4 percent increase in growth in Penticton over the last five years. They are putting together a balanced-growth strategy that has considerable community support, and part of the reason for that support is that they've taken an open, consultative approach to getting input from the public.
Once they took a consultative approach with the public to find out what their needs were, they published a discussion paper which talks about how to manage the population, maintain the quality of life and preserve agricultural land. It deals specifically with water issues, waste management, industrial development, air quality, protection of natural areas, public education, energy management and ensuring public involvement in decision-making. Over the next ten years, I expect -- and they expect -- that they will apply this environmental blueprint to all the development that takes place within the community boundaries. That's really something that the city should be commended for.
They've also come up with some really progressive ideas about sharing development costs. Recognizing that developers are the ones who benefit in their pocketbook from the expansion of communities, the community has said: "Look, we think it's appropriate that those developers pay a fair percentage of the costs that go in." So when they extend areas into newer development areas, it's shared fifty- fifty. In the zones that are being developed, there is a process where the developer pays all of the infrastructure costs, but any new development within those areas is shared with the city. It's a cooperative approach that they've taken. The
[ Page 5413 ]
city is financing the sewer, drainage and major road upgrades, but it's attempting to recover its costs through the development charges to the developers. It's really important that in these two areas of larger regional planning in specific, aggressive attempts to manage growth using environmental concerns, this government, the opposition and the third party help to come forward with some progressive ideas for them and some support within this House, not only with dollars but also with words of support, and to assist local governments in coordinating development for the good of all people of the Okanagan and of British Columbia.
At that, hon. Speaker, I'll take my seat and listen to the reply from the hon. member for Okanagan East.
J. Tyabji: I'm happy to rise in response and to support, obviously, strategies for growth management in the Okanagan. This is a debate that I've been involved in for a number of years, and it's something that I've been following very closely in the entire Okanagan. It is encouraging to see the regional districts coming together for a regional growth-management strategy. Hon. Speaker, I think the House should be aware of some of the limits to growth in the Okanagan that make it unique in the province, which the previous member referred to. There are potential limits to growth in terms of water and land availability.
I guess the overriding environmental concerns in the Okanagan about water have a lot to do with Okanagan Lake. For the purposes of the House being aware of what's going on there, I'd like to talk a bit about something called the eutrophic life and the cycles of the lake. It's an interesting situation in the Okanagan, because it is a very deep, large lake, the primary source of water for a lot of the people on the lake and a primary output for a lot of the communities on the lake, whether their sewage is treated, in whatever stage of treatment, or not. That lake is unique, because it has a 60-year flushing cycle, which is very long; many lakes have six to eight years. One of the reasons it's so long is that the main tributary to the lake is Mission Creek, and development along Mission Creek -- primarily in the Kelowna area -- has interfered with the flow of water. Mission Creek provides about 25 percent of the fresh water coming into the lake. The interruption and the outletting of storm sewers into Mission Creek and in many of the other creeks around the lake, such as Mill Creek, have really changed the composition of some of the sediment in the lake.
To give an example, the previous speaker talked a little about uranium mining, 2,4-D and the uses of pesticides. If the House could imagine a bowl, that's basically what we're dealing with in the Okanagan. We have the forestry taking place at the higher level, with clearcutting resulting in some of the siltation into the tributaries to the lake -- and pesticide applications; historically there have been some very heavy pesticide applications at that level. Below it is a series of orchards that also have changed the way things were done and historically have had some very heavy pesticide applications. Below that are communities, and currently we have sewage treatment with an outfall pipe going into the lake. Imagine it as a bowl, with every single human activity in that area having an impact on the lake. Current sediment testing of the lake still finds traces of 2,4-D and some of the pesticides that were used. It will sediment out before the lake will flush.
It is a unique situation. The aridity -- this is a very dry area of the province -- means that development has to be done with an eye to the fact that water is an issue that must be factored in. That's why, in Environment estimates last year, I was trying to talk to the Minister of Environment about some of the alternative technology that exists for development. That would include not only the land management strategies for development but different ways for human activity to impact on the area.
So I rise to support this member. I know that Jake Kimberley, as mayor of Penticton, is doing a very good job of setting up an environmental blueprint for development. I hope not only to follow his activities but to have a dialogue with him over the next while. Hopefully we will see out of that Penticton blueprint some excellent models for other communities in the province.
J. Beattie: I'd like to thank the hon. member for Okanagan East for being supportive of the initiatives that are taking place in the Okanagan. I like the analogy of the bowl for Okanagan Lake, and I would like to interject another issue to do with the protection of ecological zones and the land that creates the side of the bowl in the Okanagan. It's very important that government and opposition always remember that we generate good drinking water off the sides of our mountain slopes, so we cannot abandon the watersheds in our province. They are very important in terms of the health of lakes and so on.
The subject I wish to broach concerns the climatic changes that we expect over the next ten or 15 years. The interior of the province expects to have an increase in temperature of 3 degrees centigrade. That is the largest increase in temperature in more than a million and a half years. The impact of this increase on the watersheds of the interior will be phenomenal, not only on the amount and quality of water but also on the wildlife, and it's very important that we begin to envision ways for our lower-level animals to migrate north to follow the receding water and climatic conditions.
I want to put the idea into people's minds that when we manage the resource around the bowl of the lake, we must be cognizant of the fact that there is a whole life that will depend upon being able to migrate past cities, through clearcuts and over lakes and streams. If we wish to preserve the biodiversity in this province and in the world, we have to take a broader view of what the environment means, not only to us but to all animals.
But this, again, is getting to be a bigger issue than management of the local environment. I think both I and the hon. member have said that we recognize that local governments and individuals within regions have a very important role to play in defining the type of environment they will have. We in the Okanagan think they're doing a good job. We're laying down the
[ Page 5414 ]
gauntlet to other regions in the province to do the same type of work, and we urge you on in that task.
[10:45]
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, before recognizing the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca with the final private member's statement, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the assembly that my lovely wife, Janet Stockton Barnes, is in the galleries. I would ask all members to make her welcome.
KEMANO COMPLETION PROJECT AND ENERGY
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today and speak on an issue of major importance to my constituency and, I believe, to all of British Columbia. On January 19, the Premier, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Environment announced that there would be a review of the Kemano completion project based on the findings of the Rankin report. The Premier and the ministers know that I supported a review before the election of October 1991, and that since that time I have been requesting the government to bring such a process forward. However, we in the Nechako Valley were surprised that the review was going to be conducted under the energy commission instead of under the Ministry of Environment.
Let me explain. Over the last five years the NDP MP for Prince George-Bulkley Valley has been promising the people along the Nechako that an NDP government in Victoria would conduct a full environmental review on the Kemano completion project. The NDP candidate that I ran against during the election repeatedly made the same promise. These two individuals, through their promises, lifted the expectations of the people along the Nechako, who are at this point extremely concerned about whether or not this review is going to be a meaningful process in terms of their concerns about the projected water flows, the flow regimes, and the environmental impact that the projected regimes may cause.
I have to say that if a referendum were held today in the Nechako Valley on whether or not the Kemano completion project should proceed, it would receive a resounding No vote. Understanding the constraints the government has on it because of the agreement signed in 1952 between Alcan and the provincial government of the day, and the amended agreement signed in 1987 -- the 1952 agreement gave Alcan the rights to virtually all the water in the Nechako and in the Nanika- Kidprice watersheds -- if we could turn the clock back to 1952 and maintain today's knowledge and values, I'm sure that agreement would be significantly different from what it is today.
However, let's examine the intent of the agreement signed in 1952. I've researched all the local newspapers from 1948 to 1952, and it's very clear that the intent of that agreement was to build a generating plant for the purpose of creating jobs in the northwestern part of the province. In fact, the projections by Alcan were that Kitimat was going to be a city of 50,000 people. Although I'm sure the advent of technological change played a major role in that, to my knowledge, Kitimat has never achieved more than a population of 12,000.
The Nechako region, on the other hand, achieved jobs only during the construction of the Kenney Dam, which is located about 60 miles south of Vanderhoof. Other than the flood control benefits of the now controlled Nechako, the communities and the people in the Nechako Valley have received very little in the way of direct benefits from Alcan or from the province of British Columbia, which have both benefited greatly by the Kemano development. The Rankin report clearly points out that the Kemano completion project will save B.C. Hydro and the province of British Columbia up to $500 million, and that people all across the province will receive, in one form or another, the benefits.
However, the people in the Nechako Valley are not in favour of paying such a high price and losing their quality of life and a resource such as the Nechako River. It will limit development in the region, and it will limit agricultural growth because of the lack of water for irrigation, as well as for other developments.
For the last 15 years we in the Nechako have had promises made by the Alcan company and the government about job creation projects. The first promise was that Alcan was going to locate a smelter that would create 600 direct jobs in the Vanderhoof-Fort St. James region. That project was shelved in 1986. At present a proposed pulp mill slated for the Vanderhoof area has been waiting three years for two governments to decide on a request for government to be a partner in developing the infrastructure needed to locate in the Vanderhoof region. The cost to government would be $30 million. During the construction stage, the government would get back twice that amount through direct taxes and income taxes from the construction companies and workers -- clearly a good investment for the government, and one that would create jobs and opportunities in the Nechako and Prince George region.
My constituents' first priority would be to increase the flows of the Nechako. However, if that cannot be achieved through the review process, then we as a government must live up to the intent of the agreement signed in 1952, which was to use the power generated at Kemano to create jobs in the northwest. The power not consumed at Kitimat should be made available first to the Nechako region at a substantially reduced rate to encourage industry to locate in that region. As the Rankin report suggests, a large annual payment should also be made to the communities, native and non-native, to mitigate opportunities lost as a result of reduced flows.
P. Ramsey: I thank the member for Prince George-Omineca for his thoughtful comments on this very intractable and complex issue that faces his constituents and mine.
I'd say that the Kemano project has been a backwards project from its inception. It's been a backwards project physically. It takes one of the major tributaries of the Fraser and diverts it from its natural flow eastward and down the Fraser in order to make a significant
[ Page 5415 ]
portion of it flow west through the mountains and down to the power station at Kemano. It's physically backwards.
It's also backwards in the benefits. As the member has pointed out, those who benefit from this project don't live in the area affected by it. This project is of immense benefit to people in Kitimat, where a substantial amount of employment has been created based on cheap electricity from the Kemano project, currently costing about one-quarter of what hydro rates are for an industrial project. But the cost has been borne by his constituents and mine: those in the forest industry, the recreationalists, those in agriculture and the municipalities along the river. That's who have borne the cost.
It's also been a backwards project in process. This has been a process decided far away from the area affected. It's been decided in this chamber and in these halls. Quite frankly, that process took an incredible backward step in 1987 with the signing of the agreement that allowed the Kemano completion project to proceed. That is the process that is now being reviewed, and that process in 1987, as Murray Rankin has said, "lacked all credibility and all openness."
As the member has said, there have been residents in our area who have pushed for a review of this project. The Rivers Defence Coalition pushed hard to get the facts about this project known. The Carrier- Sekani Tribal Council, representing aboriginal people, joined with the Rivers Defence Coalition and took Alcan and the provincial and federal governments to court. One of my colleagues from the area, Brian Gardiner, the MP for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, has been instrumental, I believe, in pushing the cause of review.
But what they found was no willingness to open up this project and let the people of the region hear the actual effects and what mitigation might occur. There was no willingness from the company involved, Alcan, no willingness from the federal government and no willingness from the provincial government of the time, which simply said: "This is a secret deal. It's for your good. Like it." And quite frankly, there was no willingness from that hon. member, who at the time was mayor of Vanderhoof and supported the project.
I must say I am very pleased that the hon. member, during the election, joined with Brian Gardiner and the candidates from our party to push for a public review process. We now have such a process in place. For the first time in the 40 years of this project, people in the interior are going to have a chance to have their say about this project and to have their concerns about hydrology, fisheries, agriculture and domestic water heard and evaluated by a commission that is charged to do exactly the work that the member suggests should be done: to propose to this government options for mitigating damages; to propose ways of maximizing positive impacts in the area that's most affected by this project; and to make a process that's public and open -- everything that this entire project has never been to this day. I'm proud to be part of that process, and I plan to be there as well.
L. Fox: Let me say at the outset that I am extremely disappointed in the member's response. He continues to do what's been done in the past: he's trying to play politics with this particular process. It's a very complex and difficult issue, and it's time that we stopped looking to the past and started looking to the future. That member's comments still reflect on the difficulties and the lack of process in the past. I purposely, in my presentation, looked for some new directions and opportunities for the people along the Nechako to deal with their concerns. I well understand that the agreement in 1987 -- which I was not a part of, nor was that member -- was probably signed without a lot of input from the people of the region. But I wasn't here during that process. I don't know what was available during those negotiations, nor does that member.
Let me just say that I appreciate the member's standing up to give his support for his federal member and trying to bring back things out of the past in order to discredit even myself, hon. Speaker, and the position that I took while I was the mayor of Vanderhoof. If this hon. member for Prince George North had done the research, he would have seen full well that while I was the mayor of Vanderhoof, I supported a public process. I purposely did not -- nor did council -- get involved in environmental impacts or in the fisheries issues, because as a community of 3,500 people, we did not have the resources to look after those areas that were the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments. Why should a community of 3,500 people try to put forth millions of dollars to study those impacts so that it could be informed? That member should have informed himself about that.
[11:00]
I am also extremely disappointed, given the importance of this issue, that neither the Minister of Environment nor the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources decided to respond in this chamber this morning to my presentation, because I believe that it's of such importance that one of those ministers should have had the courtesy to respond.
Deputy Speaker: That concludes private members' statements. The hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton rises on a matter...?
J. Beattie: I wonder if I might have leave from the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: Hon. members, visiting the Legislature today, this historic and public treasure, we have 34 grade 10 students from my constituency, from the city of Penticton. They are down here learning about the session, and are accompanied by their three teachers, Mr. Brownell, Mr. DeVito, and Ms. Sutherland. They are a good example of the critical young people that are involved in our education system, and I look forward to speaking to them in their schools in coming weeks.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know the member for Okanagan-Penticton is too modest to say this, but I'll let his constituents know that he's doing a great job.
[ Page 5416 ]
I will reply in writing to the member who spoke on the Kemano issue.
With that said, I call Committee of Supply. I also wish to advise members that there will be no estimates in Committee A today.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)
On Vote 25: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
H. De Jong: It's been rather interesting to listen to the debates on the estimates for the Minister of Education. I believe that on a number of occasions the minister has enlightened us quite considerably about the overall operations -- wherever that was possible, anyway.
I do have some questions for the minister, and they are not necessarily directly related to the issues that we were discussing late yesterday afternoon. The minister has made some reference to local autonomy in overall policy direction by the government, but we have also had a number of strikes, walkouts and so on over the past year with regard to labour negotiations. I'm just wondering at the present time whether the minister has in fact given that matter any consideration, because strikes in schools are not an accepted thing by the public, and rightly so. I would like to ask the minister whether she's given any consideration to how this can be changed, and whether she has any intention of changing that process, given the importance of local autonomy.
Hon. A. Hagen: Just before I respond to the member's question, I would like to introduce Ann Bozoian, the executive director of the immigration and multicultural branch of the ministry. She has joined me to assist me in my estimates today.
I'm not quite sure of the context of the question in respect to local autonomy, hon. member, and perhaps you can assist me with that. The employer district and their employee group -- teachers, support staff and administrative staff -- is the unit where agreements and contracts are presently written. The issue of resolution dispute -- which is, I think, the core of your question -- is one that has been addressed by the government in its Labour Relations Code. It deals with a number of the issues from the point of view of conflict resolution and prevention, through processes that assist the parties to come to an agreement. All of the initiatives that are part of the Labour Relations Code -- such as expedited mediation and mediation services -- are intended to provide assistance to the parties at an early or appropriate stage in their discussions.
Last night I was going through some press briefings from around the province regarding a number of collective agreements that have been signed by the parties in the last couple of weeks. There was a consistent thread throughout the press reports on the resolution of these issues. The parties noted that they had come to the resolutions through a collaborative or cooperative process that they themselves had set in place. There were four boards, and there was a recurrent theme as part of every single resolution. Fundamentally, in our society we have a collective bargaining process, and that process needs to work in the interest of our kids. That view is, I think, the underlying principle in your comments.
We need to have processes to ensure that people come to those agreements in a way that does not take away from the children's right to an education. As minister, I am fully supportive -- as is our government -- of processes that will ensure that the collective bargaining process results in agreements, with the support that's necessary for the parties to arrive at those agreements without the conflict erupting into a labour dispute, such as a strike or a lockout.
H. De Jong: The minister's comments are interesting. I still haven't been able to detect from her comments whether the local autonomy that we expect for school boards -- not only the privileges of local autonomy but also the responsibility of local autonomy.... Accountability comes into play here. People elect a local school board for a purpose: that is, to run the school boards.
It appears to me that during the bargaining process over the last couple of years, one school district has been put up against another. In some areas that has been worse than in others. It has created a lot of chaos. Has the minister considered another way of dealing with the bargaining process?
Hon. A. Hagen: If the question is whether bargaining should be done by someone other than the local school boards, that is part of an extensive review that Ms. Korbin, in her commission of inquiry into matters relating to the public sector, will be reporting on. We have talked about that extensively. What I have said, hon. member, is that when that report is received -- and we expect it soon -- the government will be reviewing it and making decisions on those recommendations.
H. De Jong: During the discussion about independent schools, the minister has been very firm about certain criteria and an established curriculum that ought to be followed in British Columbia. I don't disagree with that. If independent schools wish to add to that curriculum, that's fine, but I think a basic curriculum is essential. Certainly while public money -- tax dollars -- is being poured into the independent schools, people have a right to expect that.
The minister made some reference last fall to perhaps having a French school in the Maillardville area. I was just wondering at this point whether I could ask the minister what she really meant and if, in fact, she's really going to go through with what appeared to be a separate French school in the Maillardville-Coquitlam area.
[ Page 5417 ]
Hon. A. Hagen: We have a number of programs that teach French. We have French as a second language, French immersion and then Cadre program for the children of parents who are francophones. As the government announced earlier, we have indicated that we would be working toward the establishment of a francophone school board, pending commitments from the federal government on financial support for us fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities in that area.
H. De Jong: I'm rather intrigued by the answer, because I believe that yesterday the minister was very clear on the curriculum established by British Columbia for public schools in general.
My further question, then, would be: if a French school board and French schools were in fact established in the Maillardville-Coquitlam area, would they be considered independent schools in terms of financing?
Hon. A. Hagen: The answer is no.
H. De Jong: My further question, then, is: why not?
Hon. A. Hagen: We need to be sure that we're talking about the same thing. If the member is talking about a school that is a part of our current system and that teaches francophone children in French, those children are a part of our public education system. He's making reference to a school, and I just want to be sure that we're not talking about a school that's not now a part of the public education system. We may be talking about two different things. But we have French immersion programs and a French cadre program, which is a part of our public school system; the programs are entirely consistent with our public school programs. It's a parallel program in French. But he is referring to a specific school, and I don't know what school he's referring to. I don't know whether that school is a part of the public school system. So if we're talking about the public school system, then our French-language public school system is a part of the overall system. If he's talking about a school that's operating separately now -- and I'm not sure -- then we're talking about something entirely different.
H. De Jong: Perhaps I haven't made myself quite clear. The minister should understand that the independent schools are also run by school boards. In general, they are run by a society, and they have their own elected board to run the school -- or schools, as it is in some areas, like Abbotsford, where three schools are run by the same board. If, for some reason or another, a French part of a community wishes to have a school -- or schools -- within the Maillardville- Coquitlam area, or any other community, be a totally French school, to be operated under a separate board, I have difficulty understanding why such a school should receive full funding under the British Columbia curriculum, and the other independent schools run exactly the same should not.
[11:15]
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just refer the member to the School Act and legislation which was brought in by his government. Under "Language of instruction...." This is section 5(2): "Students whose parents have the right under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have their children receive instruction in a language other than English are entitled to receive that instruction." They are part of the public school system. I think what we're dealing with here is a public French-language school system, which has a right under our constitution to governance for its students.
J. Dalton: Other members are going to put some questions to the minister, but I wish to advise the committee that by agreement we will be concluding Education estimates today.
L. Reid: I wish to refer directly to an agency in my riding, the Choice Learning Centre, which is operating as an independent school. It has been in existence for a number of years in Vancouver but is brand-new to Richmond. I'm interested in this government's position on continued support for independent schools.
Hon. A. Hagen: I sent a letter to that school just in the last day or so. I don't have a copy of the letter here, but I think it was in regard to some specific aspect of their funding. They were asking for special recognition of some kind. If you want to ask some specific questions, I'll try to answer as accurately as I can.
L. Reid: My questions pertain to the funding for independent schools. I'm interested in funding for gifted students across the board, not only in this particular institution. There is a lot of discussion about how they fit into the special-needs funding base and whether or not they will be considered truly special-needs in terms of being in line for additional funding over time. They're interested in knowing where they fit -- if they fit -- in this system, and whether the government is committing to the education of gifted learners in British Columbia.
Hon. A. Hagen: Independent schools share in the funding that comes to them under the 50 percent or 35 percent designation and in the funding that goes to the public schools for gifted children. We recognize gifted children in the funding framework, and the independent schools share proportionally in that funding. I don't recall whether the school you speak of is a group 1 or group 2 school, or whether its funding is at a 50 percent or 35 percent level. Part of the funding that goes to independent schools is in recognition of gifted learners, because that's part of the funding that goes to public schools. Independent schools share in that funding.
L. Reid: There seems to be a perception that the funding base for special education, whether for exceptional learners in the learning disabled or exceptional learners in the gifted category, is what tends to be cut first. This is definitely the public perception and the parental perception. Certainly it impacts heavily on
[ Page 5418 ]
independent schools seeking funding. Is there any truth to this rumour? Will it remain intact, or do they need to worry that their funding will be cut on the basis of restraint economics?
Hon. A. Hagen: This discussion has occurred, and I spoke very clearly to the issue of continued funding this year for independent schools and the improvements we've made in that funding with respect to demonstrably handicapped children. I repeat again, because I know that your interest is in gifted children, that there is funding within the framework for that.
It might be a timely opportunity for me to just advise members that I have today announced a review of special education. We have been working in the ministry and with the field on the preparation for that review, and we're now in a position to begin the public consultation. I have announced the setting up of a special education advisory committee, which will be working with the ministry. Their report will be completed by the spring of next year. As they continue with their work, it will dovetail into the work of the committees that are continuing to review our funding for schools and the way in which it is distributed. Once again, I want to note that this grows out of the recommendations from the funding review and is a commitment to carry out that review. Of course, this is special education in the broadest sense. I'm not talking here about the independent schools specifically, as I think all members know.
I'm not sure whether that information has become available. It's just been released, but we'll make sure that you receive or will have in your offices the full briefings on that announcement.
R. Chisholm: The Year 2000 is causing some concern among parents, students and teachers. The other night, Dave Watkins of the Education ministry met with students at Yale Secondary School in Abbotsford. He claims the last draft has been revamped from the initial draft and now a new draft is coming. According to Mr. Watkins, the Year 2000 has come full circle, and we will be getting a system closer to what we have right now.
My question to the minister is: how has the last draft been changed?
Hon. A. Hagen: From the very beginning, since becoming minister, I've said that as we make changes in our education system they need to be made in consultation with our public -- if you like, an evolutionary rather than a pendulum-swing process.
We've spoken often about the fact that the primary program is in place, and grew out of practices that were in fact being developed when my children were in school 25 years ago. So those programs are rooted in good practice.
The whole development of the intermediate program -- in the elementary schools through grades 4 to 6 or 7, and in the secondary schools through grades 7 and 8 to 10, and 11 to 12 -- has been in the public domain. We've had an enormous amount of discussion about the kinds of changes we can effectively make, to keep the good practices that are there, but to have our schools responding to the very different society into which our children are going to graduate after -- what we hope every one of them has -- 12 years of schooling.
There are a number of documents that reflect that consultation, which -- as Mr. Watkins would have told students -- has been very intense and very productive, and we will be sharing those changes with our public in the near future. What we're going to do is look at ways in which we can move ahead with our intermediate programs, and then look at the secondary school as an institution. I've talked quite a bit about taking down the walls of the secondary schools, about the fact that our young people are learning not just in the school, but going out into the community with career programs, with academic challenge -- a lot of those areas. We are working, then, to look at the programs that would provide the core curriculum in all the subjects we've known, and the ways in which that curriculum can be blended with the standards, the pursuit of excellence by each student and the opportunity, not just for a selected few but for every child in British Columbia, to receive an education right through to grade 12. So what Mr. Watkins was signalling to the students was that consultation has brought us to the next phase of our developmental work, and we're going to work incrementally.
But I want to make one other comment, hon. member. I think you have an excellent school district. It has done a lot of strategic planning for the district, and I'm very impressed with the work that your board and your school staffs are doing in looking ahead over the next five years. In many ways the schools of the future are literally being designed within our core curriculum, within our commitment to high standards, to excellence for each student and to opportunity for each student. Our schools are being designed in the regions of the province, and they are literally responding to how to keep school relevant, how to keep students motivated and how to make sure that their opportunities are there.
I want to take the opportunity, as I do whenever a member rises, to note that a district like Chilliwack that has done this kind of strategic planning is often marching parallel with the work we are doing around our philosophies of educational change and the recognition that the society in which our children are going to be living and working is different than the one we entered when we first entered the workforce.
R. Chisholm: I have to agree with the hon. minister regarding the school district in Chilliwack. They are doing a fine job and they have over the past number of years -- whoever was in the seats.
It seems that there are wide-open statements in the latest draft. Is it not true that the school system will now have schools from one extreme to the other? There will not be a uniform system. My concern is that with such extremes in this mobile society, the children going to school will have difficulty in adjusting.
Hon. A. Hagen: It's a little bit like thinking about a family. I sometimes draw a simple analogy. If we were to look at any family, we would find that each child is
[ Page 5419 ]
his or her own person in that family, and their path through the education system will be related to the child -- and certainly that focus is there.
But to very strongly reassure the member, our education programs will continue to have a core and standard curriculum that is required through the various grades right through to graduation. Within that system there will be, as there has always been, an opportunity for local initiatives. That's why 80 percent of the curriculum is prescribed by government in terms of the goals and outcomes of that curriculum; but there is the flexibility for each district to have initiatives that are its own, or often initiatives that in fact share a common curriculum developed by other districts. So we are looking at that being there.
The other thing is that we continue with system-wide assessment. Let me just say again, if I may, to my critic, who has heard some of this before: there are provincial learning assessments in grades 4, 7 and 10, and grade 12 examinations annually. The provincial learning assessment is on a three-year cycle. National achievement tests, with the cooperation and intensive work of the Council of Ministers of Education, are being introduced for the first time in math this spring, and in reading and writing next spring. B.C. is in the forefront of participating in international testing, with UBC and our other university and academic people seen as leaders in setting up assessment measures that are valid and that we can use as a benchmark. We are also developing new methods of assessment that will ensure that the standards you are talking about are in place and that all our children are served.
Finally, let me note that on a rotation basis our schools go through an accreditation, with external teams coming in and the school working on that. That is within the context of the goals, curriculum and outcomes of education. So there are a lot of measures that are and will continue to be in place to ensure that all children have a reliable standard of education no matter where they live in British Columbia.
[11:30]
R. Chisholm: Has the ministry taken into consideration how students from other provinces, who do not have the same Year 2000 program, are going to adjust to this program we're using?
Hon. A. Hagen: The member does note that education is a provincial responsibility, and each province has always set its own curriculum.
Let me refer again to the school indicators project, which is a national one. What we're really talking about here is: what do we want all our children to learn? As we've looked at this national testing process, one of the things that I find impressive is that we're not necessarily talking about what the child has in the formal curriculum but what the child needs to know how to do and what kind of knowledge the child needs as a common basis. We've found, for example, that there is a great deal of agreement across the country about the things students need to know in math that will equip them for the twenty- first century. We've worked on that, our officials have worked on that, and there is a tremendous amount of congruence on what students need to know. I've been quite intrigued by and interested in that testing procedure. It's very different from the right-or-wrong, multiple-choice kind of test because it's dealing with thinking skills, with problem-solving, with how you tackle a math issue or how you read and respond to a passage.
The other thing I'd like to note is that last summer, at the request of our western Premiers, I and the Minister of Advanced Education convened a meeting of the ministers of education and advanced education for the provinces and territories from Manitoba west and north. What we did in a day -- and I'm very proud of this -- was sit down in a very workshop- or think-tank-oriented way and say: Wwat could we do to cooperate? What could we do to share, so that we're not all duplicating work? What are you and we doing that is in common, where we can share curriculum resources or techniques we're using for distance education or aboriginal education? Our officials have been diligently working for the last year on the task we've set for them. That is the kind of cooperation across jurisdictions that will assist us to use our education resources well, to learn from each other and to recognize how much we have in common rather than what separates us.
R. Chisholm: Mr. Watkins, again, said in his presentation that the latest draft of the Year 2000 indicated emphasis will be on more responsibility for the student. It assumes all students will be cooperative, motivated and responsible. As we all know, this utopia does not exist among students. My concern, and that of many of the teachers I have spoken to, is that there will be a greater dropout rate. The hole has not been plugged. How does this Year 2000 program guarantee motivation and fewer dropouts?
On another note, I feel parents are vital to children's success. Parent involvement has not been included in the latest draft of the Year 2000. Why is that?
Hon. A. Hagen: You're right, we don't have a utopia; and we won't have a utopia unless children are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. But they do that in the context of rigour and discipline that is a part of our system and will always be a part of our system. Actually, hon. member, I'd encourage you to spend some time in your district in the primary schools, where the children are increasingly taking responsibility for their own learning in the context of the classroom.
I want to address the issue of dropouts. Children drop out of school if school is not relevant to them. In the last couple of years we have seen a very significant increase in the number of students who are staying in school. I noted earlier that although the population in elementary schools last year was up by less than 2 percent, in the secondary schools it was up by 4.5 percent. Those are not new kids coming into British Columbia; those are young people staying in school. I believe they're staying in school because the programs are meeting their needs, and that's what we need in order for students not to drop out. We've increased the involvement of students in career programs twofold, so
[ Page 5420 ]
that one in four students is now involved in activities that are related to them finding that school is working for them.
We also continue to support teen parenting, because we do have young people with babies, who often drop out of school. We've spoken earlier about the Stay In School initiatives.
We are conducting a long-term study -- the first time we've tracked students; we're leading Canada in this regard -- to know more about our students in the secondary schools. That will be part of the secondary school study that I spoke about and part of our transition work with the Advanced Education ministry. We have to pay attention to skills development for the twenty-first century. We need to know what's happening to our adolescent population between the ages of 15 and 24, and we are tracking those students now for the first time in a very extensive, long-term study. One of the things we've never done in B.C. is longitudinal studies that tell us some stuff that will let us plan better for our kids and young adults. This government is doing that, and it's going to help us with the issues you've spoken about.
R. Chisholm: One component of the Year 2000 is mastery. In some schools outcome-based education, OBE, was implemented to gear up for the Year 2000. One of the faults of OBE has been that students rewrite tests until they get 80 percent. They rewrite the same test. This is not preparing the students for the real world. My questions to the minister are: why are the same tests given, and will this continue under the Year 2000 program?
Hon. A. Hagen: All of us know that before you can learn at the next stage, you've got to have the basics. Fundamentally that's true whether you're in the public school system, the college system or the university system. The other thing I think that all of us agree on is that we want people to have those skills as solidly based as possible. So the idea of identifying the strengths of students and the areas where they're weak, and helping them to improve those areas, makes sense.
The analogy I like to use is: if the student is great in math but still hasn't figured out how to do fractions, then we need to work on fractions. The student will need to know how to do fractions in order to carry on with higher-level math work. The idea of students proceeding without getting that skill means more problems for them later on. So the approach here is: where are they strong? Let's use that and get ahead with it. Where are their problems or difficulties? Let's get at those and make them work.
When I was a parent, the thing I wanted to know most about my children was not a line that said they were an A or a B student. I wanted to know....
J. Tyabji: You're still a parent.
Hon. A. Hagen: I am still a parent, yes. Thank you, hon. member for Okanagan East.
When I was a parent of young children, I wanted to know what they didn't know. And in response to your comment about parents, I ask you to talk to parents about this matter. They are involved as never before. They sit at our provincial tables and at our local tables; districts have involved them. More parents need and want to be involved, and I'm very supportive of that being as broadly based as possible. I can tell you that in my 20 years of being involved in various ways in the education system, I have never seen the extent and depth of parents' interest in the education system that I'm seeing today. This ministry is thoroughly supportive of that interest and activity, and it's something that we nourish.
R. Chisholm: My daughter is in grade 11. At the beginning of this year all her classes were geared for outcome-based education. By January of this year, only three out of her eight teachers were still implementing this program. The premise of retest is okay for subjects such as math, but not conducive to other subjects. Meanwhile, this trial-and-error type of education is very disruptive and expensive. Now we have another proposed system. How committed will the teachers be to this program? Will our students experience more confusion and upheavals? Are the taxpayers once again being faced with costly trial and error? How committed is this government to the final implementation of this program?
Hon. A. Hagen: The member is talking about a specific class. The issues that he's raising are not a part of Year 2000 with regard to reusing examinations, for example. The issue for all of our students is that they learn the subject matter that is a part of a course. We're not talking about Year 2000 reusing exams. If that's something that you're experiencing, I'd encourage you -- as I do every parent who has such a question -- to go to your school and talk to the principal and teacher involved. You have a right to be involved in those issues, and you have a right to raise those questions about the efficacy of the particular method being used. We've got 30,000 teachers in the province, and we have heaven knows how many parents -- maybe 500,000. I would certainly encourage you to deal with that issue at the local level. We are not talking about a program that has been implemented; we're talking about something that you are dealing with in your own school district at this time. I would encourage you to take that initiative, talk to your school about your concerns regarding your daughter, and about the approach that is being taken.
Let me come back to the broader issue of parent involvement in discussion around changes in our education system. The issue is that standards and excellence for all our students is the core of that program. Opportunities for students to move through the system in a way that is going to ensure that they have the skills they need to be productive workers and members of society in the next century is our highest priority. As we move forward, all of us need to take responsibility for how that is going to be achieved.
R. Chisholm: I was just using my daughter's situation as an example. The actual question was: how committed will the teachers be to this program? Will
[ Page 5421 ]
our students experience more confusion and upheavals? Are the taxpayers once again being faced with costly trial- and-error programs? How committed is this government to the implementation of this program? Those are the questions. I was using that other as an example only.
Hon. A. Hagen: The member has spoken about the reasons we need to improve our system. If we have students who are not getting to grade 12, we know they are not going to have the necessary skills and attributes that will assist them for the jobs of the future. Our futurists tell us that by the year 2000, 50 percent of the people in the workforce are going to need at least four years of some kind of post-secondary training. We obviously need to have a school system that recognizes the changes that are taking place. You can't leave school at grade 9 and be sure that you are going to be able to go out and get a job in the resource industries, because we don't have the number of jobs in the resource industries that we had ten or 15 years ago.
[11:45]
I'm sure the member agrees that our education system needs to change and grow as our society changes and grows. I don't think there's any disagreement on that point. The way in which we do that -- it's an evolutionary way -- involves the teachers, the parents and the communities. We implement carefully and slowly. We review the decisions that we're taking. We provide opportunities for us to go into school districts with developmental sites, as we call them -- places where teachers and students carefully work on some of the new approaches. Let me assure the member that we are not radically restructuring a system, but just as society is evolving, we are evolving an education system that is going to be responsive to those changes. We're not training and educating kids for the industrial age; we're educating and training kids for a knowledge-based society.
Let me make just one final point. I'll share this with you, hon. opposition critic, to share with your members. If you take the goals that the Conference Board of Canada has established for education and put them beside the goals that we have established as we move toward educational change, goals that were established coming out of the royal commission five years ago, the compatibility between those is like a glove-fit. We all understand that our children have to learn to be responsible, highly self-motivated, directed learners. We all know that every child is different and has his or her own unique blend of talents. I couldn't be a rocket scientist, but the children of some of my best friends -- who also couldn't be rocket scientists -- can be, because it's a bent, an ability. We are different people with different attributes. It's that diversity that strengthens our economy and our society.
We have to be bold in nurturing our children and recognizing their talents, ensuring that our education system lets them be the best that they can, at the same time assuring the public that the curriculum, the standards and the assessments are in place for us to know that everybody has the basic skills and knowledge that are part of the standards of our education system. The Year 2000 is like an idea that is being manifested as we work our way through changes to more effective ways of teaching our children. As I've said over and over again, all of us play a role in this, because it takes a community and the parents in that community to educate a child; it's not just a responsibility that lies with the school.
R. Chisholm: As you know, hon. minister, my riding and my district settled with the teachers the other day for 2 percent and 1.5 percent, and we have a zero percent inflation rate. We're trying to downsize these classes. How do you foresee that we will be able to put in more teachers to decrease class sizes without possibly having to get rid of counsellors, which we need in the schools? Do you have any solutions for the different school districts?
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me advise the member that over the past five years enrolment in his schools has increased 28 percent and funding has increased 43 percent. Every district is looking at how to manage with what are indeed very tight budgets. This year your district received an increase of 3.4 percent, a little more than $1.5 million, so it has had increases in its funding. I know that the decisions are difficult ones, and I know that what the districts are seeking to do is make sure that the resources that are available are resources that go to classrooms. But the enrolment in your district has been funded, and there have been some small improvements in the economic adjustment for your district for non-salary costs, as have gone to every other district in the province.
R. Chisholm: My last question to the hon. minister refers to.... We use professional clubs and different groups to assist with education -- this type of thing. We have started to utilize businesses to facilitate education. Do you foresee more of this type of use of the community -- let's say the business side of the community -- in the educational system?
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes. I'm sure, in your district as in mine, the community has increasingly been involved, and it's involved, it seems to me, in two fundamental ways. One of the things I'm finding in the communities is that they are helping children to learn to be good, responsible adults. They're dealing with some of the problem areas. The community is often involved, for instance, around behaviour of young people that is risky behaviour -- use of alcohol and drugs -- and in support of some of those kinds of initiatives. The other area where they're very much involved is opening the doors, providing for work opportunities, jobshadowing, things of that nature. It's really been impressive to see the work of not only the business community but also -- I made some comments in my opening remarks -- the labour community, the people who are part of our labour union community and our working community. And I think it can't do anything but improve the system.
[ Page 5422 ]
R. Chisholm: What incentives is this ministry putting in place to further enhance businesses getting involved? Or are there any incentives whatsoever? Is this completely voluntary?
Hon. A. Hagen: It is largely voluntary. It's a public service, but the Business Council of B.C. and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce sit on our Education Advisory Council, and the B.C. Federation of Labour is also a member of our council. As we develop programs, we try to make sure that there is information that goes out into the communities. I'm finding that our legislative members, working with their local business and labour community, are having quite a strong influence in encouraging that role.
The career preparation program is one where there are more formal links. We have set up, since I became minister, a career prep division within the ministry, and the liaison between that department and the career preparation programs in the school districts has increased extensively.
Two other things -- and I should be mentioning this more often. The Premier is hosting a second economic summit in June of this year, and the theme of the summit is skills development. It involves a broad sector of business, labour community, academic community and practitioners in the field. And we're hosting a joint business- education partnership with the Conference Board of Canada in 1994. So those are just a few things where we have ongoing activities to involve that broader sector.
L. Stephens: I just have a few questions that I'd like to ask, and they are from an economic focus. Being an active member in the chamber, I was very pleased to hear the minister's remarks about the business community and their desire to become involved in the education field. There's the one area that many chambers have brought forward and that's Junior Achievement, which I'm sure the minister is very familiar with. In Langley we've made scholarships available to the high school students who are going to be furthering their education. So there are a number of initiatives that business has begun at local levels to various degrees around the province.
I think we are all aware and supportive of the idea that we need highly skilled students. In order for us to maintain our standard of living, that's one of things we have to focus on -- to make sure that the students in our schools receive the best education they can. Business is particularly interested in our having students who are computer-literate, who are numerically literate, who are able to communicate verbally and in writing, and who develop critical thinking. These are the areas that business needs.
I would like to make a comment about School District 35 in Langley, which I am sure the minister is familiar with. We have a difficulty there, as all growing communities have, and it is with the funding formula. I know that the minister has heard this on a number of occasions from a number of different districts. I understand that a funding review has been completed, and we're hopeful that the funding formula for some of these districts will change. In our '93-94 allocation, we're going to be losing $58.10 per pupil in the Langley district, and that's something that is very difficult for the district to cope with. As a result, all of the members of the education community there are committed to working together to try to improve the funding formula. By and large, Langley has done very well over the years with their budgeting and trying to cope with the lack of funds and the new students that keep coming in, and we're consistently on the bottom of the list. This year we're third; last year we were second. This year we've come up a notch, but we still continue to be at the bottom of the list.
One of the areas that I want to talk about is day care. In Langley we have one school in Aldergrove with a day care program, and the difficulty is that the students living in the Langley area have to take a bus, or have a car or get a ride of some kind or another. It's really very inconvenient and almost insurmountable for a lot of these young women who just don't have the access to Aldergrove. I've heard other members and the minister say that it is desirable that we keep the students in school, and I really do agree. For a lot of the young women this one area is what prohibits them from continuing with their education. I wonder if the minister could share with us if there are any changes or programs to make day care more accessible to more high schools around the province, and particularly in a lot of the urban centres where it's a really major problem.
Hon. A. Hagen: Wonderful. I want to thank the hon. member for her interest and the question. It's an extremely important one.
For the first time we are going to be providing funding to school districts to assist them with programs for teen parents. Your district, like a number of districts, has in fact taken that initiative. Some of the funding may have come out of the Stay In School initiative, or it may have come out of the priority that they have placed on ensuring that these young women are able to continue their education. You and I know that it's probably the most important endeavour that we could make on their behalf -- to help them get through to grade 12 -- and that has to be associated with child care facilities for young people.
Announcements on the teen parenting program are just in the final stages of being prepared. I know the districts will be waiting to hear about them. The issue here of having a baby, trying to take on parenting responsibilities and continuing to study is one of the main reasons why young women, particularly, drop out. I also think that the teen parenting program assists them in learning to be parents. All of us who have been parents know that we have to do that. Having the programs in the school is in fact helpful for the girls and, in a few cases, the boys -- the young men and women -- who are now parents. I also think it is a very good learning experience for secondary school students, who may not see as many babies around as we might note.
There are a couple of things here. We're looking at child care facilities for teen parents in or close to the
[ Page 5423 ]
school; at the use of schools for day cares before and after school, when we have a place but don't necessarily have a way to make that facility appropriate; and at whether child care facilities should be on the school site. That's part of a joint effort between the Women's Equality ministry and Social Services. We have been looking at that very carefully, and I hope we will have some information and initiatives available soon that will help in all those tasks.
[12:00]
The other thing is that the more the children are associated with a school, the more it becomes a community school. We've talked here about the involvement of parents and so on. That school becomes a multi level facility in the services it offers. That makes enormous sense from an economic, social and human point of view.
L. Stephens: I couldn't agree more. I think we have to utilize our schools much more than we have in the past. Before I leave that, I would say that I'm very encouraged by the statements regarding the changes the ministry is contemplating in this area. They sound very exciting. I for one am looking forward to what the program will be.
The other area we are particularly concerned about is special needs. We have a number of students in Langley who require special- needs schooling. I've had some pretty upsetting incidents in my constituency office. I know that the schools, the teachers and everyone concerned are working very hard to try and cope with this problem. But in Langley we're contemplating that we need four more FTEs to assist in the integration of special-needs students. Part of the negotiations are that it's such a huge problem, we need these other people. We need 3.5 FTEs hired for the behaviourally disordered, as well as four FTE student assistants and another two as child care workers. We also need an increase from 3.8 FTEs to five FTEs for psychological services. As well, we need help in speech language services. The areas of speech language services, psychological services and services for the behaviourally disordered are really difficult for the schools to cope with. I wonder if the minister has a plan or something in place to help everyone deal more effectively with providing the service that we all recognize these children need.
Hon. A. Hagen: In the education funding this year we channelled dollars from administration to a couple of tasks, one of which was to increase funding for special education in the districts. If the children who need support have been identified, funding flows to the district for those children if they have demonstrable handicaps, difficulties or challenges. The district then makes the decisions about how they can best provide for those children.
I don't know whether you were in the House, hon. member, when I indicated that we have announced a review of special education. I would ask you to refer to Hansard. There will be full information on that in your caucus office as you leave the assembly today.
L. Stephens: I apologize; I did not hear the minister's remarks in that regard, so I will be looking at them.
Another concern -- again, this is back to a business point of view -- is the career preparation program, which I think by and large is good. I would like to see some changes made and to have it expanded, perhaps along a German model, which helps bridge the gap between high school and technical school or the workplace. We've got a 30 percent dropout rate there, and I think the minister did say this is an area that she recognizes does need some work and some improvement. I would also like to know if the ministry is working with the Advanced Education ministry along the lines of technical training or technical courses, to help bridge from high school to further training, which we all agree people today do need, and whether or not the ministry is considering changes -- and what kind of changes -- to the career prep programs.
Hon. A. Hagen: We talked about this quite a bit throughout the estimates, but let me just make a couple of points. We've made changes, because we have a career prep program in the ministry that wasn't there before. Double the number of students are involved; the increase is twice as many as we had a couple of years ago. It's an evolving program. I said earlier that we are working with business, workers and local communities around the development of these programs. Skills summit initiatives are happening this year. We encourage you, if you've got ideas, hon. member, about programs that we especially deal with, to bring forward anything you want.
I just want to note here that, because you and I are, I think, the first people to have a discussion around the issue of what girls are doing in our schools and where they are in looking ahead to their careers.... As I look at the graph of where the careers are going to be, the careers that used to be ones that young women traditionally chose in the clerical and secretarial area have decreased by half from what they were a few years ago. The projection is that the technological areas are going to be the jobs of the future. So we have a lot of work to do around rethinking what the opportunities are and how you explore those opportunities. Never has that been more important than right now.
In the ministry we have a working group dealing with gender equity. We've done a number of conferences that have involved young women. In order to set some of those directions, we really have a tremendous amount of work to do attitudinally in terms of role models for young women, in the areas of technology and science and math teaching, in broad counselling initiatives, and in the work of women in the community being involved in our schools. But I'd encourage you, if you've got some specific ideas on career prep programs, to feel free -- I know that we'd be really happy to have those ideas as part of the ongoing work.
L. Stephens: I think it is important that girls receive far more encouragement than they do now. I also am familiar with what the career prep programs consist of at this time; I would suggest that they really
[ Page 5424 ]
aren't adequate to move that student who focuses more on a career in technologies into a post-secondary facility. I'm aware of the joint community-business relationships, the work experience and so on. Where it does have a place and it is valuable -- I think in high school, at the grade 10, 11 and 12 level -- we need to put more focus on achievement and direction for those students. Those are two things that I think need more emphasis. I think that the programs there now are okay, but I'm sure that the ministry can find examples of programs in other parts of Canada and the world that would perhaps move us along a little more aggressively in preparing these kids to go out into the world. I look forward to discussion of this program, and I assure the minister that I will be bringing forward some things that perhaps may be helpful.
V. Anderson: I'd like to revert to immigration and multicultural programs for a few minutes, if we might, and finish up yesterday's discussions. I'm curious to know why the budgeting for these two was put together this year. Last year they were in separate budget columns, and it was a little easier to distinguish between one and the other. This year they are amalgamated, and as a result it is hard to tell what programs are operating.
I'll go through the STOBs quickly and highlight it that way, to organize it for us. One of the things we notice, first of all, is that there is a -- it depends which way you do the figures -- a 75 percent funding increase in these two programs. There is a $1.25 million increase in these programs this year. It will be interesting to find out where some of that increase is going and what the focus is.
The staffing has gone up 15.7 percent. Would that indicate an increase in the number of staff, in immigration or multicultural, or both, or is it an increase in staff costs without an increase in number? What's the difference in focus because of that increase?
Hon. A. Hagen: We are trying to relate the percentage that you're talking about. Let me talk about the immigration and multicultural part of the ministry. When they came into the ministry, we recognized that there were a lot of ways in which they would want to coordinate their work. As I've noted earlier, we have been looking at ways in which we can make the most efficient and effective use of our senior staff and the people who are very much involved with work in the field. In immigration and multiculturalism, that's enormously important. The combination here allows us to achieve some of those objectives.
In terms of the increases in funding, or in the amount of dollars for these two parts of the ministry that were separate line items last year, they are for grants and services in the community. We are making increases both in the area of multicultural programs and in immigration settlement grants. Again, consistent with our approach of service, the grants to the field will be increased this year.
V. Anderson: In the estimates process I'll be following the STOBs for clarity and ease for each of us. Thank you for the explanation. One of the concerns coming out of the discussion yesterday is if, by putting them together, immigration thinking tends to cloud and become the basis of thinking for multiculturalism, or vice versa.... It could work either way, and I just comment on that in passing.
Salary increases of 15.7 percent were in STOB 1. Along with that, I noticed when we discussed Human Rights the other day that there was a decrease in travel. We commented on that, and the minister commented on that. In this particular case, there's a 12 percent increase in travel under STOB 10. And while I'm on it, under STOB 30 there's a 12 percent increase in office expenses. So there's an increase in salary, travel and office expenses. There's an administrative increase in each of those, ranging from 12 to 15 percent.
Hon. A. Hagen: This member really gets us digging into the fine- tuning of our budget. I was really proud of myself at the end of yesterday when he asked me about a $2,400 figure and I intuitively knew the answer.
[12:15]
The staffing is increased by 0.5. Some of the changes are a part of ongoing reclassifications within the ministry. When you look at increases in travel, it really gets difficult, because sometimes we reassign; it's not an increase, but it's been reassigned from another part of the operation. So I really don't think I can add anything that informs you all that well.
The people who work in immigration and multiculturalism recognize that it's a spectrum of services. As I've often said, it's better to talk to the people who are working in the broad community. It's better for our staff to be talking to each other and working together. We have really tried to look at ways in which the immigration settlement policy issues and our multiculturalism and race relations issues are embedded in our education work. Human Rights is involved with that as well. Human Rights is also talking to us about education, and I consider that to be good, sensible management of the ministry for which I'm responsible.
I think my staff can confirm that there is probably a more intense working relationship with the agencies and the multicultural organizations than there has ever been before. Any time I am out in the field I receive plaudits from those agencies for the way we approach the decisions we're taking around grants, the focus of those grants and our monitoring of them. This is the accountability issue. We ensure that the grants made are ones where there is evaluation and where the agencies are responsible for providing the services they have committed to perform in the grant arrangements. The other part of that allows us to develop programs that get us into the gaps where there are unmet needs. Some of the new funding that's available this year has enabled us to move into some of those unmet needs and to provide some service and support.
V. Anderson: I noticed that there has been a decrease of 21 percent in professional services and 10 percent in information systems. I presume that's realignment; but on the other hand, I notice in STOB 68, in
[ Page 5425 ]
immigration and multicultural information systems, that it moves from $2,000 to $115,000. That's a very significant increase - - 500 percent or more. I'm wondering about the implication of that very sizable jump in that category. That is a larger increase -- more than any of the others.
Hon. A. Hagen: I would like to ask permission to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Hagen: On behalf of the hon. member for Cariboo South, the Minister of Economic Development, I'd like to warmly welcome to the Legislature today a class from the Anne Stevenson Junior Secondary School in Williams Lake. I'm very happy to see you here today. I'm sorry I don't know the name of your teacher, but I commend him for bringing the class here. I'm glad you're here for Education estimates. On behalf of your member and the House, we warmly welcome you this morning.
Hon. member, you're asking some questions that we are happy to answer. But as I say, when you deal with specific parts of a huge ministry, it sometimes takes us a moment to find the information. While staff are ensuring that we get that answer, perhaps you'd like to proceed.
V. Anderson: Next to that one in STOB 69 is a 119 percent increase in office furniture. Finally, I'd like to ask for a little more detail about the contributions and grants, because they're both up significantly -- or at least the total in those areas is up significantly -- by 35 percent.
Hon. A. Hagen: Regarding the issue of an increase in STOB 68, the reason is that our business immigration branch has come into our corporate systems setup.
On the question of grants, yesterday I did outline -- I'm not sure if you were in the House -- the priority areas for immigrant settlement grants this year, and I noted that this year the total amount of those grants is $1,847,410. That's up from just under $1.5 million last year. I don't think I'll read those into the record again.
In the multicultural area we are continuing to fund the heritage language program. The community and race relations program, about which I spoke yesterday, noting its broad base in many of the communities of British Columbia, continues to be funded. We will be focusing this year on the issue of racism and anti-racism activities within the broad community, and new initiatives throughout the year will be announced to deal with that issue. We talked again yesterday about some of our concerns in that area, and we're going to be targeting resources to deal with those matters in all of our communities this year.
V. Anderson: If I might change the topic, you mentioned aboriginal educational programs within the school system earlier this morning. I'm wondering if you might comment on such programs, where the aboriginal students are a part of the school system and other students are becoming aware of our aboriginal participation, and also on any programs geared particularly to aboriginal students or aboriginal communities.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me first note that there is a significant increase in the number of students in aboriginal programs in our schools -- over 25,000. Within the fiscal framework, we fund support for aboriginal students. There are curriculum and cultural grants from our aboriginal affairs department and education programs that help support our aboriginal communities in developing materials for use not only by aboriginal students but also in the curriculum of our schools. We are working closely with the universities in support of aboriginal people becoming teachers in their communities. We're looking to do some decentralizing of our ministry staff to enable us to more appropriately and effectively serve aboriginal people within the regions, because there is a very clear need for us to be able to work within the regional context.
I work extremely closely with my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs as we look at issues around parent involvement and particularly around governance with respect to aboriginal issues. That's from a government perspective. Let me take that out into the broader arena, where we have a very close working relationship with our first nations people through a variety of their representatives and through their tables. My ministry works with them on a regular basis on issues of concern. The aboriginal community is represented on our Education Advisory Council as a member.
Finally, I would note that as we move into a review of special needs, we, working with our liaisons and the Aboriginal Affairs ministry, will be looking to a liaison with our aboriginal community.
As I've travelled around the province, the opportunity to meet with our aboriginal communities has been a new one for me. I haven't had that experience before. I'll focus on the Queen Charlottes -- Haida Gwaii. I've had many experiences, but I'll make just one comment, because it really helps me to create an image.
As I moved about the schools in the Queen Charlottes -- it's easy to visit almost all of them -- the art work of the aboriginal children was a metaphor for this being their community historically, in the very distinct nature of their art. It was a permanent part of the environment, so I especially wanted to comment on that.
The second thing that struck me very powerfully -- because the board of the Queen Charlotte Islands represents the aboriginal community and the non-aboriginal community there -- was the way in which communities moved back and forth between one another: for instance, building a public school in Skidegate, which will be the elementary school. There is an education committee in the aboriginal community that works closely with the broader community. We have there, I think, the metaphor for the tradition of thousands of years of being rooted in that community and of evolving as a spiritual, artistic, educational and
[ Page 5426 ]
social community. That was one thing that struck me very strongly there.
[12:30]
We have much work to do. For example, in Quesnel I met in a circle with a group of aboriginal people. A 14-year-old boy whose father was sitting at the table said to me: "I will be the first person from my community to graduate. I am a leader in my community." But we had two stories there, and I think the story was very powerfully represented by that young person in terms of his knowing what had not happened for his people, and what he saw as his goal and his potential. It was a very simple statement that told us a great deal about where we've come from and where we still need to go in respect of the aboriginal communities. The working relationship with those communities and their assuming the role, as our first nations people, for the education of their children, is a part of the change that all of us are hearing and working with now as we plan with them for ways in which we can support not only that boy but many more boys and girls in having the kind of education and the achievement in education that they want and need.
V. Anderson: If we had more time, I would pursue this, because I think it's very important. So I look forward to having a briefing with you and your staff on this issue.
One other point -- moving from that again which we have discussed before -- I bring from our own community is the concern about whether there is special support and direction, as you've mentioned, for community schools, because I think that's a very significant way to meet a lot of our common goals.
The other one I bring from the community is particularly about the high school, and special direction and support for the counsellors. They are finding that all of the pressures of the community -- the young people, the families, the lack of jobs, and all of the other things that we've mentioned -- are coming back onto the counsellors, so that their task has increased, without exaggeration, say a hundredfold, while their resources have decreased. That's such a fundamental focus, in the high schools particularly, that I bring it, along with the focus on community schools, to your attention.
Hon. A. Hagen: I know that the member has a number of community schools in Vancouver, perhaps in his riding specifically, and I understand that those schools continue to be supported in Vancouver. There are a number of models, if you like, of community schools. The historic one has a long and honourable history, and boards may choose to fund those schools out of the part of their funding that is there for local initiatives. Our work with inner-city schools, with teen parenting -- a lot of those issues that we've talked about are part of the school and community working together.
If I weren't here doing estimates, hon. member, I'd be speaking to the provincial conference of school-based counsellors today in Nanaimo. I know that my colleague from Parksville is speaking on my behalf. The speech that he's giving acknowledges the wide range of responsibilities in terms of the social and emotional needs of young people in secondary school and the counselling for education and careers. It is very much a changing responsibility, both in terms of training and in-service, and we are working on it. The career program people are working with our counselling teachers as they carry on some of the support work for career prep and longer-range planning for students.
J. Dalton: I'm batting cleanup. There are probably a thousand things we could get into, with the myriad topics that education gives rise to, but we don't have time. We could probably be here until July and we still wouldn't cover them all.
I have one particular question about school maintenance. It would have been a good point for my colleague, who just questioned on community schools, to have brought up. There is more and more pressure on the actual physical facilities in the school districts. Community schools are one example of that, because schools are open longer hours, which I applaud. I would like the minister to comment on whether the funding process and formulae adequately provide for proper maintenance for schools, given that they are not only used increasingly in the traditional school sense but also for the community. Does the funding process adequately take into account those extra pressures?
Hon. A. Hagen: I know that people sometimes leave to catch ferries, so if I may, hon. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity, because we are coming to the end of our estimates, to express my thanks to my hon. critic for Education and my hon. critic for Multiculturalism, Immigration and Human Rights for assisting us with the estimates and advising us of the areas that they particularly wanted to talk to. It has been, I think, an exemplary effort, and I very much appreciated the way in which they went about assisting this discussion. So in case I lose one of the two of them, I wanted to speak to that right now.
On the issue of maintenance, in 1989-90 the per-pupil cost was $683; it's now $734, so we have seen increases in the amount of money that's available for maintenance.
The second thing I'd like to note is that our capital program is designed to ensure that we retool schools in a timely way. What we do is extend the life of the school and make the maintenance costs as reasonable as possible. New schools cost less to maintain than old schools. Refurbished schools often cost less to maintain than schools we just let sort of decline. So we have a program in our five-year capital plan that is designed to catch schools right at that point where they're going to cost us more in maintenance and where we may not be able to rehabilitate them. When we do that rehabilitation, we save operational costs and we give a longer life to the building -- I think another 30 years as a result of those kinds of upgradings.
V. Anderson: I'd also like to say how much we appreciate the support of you and the staff in these programs. And I want to bring to your attention that next week the Members of the Legislative Assembly
[ Page 5427 ]
will be getting copies of the multi faith calendar. It is our hope that with the support of Canadian Ecumenical Action, a copy will be available to every school board in the province.
Hon. A. Hagen: I note that that's one of the programs we helped fund through our multicultural programs grants.
J. Dalton: Just as the minister has very kindly thanked this side of the House for our participation, I want to say that we over here extend the same thanks to the minister, and in particular to her very patient and helpful assistants. I think they too often get forgotten in the process. In fact, as an aside, hon. Chair, we're looking anxiously at the experiment going on in the Douglas Fir Room in Committee A regarding the direct use of deputy ministers. We'll see how that works out.
We've covered a very important series of topics fairly extensively. But as I said previously, obviously time does not allow such an important topic as education to be covered completely in the estimates process. I have no quarrel with that, because that's a reality. I suspect that every member in this House would like the opportunity to ask the Education minister questions on their district -- things as important as the Year 2000 implementation. We're anxiously awaiting the Korbin report. We're looking forward to the ongoing review that's come out of the education funding review process. We're hopeful, of course, that strikes and lockouts will never be seen again in this province. Those are just a few of the things I want to touch upon.
With that, I will take my place. For those anxious members who are rushing off to ferries and helijets, I wish them all a good weekend.
Vote 25 approved.
On vote 26: ministry operations, $3,662,389,000 -- approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I thank the members for their excellent contribution to the debate today, and I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:41 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]