1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999

Volume 15, Number 23

[ Page 13435 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: Today I have two lovely groups of Richmond students in the gallery. First is a group of grade 7 students from Garden City Elementary, and they're here with Mrs. Aitchison. The second group is here with Mr. Smith and Mrs. Bryant of Howard De Beck Elementary, and they are grade 6 and grade 7 students representing one of the finest schools in the province. I would ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.

G. Campbell: It's very seldom that the Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to be in a celebratory mood in the House, but I think it's very important. . . . I do think it's important that we work on these things and improve, so today I would like to ask the House to join me in celebrating the birth of the member for Peace River South, who's celebrating a birthday today, and wish him a warm and happy birthday.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With us to celebrate a couple of new initiatives here in the Legislature today are two groups. First of all, Maxine Haley, who's the chair of the Private Forest Landowners Association, and Gordon Baskerville, a former professor of forestry at UBC, are here to witness the introduction of a bill that they were instrumental in helping to develop.

[1410]

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, hon. Speaker, I'd like to join in the celebration of fortieth birthday of the member for Peace River South. It's also the Minister of Environment's thirty-ninth birthday, so we're very honoured. And it's all the more appropriate that I get to introduce in the galleries today members of the B.C. Wine Institute: Ian Tostenson, the president, from Cascadia Brands in Vancouver; Gordon Fitzpatrick, the vice-chair from Cedar Creek Estate Winery in Kelowna; and Sandra Hainle, the vice-chair for Hainle Vineyard Estate Winery in beautiful Peachland. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Stephens: In the precincts today are 36 visitors. They are grade 7 students from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley with their teachers, Mr. Knelsen and Mr. Kroeker, and a number of adults. They are here to view how government works and to learn about some of the history of this beautiful building, lovely Victoria and our province. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Reid: It's my honour to introduce a former constituent of mine who is in the House today, who has recently moved to Victoria -- a very enthusiastic citizen of British Columbia, Andy Henyecz. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, we have grade 5 and grade 6 students from Montgomery Elementary School in Coquitlam in the gallery today, along with some of their parents and their teacher, Mr. John Kore. I look forward to meeting them out on the steps of the Legislature later. I know that among this group are probably a future MLA, a future Member of Parliament, a future member of the press gallery and so forth, so would the House please make them welcome.

J. Doyle: In the buildings today, I'm pleased to welcome Jack Heavenor from Revelstoke. Jack is the manager of Downie Street Sawmills in Revelstoke and also the manager of Selkirk Specialty Wood. Jack is also a partner in the Revelstoke Community Forest. Revelstoke's largest employer is what Jack manages in Revelstoke. He's in meetings today with ministry officials in Victoria, so I'd like you to welcome Jack to the parliament buildings today.

R. Thorpe: As a proud member of the Okanagan caucus and a very proud supporter of the world-class British Columbia grape and wine industry, on behalf of our caucus, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to Ian, Gord, Sandra, Don and Lanny and thank them all very much for their hard work in making our industry such a world-class industry. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: Also here representing the wine industry, and in particular representing Vincor, is Josephine Tyabji, who is the administrative manager for Vincor International. Will the House please make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST LAND RESERVE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that Bill 56 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1415]

Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 13436 ]

Oral Questions

COST OF CPCS DEPUTY MINISTER'S SECURITY MEASURES

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry -- I've actually never been to the CPCS offices, so I'll have to take the question on notice.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston -- recognizing that the first question has been taken on notice.

G. Plant: I have some further information that may be of assistance to the minister, because in fact the action taken by the ministry was to. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Plant: . . .construct a virtual bunker on the fourth floor of the Ministry of Finance offices across the street from here. And, like everything else Mr. Gunton touches, the budget for this office quickly ran over budget. First these measures were to cost $5,000.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the question hasn't been put yet.

G. Plant: Then the budget doubled, and then it rose again to something like $12,873, plus or minus 10 percent. My question for the Minister of Finance, who no doubt has now had her recollection refreshed, is: why were the taxpayers forced to cough up $13,000 just to help ease Tom Gunton's paranoia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I did say I'd take it on notice, but I do remind the member that we did complete my estimates just a few days ago. It's too bad he missed the opportunity to explore it when the deputy minister was actually there.

C. Clark: In addition to the $13,000, the Finance ministry has spent $64,000 installing a new security system at Mr. Gunton's request. That brings the grand total of taxpayer money wasted on Mr. Gunton's paranoia to $74,000. Can the Finance minister explain to us why taxpayers should get soaked for $74,000 to indulge the paranoia of the man who masterminded two fudge-it budgets and whose response to anyone who dares to criticize him is a lawsuit?

The Speaker: I think the member should pursue another line of questioning. First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: It looks like British Columbia has its own international man of mystery, from the government who shagged us. The next budget. . .

The Speaker: I beg your pardon, member.

C. Clark: . . .we'll call From Russia with Love.

The Speaker: Member, I'm not sure your verb was entirely appropriate. Would you change it, please.

C. Clark: I apologize. I saw it on the. . . .

The bunker mentality over at Mr. Gunton's shop has gotten so bad. . .

The Speaker: Member. . . .

C. Clark: . . .that they won't even allow the caretakers. . . .

The Speaker: Member, the line of questioning appears to be going in the same direction. I ruled earlier that the line of questioning needed to change.

[1420]

The Speaker: Member. . . .

C. Clark: . . .that B.C. Buildings Corporation employees aren't even allowed into the building?

The Speaker: Member, no.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've taken the whole issue on notice, and I do regret that we didn't have the opportunity to explore this in estimates. Maybe they forgot. Also, I think the proof of the pudding in access to the information probably rests with the other side as well.

The Speaker: Members, a different line of questioning, or I will rule you out of order.

M. de Jong: Let's talk about the morale within the professional civil service and in particular the Finance ministry. We know the taxpayers have spent over $76,000 constructing an impregnable fortress of an office for Mr. Gunton. He's got new double doors; he's got these card swipes -- maybe he's got retinal scanners, for all I know. They brought in Mr. Wizard, who is now sandblast-tinting all of the windows in these offices. Mr. Wizard, of course, is the company, and he's the guy that says: "You can keep your view and have privacy too." That's the ad for Mr. Wizard.

My question to the Finance minister is: is this an indication of the degree of trust or perhaps, more specifically, the

[ Page 13437 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have taken that issue on notice, but I would just caution the members opposite that the integrity of the public service is without question here in British Columbia. It does no good. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .for the opposition to threaten their jobs, as the Leader of the Opposition does each and every day. Nor does it do to stand up here and question the integrity of the public service when there is no chance for their own defence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just last week. . . .

The Speaker: I will ask the minister to take her seat for two seconds while we quieten down the House.

Minister, finish up, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we have the opportunity to have these kinds of debates. I didn't actually see the member for Richmond-Steveston. . . .

An Hon. Member: He was there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if he did show up, he certainly didn't bother to ask this question. He had the opportunity to get these answers. But I will guarantee the member that when he shows up next year from the opposition benches, I'll answer his question.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: If the Finance minister was half as welcoming on these issues as she would have us believe, maybe she wouldn't consistently hide behind freedom-of-information legislation in preventing the opposition from getting these documents until the last possible minute.

These are difficult issues, I'm sure, for the Finance minister. Maybe she will confirm. . . . I'll give her some help on this one. Let's get back to the old multiple choice question. Will she confirm that Mr. Gunton is building a bunker at his office and putting it on full security alert because (a) his taxpayer-funded lawyer is too busy threatening the media to ferret out all the turncoats and spies that undoubtedly exist within the ministry; or (b) he's too busy preparing the next fudge-it budget and he doesn't want British Columbians to see it before the next election; or (c) he's got a guy on the roof developing a new turbo booster for the fast ferries that none of us are supposed to know about. Maybe it's one of those. Maybe that'll help the Finance minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The minister will not be recognized until there's silence in the House. When members come to order, we can get on with the program at hand, which is question period.

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: I certainly have no problem in taking up the time of question period to answer this question. But literally thousands of people work in a very dedicated way on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and one of those individuals is Mr. Gunton. None of those individuals. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Members, comments and interjections from your seats are not appropriate and are not shortening question period and are not giving others a chance to ask more questions.

Hon. M. Sihota: None of those individuals have the opportunity to stand up in this chamber and defend themselves. It is entirely inappropriate for the opposition to stand up here and launch personal smear campaigns against those people. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .who serve the people of British Columbia in their professional capacity, day in and day out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Come to order -- all members.

Hon. M. Sihota: And I would caution the members opposite. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Time is a'wasting.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll wait for the House opposite to settle down and take my time, because I'm sure all members would like to hear the answer to this question.

[ Page 13438 ]

The Speaker: In this House there will be order to allow a member to either ask a question or answer a question. I encourage the minister to complete his reply.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is indeed despicable for the members opposite to stand up in this House, day in and day out, and attack those people who work on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It is fair game to stand up in this chamber and indeed ask questions of ministers concerning public policy and to account for political decisions that we make on this side of the chamber. But there are individuals, like Mr. Gunton -- deputies in this government. . . .

The Leader of the Opposition has gone out and said that he is compiling a list. . . . It's unacceptable, hon. Speaker, in our society in 1999, to have the Leader of the Opposition stand and publicly say that he is going to fire people because of their political allegiance. You know, hon. Speaker, if there is one thing that concerns people in British Columbia, it is the shameful McCarthyism of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: What is despicable is a. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

M. de Jong: . . .government that has so little regard for the professional civil servants in this province that they would be installing security devices, creating a bunker, putting in tinted glass -- all because Mr. Gunton seems to have something to hide from the people of British Columbia. That's what's despicable. I defy any one of those ministers -- and if the Minister of Finance won't do it, maybe the Public Service minister has to do it, or maybe the Premier will do it -- to stand here and explain that kind of conduct by a government that produces documents in secrecy and mismanages the economy of this province. Then the minister stands up in this House and somehow says, with crocodile tears flowing: "How dare you attack us!" Let this or any other minister explain to the people of British Columbia why they shouldn't know what's going on with their money. That's what this is about: managing the people's money. Let them explain that.

[1430]

The Speaker: Members, members. The member for Peace River North will come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite have nothing to complain about except their own behaviour. This week. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .the opposition put in an FOI request. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .asking what date. . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Richmond East, come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .every communications director in government was hired. Now, why do they want to do that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for North Vancouver-Seymour, come to order. The minister is finishing his statement. Member for Okanagan-Penticton, come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: There is a belief on the part of the members opposite, led by the Leader of the Opposition who believes that even communications directors who -- let's be very clear about this -- are hired in government on the basis of merit. . . . It is the view of the Leader of the Opposition that these people. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .are hired solely because of their political background. And there is a frightening desire on the part. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: What frightens people within the civil sector is the desire on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to cleanse the bureaucracy, to get rid of people who are affiliated with a political party. There is no other reason for his party to make that request to the freedom-of-information officer, and I would challenge him right here, right now, to withdraw. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, finish your answer, please. Finish now.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .that application and to cease chilling the bureaucracy and frightening it in the way that he has with his daily attacks on them.

Orders of the Day

[ Page 13439 ]

[1435]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

S. Hawkins: I've got a couple of issues to bring forward to the minister's attention this afternoon. I know he's well aware of both of them. One seems to be one that has become kind of a habit -- I raise it in the House every year -- and that is the issue of Kelowna Secondary School, KSS. I think it was last year, actually, that I stood here on the minister's birthday, and he promised I wouldn't have to stand on his birthday again. He's right. I know his birthday is in July, so I won't be raising it in July. I've moved it up a few weeks.

You know, it's interesting that the last class to graduate before the millennium just graduated from KSS. It's interesting that on June 6 the Kelowna Daily Courier ran an article, and the headline is: "One of the Scariest Buildings in City." The valedictorian of the class, actually, William Schneider, did say. . . . You know, they entered the school in grade 8. It was, he says, "probably one of the scariest moments we've encountered." He goes on to say: "And what would be better than to spend the next five years in one of the scariest buildings in Kelowna?"

I know the minister understands that, and we have been through this, year after year. This is the fourth session I have raised the safety concerns of Kelowna Secondary in this House. I know the minister knows it's a scary place, and I'm wondering if the minister can tell me -- I do believe he did tell me it was a high priority -- what the status is of KSS. Maybe I'll just let him address that first, and it might give rise to more questions.

[1440]

We can move forward now. My understanding is that the school district and the Ministry of Finance are on track to bring this project to construction stage in the current calendar year. And though I must say I'm not quite as optimistic as some, the school board is convinced that they can get this new facility opened in time for the fall of the year 2000. I wish them well in that goal. I think that they may be pushing it just a little tightly, but I would expect that it will open sometime in the fall of 2000.

S. Hawkins: Yes, I agree with the minister that there are a lot of people to thank: the parents, who have pushed this issue; the school board, who have been absolutely diligent and pushing the ministry; the college, which has been very cooperative. The leadership around all of those groups has been exemplary. I want to make sure that we're not moving kids from one unsafe decrepit building onto a site that is not safe either. I want to know what environmental tests the ministry has conducted and if there have been results that are back.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There have been some concerns raised about whether contaminated-sites legislation should apply to the site. Frankly, those issues arise whether or not KSS goes ahead on the site. Even if it didn't, it would still be an issue for Okanagan University College. So the Ministry of Finance will be asking -- if it hasn't already -- both the school district and the college to hire an environmental assessment team so that we can identify all remediation measures that are required and put them into place. The last thing we need, of course, is any sort of long-term health effect for the kids that are going to receive education from, I think, very good teachers and a brand-new facility in a year and a half in Kelowna.

[1445]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for her question. There has been some testing done on the site, but that was really as a result of normal site examination as you prepare to go ahead and do a design for a brand-new Kelowna senior secondary on the property. That led to concerns -- frankly, I don't have the results of that in front of me -- and that's why we will be asking the school district and the university college to do a thorough environmental assessment. Staff advise that that will take four to six weeks, and then we'll know what mitigation will be required.

[ Page 13440 ]

S. Hawkins: Can I get a commitment from the minister that he will keep this member informed, since I get lots of concerns from parents and others that are interested in the kids' safety in the community? If I can get a commitment from the minister to let this member know what the environmental assessment shows and what the planning is if it does show that there are serious concerns and there's going to be a delay in planning for KSS. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Certainly. I will ask staff to, as they inform me, make sure the member's informed. Actually, as we are discussing those who've brought this project about, I should have mentioned the member herself, who has been a strong advocate for this project and has actually encouraged this government to spend $20 million of debt cost in order to get a new school for kids in Kelowna.

S. Hawkins: I should remind the minister that this member will always fight for priorities for government spending, and children's safety is one of the number one priorities of this member on this side of the House. I'm very happy to push a project like that forward when it concerns kids' safety.

I have a second issue of kids' safety. This minister is well aware of this issue too. I'm sure he's probably getting letters, calls and concerns from parents, administrators and school trustees on the busing issue in district 23. I understand there have been accounting errors in the last several years, and for some reason the district, I believe -- this is the information this member has -- has been overpaid for transportation costs. There has been a huge concern around busing services not being provided in the next year for kids that have been using those services.

[1450]

I invite the minister to come with me and walk some of those roads, walk some of those areas where the kids are expected to walk. I think for K-to-3 the school walk limit is four kilometres and for grades 4 to 12 it's 4.8 kilometres. The minister knows as well as I do that in the wintertime kids are walking to school and it's dark. You know, they start school fairly early, so it is a concern. I know that the school board came up with an option of pay-as-you-go. Unfortunately, the response to the survey. . . . There were 800-plus parents that did respond to the survey, but it didn't generate the kind of revenue that they needed. I believe they needed over $400,000.

So I want the minister to comment on that. I know he has a letter from the school board, and if he can tell me how he's going to respond to the school board and if he is going to review the walk limits and if safety is going to be considered as an issue when those walk limits are reviewed. . . . I wonder if he can comment on that for me.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is indeed an unfortunate situation that has arisen in district 23. Actually, as I think the member knows, this came to light because of an audit that the school district did itself. I must say, I commend the district for promptly identifying that it was billing the ministry for transportation costs that were not permitted within the terms of ministry guidelines. We expect all school districts, of course, to live within the same guidelines for providing transportation that the ministry pays for. Regrettably, over the last several years in the Kelowna district, district 23, for whatever reason, obviously things got quite out of hand. Among the findings of that audit were that approximately 200 students who didn't even attend public school in Kelowna -- didn't even attend public school; were enrolled in independent schools -- were receiving bus transportation provided by school district 23. So, clearly, things had gotten quite, I think loose would be an understatement, in the area.

We wanted to do a couple of things. First. . . . Well, we wanted to applaud the district for doing their own work around this and identifying the issue. I know that the board and administration of district 23 want to be treated no differently than other districts in the province as far as funding allocations. They want to take every advantage of the formula where it benefits them, and that's absolutely right, but they surely don't want to abuse it. They identified this abuse themselves, and I commend them for it.

In conversations with the board -- and for the member's information, I actually had a conversation with the board chair and the superintendent on a number of issues, including this one, this morning -- we've tried to figure out how to deal with it. I think the board has done the appropriate thing in saying: "Look, we don't want to reduce this service. If people are willing to chip in a little bit, we can continue it for students who don't meet the ministry requirements." For the ministry's part we've said that we have no intention of auditing back ten years and finding out what funds were allocated inappropriately to the district and clawing those back. We have no intention of doing that.

[1455]

[ Page 13441 ]

I know this is difficult. I hope that the parents in Kelowna can work with their board and find some solutions there that will work for them, as other communities in other districts have done.

S. Hawkins: I got a little more information from what the minister has outlined today.

I understand that the minister has spoken to the board chair and the superintendent this morning, and I know a letter was sent. Is the minister saying, then. . . ? Apparently the letter that was sent is asking for an extension so that they have time to sort this out. Is the minister saying that that is not an option, that the board is going to have to do without the extra resources and basically put the children out on the street, and they will have to walk? The bus service will not be available the way it has been in the last several years.

I'm asking the minister how he is going to respond to the letter that was sent to the minister this morning that was asking. . . . Apparently there was a letter sent to the minister from the board asking for continuation of the present status until the board sorts this out with the parents.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I haven't seen that letter, and staff haven't. In my conversation with the chair this morning he didn't mention that he'd faxed a letter to me on this issue, although we did have a good discussion of the busing issue.

Look, I really appreciate the role that MLAs play in advocating for priority for their district, but I think we should be careful how far that goes. Asking for priority to be given to a particular capital facility is one thing; asking for an exemption from a transportation policy that has been applied uniformly across the province in all school districts is another.

Frankly, I don't know what I would say to the other 58 districts, if I were to say to Kelowna: "Fine, we know you've been violating the guidelines that every district has been applying for; we know that you've received $440,000 of money that you weren't actually entitled to; we know that you've been providing rides for kids well within these walk limits, including 200 kids that don't even attend public school in the Kelowna area. Keep doing it." I don't think so.

I think that the district will have to work with parents to find other solutions. Some of the other ones that other districts have used with parents and school groups in other districts -- the member is probably aware of some of them -- include coordination of school district transportation services with B.C. Transit services. There are clearly some opportunities in a centre such as Kelowna to use those services as well, working with the city and with ICBC around safety issues on routes. In some communities, actually, ICBC has identified safety concerns -- or municipalities have -- and helped fund improvements where they're clearly needed.

[1500]

The other option, of course, is for the district itself to decide that it wishes to devote some portion of its funds to continue busing at a higher level than is funded by the province. If it chose to include everything that it now does, at a cost of $440,000 more than we provide them for transportation, that would be a $440,000 adjustment to a budget of $121 million -- about 0.3 percent of the budget, if they decided that that was a priority they wished to pursue. Or they could look at -- as they have, apparently -- asking for parental contributions towards the cost of transportation.

All these are options that the school district can pursue. I'm as concerned as anyone with making sure that kids get to school safely and get home safely. I think there are options that the district can pursue to make that happen.

S. Hawkins: I'm not asking for more funding. I'm asking this minister to keep the school board's budget where it is. It is not a fat-cat school board. If the minister looks at per-capita student funding, he'll find that our school district is near the bottom of the ladder. What the board asked for is to keep the existing funding until it works with parents and Transit to work out some kind of safe policy for these children to get to school. So when this minister says that I'm asking for more funding for this school board, I'm not.

The minister himself mentioned that this school board, doing its own audit, honestly reported what was happening. I'm glad that the minister isn't talking about clawing back the last ten years or whatever, because, frankly, this school board can't afford it. It would mean terrible cuts to programs and student services. So I'm happy that the minister isn't thinking of clawing back. When the minister gets the school board's letter, which I understand is probably with staff or on his desk. . . . They're asking for this extension until they work it out with the families, the parents, the kids and Transit, and look at all the other options.

It's not new funding. It was the budget they were living within.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Well, it was the budget they were living within. Again, in comparison to other school boards, this is not a fat-cat school board. They've been trimming back and trimming back. Frankly, the parents are asking this minister to do a review of the walk limits. I'm not saying: reduce the walk limits. I'm saying: does safety become a consideration with these walk limits?

If the minister wants to come and walk some of the rural roads and highways with me and see what the kids are going through -- transit isn't really an option for some of these areas -- I would be happy for him to come and do that. If he would like to do that in the area where I live, because it is an urban-rural split. . . . In the wintertime, school starts awfully early, and in the dark. There aren't buses that go there. Some par-

[ Page 13442 ]

I'm just asking, on behalf of the school board, the minister to consider the request that's being made by letter to him today and to let this member know what the result of that is. I'm also asking on behalf of the parents, because they have asked me to do so: to ask this minister to consider the walk limits, using safety as a consideration. They would be happy to make presentations to this minister and his staff on what some of their concerns are regarding safety factors.

[1505]

I would ask the member. . . . The Kelowna school district, district 23 -- the Central Okanagan school district -- claimed $440,000 of funds that under ministry guidelines and funding formulae it was not entitled to. It identified this issue itself and acknowledged that it would have to make adjustments in its transportation policies. The ministry tried to do its part by saying: "We appreciate your work. We're not going to look retrospectively and, by the by, we're not going to" -- as policy would actually say -- "take away by ministry policy the buses that are not needed and that were obtained with provincial funds." So we try to do our part in keeping this together.

The member says that if the district decided to fund buses in excess of that provided by ministry policy, it would create a severe hardship for district 23. I would only read to the member the budget surpluses posted by this district over the last four years: 1995 -- $3 million; 1996 -- $1,713,000; 1997 -- $2,045,000; 1998 -- $1,712,000. This district has managed its money well. I think it can meet this challenge, and I assume that it will do so, either with assistance from parents or by making adjustments to its transportation policies.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me if he will consider the parents' request to do a review of the walk limits and listen to their concerns about safety factors?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said in my earlier comments, I do not plan at this time to do a broad review of walk limits. That is a straight dollar figure, and I think there are other areas I'd rather put money into in education. I have asked the ministry to look at whether we should be reviewing other elements of transportation, including the issue of safety. So we'll see if something comes out of that that we can announce in the next little while. I recognize the importance of this issue.

Just in closing, I. . . . This issue always looks different depending on where you live and what circumstances your own children have to face. My kids in Prince George had the pleasure of walking to an elementary school. It was about three and a half kilometres away, I think, the first two kilometres of which were through the woods, which was an interesting challenge in spring and fall bear season. But the big kids taught the little kids how to be cautious on the trail. It was part of rural life, and it worked well for them. We crossed our fingers at times.

An Hon. Member: No traffic.

Hon. P. Ramsey: No traffic. The members opposite say: "No traffic" -- just bears.

A. Sanders: Actually, we have more bears in Kelowna than they probably do in Prince George these days -- nicely fed on apples, I might say.

I want to canvass a few areas that were left undone from last year and require follow-up. The first one has to do with air quality in schools, whether we're talking about bioaerosols, whether we're talking about things like aspergillosis or stachybotrys -- some of the things that will infect the air quality of our buildings when we do not have ventilation, when we have wetness and when we have unclean conditions. The minister and I have canvassed this area for two or three years in a row, I believe, and some of the areas we talked about that were kind of precedent-setting were a school, I think in the minister's area -- the Nukko Lake school, which had a really high aspergillosis count -- and the Hjorth Road school in Surrey, which had both fungi and microbial studies done that showed that this school was well outside of the limits for proper air quality for kids to go to school.

[1510]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is an issue, as the member knows, that arises in a variety of different districts in a variety of different schools, it seems, every year.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Moulds, yeah. Fungus spreads.

What I'm less clear about, though, is the member's reference to a ten-year-old manual. The ministry staff advise me that there was such a manual of standards, but the ministry hasn't used it in a number of years. The regulatory agency that actually sets standards for air quality and other issues is, of course, the WCB. They're the actual standard-setting body that then advises school districts, us and others on what they are and on violations to those standards.

What we've done first is try to make sure that districts are aware of the issue and are doing appropriate testing where this issue arises. I don't think there's any lack of sensitivity to this issue among board personnel. This is an issue with parents. As the member knows, there seems to be a rising number of children with asthma and respiratory difficulties that are very adversely affected by air quality. So I think most district personnel are well aware of the issue and sensitive to it. We've also asked districts to make sure that where those issues arise, those projects are pushed up the capital list, so we can deal with them and fund them as quickly as possible, either by remediation or by construction of new facilities. We've done a number this year; we'll probably be doing a number next year as well.

[ Page 13443 ]

A. Sanders: Does that answer mean, in a very concise way, that the Ministry of Education enforces the air quality guidelines set out by WCB?

[1515]

A. Sanders: What are the penalties for not complying with WCB regulations on air quality within the individual school district?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The school district identifies a school as having air quality that doesn't meet WCB standards. We seek to deal with it as an emergent issue and provide appropriate remediation on a priority basis.

A. Sanders: I want to go over a typical situation that you have with poor air quality in our schools. Within my own district there are at least six -- and, depending on what standards you use, a dozen at the other end -- that do not comply with air quality standards in WCB manuals. The CO2 numbers that most environmental assessors will use is the figure of 600 to 700 parts per million. One school, Coldstream Elementary, is an older school which the district did request replacement for in 1994. It would require $559,000 to correct the air quality standards in an old school. These requests have all been denied, and now we have children going to the school who have adverse affects from the air quality.

One parent brought her child to me in the MLA office. She is a parent who represents several hundred other parents who all have concerns about the particular school. What we have with this child is a child who in 1997 was in kindergarten and who started to have headaches. These cleared up after spring break in March. Then again the next year, in 1998, the same pattern occurred. That year the symptoms were much more severe and much more frequent. She saw the family doctor many times over three years. She went to an ophthalmologist for an eye examination. Blood tests were done. She saw a pediatrician for a full neurological examination. No results of any pathology on the part of the child were found. There was no diagnosis of migraine or stress-related headache, and there were no food allergy-type triggers suggested. When school was out, her condition would improve.

[1520]

There are a number of parents who have two or three children in this school, all of whom have manifested similar symptoms. These families are presently preparing a petition that I will bring to the House on their behalf, and they have a considerable number of people who have signed. It is due to the heating systems. The heating systems are often non-compliant. There's poor ventilation and circulation. The capital expenditure is around $600,000 to fix it. It's about $20,000 per classroom to have air exchange units put on the rooftop.

And I guess my question to the minister is: when we are in a situation where we can build new classrooms and make decisions on how we're going to spend our money -- sometimes for political expediency -- where do we take into consideration things like air quality? We talked last year about seismic problems, and we know that those haven't been dealt with. And there isn't any money for seismic problems when we can build new schools for other reasons. What is the minister's plan to develop compliance for schools in school districts and to make sure that our kids are going to school in a healthy environment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm always pleased to have members of the chamber bring forward concerns about quality of schools and advocate on behalf of children in schools and their communities. Let me again outline some of this material I did earlier.

School districts, like other facilities, must abide by WCB regulations. They're required by the new WCB regulations that where there is a problem identified, they bring forward remediation plans. Obviously, many of those remediation plans will include capital expenditures to bring schools into compliance. This ministry provides school districts with around $120 million a year for work to upgrade schools, to repair schools, to deal with issues such as air quality and the like. Around 25 percent of that budget last year was used for heating and ventilation projects, many of them related to air quality issues.

So, far from seeking to ignore the issue, we're seeking to build in identification and remediation of air quality problems as part of the normal way this ministry does business with school boards to ensure that air quality meets standards in the facilities where children learn.

The last thing I'd mention, or remention, is our work with the Ministry of Health to establish some protocols so that we can get health professionals into a school where problems appear to be emerging, so that a prompt and professional assessment can be done and the school district and the ministry can respond to it as quickly as possible.

A. Sanders: Does the minister feel, hon. Chair, that parents have the right to have their children educated in schools that are good for their health?

[1525]

[ Page 13444 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want all children to learn in an atmosphere, both physical and emotional, that's supportive and healthy.

A. Sanders: Well, then, I'll look forward to the minister's solving the problem of air quality in the schools that have contacted me with great concern about this particular problem on their youngest children.

There are a couple of things we discussed last year. Now that we're on WCB, perhaps I will start with that issue. How much money have the new WCB guidelines, brought in last summer, sucked out of the operating budgets that would normally have gone to children?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have no evidence that these new regulations have sucked money out of educational services at all. What the WCB has been doing is asking school districts to develop plans for workplace safety and establish health and safety committees. As schools, like other work sites, become safer, WCB rates will potentially decline, and there will be a cost saving.

A. Sanders: It's a moot point when you've got kids sick in schools because of air quality. You're adding more regulations when we can't even enforce the ones we have. Is there a budget item going to be done on the line budgets for school districts to ascertain if there are additional operating funds that are now not available because of the new, significantly enlarged standards that have been put on, treating and in some ways comparing schools to job sites with much more danger and potential for accident?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is one of many issues that I surely try to ask the ministry to monitor in conjunction with school boards. I must say that I haven't heard evidence yet that would suggest this is a huge and growing cost pressure, and I'm not sure we can have it both ways. Either we want regulations that keep our schools safe places for those who work and study there or we don't. I do, and I think the WCB regulations are part of making that happen.

A. Sanders: There is nothing more important than safety, no matter where you work or go to school. However, if we don't enforce what we already have -- and we don't have the money to fix the problem. . . . Why are we bringing in additional red tape when schools can't even cope with the stuff they have already with respect to upgrading the old schools and making them safe and healthy places for kids to go to school?

Some very short questions. Last year the Premier made the claim that we will have 50 percent fewer portables in five years. Last year we had 3,091 portables, like mushrooms on the lawns of schools in the lower mainland and around the province. What is the number of portables this year?

[1530]

A. Sanders: Were those portables funded or unfunded?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's all of them.

A. Sanders: Well, it's not a surprise that the number of portables has gone up by 100 and something. I'll look forward next year to probably hearing the same answer, and maybe it will be 100 more. I look forward to seeing a realization of what the minister has claimed we'll have. One year later, it has not materialized at all.

The second claim made with a lot of fanfare last summer was that there will be 1,200 new teachers hired. How many new teachers were actually hired?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, I'll ask the staff to gather the information on teachers. But I've got to say that I look forward to attending events in the member's community as we remove portables from school sites. I look forward to her helping me celebrate the removal of hundreds of portables. I look forward to her perhaps accompanying me to Richmond, maybe tomorrow, as we celebrate the fact that in a short three-year period, Richmond will go from something like 260 portables, which it had last year, to under 100. I look forward to her helping us celebrate the reduction of portables in the province.

Now, let's see if I can get the exact number of teachers hired for the member.

A. Sanders: Well, isn't that nice, hon. Chair? And you know, if the minister ever told me when he was in my riding instead of sneaking in and sneaking out, then we might have the opportunity for a celebration of some kind. I certainly haven't ever had the experience where the minister phoned me ahead of time to tell me he was coming into my riding. It's been exactly, diametrically the opposite.

Are we in the ballpark when we talk about perhaps 500 new teachers, as opposed to 1,200?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The figure 1,200 was the total number of teachers we expected to be hiring over the life of the provincial collective agreement. In the first year, approximately 500 were hired. The other part of it, though -- as I think the adjusted financial statements and others show -- is that we had anticipated hiring a significant number of teachers last year to take account of growing enrolment across British Columbia. In fact, we had a slight decline in enrolment from 1997-98 to 1998-99. We had budgeted for a significant increase in enrolment, as we've had in previous years, and had budgeted for hiring teachers to take care of those classrooms with more kids. The kids didn't arrive, so obviously you don't hire teachers to teach in empty classrooms.

[1535]

[ Page 13445 ]

A. Sanders: It is amazing that people don't come to British Columbia if they can't work here because there are no jobs -- and hence we don't get the kids, and we don't need the teachers. It's a vicious circle, isn't it?

Another one of the claims last year was that there would be 1,000 new classrooms. Could the minister bring us up to date on how many new classrooms there are?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Indeed, the member references the other part of what we needed to do to bring class sizes down. One is to hire teachers, and the first year's results are in. We've hired 500 teachers across the province to meet the requirements of the collective agreement.

We also announced that we would need, over five years, to add 1,000 classrooms to the stock in the province. As soon as we had the agreement in place, we started planning to do that. Over the last 12 months, we've had several announcements dealing with this initiative. We now have 900 of those classrooms either in planning or under construction. They will be coming on line over the next several years. Obviously it takes time. You're not going to announce the addition to a new school in June and open it in September. We embarked on this initiative last summer. As I say, since that time -- working very hard with school districts -- we've now identified, authorized and begun the work to build 900 of those classrooms.

A. Sanders: Of the 500 new teachers hired, how many would have been hired due to increased enrolment, if that is in fact the case?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is none. I thought I made it clear that this is the number we hired to meet our requirements under the provincial collective agreement. Overall in British Columbia's public schools, enrolment declined by around a thousand students last year. So therefore it went down 0.1 percent -- not a large amount, but it did decline. Therefore there wasn't a necessity to hire additional teachers provincewide to take care of additional students in the public school system.

Some districts continued to hire significant numbers of teachers, because they had significant numbers of additional kids. I think Surrey had something like 800 more students this year than last year.

A. Sanders: Declining enrolment does not differentiate into elementary and secondary, so it's important to find out whether those teachers are there because of the change in the agreement-in-committee or whether there's actually declining enrolment in the elementary area.

In the K-to-3 initiative that was under the agreement that this minister brought in here by legislation -- not by collective bargaining -- $5 million was to be put into the implementation last September. How much in fact was put in last September?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We may get back into our vigorous exchange on the merits of smaller class sizes from last year. But let me say this: I continue to think that the work we're doing to get class sizes down is one of the most important changes we can make in our public schools. Last year, the first year of the provincial collective agreement, we allocated $20 million to hiring non-enrolling teachers, and $5 million was allocated to the K-to-3 class size reduction initiative. We actually sought to jump-start that process by front-end-loading it and allocated $10.5 million to the class size reduction initiative in year 1.

[1540]

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. This year we intend to allocate $25 million for class size reduction.

A. Sanders: Probably this year we'll find that it will again require more than what the minister has estimated. So we've got portables that were going to be reduced and went up. We've got teachers that were going to be hired that weren't. We've got classrooms that aren't built and are in a five-year planning stage. We've got twice the budget for the K-to-3 initiative that the minister thought it would require, and who knows what we get this September? It'll be a very interesting circumstance.

Let's look at the class size issue. Let's look at it in terms of the francophone community. I have a letter from the Canadian Parents for French. They have some very serious concerns. For those of us who have children in French immersion, it is not uncommon for there to be attrition from kindergarten up to grade 7 and beyond. It's very vital for those early years to have a bulk of students who can participate and that the program be funded within the school district. The president of the Canadian Parents for French wrote me the following letter:

"As discussed, Canadian Parents for French-B.C. Branch is concerned about the impact the new kindergarten enrolment cap of 18 students per class will have on French immersion programs throughout the province.

"Reducing the number of children allowed in kindergarten classes will seriously affect the future of French immersion in B.C. Presently, many school districts have only one or two kindergarten classes, with a minimum of 22 [and a] maximum of 24 students in each class. Any fewer students will result in class-size challenges down the road. History has taught us that the program needs good, solid numbers in the beginning to survive attrition losses through to secondary. Compounding the issue is the reluctance of some districts to implement kindergarten-grade 1 blended classes if the French immersion kindergarten enrolment is less than 18 or exceeds 18 without reaching 36.

". . .the Ministry of Education appears powerless to change the course of this policy. We cannot stand by and let French immersion in B.C. dwindle away due to an unfounded decision to enrol fewer children in kindergarten."

[1545]

[ Page 13446 ]

A. Sanders: Has the minister been made aware of this issue before now?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Not with respect to the parents of students enrolled in French immersion courses. There were a number of such letters last year expressing similar concerns, actually, around the overall effect of smaller class sizes. By and large, the implementation of the first year of smaller class sizes, I'd say, went very smoothly around the province.

A. Sanders: It did, hon. Chair, because the minister front-end-loaded the cost of it, so that people would be quiet in the first year of his legislated endeavours to tinker with the education system. I'd like the minister's commitment to look into this problem with Barb Paullos, who is the president of Canadian Parents for French, so that she can explain to him or his delegate what actually is the concern here. It is a serious concern, and if the minister has not had this addressed before, will he make that commitment to listen to what they have to say?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll assure the member I'll get senior staff to meet with your correspondent. Indeed, I'll ask my deputy minister to do so. Actually, I should introduce him to the chamber: Dr. Charles Ungerleider, Deputy Minister of Education.

A. Sanders: One more request. For the record, I'd like the minister to commit to writing to Karen Romei, a parent and PAC member from Coldstream Elementary School, who has a daughter who's been very sick because of air quality. I'd like his commitment that he will address her issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be pleased to do so.

M. de Jong: A little bit of unfinished business from yesterday. The minister and I were discussing success rates, participation rates and graduation rates with respect to first nations students. I won't get into the discussion that the minister had with the official opposition critic about targets, except to say that I think my colleague from Surrey-White Rock had some valid submissions to make to the minister. But I think the information we were looking for was some specific detailed information about those districts where participation and, more particularly, graduation rates have fallen off in the past couple of years.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay. Actually, the information comparing. . . . What the ministry did was compare graduation rates in the last three years we got reports from -- '95, '96 and '97 -- with the previous three years -- '92, '93 and '94 -- to see what the trend lines were. Over that period, there were only four districts that had declines in aboriginal graduation rates: district 48, Howe Sound; district 20, Kootenay-Columbia; district 70, Alberni; and district 52, Prince Rupert. All others went up, some as much as 200 percent. So, overall, the average improvement over that period, just to put it on the record here. . . . The average improvement over those two blocks, if you just take the provincial average, was an increase in aboriginal graduation rates of 55 percent.

[1550]

M. de Jong: I think that's helpful. Where those numbers are small, admittedly the data can easily be skewed one way or another -- Kootenay, Alberni, Prince Rupert.

I guess, in fairness, the question one should ask and provide the minister briefly with an opportunity to expound upon relates to those districts where there has been significant improvement -- again, where there are sufficient numbers of students to justify coming to that finding in a meaningful way -- and what in the ministry's mind those districts have been doing in a very purposeful way to elicit those favourable results.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member rightly points out that if you've got districts that are having success in it, we need to learn from them. I think that is one of the principal goals of the work we're undertaking. There have been, actually, provincewide conferences on aboriginal education the last several years bringing together districts to address precisely these issues.

My own feeling -- and I think it's borne out by. . . . This is probably more of a political elbow and anecdote than something you can statistically evaluate, but my own feeling is that the most important thing that a district can do to improve success for aboriginal kids is work very closely with the aboriginal community that those children come from and to listen and hear what the community is saying about what their kids need to succeed. I think that's true, frankly, of any and all students, but it seems to be particularly important to establish a very positive relationship with the leaders, with the elders, with the culture that the children are coming from into the school.

[1555]

[ Page 13447 ]

M. de Jong: I think the minister indicated yesterday that the document he's referring to is available to this side of the House, and that would be helpful. I don't propose to go through this in excruciating detail.

I have a series of questions, though, that I'll ask right now. Let's put this in real numbers. How many students are we talking about? How many aboriginal students are we talking about being enrolled in the public school system in the province? Then I would like the minister to take a district like Prince Rupert, where I believe there is a significant aboriginal student population. I'm not aware of what the decreased graduation rate figure is for that district. But the minister, I'm sure, will alert us to that and also alert us to what he believes accounts for that disturbing trend in that district, although I don't know how disturbing it is until he tells me what the figure is.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I'm not so sure how disturbed I want to be about Prince Rupert either. Here are the figures over the last seven years in terms of the number of graduates: 43, 19, 49, 47, 37, 29, 41. When you do the percentage thing, you've got a decline of 7 percent from the first three years to the last three years. How much of that is statistics and anomalies from year to year? How much of it is real change and what's going on or a social condition that's affecting school attendance or completion? Hard to tell. I'm not sure that even the professional staff with me know enough of the details of how aboriginal education is going on in the Prince Rupert district to enlighten us in this chamber.

As far as the number of aboriginal students in the public school system, the number for the current school year, '98-99, is 39,931 -- a 5 percent increase over the previous year. The interesting thing to me is that the aboriginal enrolment in public schools is growing rapidly. Just taking the last five years, it grew 8.8 percent, 7.8 percent, 8.2 percent, 6.5 percent, 5.1 percent. They now constitute 7.5 percent of total enrolment in the public school system. So this is a significant proportion of kids in the public school system. In the last decade it more than doubled, just in terms of numbers. It grew by about 117 percent.

M. de Jong: I guess the point that bears making -- and I'm not sure there's a great deal of dispute on either side of the House. . . . If you take that figure, which is now approaching 40,000, the disturbing arithmetic that one is obliged to do relates to the fact that upwards of 20,000 of those or more. . . . I think the figure we're at now is 38 percent. If that's the case, perhaps more than 20,000 of those students will not graduate. The minister has identified some districts where it's going in the wrong direction, and we do have to be careful with the figures.

[1600]

I'll get the figures. We don't need to dissect them in detail here, except for the minister to hear the opposition's suggestion that, as always, there is perhaps greater work to be done in terms of encouraging all of those involved at the local level to capitalize on the successes that have been enjoyed in some places in the province and to correct some places in the province and to correct some of the problems that apparently exist elsewhere.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate your comments on it. I think we share a common goal here and are probably grappling, as anybody would, with what the right tools are to continue to improve aboriginal success in our public school system. I have the document right here, which outlines the entire thing. I'll simply ask people to provide it to you in the corridor.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask a few questions with regard to school district 44 in North Vancouver. I'm not asking for or soliciting money or anything like that -- well, maybe a few dollars.

I have been contacted by the parent advisory council out in the far end of my riding in the Seymour area and the Deep Cove area. There's a concern at the present time with regard to Seycove Secondary School, and you have no doubt had a few letters sent to you with regard to it. It was originally built for 425 students. Its current enrolment is 240 more, so that's 625. They're expecting an increased enrolment from their feeder schools of Cove Cliff and Dorothy Lynas and Sherwood Park to about another 165 in the next couple of years.

That will put them almost 100 percent over what it is now. Of their 11 instructional classrooms, six are portables -- over 50 percent. There are another two or three portables coming on stream evidently, because of the situation there, and that will put them something like. . . . Of 14 instructional classrooms, they will have nine portables. They have a double-wide portable for a cafeteria. That cafeteria is located away from the school and can only be open for about two hours a day because of its location on the grounds. It's locked because it's remote from the main building. So there are general problems in that area.

My question is that the minister. . . . The trustees of school district 44 sent in a priority capital list, and Seycove Scondary was on the top of the priority list. Yet when the dust settled, there was no funding available. I wonder if the minister could respond as to how that came about.

[1605]

[ Page 13448 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's always good when a member of the Liberal opposition stands up and advocates for spending more money in capital. It's good to see you advocating for this capital project in your riding. I share your concern about the crowded conditions at Seycove. You may know, actually, that I toured the school this spring to have a look at it firsthand. Like you, I've got lots of cards and letters from parents and staff concerned about overcrowding in the school. I can't announce anything, obviously. I've pretty much allocated money for the current fiscal year, but this is clearly a project that is badly needed. I think it is safe to say it is one that I expect will receive attention in the not too distant future, and that's really all I can say right now.

The member asks about priorities. This is always a difficulty. When we did the ranking of space projects submitted by all school districts, Argyle came in ninth; Seycove came in fortieth. So in our assessment of the overcrowding situation, the situation at Argyle was actually considerably worse than Seycove. Argyle Secondary was originally built. . . . Well, its capacity was 925 students; its current enrolment is 1,327. So it was actually considerably over capacity -- more than Seycove was -- when we looked at these projects last fall.

It did make the list and got announced. I'm moving forward with it. I am hopeful that we will have positive news for the parents and students at Seycove in the near future.

D. Jarvis: Well, minister, I really wasn't asking for a lot of capital spending. I was talking about priority spending. That is the problem with what's going on in this province right now: that priority spending is way out of line with regards to fast ferries. The government's basic budget itself is out of line, I think, in the sense that they are not looking for the proper revenue to come in. You're spending money on advertising -- a million dollars a month on advertising; you're spending $60,000 to advertise Nanoose Bay; your SkyTrain budget is about $1.5 billion; your ferries are now $250 million out of line -- each one. So it's a matter of priorities.

At the same time, that's what I was standing up to inquire about -- the fact that I wanted to ascertain how you ascertain what the priorities are for capital spending. You would think that a local school board would see the picture better than the minister over here would. Why? When they submit their lists and they put a school up at the top, why do you just completely ignore it and throw it away and fund four other schools which were below the priority of what school district 44 recommended? Why is the minister. . . ?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I will.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's just talk about priorities. I've had the great privilege in the last 13 months of announcing $923 million worth of school construction -- new schools, expansions to schools and replacement schools -- across the province. Over 250 different projects -- it's the largest capital expenditure plan in the history of public education in the province.

Now, if the member is saying that that doesn't indicate a priority on education spending, I would ask him: so how many billions more would you like? Stand up; be proud. If you think that we should spend more capital in school construction, I'd appreciate your saying so, because frankly, all we hear from the opposition is that all this is bad spending, that it's debt, that somehow this is a burden on the taxpayers. I consider it an investment in the future of our children, in the future of our province. So we are going to continue to spend on education.

[1610]

As far as priorities -- look, this is always a challenge, to work with districts and to make sure we've got it right. Sometimes districts, frankly, don't feel we do. In my own district, there's this project that I know the school district would love to see funded. You know, they had it around third or fourth place; we knocked off the top three and it rose to the top. And then, through the ministry and some of the work we did, we said no, it doesn't cut it anymore; we have to do projects 2, 3 and 4. And both the parents and the districts were concerned.

Any of this is a juggling act, in the balance of what we want to do. What we seek to do is work with the district to identify, really, almost two streams of projects: what do we need for space, and what do we need for replacement? For the replacement, we do a whole bunch of auditing work to make sure we've got the priorities right. And what may be at the top of the list in one district regrettably will not get funded for replacement for several years, because there may be other schools in other districts that are in far worse shape and need to be replaced first -- once we do that sort of provincial ranking.

We also seek, on the space side, to do the sort of analysis that the ranking I just read to you suggests. Yes, Seycove has around 200 students more right now than it was originally built for. Argyle had well over 400 students more. It was our feeling that that was the greater need. When we rank space projects around the province, what we tend to do is try to look past the actual list that a district submits and rank them universally around the province. Argyle made the cut of the 35 space projects we were able to fund last fall. Regrettably, Seycove did not quite make it, though as I indicated to the member, I think it is very close and I expect positive news on that project in the near future.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for his answers. If we are to see some capital spending for Seycove itself in the near future, that's great. I have never criticized the minister for overspending. We all agree that education is the number one issue in this government and in this province, and that's how we're going to improve ourselves. What I was talking about in terms of priorities was the fact that this government is spending $7.4 million per day just to service the debt, and that is unfortunate. That's about priorities. We're now going off and spending these massive amounts on fast ferries. To me, that kind of money is a waste. I've never seen the demand by people wanting to get to Nanaimo 20 minutes earlier, versus the parents that want good education for their children. That's a waste of money.

In any event, I thank you for your answers. That's what I was trying to find out: how the spending authority went.

[ Page 13449 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff don't actually have the right piece of paper in the chamber. Their recollection is that the North Van district has around 74 portables, and they will see a decline in that number. I'd be quite willing to have staff provide you with what we know of their current inventory of portables.

[1615]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We provide school districts across British Columbia with in the neighbourhood of $22-23 million to acquire learning resources each and every year. We've also provided districts with another $10 million to provide information technology -- computers and software.

Now, I recognize that there is always a desire to have more. I would say, though, that one of the things that did surprise me is. . . . I asked the ministry to do a little bit of work on how much of those funds were actually spent and what districts were retaining. It surprised me to find out that in learning resources trust accounts around the province, if you add up what the districts now have sort of in reserve, they've got $12 million for learning resources right now, as we talk. And as we start a new budget year, a new school year, another $22 million will be going out this year as well, plus additional resources for technology. As a former teacher, I always recognize that I can find lots of good uses and educationally sound uses for additional dollars. I think we do seek to provide the funds so that our schools do have the learning resources needed for our children.

D. Jarvis: Does the minister have that breakdown available? Could he tell me what district 44 has in their reserve? I'd like to talk to them if they have a large reserve, because I only have one constituent over there, and that's the children in North Vancouver.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I can't tell you for the current school year. I will have to wait until we get their audited statements. Last year, at the end of their school year, June 30, 1998, they had around $40,000 left in their learning resources fund and around $340,000 left in their technology fund.

J. Reid: In my constituency are school district 68, which is Nanaimo, as well as school district 69, which is Parksville-Qualicum. In school district 69 there has been a great effect from the proposed change in plans for funding alternative programs. It's my understanding that alternative programs, where these have existed in separate schools previously -- where the schools had their own timetable, their own staff and their own location -- are now not recognized as separate schools but are only recognized as programs. If the minister would explain the justification in changing these funding formulas. . . .

[1620]

So what we've said is no, we're not going to do the administrative allowance for any alternative school. We are going to fund square metres and lease space -- square metres for maintenance, lease space for costs that are required there. But we're going to treat it as a program within the public school system. Some districts actually benefited from this. It may surprise the members to learn that Vancouver actually gained around $300,000 from this particular change. Other districts found a negative impact on their budget.

J. Reid: Could the minister tell me how many school districts were affected in a negative way by this change?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the important thing to point out here is that we did not attempt to reduce funding for alternative schools around the province. We actually kept it whole and just reallocated it -- it's around $13-some million -- but tried to set some guidelines so that everybody was getting treated equally. As the member knows, this wasn't really an issue at all.

In the Nanaimo district, I think they lost -- what? -- $9,000 or something, a very small amount of money. Qualicum had a larger issue, around $90,000. Of the districts around the province, around half went up, half went down.

J. Reid: With reference to the school district in Nanaimo, one of their issues has been the funding for special education. Certainly with the demographics of that school district, they felt the funding allotments have caused great hardship. Would the minister like to explain how the minister would like to approach special needs funding with the school district in Nanaimo, school district 68?

[1625]

[ Page 13450 ]

The other thing that we've found is that there are great variations around the province on how school districts structure programs for special education students. Some districts structure programs that live within the targeted funding allocated by the ministry. Others, including Nanaimo, have chosen to spend in excess of that and have taken funds from other areas in order to enhance funding for special education even further. It's because of those variations that I have ordered a review of special education and have asked one of my assistant deputy ministers, Paul Pallan, along with a very respected expert from UBC, to conduct a review of all matters concerned with special education.

The concerns I hear -- and I'll just say a couple of things and sit down, because maybe the member has some further questions -- are several. Are we doing the best we can for every child with special needs? Are there unmet needs? And then, on the other side, I hear: are we spending the money well? Are we structuring the programs for the maximum results? What results are we getting for the 12 percent of the education budget that we're allocating to special education?

So that's what the review is to accomplish. I don't intend for it to be a long one. I've asked for the process to be complete and the results to be available to me by the end of this calendar year, so that they can have an influence on the 2000-2001 budget.

J. Reid: It's my understanding, from the parents involved who have special needs children -- and they have a special education parents association in Nanaimo -- that the funding is not based on the number of students identified; it's based on a formula. In particular in Nanaimo -- whether the minister would agree or not -- there does happen to be a greater than average number of these children, so they feel that there has been a problem with the funding that the ministry has provided for the school district. Perhaps we could use some clarification on that situation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the funding for special education is broken down into a number of categories. In some cases there's absolutely no limit on the amount of funding that can be provided. For a child with very high needs -- with mobility or mental challenges. . . . Funding is provided depending on the number of kids with those needs who enrol in a district: the more children, the more funds. And the funds are substantial: as much as $33,000 per child. For the sort of low-need, high-incidence category. . . . That is where we have indeed said that probably 4 percent is about it. Frankly, that's almost straight statistical work. I mean, if you say, "What's special?" it's probably 2 percent at each end of the spectrum. You get the bell curve of abilities, or whatever, at which they're "special."

[1630]

J. Reid: With the formula applied to the children with needs perhaps not as severe as those of other children, is it taken into account that certain areas and certain demographics really do change those numbers? And, just as we know in health care that demographics changes those numbers. . . . Have any studies perhaps been done to look at numbers according to different demographics and whether there are any exceptions to this rule?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer to the question is no. The current funding formula doesn't take account of that sort of variation in -- I don't know how you'd express it -- socioeconomic class or whatever. It simply doesn't.

What the ministry is going to do is look at that issue as part of the review. I must say that there have been some studies done in the Vancouver metro area, where similar claims are often made. You've probably heard the Vancouver school district claiming that because of its demographics, it has a higher than "average" number of special education children and needs. So far the studies don't seem to bear that out -- that children with special needs are migrating in some way to the Vancouver school district. But this is an issue that we're going to look at across the province and see if there are some patterns that make sense and that should influence the way we fund districts for special education.

J. Reid: I would appreciate it, if any studies are done on this work of looking at the socioeconomic factors involved with special needs, if the parents, the school district or myself could be advised of those studies. It would certainly help clarify the situation. These people genuinely believe that there are these differences.

Continuing on with some concerns in the constituency, I often deal with parents who feel caught in between school board decisions and ministry directives and who have a hard time understanding where a certain change is coming from. The school board will often say, "The ministry is telling us to do this," and when the parents go to the ministry, the ministry says: "It is the realm of the school board to make this decision." When that situation -- which I must presume is very common across this province -- occurs, is there a way or a particular section within the ministry that will help parents clarify exactly whose responsibility is what?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will read this into the record. This is sort of a final bit of information for the special education discussion that we had. Actually, in the Nanaimo area, their claim for the number of high-incidence, low-cost children is lower than the provincial average, even though it is higher than the 4 percent. So it's one of many things that we're going to have to look at as we conduct this review.

[1635]

[ Page 13451 ]

J. Reid: I'd like to use a specific example to show the confusion and indeed the heartbreak that can result from this, and that is the ministry's desire to reduce class sizes. It sounds innocent enough in its approach, but in certain areas, working out the details of that. . . . We have an example in my constituency where there is a very rural school, a community school, that has had some portables -- a new school having been built in another community down the road. The school boundaries changed, so that the students, rather than being able to walk to their community school, are now going to be bused to a different school. The parents, upset that their children are no longer going to be allowed to attend their community school, have spent almost a year trying to find out whether this was a directive from the ministry or a board decision.

Still, the board feels that it has a been a ministry directive and yet takes responsibility that indeed, in the final analysis, they of course had to make a decision. When the parents want to protest this -- that there is an inequity here. . . . I presume the minister would be in support of community schools and that there needs to be an opportunity to communicate with the ministry about the problems arising from their directives or their perceived directives. In this year, these parents have not been able to find that channel. If the minister would like to make any suggestions, I would appreciate it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Here, as in many other things in the education realm, there is responsibility at both levels. I mean, the move to smaller class sizes is not incidental or innocent. It is quite deliberate. I've often said in this chamber what I believe the research shows about the advantages of moving towards smaller class sizes for our younger children, and we are quite committed to doing this. I know that the opposition voted against this measure and doesn't feel that it's an appropriate use of educational funds. We do.

The responsibility for implementation of the provincial collective agreement, which implements smaller class sizes, rests with school districts, and therefore matters such as catchment areas, school boundaries and configurations of schools are entirely within the purview of school districts. So it is a shared thing. If the member wants to pass on any correspondence that she has on the issue that I can get the ministry to respond to, I'd be pleased to do so.

J. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the advantages he perceives in the lower class sizes. Coming from these parents, I have a question: does the ministry have any studies to reflect the effects of upheaval when children have been moved from a community school they've gone to for years into another school outside of their neighbourhood -- what effects that has on their learning?

[1640]

J. Reid: The question remains to the minister that, yes, in seeking to distribute the population within schools, there's going to be an adverse effect if children are moved either against their will or into situations that are difficult for them. So the question is: have there been studies to look at disruption in the life of a child and the effect on learning that occurs? Certainly we've heard that studies are the one way of saying class sizes. . . . But if children are going to be disrupted -- if it's going to cancel out that benefit -- then it certainly is a concern on the part of these parents.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure we're aware of any detailed study on precisely that issue. I'll say only this: children shift schools every year across this province for a huge variety of reasons, the most common one being that their parents have relocated within a community or from one community to another. I don't know about the member's riding. In my riding, between elections -- from one election to the next -- something like 25 percent of the people in the community move either from one location to another or in or out of particular neighbourhoods.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's assuming a constant population -- sorry, I hate to disabuse the member for Okanagan-Vernon -- or, indeed, a growing population. We're a very mobile society. The most common reason for kids to change schools is because their parents have moved. The positive or negative impact of this, I think, has everything to do with how the parents and the school community adjust to it and welcome new children.

J. Reid: I would suggest to the minister that there is a huge difference between when parents move because they've made a decision to move -- and they're moving their children and their family because of that decision -- and when children are moved against the will of the parents and against the will of the children. It would have different consequences. I would be glad to provide the minister with copies of a large amount of correspondence on this issue and on the concerns of parents that have yet to be resolved.

Another issue in the constituency with the school district is an interesting situation concerning boarding-out allowances. If the minister would share with us. . . . First of all, how many children in the province receive a boarding-out allowance?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't have that figure in the chamber. I'm sure that people watching us will seek to provide us with the right statistic very soon.

J. Reid: Would the minister have the budget figure for the boarding-out allowances?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the provincial budget we pay around $1.2 million a year in boarding-out allowances.

J. Reid: Does the ministry have guidelines on who qualifies for this allowance?

[1645]

[ Page 13452 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: If you have other issues that you wish to canvass in estimates, may I suggest you move on those and then come back to this one? We may have an opportunity to have staff send in some information to help us engage in an informed debate.

J. Reid: I will leave it to the end of my list and see if we can come up with that information.

The next item is about the Electronic Busing program. I would like to know what the extent of the Electronic Busing program in B.C. is.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the ministry has a different name for it. They call it the distributed electronic learning program. The e-bus is actually the name that one school district -- the Nechako school district -- has given to its program. Around the province, we have 2,119 students who are enrolled in distributed electronic learning programs in the current school year.

J. Reid: Is this program available to all school districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's in 18 school districts that offer some version of distributed electronic learning or electronic delivery of programs across the province. The biggest of those is the program the member referenced -- the e-bus, in the Nechako district. That has, I think, around 800 students, if memory serves.

J. Reid: If the minister could share with us the funds that are allocated to this program.

Hon. P. Ramsey: At $3,500 per student, the provincial funding amounts to $7.418 million.

J. Reid: Who administers the program? Is it the school districts, or is it the ministry?

[1650]

J. Reid: As I know there are waiting lists for students who want to be involved in the program, and there is certainly concern on the part of other people that don't have the assurance that the program is being monitored, could we just have some clarification: how is the success of the program monitored?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises exactly some of the questions that have led to the review. There has been an increasing demand for access to these programs, and yet I'm not confident -- the ministry isn't confident -- that we can assure supervision, quality, provincial curriculum and all those other matters that one would expect. There is a great variation among the sorts of programs that are out there. These programs were originally set up with about four primary objectives: to provide an alternate learning environment for students who were not succeeding in a traditional classroom setting; to increase student access to elective courses, particularly for students in rural or remote communities; to provide a quality educational alternative to home schooling for parents who didn't want their children in a traditional environment; and to provide alternatives for students who simply couldn't study within the traditional timetable, due to any number of issues.

With the growth of information technology, this sort of education delivery seems to be growing very rapidly both at the kindergarten-to-grade-12 level and at the post-secondary level. Virtually every college and university in the province now offers courses available wholly through the Internet. There's a wide variety of electronic delivery mechanisms. There are enough concerns about how things have been working out with the 18 programs we have now that we took a year's pause, froze the expansion of the programs and are conducting a review.

J. Reid: Without going into details about the review -- because obviously it's underway -- could the minister just give an overview of what aspects are being looked at in the review? What are the major concerns, what are the major pluses of the program, and what would constitute a favourable review? If we see a favourable review, then what would be the implications of that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a fairly comprehensive review of what's been going on. I'm trying to break it down into a number of areas, in no particular priority.

Is the provincial curriculum actually being delivered and mastered through this system? Obviously, if we're going to fund this significantly with public resources, we would expect that we would have the provincial curriculum delivered.

[1655]

A third issue is: what are the true costs of delivering education in this way, and what part is borne by the public purse and what part is borne by the individual? So there are at least those three broad bands of concerns that the review is assessing.

J. Reid: One more question before we go back to the boarding-out allowance. It's actually a question for another constituency that I have formed some links with, and that's with the coastal communities that are particularly hard-hit by the problems with the resource industries. I'm going to use the example of Gold River, where there is a significant expected decrease in enrolment -- whether the ministry has special plans for these school districts that have suffered phenomenally and what those plans might be.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Having a rapid population decline and a school enrolment decline is never fun. Over the past several

[ Page 13453 ]

We're going to be doing the same thing, only more so, for Gold River in the coming year. We've said to them that if their enrolment fell by more than 10 percent, we would take any amount below that and fund them through a special purpose grant at 50 percent of what they'd receive per child if the kids actually showed up. Assuming that their projections are accurate and that they lose around 193 students -- a 25 percent reduction, a huge reduction -- that means that they would receive a grant above what they'd normally receive for that number of students -- of some $386,000 -- to help cushion that and make sure that, if they are moving down to a lower level, it's done smoothly.

I must say that I had the opportunity, with the member for North Island, to meet with representatives from Gold River to discuss the problem face to face. We sent one of my senior officials to the community to meet with parents in the school district so that we could make sure we understood fully what was going on. At the end of the day, I think the district is quite supportive of the efforts of the member for North Island and the ministry in helping them cushion this change in enrolment in their district.

[1700]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The school board should have the same information that I'm going to put on the record here. Here are the funding guidelines for boarding allowances for all school districts in the province.

Boarding allowance funding is available to school boards, to a maximum of $3,500 per student per school year, where the board and school staff decide a student should be sent to a school in a distant location other than where that student resides. This decision must be based on the fact that the local school is unable to offer an appropriate education program and not on the personal preferences of a student or student's parents for programs offered in a school in a distant location within a district or within another school district.

J. Reid: Thank you for that clarification. Now, the problem with the situation we have with students coming from Lasqueti -- where obviously they do not have a high school -- is that there can be a number of students from the family that have to board out in order to attend high school, and the family is willing to do that. The opportunity has arisen for a parent to be able to accompany the children in these temporary living accommodations. So it's a difficult situation. The question is whether the minister would know if, in other similar situations across the province, there have been any provisions made for this type of difficulty.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The assumption on the boarding allowance is that the child is living away from home and parents. We are unaware of any situation in other districts where parents have sought to actually accompany children and set up, really, a second home in the community.

R. Coleman: I have a large number of issues to canvass with the minister this afternoon relative to my school district. That's the one that I represent -- and the member for Langley, who I believe will also be joining me in these discussions this afternoon.

I did a review of the presentation to the board relative to the 1999-2000 budget for my school district. From this report, I'm left with a number of concerns. The concerns, obviously, point to the fact that. . . . If I'm not mistaken, I've always understood that I have one of the better-run school districts in this province. I've always felt that. I've thought that they do a pretty good job in running their school district, and the teachers and educators in my community do an excellent job.

There were a number of statements that came out of this particular report, as we move forward to look at how it is affecting individual schools, and the one that really sticks out to me is this:

"Over the years, administrators and school partners have managed reductions to their operating budgets in ways that have attempted to minimize impacts. But the cumulative effects of relentless budget reductions have brought us to the point where there is nothing left to trim. There is no question that continuing cuts are affecting our ability to deliver services and programs to students in Langley."

[1705]

Far from cutting your district's budget, here are the facts, hon. member, about your district's budgets over the past eight years. Back in 1991-92, for an enrolment of 17,581, district 35

[ Page 13454 ]

R. Coleman: I'm sure the minister is aware of where that surplus comes from. A lot of it has to do with revenues coming from the international student program. Those surpluses are now being moved forward to cover additional costs that the school district is facing. The additional costs that they're facing this year -- $1,094,000 -- are from growth, salary increments and other provincially negotiated contractual increases. They also have an effect, obviously, because they have $150,000 in additional positions, and they also have some contractual increases that affect that.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

The concern here, though, is what is happening with the school, and I wanted to walk through that with the minister this afternoon. We can quote all the numbers and statistics that we want to, but there are things that are affecting students in these particular school districts. There are things that are going to be affecting them in the future, and I think we have to know that.

I want to give you an example. The first example is that the schools in my district are not able to approve boundary permits until actual enrolments are verified in September. There's an impact on parents who have day care services in catchment areas in other places than where they live, and there are also impacts on their ability to plan in advance. I'm told that this is because of some of the calculations relative to the AIC. The principals are saying that they cannot reduce teaching staff or control their teaching staff, yet they don't know what they're going to be able to do in September for these people who have to go cross-boundary with children. I know that in my district there are children. . . . There is one family that has three children going to three different schools -- the enrolment is all in elementary school -- because they have to be taxied to different schools, and that's a concern.

[1710]

I want to do another school, because I have a number of schools here, and I want the minister to understand. Alex Hope Elementary School is another school in my riding. The staff member who is an integral part of the intermediate team has been declared surplus, a reduction in library restocking has taken place, there's a reduction of six hours per week in teaching assistants' time, and they will be dependent on -- imagine this -- preschool rental income to operate this school.

I don't know how we can justify, when we're trying to balance education. . . . I can give him the summary of the different deficits this school district has had to deal with over the last five or six years in order to meet their funding requirements. I don't know where the priorities are when we're starting to look at the elimination of supplies in English, mathematics, social studies, science and music. I don't know where this is coming from in a school district where, frankly, they're just. . . . They're telling me and they've put it in writing and they've said to their board that there's just nowhere else to cut.

Each school has been asked, basically, to remove things. So are we going to end up with less custodial staff and unclean washrooms? Are we going to have a health problem as a result of that? Are we going to end up with less education because we're not going to provide the basics in the elementary school level of mathematics, physical education and that sort of thing? Whatever happened to the discipline of music within our school system?

This is just two schools. I guess the question I would ask is: are we losing our priorities, and are we missing the opportunity, on this type of description. . . ? Are we losing our priorities in what we're doing with this? Have you looked at your funding formulas to really determine whether these things that are being cut in schools -- and not just in my district, but in other districts; you can read the newspaper every day. . . . The school districts are saying they have deficits and they're cutting things that are now. . . . We're now getting down to the primary services of education when we start cutting things relative to the direct education of kids.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, thank you very much, hon. member. It is interesting to have a member who simply keeps saying that this district has received less money, when the facts show that in the current school year, they're dealing with 24 percent more dollars than they had back in 1991-92 -- $22 million more. Now, I understand the concerns about "budget cuts." I always recognize that people would like to see budgets grow even more rapidly than they have. But to pretend that this district has received budget reductions is simply contrary to fact -- contrary to the audited statements of this school board.

[1715]

[ Page 13455 ]

I would, finally, just put one other fact on the record. We talked about, and the member talked about, supplies. As of June 30 last year, Langley and district 35 had $840,000 of unexpended money in its trust account for learning supplies. So there is money. I recognize, always, that people would like to see more, and we need to do more. But I must say that I reject the idea that schools in British Columbia are in any sort of dire financial crisis. Relative to other jurisdictions in this country and, really, around the world, schools in British Columbia are exceedingly well funded.

R. Coleman: First of all, I'd appreciate it if the minister didn't put words in my mouth about the level of education in my riding by saying that I stated that it was in dire straits. I didn't state that.

I have a concern that we're taking our education system to where it will become in dire straits. I also have some current concerns when I read that schools are reporting a heavier reliance on PAC funding for many essential supplies. With recent changes in how governments distribute gaming funds, parent advisory councils will be receiving considerably less from casinos. This will in turn affect the amount they contribute to schools. Does the minister agree that it's appropriate that our school system -- our PAC system, which is increasingly being asked to fund essential supplies -- is relying on gaming revenues, through those PACs, to augment the operation of our schools?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't believe it's appropriate. The core operations of a school should clearly be funded by the public purse through the mechanisms we've set up -- through taxation of the province at large and distribution to districts, through formula, to meet the needs of children enrolled in the schools in that district.

As a former chair of a parent advisory council, I always recognize that there are other things that I would like to see in my kids' school. I surely did my share of fundraising for those things. At the time sports equipment was big. Actually, I remember buying an Apple IIE computer. The difference is that under one of the things that has actually made fundraising somewhat easier for parent advisory councils, they now are able to get access to some charitable gaming revenues. Some of them have taken advantage of it.

I just need to respond, a little bit politically perhaps -- and I've tried not to be very partisan in these estimates -- to the comment about where we're taking education. We're taking education in this province in a direction that is different from the rest of the country. We're reducing class sizes. We're seeking to improve our children's mastery of the basics in kindergarten and grades 1, 2 and 3. We're seeking to provide our children with access to the latest in information technology by spending $123 million to put Internet connections into every school in the province through the provincial learning network. We're seeking to make sure our kids have good classrooms -- better than they've had in the past -- by getting rid of half of the portables that are now on too many school lawns and playing fields. We're seeking to improve our children's opportunities to go on and pursue post-secondary education and get the skills needed for success in the job market of the next century.

[1720]

Frankly, when I look at some of the directions that this Liberal opposition advocates for public financing and reduction of spending, I think: if they should be sitting on this side, we'd see a strategy of reduction in school funding, increased class size and laying off of teachers similar to that we see in Alberta and Ontario.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, could we have some order.

R. Coleman: I will resist the temptation to enter into a debate on the philosophical and whatever discussion the minister was just putting out there. I am more concerned about each one of the schools in my district. I'm concerned that the minister has to understand that when he quotes a 24 percent increase in funding, some of that is affected by his mandated agreements on class sizes. He has to remember that some of it is affected by increase in salaries, and he has to remember that it also is affected by increase in the number of students or the growth of a district. I think it's also prudent to remember that 92 percent of school districts are spending most of their revenues on salaries. So the question is: what happens when you don't have the money for the other things that are necessary within the school system? What happens is, the quality of the education starts to get affected. The quality of the education gets affected because the funds aren't there to do other things.

I'm very fortunate, because my son graduated from high school last week, and I'm not going to have to be concerned about whether he's going to have an opportunity to enter a music program at an elementary school level within my community or whether there's going to be a cutback in other services. But I'm sure a number of other parents are.

At the same time as these reductions in choices are being made relative to the funding that's available in a district like this, we're going to see other things affected. A lot of it's going to have to do with the quality of the teaching within the classroom. The quality of teaching in the classroom will be affected not only by not having programs to enhance children's activity, interest and discipline in the classroom -- whether it be through a music program or other program -- but also through the reduction of other support staff functions because of different agreements that are in place or the dollars that aren't available.

I'll give you an example. At Betty Gilbert Elementary School, 46 hours of support staff functions for the library technician, for the TA for behavioral disorders and for custodial have to be reduced. So the question is: what does that do to the classroom when those 46 hours are no longer available? What does it do to the ability of the other children

[ Page 13456 ]

At the same time, at Coghlan Elementary School, which is another elementary school in the riding, they're going to have a reduction of 1.5 hours a week in regular time plus 3.5 hours in special education time. In addition to that, they're going to have to eliminate the funding for TOC replacements for school-based team meetings, and they're eliminating the funding for student busing. This is in the northeast Langley area of my riding, which is rural. Funding is eliminated for school requests and there's a reduction in the general supplies account -- which is PE supplies and that sort of thing.

We can throw all the dollars we want, but these schools are having to reduce things that are going to be integral to the ability of those schools to provide a decent education. I'm wondering what the minister thinks about the cuts in support staff, whether it be custodial or whether it be, more importantly, teachers' assistants, especially where you have behavioral disorders and that sort of thing in classrooms. How do we expect the teacher in the classroom to function and provide an education for the kids if we're not providing the support for those teachers?

[1725]

Now, there are issues about funding for what the districts may wish to do beyond that, but the funding formula does take account of and funds fully 100 percent of those kids who need busing under the ministry guidelines. So I must say that in a lot of different areas here we do work very hard to make sure that the $3.6 billion that we allocate to public schools -- and that's the object of our debate here in the Legislature -- is allocated fairly to different districts, all 59 of them, to meet the needs of children in those districts.

The final thing that the member mentioned was the funding for, I think, special education support. I just want to point out to the member that this area of ministry funding now comprises over $408 million. It's about 12 percent of our entire Education budget. I think it's money well spent, but we need to find out how well-spent it is or whether we can do better. That's why we've put in place a review of special education, which will conclude this calendar year, so as we head into next year's budgets, we'll have better answers about how we make sure that kids are receiving the special assistance that they need.

R. Coleman: The concern, I guess, is that it's good to have the people in the education system, but people without tools can't do any work. If we're not going to provide them the tools to do the work, I have a great deal of concern that they'll be able to do it; and if they don't have the support staff to do that work, I'm concerned about that too.

As I walk through almost every school that I've reviewed, I find anywhere from two- to four- to six- to ten-hour reductions in custodial time in classrooms -- in school. My concern is this: as you know, just like a clean working environment or a clean living environment is good for the mental and physical health of individuals, so is a clean environment within the schools. I'm wondering just how far the minister is going to allow for cutbacks to take place in keeping our schools clean, in order to balance off other contractual obligations or what have you within the funding formulas.

Hon. P. Ramsey: A staffer just provided me with some information on Langley's allocation of its 1999-2000 budget. The member expresses concern about operations and maintenance. The amount allocated to Langley through the funding formula for operations and maintenance for the coming year was $13,329,000. Langley has chosen to allocate $13,195,000 to that function -- a reduction of around 1 percent. Now, this is a local choice. I assume the member doesn't really want me to step in and run 59 school boards.

R. Coleman: I think that because of what the ministry's done to contractual stuff and however that's affecting these school districts, these choices are no choices for them. They have no other choice. Either they will not be able to balance their budgets or function. . . . They're not going to get additional money from the ministry. You know, the bottom line is that a school like County Line Elementary is losing two hours of custodial time and four hours of noon-hour supervision time. A school like Dorothy Peacock Elementary is losing five hours of custodial time. Gordon Greenwood, which is another elementary school, is losing ten hours of custodial time.

[1730]

In these schools, again -- and this is my concern -- we're basically seeing a reduction of 15 hours a week in Dorothy Peacock in teachers' assistants for special education. As we see it, again, we're seeing 15 hours per week in library technician time in Gordon Greenwood. Now, that time is either. . . . We're looking for literacy skills. We're looking for the teachers to be able to perform in the classroom, and the support mechanisms are being pulled out from underneath their feet, I believe. I don't find that to be acceptable. James Hill Elementary School, where the minister was just talking about the Internet and computers, which is all fine and good -- and we've had PAC groups go out and buy computers -- has had to make the decision to reduce computer instruction, which impacts on the school goal and initiative of getting these children ready for the twenty-first century. They've a reduc-

[ Page 13457 ]

James Kennedy Elementary School -- again, reduction of teaching assistants for special education; a reduction, again, of the music program -- which is something I will discuss in a bit. Everything from a reduction of field trips because of a lack of funds to pay for busing, reduction in supply accounts. . . . This PAC has had to support school programs by funding language arts books, library books, ten computers for the lab, per-pupil funds for classroom use, cultural presentations, five microscopes and software. Where's the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to ensure that if the PAC groups go out and invest this money in these schools, the ability for them to teach these children about computers for the twenty-first century will be there?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate the member's interest in what's going on in the schools in his district. Just for the record, let's talk about some other choices district 35 made in allocating funding received from the ministry, and where it chose to spend money.

It may interest the member to know that in the area of district administration, school district 35 chose to spend $200,000 more than was allocated by the funding formula on district administration. That was their choice. It may interest the member to know that in the area of learning assistance, the district chose to spend $600,000 less than the ministry allocated in that category. It may interest the member to know that in the area of gifted funding, the district chose to spend $356,000 more than it received from the ministry for that category. These are choices made. . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Gifted programs -- at the same time that they decided to spend $600,000 less than allocated on learning assistance. It may interest the member to know that in the area of special health services, the district chose to spend $310,000 less than it received in the funding formula for that category.

So, hon. member, the choices made in many of the areas that you reference in your concerns for various schools are choices made by the school district. As you have said -- or you have quoted things from the board -- being concerned about how tight the strictures are that they work within already. . . . Many of the areas that you have referenced are choices that they've made. I do not think you really want the Ministry of Education to take away those choices and require them to spend every dime in the areas that the funding formula allocates them for.

[1735]

Finally, the member talked about technology. It may interest the member to know that in the technology trust fund held by district 55 at the end of June 1998 -- last year -- it had a surplus of $635,000.

R. Coleman: I would ask that the minister provide me with copies of both of those documents that he just quoted from. Is that possible?

Moving on, I suspect some of the choices my school district makes are because of its growth, and some of the difficulties it faces are relative. I will certainly check those things out in detail with the board; I will go into that. But I still want to go through the schools in my riding, as the member for Langley will, to put our concerns on the record to the minister and ask the minister about some priorities. For instance, I still have a number of schools that are laying off CUPE workers and that are operating with reduced budgets for supplies and equipment and reduced levels of program quality and services to students.

North Otter Elementary has eliminated the band instruction from D.W. Poppy Secondary. They used to get support from another school within the district and now don't have the funds in order to have that. They lost seven hours a week for library technicians. I remember listening to a debate in this House about libraries and their importance to students. Yet as I go through this, I see funding is falling away from libraries. North Otter Elementary really gives me some concern, because this particular school has had to cut. . . . Reading recovery and guided reading programs are at risk in a demonstration school whose role is to provide the model of balanced literacy programs. That gives me grave concern.

In addition to that, I've seen 21 hours cut in the library at Parkside Elementary School, a sizeable reduction in teaching assistants for special education at that school. At Peterson Road Elementary, I see another reduction in special education time. Every time I see that, I recognize that the teachers in that school are going to have a more and more difficult time instructing the other children in their classrooms, because they don't have the support in their classrooms to do the job they want to do. That's what the teachers are telling me. The custodial staff are telling me that the schools are not going to be able to be kept up. I'm also being told by the teachers' assistants that the difficult children are not going to be supervised or taken care of because of these cuts. There's a reduction, again, at Shortreed Elementary School. It goes on and on throughout my district.

In speaking to other people in other communities, as I travel the province, I'm getting the same thing: the PACs are providing students with things like books, bookshelves, computers and music programs. Classroom incentives are being provided by people from outside the school system.

One of the ones that really concerns me, as I get into the secondary school level, is a comment about Aldergrove Community Secondary School that fewer courses are being offered for students in courses with low enrolment -- for example, the literature 12 course. This puts the entire program in jeopardy, but it may reduce -- and this is what bothers me the most about a comment about this -- the students' post-secondary options.

We don't seem to have the ability to get them to the technology. We could put the Internet in there until the cows come home, but if we're not going to give these children education for the twenty-first century but also the basic standards by which they're going to be able to get a university entrance, I have a great deal of concern about that.

[1740]

[ Page 13458 ]

I am fortunate that I have a daughter who is in the music program at the University of Victoria; she is in the education program and will be a teacher. But music was a form of discipline for that child. It helped her discipline. . . .That discipline led to better discipline in the classroom for her studies and what have you, and she excelled. Yet as I go through all of these school districts, I see the same thing everywhere I travel in the province: we're going to cut the culture, the education, the literature and the music out of our schools. These things are all the first things to go. We will keep the sports programs, but we won't take care of those gifted children who are supposed to be able to have those opportunities.

I'd like to know the ministry's position on music programs in the schools. I'd like to know whether there is a vision or a position of this ministry relative to seeing the value of music and music instruction to young people as they come through the school system, not just from the standpoint of the education factor itself but about the discipline that comes from those types of programs for dealing with their other classes -- that interest being able to grow them as individuals and that discipline being able to grow them as people who can excel in other areas.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: My, my! What a message of doom and gloom, and how contrary to what's actually going on in the schools in British Columbia. Just for the member's information, this year district 35, Langley, will be hiring a bunch of new teachers to assist in lower and primary classes. They'll receive additional funding of $960,000 to do that. They have also received $1.18 million to hire non-enrolling teachers, library assistants, ESL specialists and special education teachers in Langley -- in this year. That's over $2 million of additional funding going to hire more staff to help children in Langley schools. That's what the funding we're providing to Langley will accomplish this year.

Now, the member talks about learning assistance. He's talked about it a lot. Given the fact that the sheet I have suggests that this district has chosen. . . . Well, we allocated $2.966 million for learning assistance. The district chose to allocate $2.32 million for learning assistance, a reduction of $644,000 that they put elsewhere in the budget. That's their choice. I imagine that the member is hearing concerns about that from some parents in his school district. On the other hand, this district has chosen to deal very directly with special behaviour problems in the schools. We allocated around $790,000 for that purpose; they're going to spend $1.6 million. So they chose very deliberately to do this.

I don't think that the member is really asking the ministry or the Minister of Education to take away local discretion to make those sort of changes to budgets. What I seek to do in my role as Minister of Education in this area of funding is two things: first, to fight really hard in Treasury Board, in cabinet, in this House and in these precincts to make sure that education funding continues to rise in this province, as it has for the last seven years; second, to make sure that, in conjunction with districts, we're doing all we can to fairly allocate that $3.6 billion, which we're debating today, to the 59 school districts, the 1,700 schools, the over 600,000 children that enrol in the public school system of our province.

Frankly, when I visit schools I do not see the doom and gloom that the member opposite sees. By virtually every measure I can think of, our school districts are succeeding better than at any time in our province's history. We're graduating a higher percentage of our students than ever before. More of them are going on to post-secondary education than ever before. They're competing well in national and international examinations. This school system is working for our children. We are going to continue to fund it, and we're going to continue to improve it.

[1745]

The minister knows full well that a lot of local discretion was taken away last year when the ministry itself did its AIC. You took away local discretion and the ability of school districts to have any flexibility to be able to manage their budgets for the benefit of what they saw as their client group, which was affected by decisions of this ministry.

I just find it absolutely incredible that the minister thinks that asking questions relative to these issues is doom and gloom in the school system. Perhaps rather than going on school tours that might be arranged by somebody, the minister should just start popping into schools when nobody knows he's coming. Then see the garbage in the hallway, see the problem with the custodial side, see the problem with the classroom, talk to the teachers that are having difficulty with severe behavioural problems where they're not being given support in order to be able to educate the rest of the children in their classrooms, talk to the people about the loss of programs like music and those sort of things in education, and perhaps the minister will get a different feel. The feel that I get by going to different districts around the province and also by being in my own district is that there's a real concern about education. The concern is that we are lowering the pipeline's ability to react to education and issues of the future -- relative to supplies, relative to cleanliness, relative to health concerns, relative to such things as computer training. I have a great deal of concern about that.

If you want to call that doom and gloom because I'm concerned about the children of this province, you go right ahead and tell me that that's doom and gloom. What it is, is asking for a vision for education, asking for a vision that says we're going to do something to better educate our children

[ Page 13459 ]

You know, what's going to happen is this: you're going to find your whole structure falling apart around your ears, whether it be physical plant or whether it be equipment or whether it be computers or whether it be the desks, because none of those things are being taken care of. At the same time you're going to find the structural portion of education being affected by the fact that the teacher in the classroom doesn't have the resources to handle the class, because of your cuts in other support staff. I think you have to recognize that.

As you cut that, you've also cut the things that make education quality. You've lost your music programs. You've lost a tremendous amount of your sporting programs because of the time that has to be taken after school in order to do them. You're losing the quality of the schools as you do that; you're losing that quality of a feeling of community. That is just not there, because those special things that maybe made my education and your education great are not going to be there. We have a structural. . . . I have a structural concern for the long-term portion of education, and I don't hear a vision coming from the ministry relative to those concerns.

If I go through this summary of my schools, it bothers me, because I know there are other school districts that are worse and have bigger concerns than mine. What are they going to do? What is the Vancouver school district going to do, facing its huge budget concerns? And what we're going to do is. . . . Everything that is toward the quality of education gets cut. Then what are we left with?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Far be it from me to say that any member of this House is not concerned with education because they wish to see good results for our children of the province. I wouldn't want my remarks to be interpreted in that way. But I do say to the hon. member that we have a clear vision for where we want to take education in this province. Regrettably, it doesn't seem to be a vision that's shared by both sides of the House.

We do believe that one of the ways we can do better for our kids is by getting smaller classes in the early years. We do believe that our children should get more assistance from specialists who don't work in a classroom: special education folks, ESL specialists, teacher-librarians, counsellors and the like. We do believe that's important, and we're putting our money where our mouths are. The budget we're debating contains the second year of funding toward a $150 million commitment to make that happen in the schools of British Columbia.

[1750]

In all those areas, we have a vision. We're moving forward. Quite frankly, we're recognized around this country and even internationally for the work we're doing. We have a very inclusive school system that says all students are welcome, whatever their background, whether they need to learn English as a second language. . . . We'll provide them with additional help. If they need special education assistance, we devote $408 million -- 12 percent of our whole budget -- to help kids with special needs in our schools.

I recognize that there will always be concerns and a desire for even more funding. The record of this government for funding K-to-12 education is second to none in this country. We're going to continue that record and make sure our kids have access to the future that we want for all of them.

Noting the time and the wild applause from my colleagues, I'm going to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

THE FAMILY OF KIN

[1755]

The personal development that I received was an opportunity to run something like the Brooks Kinsmen Rodeo,

[ Page 13460 ]

I had that opportunity, through that and through other things, in order be able to make other decisions in my life. I left the RCMP in 1980 to move back to British Columbia and enter business, and I fervently believe that the only reason I could make that decision was because of the opportunity that Kin gave me.

But at the same time that Kin gave me that opportunity, it also gave me the opportunity to make hundreds of friends across this country. I've been a member of the Kinsmen and Kinettes association of Canada for over 20 years. During that period of time I've had some great opportunities and some great experiences. I've had the opportunity to observe how this one organization has changed the lives of people within this province.

It doesn't matter whether you go to Nakusp, where you will see a health centre and also a seniors centre that was built by Kin, or you go to Trail, where you'll see their health centre; whether you go to downtown Victoria and look at the Memorial Arena, recognizing that the first cheque to kick off the building of that arena came from the Kinsmen Club of Victoria; whether you go to Castlegar and see the park in the downtown core or go to Cranbrook and see the lit park in the downtown area, in a beautiful setting where they have a lit baseball diamond and the whole setup; whether you want to see parks along the shores of the ocean on Vancouver Island or see the housing projects that are housing seniors and families in need and special needs families and also second-stage and transition housing. This organization has made a remarkable contribution to this province and this country.

It is estimated that in British Columbia there are somewhere around 200,000 people whose lives have been touched through the membership of Kin alive today. These people have all contributed to their communities. You will find them on boards of directors, on health boards and on boards of other service organizations. You will find them on boards in church groups; you will find them in the community. What service clubs, Kin in particular, are to me is like the bottom of the food chain of community. These are the people that give of themselves -- for nothing. While they do it, they make friends and they enjoy life. But their contributions just cannot be measured in anything more than to thank them.

What they do for individuals like myself, where they give you that opportunity to grow. . . . They actually change how our society functions. They actually have an effect on how you and I live today. Service organizations kicked off our health care in some states and in some provinces of this country. Service organizations were there long before there was medicare. Service organizations like Kin have been there through the ages. In the Second World War, Kin sent milk to Britain for the children that didn't have milk.

[1800]

What we should do as legislators -- people in public life -- is understand this. We should fight to preserve those organizations in our community, because those organizations are the ones that are going to make the quality of life for us all better. It is absolutely remarkable what Kin gave me in 1974. It's what it can give anybody -- any service organization. What they do is help you develop as a human being.

So for friendship, service and caring, don't ever forget the service organizations in your community, because those organizations are what is going to make a difference in your life and lives of your children and grandchildren. So let's stand by them; let's support them. Let's remember their contribution and remember to thank them, visit them and talk to them at every opportunity that ever presents itself to us.

F. Randall: I thank the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove for his comments. I took the time to look at the member's biography, actually, and certainly that covers a great deal of his involvement with the Kinsmen since he joined in 1974. I just want to mention that they are certainly one of many such volunteer community organizations that contribute a lot to our community. There are organizations. . . . I'll just mention a few, like the Boys and Girls Club. I served on their board of directors a number of years ago. I know organizations in Burnaby like Heritage Village, which operate mainly on volunteers. There's the Masonic Lodge, which has cancer vehicles and does all kind of other things that I think people are familiar with. There's the Rotary Club and Lions Club and certainly many others. I would also mention that trade unions, when they started. . . . That's how they started. They were benevolent associations to work with and help other people.

Looking at the mission statement, etc., of the Kinsmen, I certainly found that interesting. The mission statement is: "To better our communities by promoting service, fellowship, family values and national pride." The motto is: "Serving the community's greatest need." The organization is made up of young men and women between the ages of 19 and 45 who gather together in clubs across Canada for the purpose of performing community service work and enjoying social activities and promoting national pride. The association is all-Canadian in terms of clubs and members and, as such, is Canada's largest community service organization.

The association was founded on February 20, 1920, in Hamilton, Ontario, by Harold Allin Rogers, OC, OBE. Rogers was 21 years old when he returned from the trenches of the First World War. His need for companionship led him to attempt to join the Rotary Club of Hamilton. Due to the Rotary's rule of only one member for each employment classification, young Hal's application was rejected due to his father's membership accounting for the wholesale plumbing category. Hal decided to start his own service club, and with founding members Harold Phillips, Trevor Thompson and Link Brace, met at the Namking Cafe in Hamilton in what was to be the first official meeting of the Kinsmen Club of Hamilton and the birth of the association.

There's material that talks about a lot of their accomplishments. There certainly isn't time to go into them all, but there's

[ Page 13461 ]

[1805]

R. Coleman: I thank the member for his comments about this organization. Whether it be Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis, Kinsmen or Kinnettes -- whatever name you put to it -- service organizations are so vital to our communities because of what they mean to us. In my community there are 154 social housing units managed by Kinsmen. There's a community centre in Aldergrove and a drop-in centre in Langley. There are 50 day care spaces that came as a result of the development of housing within that community.

The remarkable thing about this organization is its ability to react. It was there when Rick Hansen hit the shores of Newfoundland and gave the fundraising a kickoff as he came to run across Canada. It was there for Canada 125, when it started a campaign to have a million school children across this country sign the borders of Canadian flags specially made to promote national unity. The remarkable thing about that was that 7.5 million children signed the borders of Canadian flags. I remember that one in particular, because I was the western Canadian chair. It was on the stairs of this Legislature on New Year's Day, with Ian Hanomansing from the CBC, that we launched that campaign.

All organizations like the Kinsmen need to be remembered for the fact that they are so good for all of us. Friendship and fellowship are the keys to any one of these groups. That's what keeps us all together -- the glue that binds us -- whether it be in a trade union organization, a service organization or whatever. The glue that binds you is the mutual respect and friendship that come from working together as a group of people. That power put into a community -- when you see $1.5 billion in contributions to our communities over the years from the Kinsmen alone -- is remarkable.

I thank the hon. member for his comments, and I thank the House for the opportunity to highlight this very special organization.

AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIPS

I am here this evening to talk about agricultural partnerships. In doing so, I want to revisit a few of the things that the minister outlined when he spoke in the Legislature yesterday around Agriculture Day. I also want to say that the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, in my view has done a lot to foster agricultural partnerships during his term as the Minister of Agriculture. What I want to do here this evening is acknowledge some of the accomplishments that he's worked very hard to attain. I say that as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and knowing that we have a number of things yet to achieve with regard to our agricultural accomplishments in British Columbia. But the select standing committee will be working extremely hard to fine-tune and expand upon some of the things that the minister's already done.

[1810]

The agrifood industry asked us to create a disaster program to help farmers with weather-related crop losses. The whole-farm insurance program was created in 1998. About $10 million was paid out to 450 farmers to assist with that. British Columbia's model in this has served as a prototype for other jurisdictions. The B.C. Ag Council asked the ministry to create a trust fund to ensure that whole-farm insurance is always available to meet unforeseen disasters. They asked us to do that, and the budget for 1999-2000 delivers on that request. The trust fund established this year will allow unused funds to build for the future, so anything that's not claimed in the fund will be rolled over.

What the agrifood industry asked for was to get the federal government on board to support B.C. agricultural safety nets. After two years of going it alone, the feds will provide at least $10 million more this year. B.C. farmers now have access to $17 million in income loss assistance. That's $7 million more than was available last year. One thousand applications have been mailed out to B.C. producers. We have offered to waive the $100 application fee for any legitimate claims which are turned down. This year B.C. farmers can access about $38 million in federal and provincial safety net funds to help them through tough times and crisis; that's $7 million more than we offered last year.

The industry asked for regulations around environmental regulations which affect farming. The government listened to the B.C. Agriculture Council and has joined with the BCAC and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to create a permanent partnership committee, which includes federal and municipal participation. This committee is addressing several different environmental issues.

The industry asked us to streamline labour regulations. We brought the Ministry of Labour together with the B.C. Horticultural Coalition, which resulted in a significant change in the Employment Standards Act to the benefit of B.C.'s agricultural community.

[ Page 13462 ]

The industry also asked us to return ownership of farms to landowners in the Delta-Roberts Bank area. The British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation is now in the process of offering several properties back to the original owners for purchase.

The industry asked us to reinstate funding to the grazing enhancement fund, which was cut back in 1996. The province added an additional $7 million -- $1 million per year for the remaining years of the program -- to accommodate new land use plans which require grazing-enhancement support.

They also asked for more support for the sterile insect release program. The government provided $2 million in matching support to ensure that this program can complete its work effectively.

What I'm trying to show here is the work of the government in trying, in partnership with the agriculture industry, to come to grips with dealing with their requests so that we can move the agriculture industry into the next millennium.

[1815]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but your time is now up.

E. Conroy: I could go on, but I'll waive the privilege to the hon. critic from the other side.

B. Barisoff: The theme of partnerships in agriculture is probably an excellent theme the day after we had Agriculture Day here in British Columbia and at the Legislature. We've seen a number of farmers come forward with all kinds of different ideas and different concepts of what they should look at.

My theory on partnership in agriculture is maybe a little bit different than that of the member for Rossland-Trail. I look at it from a standpoint of when we look at partnerships, we look at family partnerships. We look at where families from generation to generation have taken over farms. I know that in my travels throughout the Peace River area and throughout British Columbia as a whole. . . . Up in the Peace River, I find that farms there have gone from generation to generation struggling to survive but still living off the land. To me, that's truly a partnership in agriculture.

Then when we come down throughout the province into the Cariboo, where you find the cattle ranchers, that goes from generation to generation also, in looking at partnerships in agriculture. We go through the Okanagan, and I know from my own standpoint that I see many farmers from when I was younger that have since passed their farms on to their sons, their daughters or whoever. Some of them have a more difficult time in doing that, because times are a little tougher in agriculture right now. The member for Rossland-Trail indicated different things that the government's been doing in agriculture. Some of them are working.

But there are a lot that aren't working. We have to look at some of these things. Particularly, we have to look at the whole-farm crop insurance that isn't working for. . . . It didn't work in the north for the grain growers; it hasn't worked in the valley for the apple growers. It's a very difficult time for the hog growers, particularly in the Fraser Valley. These are the kinds of partnerships where government and opposition and everybody have to work together to make work. If we want a sustainable industry in farming, we've got to make sure that we work for the betterment of farmers.

We created an agricultural land freeze back in 1972, with a commitment to the farmers at that point in time that we would look after them. I think it's incumbent on society to make sure that they look at that. That's another partnership in agriculture, a partnership between society as a whole and the farmers -- the farmers who are there to produce the food to make it readily available for all people in society in British Columbia in particular, so that it is there. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that this partnership is another partnership that has to work.

We see other partnerships in agriculture, with husbands and wives and families. To me, that's probably one of the best partnerships of all, when you see families that work extremely hard living off the land, but a lot of them making a good living. You see it in dairy farming; you see it a lot in greenhousing now. Partnerships in those areas are taking away. . . . We're not into the big corporations. I think that when you look at the word "partnership," some people look at it as simply a partnership of two people, whether it's a group or consortium of people getting together to farm. That's happening more and more; that's a direction that I would hope we don't take as much in B.C. What we want to do is retain the family farms in British Columbia; that's the kind of partnership that works.

[1820]

I notice that my light's on. I thank the member for talking about agriculture. I hope it continues.

E. Conroy: First of all, let me acknowledge the comments by the member for Okanagan-Boundary with regard to family farms and family partnerships. I think that certainly is a worthwhile endeavour within the agricultural industry. It's something I never touched on, and he did. I think that's important for everyone to recognize.

[ Page 13463 ]

I recognize the notion of partnerships and community, and partnerships and families, but because British Columbia is such a unique province. . . . We have it all here, but we don't have it big. As a result, I think that the partnership between government and the producers in agriculture in British Columbia is a critical one. That's what we're about to try and establish, I think, with the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I know that with the cooperation of the members opposite, we're going to be successful in doing that. As an agricultural producer myself, I know the importance and the dynamics of the industry in the province. Hopefully, we're going to move onward and upward, but I think we're moving in the right direction. With the help of the members opposite, I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

FOSTERING GROWTH AND ENCOURAGING ENTERPRISE

Most of us resist change; most of us want to keep our heads down and keep ourselves safe. But these people who are willing to embark on the adventure of a small business are a different breed of people. They're a remarkable type of person. Before they embark on their business idea, they have to research it. Certainly the research they put into it to develop their ideas and develop their business plan is reflected in the outcome -- in the success. With those ideas, they're not going to get anywhere unless they also combine that with the financial aspects: loans, mortgages, borrowing from family or friends. With that comes incredible pressure and responsibility for those financial commitments.

[1825]

In the small business, no one knows your business the way that you do. There are some things that you can hire other people to do, but there are some things that you can only do yourself, because you are ultimately the one that's responsible. So the most precious resource that people have, other than the knowledge that's in their head, is their time. There's a cost of doing business in British Columbia that's not well recognized, and that is the loss of time that businesses suffer in interactions with government. That's with all levels of government. People can quantify the costs of fees. They can look at the cost of taxes and calculate that effect on their business. They can work those things into their business plan, but the time they spend interacting with government needs to be recognized by government as a legitimate cost. It also needs to be recognized by anyone who's interested in starting up a business in today's business climate.

There are many practical examples of what goes on with businesses. I'd like to present a few. I have a situation where a business locates in an area, and it conforms to all the present zoning. After a few years -- a very few years -- different levels of government say that it's time to review the zoning. They propose that the zoning will change. Now, this business knows what's at stake. They will lose their investment in their business, as the business will no longer have the same value once it becomes non-conforming. They will lose the ability to expand or to even rebuild their business if it burns down or something else devastating takes place.

So what happens to these people? They have to put aside their own business activities, and they have to start making phone calls and researching. They have to join committees. They have to communicate with friends and neighbours and seek out other people in like situations so that there can be power in numbers. The time they spend doing this is a loss for their own business.

The same type of thing happens not just with local governments or municipal governments but certainly with the provincial government, where we have many processes that might be very worthwhile, but they also consume huge amounts of time. We have the land use planning process. We have the land claims process. We have industry consultations as well as new regulations. Whatever industry exists in British Columbia, the amount of time that they have to spend dealing with government has been on a sharp increase. Whether they are in agriculture, forestry, mining or the building trades -- whatever industry -- that time is on the increase.

[1830]

[ Page 13464 ]

G. Janssen: It is with great pleasure that I respond to the private member's statement from the member for Parksville-Qualicum. In 1957 an immigrant by the name of Nick Janssen started a jewelry store -- a repair business, actually -- in Port Alberni and went through the same kind of situations that the member alluded to. Through hard work and through devotion and giving up all that free time, he ended up with four thriving jewelry stores on Vancouver Island. He worked hard within the family business, which survived for some 40 years.

But this government is promoting economic growth and encouraging private enterprise throughout this province like never before. Budget '99 reduces the income tax rate for small business to 5.5 percent -- lower than Alberta -- and this will save B.C.'s 40,000 small businesses over $63 million annually -- money that they can use to reinvest and to grow and prosper. The corporate capital tax threshold will be raised to $3.5 million as of January 2000. Personal income tax for individuals is being cut by 2 percent, resulting in savings of $110 million a year -- $110 million left in taxpayers' pockets to spend in those very businesses that are being fostered, like my family business and the businesses that the member for Parksville-Qualicum spoke about.

These are just some of the measures the province is pursuing to foster economic growth and opportunity. In 1995 provincial funding was directed to Innovative Aquaculture Products Ltd. of Lasqueti Island. In 1996 the province contributed $15,000 to assist Island Scallops Ltd. of Qualicum Beach and Fan Seafoods Ltd. of Courtenay, to improve juvenile geoduck clams. In January 1998 a provincial award of $81,000 was forwarded to Island Blackcod Partnership of Qualicum Beach to assist them in developing new techniques for the commercial aquaculture of black cod. The Island Highway, a $1.2 billion project, to assist the infrastructure of Vancouver Island. . . . Central Vancouver Island is expanding at an enormous rate. To meet the demand, Woodgrove Mall will become the largest mall on Vancouver Island. It will have $38 million doubling its size, 80 new stores, eight stadium-style theatres. Paul Reitsma, the former member for Parksville-Qualicum, is building a new commercial complex that just opened in downtown Parksville. He has seized the future. He sees the enterprise in British Columbia.

We see in the Business Examiner, Vancouver Island's business newspaper, that a 100-room, $10 million hotel is planned for Nanaimo airport. The airport has confirmed plans for a 100-plus-room development to be known as a yet-unnamed hotel chain and backed by investors from Nanaimo and Vancouver. Port Hardy -- a new hotel, booked fully to the year 2001 -- already, before it's completed.

Again from the Business Examiner: "Having weathered the economic storms"-- this is from April the previous year -- "a number of businesses report excellent returns in the early months of this year, including Wembley Mall" -- in the member's riding -- "Weber Shoes and the Bayside Inn." "The best February ever," reports manager Lou Roelofsen.

Parksville, again I read: "Parksville business is really tuned in." Timbre Tonewood manufacturing has a 28,000 square foot office and plant. The Long Hoh sawmills on Clarke Road in the Hilliers area have 30 new employees. It goes on; there's more, folks. There is Lockwood ski development, a Whistler-style village on the slopes of Mount Arrowsmith. "This one seems to be something we should listen to," says the regional district's Joe Stanhope. "I don't think we should let this one go by. The village would house between 1,000 and 1,500 residents year-round and could accommodate up to 5,000 skiers." Again, there's more and more, because people are believing in this government's economic plan, and people are believing in the direction that this government is taking.

[1835]

When we talk about red tape, there has to be an understanding that it's the time spent dealing with red tape that's the problem. Regulations that cause repetitive, senseless work for businesses consume that time and reduce their competitiveness. It is up to us to look at different ways that government can interact with businesses so that we can see that they're able to be productive, that they're able to be competitive and that we can have standards and regulations. But we'll reverse the trend that is going on and is persistent in this province, which requires businesses to spend increasing amounts of time dealing with government. We have to establish interactions with government that are minimal, efficient and effective, and we have to start now.

BIG BENEFITS FROM SMALLER CLASSES

An Hon. Member: Change that.

R. Kasper: No, I won't change that. I'll try to keep my remarks as non-partisan as possible, in respect for the Chair.

I'd like to talk about big benefits from smaller classes. Today in British Columbia -- and indeed the world -- we face a great deal of economic change. We are diversifying from a resource-based economy to a more technical and knowledge-based economy. Information and specialized skills are more

[ Page 13465 ]

[1840]

It's not just me that is saying that. There is a well-known international expert who endorses B.C.'s goals of smaller class sizes in K-to-3: "B.C.'s approach to class-size improvement offers the best of two worlds: research and practice" -- a quote from Charles Achilles. "The benefits of smaller classes are more preventative than remedial, and the B.C. model applies research information in a manageable schedule to ensure students enter workable-size classes in their K-to-3 years." This gentleman has also gone on to publish more than 400 articles in professional journals and has authored and co-authored 60 books, chapters and research reports on educational issues.

We all know that the value for reducing class size is going to go towards children, but I think we have to look at some of the other values associated with the reduction in class size. This recent announcement will see four new schools built and 29 additions throughout the province, and this latest instalment of capital funding brings our total investment in school construction to $923 million since last April. That is almost $1 billion towards school construction in just a one-year period. Since 1991 the government has invested more than $30 billion in education, covering operating and capital costs. Of that $30 billion, $3.8 billion is directly related to capital.

We're right on track with our plan to reduce the number of portables in a five-year period, and that's a plan that the opposition said couldn't be done. The opposition said that we would not meet those targets, and those statements were made on a Vancouver radio show in September of 1998 by an opposition member. We're right on track. If we compare ourselves to Ontario and Alberta, in Alberta nearly 700 teachers are to be laid off next year. In Ontario they are looking at additional cuts of some $1 billion. One of the biggest benefits of this aggressive building program is smaller classes. Children, especially young children, learn better in the smaller classes, and this coming year we will have no kindergarten classes in B.C. with more than 20 students and no grades 2 or 3 classes with more than 23 students. On a sliding scale, we will see that average drop even further.

[1845]

Another benefit when these dollars are invested is the jobs that are generated for the local workers, and that's workers throughout British Columbia. If we use a formula, every million dollars invested in school construction creates 13.5 jobs in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, I'll carry on my remarks afterwards.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the remarks from the member opposite. I thought perhaps he should have joined us earlier today, when the Education estimates were on. Some of these topics, of course, have been canvassed and will continue to be over the next few days in those estimates.

We heard lots from the Education minister -- and now the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca has repeated it -- about the agreement-in-committee and the reduction in class size. I must say that as a parent and a former educator, I understand the importance, certainly from one perspective, of addressing a number of bodies in a classroom, whether that be in kindergarten or even in post-secondary.

In fact, I think of my days at Langara when I was working there. I actually had a class that was too small, and I told the department head that it was. It was reduced to about 15, and I said that this class was not going to function. So there are arguments where you could actually take something that the government feels needs to be addressed and reduce it to a number that is ironically unworkable, because it has been cut back too far.

I want to put things in perspective. In some of the comments that the member made in his statement, he referred to Charles Achilles. Well, Charles Achilles is admittedly one -- but not the only -- noted expert in the study of class size in the public school system. However, some people have commented -- in fact, Mr. Achilles himself has admitted -- that it may be that the benefits of reduced size can be maximized by giving flexibility and autonomy to professionals in the individual schools.

I can assure the members opposite that certainly on this side, we are hearing from educators -- the principals and vice-principals in particular, and they are the managers of the schools in our system -- that there is a lack of flexibility, the very thing that Charles Achilles has alluded to. Without that flexibility, quite frankly, I don't think this exercise in reducing class size is necessarily going to be the great benefit that the members opposite may feel it is.

John Rizzuti is the current president of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, and I will quote from an article that he wrote. He said: "It's misguided implementation of this imposed agreement. . . ." He's commenting on the lack of flexibility and the imposition of the agreement-in-committee -- the one that we debated at some length last year

[ Page 13466 ]

Last September one-quarter of elementary schools turned away students. That doesn't mean a lot, but the fact is that one-quarter of our schools in this province, because of the impact of the imposition of the AIC, had to turn away students. On average, 4.4 students were turned away from one-quarter of the elementary schools of this province. The estimate is that it was at least 750 students in total. That means, among other things, some dislocation of students. You may very well have a split family where one sibling is in one school and another is forced, because of the class-size issue, to be bused or otherwise have to access another school, which is not the community school that the parents would naturally send their children to. So the debate is of interest, and it will continue on.

[1850]

R. Kasper: I would just like to mention that not far from the member's home turf, we have the president of the North Vancouver Teachers Association. I quote here: "Class size has a huge effect on students' performance in the long term." You know, an educator and those who are experts in a particular field, I think, would know better than people like myself. I'm a bricklayer. My job, I guess, out in the real world is to build the schools.

My job here, now, is to make sure the money is available. But it's not only replacing portables and reducing class size that have a benefit for the students. Even the provincial emergency officials can see that portables are almost impossible to protect in an earthquake. These are well-constructed, safe schools that are going to be built. All new construction, both renovations and new buildings, will meet the current codes and regulations around seismic standards. So when we're replacing portables, we're going to help relieve problems that the people from PEP have conceded exist. I think that's important for children's safety.

But the members opposite continue to be negative in their assertions. We don't hear anything positive around the government investments, the investment in our children and the moneys that have been identified continually since I've been a member here. In education it's never good enough, or "We wouldn't do it that way." I think the most important thing is the fact that it's being done. It's being done for the people who are going to reap the benefit, and that's our young people. I get tired of the negativism; the public's getting tired of the negativism.

There are times when it's positive, and we get some recognition. I'll concede that members opposite bring forward many valuable points, many issues that are right. Government isn't right in all circumstances. But in this case, government is right. Making investments -- long-term investments, investments that are going to create jobs and employment opportunities in my community, in your communities, in my colleagues' communities. . . . Who is against that? Stand up and tell us who's against those investments. I don't hear it when they're there cutting the ribbons or there at the opening, making sure that the school is completed.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Thank you very much, all members.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to thank all the members for their non-partisan comments. With that, I'd like to wish everyone a good evening and move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

L. Reid: Two issues I want to canvass quickly before my colleague moves on to the questions pertaining to autism. . . . I have spent a great deal of time in the last number of months travelling the province and attempting to come to grips with some of the issues that confront the ministry. My task would have been made far easier if a spirit of openness existed.

I am querying the lack of such spirit today, because there are two particular meetings -- two individuals who were highly recommended to me that I wished to meet with. One is Riley Hern, the other one was Gus Assonitis -- both superb professionals in their field, both individuals I could have learned a great deal from as the official opposition critic. When my requests went forward to the ministry, both of those meetings, through the ministerial assistant, were denied. I would simply ask the minister why.

Hon. L. Boone: It is not the role of the public service to meet with opposition members. If you want to have a dialogue, you should request a meeting with the deputy. The

[ Page 13467 ]

L. Reid: I want to put my comments on the record as strongly as I can. I have been a member of this Legislature for close to nine years. This is the only ministry where that attitude prevails. I have served this province as Health critic, as Attorney General critic -- many other critic roles. At no time has a meeting ever been denied me. It seems to me that individuals who work for the province of British Columbia should not be restricted in terms of opportunity to teach all members of the Legislature as much as they possibly can. The attitude prevailing in this ministry is, frankly, different than any of the ministries I have been in.

I can only believe that this directive emanates directly from the minister. I would simply like to know why she has taken an attitude that is so fundamentally different from the other ministers of cabinet of this government.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know why my attitude is different from other ministers. I can't explain their attitude. I just know that we have taken the position that we have given you access to deputy ministers, to heads of programs. We have had briefings for you on a number of different occasions. But to ask me to explain other ministers' positions -- I can't do that.

L. Reid: Then perhaps I would ask the minister to meet with her colleagues. Perhaps a consistent approach can influence her ministry in terms of future practice. The people I wish to meet with are people who actually work in the field on a daily basis; that is the experience I wish to be relayed to me.

For the benefit of this audience, when I met with this minister in her office days after I received this appointment, she had no difficulty with making those meetings available to me -- none whatsoever. So there was a philosophical change in the openness of this ministry. Frankly, I think it's abundantly unfair in terms of safeguarding this public service to deny information to any member of this Legislature. It's fundamentally wrong and, frankly, goes against member's privilege, in my view. Obviously my view is shared by your three cabinet colleagues, hon. minister. I would simply leave that issue on the record.

In terms of one issue I wish to canvass with you -- the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1997 -- my question is very specific. I need to learn if section 20 is currently in force. Section 20 requires a family conference.

[1450]

L. Reid: It shows on your Internet site that it has in fact been effective since June 1, 1998. Is or is not that information correct?

Hon. L. Boone: It has not been proclaimed yet. If there is an irregularity with regard to what's on the Internet, we'll have communications check that out and correct it.

L. Reid: Let me put on the record, as well, that it references B.C. regulation 172/98 and, again, indicates that this regulation is effective June 1, 1998. So I'd appreciate receiving information as soon as possible.

B. Barisoff: Yesterday the minister indicated to me that a group known as ARC Programs would be getting contracts in the South Okanagan area. Could the minister list the other contracts that ARC has in the province of B.C.?

Hon. L. Boone: We'd have to go through our records extensively. Off the top of the head of the assistant deputy, they have a home in Penticton and a home in Summerland. As for any other contracts in the province of B.C., we'd have to research our records. We will do so and get that information to you.

B. Barisoff: When she gets that list, could the minister also give me who the principal owners of ARC are?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: Does the minister know whether they operate outside the province -- in Alberta or anywhere else in Canada?

Hon. L. Boone: No, they don't.

B. Barisoff: One last question. Yesterday the minister indicated to me -- and this goes back to Victoria Creek Youth Ranch, and it is new information -- that when Ms. Brenda McCreight went to interview the Rislings, she spent approximately three hours, or in excess of three hours, before she came up with her report. The information that I received today from the Rislings is that it was substantially less than that. In fact, it was less than an hour.

The minister indicated to me yesterday that it would take at least three hours to come up with a comprehensive report on something they were going to shut down. I guess I have to ask the minister: if Ms. McCreight spent what I've been told was less than one hour there, I've got to question the fact. . . . How are we shutting down a facility with less than an hour's interview? Maybe the minister could indicate to me whether she would investigate this and find out whether this is true or not.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, I think we went through this at great length yesterday. I think this is the entire ministry's estimates. I would ask the Chair to move on. I think this has been canvassed in great depth.

B. Barisoff: I'll repeat the question, then. It's that I want to know. . . . We did discuss this in great length, and I agree with the minister that we did this. At a point in time the minister said that it was at least three hours that Ms. McCreight spent at the ranch before she made her decision to recommend closure to the ministry. I think it's an appropriate question, when I consulted with the Rislings this morning and found out that it wasn't three hours but in fact was less than an hour. In fact, the time spent there could have been even less than a half an hour. I think it's an appropriate question for the minister to answer, because she stressed the point that three

[ Page 13468 ]

[1455]

I want to remind all members of House that a description of the estimates that we are discussing is on page 86, and I would ask all members to please refresh their memory as to what the estimates for vote 21 entail.

Hon. L. Boone: I would just like to say that I never said that it was. . . . I indicated that our information was that it was three and a half hours. I never said that it was based solely on that three and a half hours; it was based on other information that they had as well. However, I will ask the director of child protection to confirm the length of time, and we can get that information back to the member at a later date.

B. Barisoff: This definitely is on vote 21, because this happens to be dealing with a ranch that was paid less that $30,000 per year per bed, versus a facility that we're going to put in that the minister has indicated to me looks like it will exceed $90,000 per bed. So I guess my question again is: if in fact the ministry's investigator, Ms. McCreight, did spend less than three hours there, would she revisit the entire concept of shutting the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch down?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, you certainly are single-minded on this, aren't you? I did not say. . . . I've said that it was not based solely on that three and a half hours. I made very clear on numerous occasions yesterday that the two beds that were going in, the $90,000 beds, were not replacements for this facility -- that in fact they were a facility to deal with children with severe behavioural disorders. It is a very intensive operation. This could by no means be seen as a replacement for the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch beds.

B. Barisoff: I hate to belabour this point, but the fact is that, again, I checked with the Rislings and the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch, and I happen to know that they were taking the most severe behavioral children from the south Okanagan area at that ranch. So my question still definitely deals with the vote, hon. Chair, in that we're going from less than $30,000 to more than $90,000. And the question still lies in the fact that we've made a decision.

The minister indicated yesterday that we were looking at a decision that was based on three and a half hours, and I'm bringing information to the minister today that says that it wasn't three and a half hours -- that it was more like half an hour. I'm just saying that if that's the case, then I think we must certainly reinvestigate this. I asked the minister a number of times yesterday about having a public inquiry. All I'm saying to the minister is that if she's right, and it was three and a half hours, then fine and dandy. But if she's not right, and it was less than a half-hour or less than an hour, then I think it's only fair that we do have a public inquiry, because the minister has information that certainly can't be right.

Hon. L. Boone: This is the last question that I will answer on this, hon. Chair. I would suggest that the Rislings take up the opportunities and offers that were offered to them to meet with their regional executive director, which they have refused to do, or meet with the director of protection, which they have refused to do, or appeal the decision, which they have also refused to do. Those are the three avenues that have been open to them, which they have not utilized. I would suggest that they use those.

[1500]

Hon. L. Boone: It wasn't a plan that just came from this ministry. We were working with three ministries: the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and ourselves. It took a great deal of time for us to come to a unanimous decision as to how we could best move forward on this, and we've done so. The report that is out there has been widely acclaimed by the Autism Society of B.C., and I believe it will go a long way to take us in the right direction in dealing with autism in this province.

R. Thorpe: I think the families with autistic children in British Columbia have felt ignored. I think that people were hoping that this was truly going to be an action plan, and I see the word "action" is on here. What, in the minister's opinion, are the five action-oriented components of this plan?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, we actually have them here. I guess one of the main things that I wanted to talk about was how it. . . . And what parents said to us is that giving them access to information so that they have that information, which is a directory that's provided to families, so that they can find out where to turn. . . . A number of them found that it was very confusing and that in fact it was difficult for them to find information. That's an action that I think has been really important.

The implementation of the screening tools to assist professionals to identify risk indicators for autism during routine health visits is also very important, because we found that many of the health professionals out there were not necessarily identifying autism, or were identifying it wrongly. So that, I think, is very important.

Building on our partnership for training -- that's an action plan that I think is extremely important. We're coordinating our responses between the ministries so that we are centring this on the child, so families can avoid repetition and actually find where services are. And we're developing accountability with a set of standards and performance measures -- expectations. I think those are actions that are widely acclaimed and that the Autism Society out there and those that have an autistic child are happy to have.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could tell us what part of the action plan deals with the commitment to early intervention.

Hon. L. Boone: There is strength in early intervention and treatment there, with improving the access to appropriate and effective treatment for children between the ages two to five who have been diagnosed with autism. Better access to

[ Page 13469 ]

R. Thorpe: What is the total amount of funds in the ministry dedicated to dealing with autistic children?

[1505]

R. Thorpe: So if I understood it correctly, that $3.4 million is earmarked specifically for the autism project. The $63 million is a larger envelope. What percentage would that larger envelope. . . ? What would your experience say is directed towards autistic children?

Hon. L. Boone: About 10 percent.

R. Thorpe: So it looks like we're looking at roughly $10 million for autistic children, in total. How much of that, then, do you believe is earmarked in this plan and in your day-to-day operations for early intervention and treatment?

Hon. L. Boone: The $3.43 million is clearly identified for early intervention. That is the move of the ministry towards early intervention. Of the $63.64 million, a good portion goes into early intervention, but it's very difficult to say how much of that goes to autistic children, because in fact they may go into a program and not be identified as being autistic and receive services and then receive some other services on top of that. But there is no sort of division saying that this goes to an autistic child or to a non-autistic child, because they may be receiving the support services at a child development centre that is incorporated to do everything.

R. Thorpe: How many autistic children are there in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: Approximately 1,100.

[1510]

Hon. L. Boone: We think it's about a third, but we'd have to confirm that.

R. Thorpe: I don't expect the ministry to have exact numbers, so just directional numbers are good. Based on your recent experience, how many children under the age of five. . . ? How many newly identified autistic children are we finding each year in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: Actually, some of the figures here are ones that I've been trying to grapple with. I've been talking to some of the professionals to figure out why these changes were happening -- whether it's diagnosis, whether we're now diagnosing people more or whether there is in fact more autism in the province. In 1982 there were 3.46 children per 10,000 that were diagnosed with autism, and that has increased to 12.44 per 10,000 in 1997. We have about 40,000 a year, so that's about 48 children per year.

I don't know, and I'm getting different answers as to whether it's better diagnosis or whether there's a reason why this is happening. Nobody's been able to give me a definitive answer as to why there's been that increase in the number of autistic children in the province.

R. Thorpe: When I read page 3 of the "Autism Action Plan," it says: ". . .intervention, and particularly early intervention, offers significant hope for lessening the effects of autism." That's a quote from "State of Science in Autism: Report to the National Institutes of Health," 1996. When I take that and couple that with a statement up at the top of the report, where it says: ". . .early intervention for children between age zero and five can provide tremendous and lasting benefits" -- when I take those things as obviously identifying early intervention and working on those as extremely important. . . . But when I read down through the things that I think we're talking about, which you're going to do in the action plan, I don't see -- unless I don't understand -- a whole bunch of action-orientated strategies to deal with children now. I'm wondering if perhaps I'm not reading this correctly. Are we a little bit too tied up here in some approaches, and do we have to. . . ? Perhaps the minister can tell me whether they address this or not. You're working on a plan. I understand that part; I accept that part. But can there not be a parallel system -- or is there a parallel system? -- for the kids, the young children under the age of five, where people are saying this early intervention is so important? What are we actually doing to get to the children? Never mind setting up the information systems and the training, what are we doing for the children?

[1515]

The education and training is a very strong part of early intervention. The education of individuals in the infant development program, some of the training to assist with physicians, some of the training for educators -- all of those things are there to assist us in providing a broad range of services to the autistic community.

R. Thorpe: I certainly don't want to be confrontational about this subject. As the minister knows, there's one child in my particular riding that. . . . I try to work very closely with the family, so I want to come across as helpful.

But surely the minister's not suggesting to me that the families of autistic children didn't say they wanted an action plan to deal right now. . . . Surely, all the parents with autistic children under the early. . . . That's all they wanted -- these things here? Is that what the minister's saying? Or did they in fact want an action plan to deal right now with their children who suffer from autism?

Hon. L. Boone: I can tell you that when this plan was revealed and reviewed with the B.C. Council on Autism, our

[ Page 13470 ]

R. Thorpe: I want to be very clear here. My questions at this point in time do not have to do with Jeremy Rodrigues. We'll get to those a little bit later.

The minister mentioned the autism council. Who serves on the autism council?

Hon. L. Boone: There is a range of parents and professional staff. We don't have the names of those. We can get those names to you if you so choose.

R. Thorpe: Thank you. That would be useful.

No. 4 under here on early intervention and treatment says: ". . .investigate a range of support models and funding options." What kind of funding options are we looking at? What's our broad -- for lack of a better word -- shopping list of options? What are they?

[1520]

R. Thorpe: When will those decisions be arrived at?

Hon. L. Boone: The time line is an "over the years" period of time. We are starting some of the consultations within the next couple of weeks, going out to some of the broader parents next fall, and hopefully we will have the policy implemented by next fiscal year.

R. Thorpe: Are you looking at one-size-fits-all throughout the whole province of British Columbia, or are you going to pilot some of these programs to see whether they work or need modifications before being implemented on a provincial basis?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess it's a little bit of both. We want to go out and give a menu of services that are available, recognizing that one size doesn't fit all. However, we do want to make criteria the same, so that the criteria are the same regardless of where you are and so that you don't find different criteria in different regions. But you may find that a parent may want different services in different areas. We're trying to work so that we can make those services available, depending on what is required.

R. Thorpe: What role do you see parents and families playing in this early intervention with their children?

Hon. L. Boone: I think anybody would recognize that parents have to play a very strong part in this. One of the parts that you see with regard to the training is helping parents to learn so that they know how they can do early intervention, how they can assist their child themselves. Parents have to play a very major role.

[1525]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they have, and that is why we are doing a review of all our services to try and make them more commonsensical. We've found that sometimes parents get access to a service, and it's not really the service they need, but they take it because they don't qualify for something else. That's why we're doing the review of the many different support services we have.

We have a huge number of them out there: the infant development program, supported child care, early intervention, speech and language services, audiology, behavioral support for children with autism, summer programs for the deaf and blind, school-age therapy, the at-home program, family support services, respite, child and youth care workers, homemakers, parent support, associate family services and nursing support services. All of these services are available, and sometimes we find that -- you are correct -- we're inflexible and the rules don't apply, so things just don't work as well. That's why we're doing a review all of these programs to see if we can bring some common sense there.

R. Thorpe: The words certainly are encouraging. How do you then take flexibility and your application of common sense and get it right to the front-line worker? How does that work?

Hon. L. Boone: That's the real challenge -- to make it so that we understand what we want. The outcome of the review that we're doing is. . . . We're looking for a single definition of children and youth with special needs; a clear vision of services for children and youth with special needs and their families; a comprehensive, integrated set of policies, procedures, guidelines and standards; a renewed partnership with community stakeholders and agencies; and a consistent eligibility screening and assessment and planning approach.

I won't pretend that it's going to be easy to achieve this. Nor is it going to be easy to implement those things, but we will do our best to do training with our staff so that they're aware of any changes and so that they can work within whatever new policy comes out, to make sure that children are served.

R. Thorpe: Is it fair to suggest that front-line workers who are working every day in the field with children and families, and who have to deal with developmentally disabled people and their families, have been lacking in training in that area? Is that a fair statement, or would the minister like to make any comments on that?

[1530]

[ Page 13471 ]

R. Thorpe: I do know that you have some very good staff, because I get to work with them in my riding. This may be the appropriate time for me to say that in my riding, Okanagan-Penticton, the people at Children and Families that my office and I deal with do a very professional job. Certainly we have some issues that we have to deal with from time to time, but for the most part, in my particular riding we handle them very professionally. And I think they are a reflection of the people that live in the community I represent.

Let me say this, hon. Chair. Often it's been my experience, in my different lives, that sometimes we forget that the best resource is right underneath our noses, and we don't even tap into it. What I'd like to strongly suggest -- and I'd just like the minister's comments -- is called the mother, the father or the family. Somehow -- and I don't know how it would work; I would never dream of knowing how it would work -- I would encourage people from the ministry and also the parents to bring open minds -- not that we have a policy, that it's in a book and these things are boom, boom, bang, bang, bang, but that people really actually focus in on these children with autism. It's a give-and-take, and we learn, and everybody focuses in on the child.

I just wonder if I could get some comment. If that's the intention that's flowing from the minister through the deputy and assistant deputies, and by the time it gets all the way down. . . . Are we trying to build a spirit of cooperation so that Jeremy -- I'm just going to use Jeremy as the example, because that happens to be the young fellow and the family that I know -- can have the benefit of his parents working together and staff working together, the professionals and the volunteers? Is that the intent, and when are we actually going to see those results at the grass-roots level?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that is the intent. I appreciate the member's comments. I think you've really touched on the nub of a lot of the problems we have out there and the anxiety that parents and staff have in trying to deal with a system that sometimes hasn't worked for them. We need to make the system work better for our staff. We need to make the system work better for the children out there. That is the goal. I think we'll see some changes taking place pretty quickly, but I'm not going to tell you that it's going to happen overnight. We will work as quickly as we can, because we know that the sooner we deal with some of these issues, the sooner we can get some changes. Our children will profit from that.

R. Thorpe: I just want to ask a couple of questions with respect to the Rodrigueses and Jeremy. This has been and continues to be a very, very difficult situation. Given this autism action plan, the willingness to bring families and parents much more into the treatment, the statements on early intervention and the statements on families, what kind of hope could the minister give to Barbara, Joe and Jeremy Rodrigues? We have seen progress, then we've seen a falling back, and then we've seen progress. For whatever reason, this particular case seems to be locked up in. . . . It's in gridlock; that's probably the best way for me to say it without offending too many people. In the spirit of cooperation and moving forward, what hope can we provide for Jeremy? He's five years old now; it's important. What hope can he receive, perhaps not overnight but in the very near future?

[1535]

R. Thorpe: To be very clear, the Rodrigues family receives $233 per month under an at-home program. That's what they receive today.

We talk about this plan, and we talk about bringing families in. We talk about working with children. The family has seen progress with their son having Lovaas. For the record, just so the minister knows, I have provided my air miles to fly the instructors up from California once and, I believe, New Jersey the other time. In Barbara and Joe's eyes, this is what's needed for their child. I think -- and I'm going to give ballpark figures, because I don't know exactly -- the ministry was providing $1,000 to $1,200 a month to the family for the care that they deemed to be in the very best interest of their child. They saw progress.

Now we want to take that option away from them. We want to give them $1,600 a month for day care when they, as parents and family, don't believe that's in the best interest of their child. In the spirit of this action plan of early intervention, of having families work together, of providing options. . . . Can the minister tell me that spending $1,600 a month and having a child in day care is a better option for that child than $1,000 or $1,200 a month and the community helping out with Lovaas, as the family. . . ? Can you tell me how that's in the best interest of the child?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think it's appropriate to get into an individual, case-by-case assessment here. We'd be here forever. But as a ministry, as I said, we have not gone into individualized funding. We have not made that decision; we have not gone down that route at all. There are many. . . . Lovaas is just one of many treatments or therapies out there for autistic children. It's not a matter of saying that this is only for this one child. This would be a decision that would have to be implemented provincewide. It would be a costly one, and one that. . . . We have not made the decision to go that route.

[1540]

The problem is that the ministry has a credibility problem. I'm laying one on a platter for you to enhance your

[ Page 13472 ]

These issues do not have to be political issues. It's about the Jeremys, and Jeremy just happens to be the young individual in my riding. But you know what? There are Jeremys throughout British Columbia. When you're trying to work through these programs, when the ministry has been accused of being ineffective, bureaucratic and more orientated toward system, why can't you step aside and say: "Actually, we can do something to help a child"? Why is that such a tough decision to make? Should it not be about providing service to the children? Is that not what this is about?

Hon. L. Boone: Lovaas treatment is estimated to cost between $40,000 and $60,000 per year. If we were to do that for every child, then it would be about $43.2 million. Those are decisions, as I said, that the ministry has not chosen to make. We will be looking at bringing in an array of services. Lovaas may be one of them; there may be others as well. But we will be bringing those forward in our action plan as to how we intend to proceed in providing services and therapies for children with autism.

R. Thorpe: The minister has a very serious responsibility in British Columbia. She's charged with the responsibility of making decisions to look after children. You know, hon. Chair -- and I'm sorry to have to do this -- this government rails at the Alberta government because they don't look after people. But who pays for Lovaas in Canada? Alberta does. And this family was thinking of moving to Alberta so they could look after their child. That is a crime to have to happen here in British Columbia.

Nobody's asking the province to pay $40,000 for Lovaas. What they're asking is to reinstate the $1,000 they were getting before, instead of the $1,600 that they do not believe is going to help their child. That will save you money. Our community will look after the rest. I'm sorry to raise my voice, but this is a very important subject to me, and it's very important to Barbara and to Joe and to Jeremy. I ask the minister to step outside the box and to take her responsibilities seriously and be prepared, as a minister of the Crown, to make a decision for the children of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, that is why -- and I can appreciate the member being upset and disturbed about these things -- we are reviewing all of the support services for disabled children. That is why we are looking to remove some of those barriers, those blockages, to take down some of those areas. At this particular time, as I said, we do not give individualized funding for Lovaas, but we will be reviewing all of the services. Hopefully, something can come of those things that will assist the Rodrigueses.

[1545]

I'm not going to make a decision here today to say that I will be providing individualized funding for Lovaas, but I will say that we will be looking at how we can apply some of the criteria and bring some common sense to some of these decisions that may apply to what you're talking about with regard to the $1,000 versus the $1,600.

R. Thorpe: I do appreciate that comment from the minister. I just want to point out that this says "action plan." It doesn't say "review plan"; it says "action plan." I would be pleased if the minister would commit to me to meet after the estimates with whatever staff is appropriate to deal with this on an individual basis.

I believe that that is a case. . . . There are many more Jeremys in British Columbia. I am prepared, as a member of this Legislature, to work with the minister and the ministry to get some of these issues dealt with as quickly as we can while we're developing the programs to service the rest of the autistic community of British Columbia. I would appreciate a commitment from the minister that we could deal, after estimates, with whatever staff is appropriate to address some individual issues.

Hon. L. Boone: Certainly. We're always willing to work with you.

R. Neufeld: I have a few brief questions about adoption. The minister and I briefly went through some of the adoption issues last year in estimates. We didn't have much time.

To start off with, maybe the minister could reconfirm for me whether the number of agencies that are able to adopt children in British Columbia has changed. Or are they the same number and the same agencies?

Hon. L. Boone: It's the same.

R. Neufeld: Do they all operate under the same regulations this year as they did last year, and do they all operate under exactly the same regulations?

Hon. L. Boone: There have been no changes.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister tell me. . . ? I have a list of those seven agencies around the province. They're regulated by government, so obviously they must provide government with their base cost of the process of adopting a child from start to finish. Can the minister give me those figures for each one of those agencies, please?

Hon. L. Boone: The agency fees, 1998: Sunrise, $6,850; Choices, a range of $6,550 to $8,550; Prince George, $6,650 to $7,850; Hope Adoption Services, $8,000; LDS Adoption Services -- I don't know where that is -- $3,600; the Adoption Centre, $6,775; and Greater Vancouver Family Services, $6,650.

R. Neufeld: The Adoption Centre. . . . You were going a little quickly. Could you just give me that number, please?

Hon. L. Boone: It's $6,775.

R. Neufeld: Hope Adoption Services -- I have a fee schedule for June 15, 1998, that says $12,000. The minister told me $8,000. Can you tell me what the difference would be? Is this a schedule that was refused or something?

[1550]

[ Page 13473 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. They applied for these fees, and they were turned down.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I was wondering if that was what happened.

Can the minister tell me. . . ? These are their basic flat fees, I guess. Would that be universal around the province? I know that the agencies are scattered a bit throughout the province. The Okanagan has one, and Prince George has one. I think the rest are basically in the lower mainland. Are there other costs associated with adopting a child if you happen to live in Williams Lake or Fort St. John? If the closest centre or society that you can go to to adopt a child is Prince George, would there be further costs?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, travel costs would be on top of that.

R. Neufeld: At the Northern Interior regional health board adoption services in Prince George, the costs range from $6,550 to $8,550. If you were living in Fort St. John, let's say, and going through that agency, what other costs could you be paying, on top of the possible $8,550, to be able to adopt a child? What other costs are associated with that?

[1555]

R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to get cute here. I'm trying to figure out what it's actually going to more or less cost someone. Travel -- is that travel. . . ? Are you associating that travel with the parents that are trying to adopt, or is that travel for staff to go to Fort St. John, for instance? What about costs that are associated with that person while they're in Fort St. John? I mean, obviously you're not going to go from Prince George to Fort St. John and do a home study and return in the same day -- I wouldn't think. Maybe we can just flesh it out a little bit more. Is that cost another $2,000? Would that cost be another $3,000? There must be some records that the ministry has that show exactly what it would cost.

Hon. L. Boone: We didn't mention through the ministry. . . . Of course, as you know, you can adopt through the ministry. Our fee is $2,250. I was trying to get sort of a broad range and see if I could get an idea as to what the costs are. We, of course, don't see the agency fees, the bill that goes out to individuals stating how much they've charged. But it could be any costs that are associated with the adoption: travel to do the home study, accommodation, costs for the birth mother if that had been arranged and perhaps even counselling for the birth mother. Of course, the adoptive parents have some personal expenses too. In order to travel. . . . To actually pick up the child, they may have to travel to some other part of the province -- even as far down as Cranbrook. There could be a number of different expenses that an adoptive parent has.

R. Neufeld: Taking, for instance, the Prince George adoption services, how many trips would a worker have to make. . . ? Obviously that must be in the regulations. How many trips would a worker have to make to Fort St. John, let's say, to complete a home study? Is it more than one? Is it variable depending on the home? What sense could I get from that?

[1600]

R. Neufeld: I'm talking about an average. It's pretty hard to talk hypothetically, because each one is probably a little bit different. But if it's ten hours, would someone be able to, then, travel from Prince George to Fort St. John, complete that home study and travel back to Prince George -- do that in two days? Or would that involve one trip from Prince George to Fort St. John, doing part of it, returning to Prince George and then coming back?

Hon. L. Boone: It's really hard to give a definitive answer on this, because it might be one trip or it might be two. They may need to get more information; they may actually have to come back again and revisit. It's very difficult to say whether they're going to do it in one trip or two trips.

R. Neufeld: So if someone were to travel from Prince George to Fort St. John -- and let's say they could do it in one trip -- it would still involve a couple of days. Airfare is going to average about $600 return for one person, and meals and rooms. You could almost come easily to another $1,000 for that portion of it. Would that be the extent -- in fact, that's probably the high side of it -- of the extra, on top of the $7,850 that they're already charged? Or do they have to pay by the hour on top of that for the person to do the home study? I understand that that happens in some cases. Would that in fact be true?

[1605]

R. Neufeld: Then I can feel comfortable about what the minister has told me: if someone in Fort St. John were to adopt a child and use the Prince George adoption services, the extra costs that would be associated, on top of the $7,850, would be their own personal travel costs -- nothing else.

Hon. L. Boone: No. I said that they could be paying some extra costs of the birth mother, some counselling for the birth mother, some accommodations for the birth mother, support. Those may be there, and they would know them up front

[ Page 13474 ]

R. Neufeld: That's what I'm trying to get from the minister. Maybe I've not posed my questions well to the minister, because I want to get some feeling of. . . . After the person or the family has paid the approximately $8,000 to adoption services in Prince George to adopt a child, what other costs do they face? It's all the travel that would be associated from Prince George to Fort St. John -- whether it's mileage or air fare -- rooms, meals for that person regardless of how many times they travel back and forth. There would be counselling for the birth mother. . .

Hon. L. Boone: Could be.

R. Neufeld: . . .or could be. There could be -- and in today's adoption world, I would think, there probably would be -- counselling for the birth mother. So actually the $8,000 could be. . . . Would you say that it is the larger portion of what a person may pay or a smaller portion? I've had people tell me that they've had to pay up to $12,000; it's cost them that much. Is that within the whole realm of what we're talking about in adoption?

Hon. L. Boone: It could be. As I said, we do not get the copies of the invoices or the bills that are there. We deal with the fee that the agency has. But if you believe there's somebody out there that's charging for things that are not appropriate to charge for, then pass that information on to us. We would be happy to investigate it.

R. Neufeld: Let me make it clear. This is no hunt for anything like that -- nothing. I have no knowledge that someone's overcharging or undercharging; I have nothing like that.

What I'm trying to do is substantiate a bit more what it costs to adopt a child in British Columbia since the adoption rules were changed by your government. If we go back prior to the legislation going through, we know that the cost averaged anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000 when they were done privately. That's pretty standard; that's on record. The government has in fact told me those kinds of numbers. Since the adoption legislation has gone in, we've more than tripled it. That's what I'm trying to confirm.

I guess my second question, then, is: if there's such a variation. . . ? Some of them are fairly close; I was struck by that. Six of them are anywhere from $6,500 to $8,000. But the one in Surrey is at $3,600. Can the minister explain to me. . . ? She stated that everyone lives under the same rules. There's a basic charge that the ministry approves to follow those guidelines that the ministry has in place. Why would we have one at $3,600 and other ones as high as $8,000?

Hon. L. Boone: This is the Latter-day Saints; they subsidize this.

R. Neufeld: That's good news. I was saying to my colleague here that maybe we should have everyone else go to LDS Adoption Services. I should have picked up on LDS and talked to them about how they do it. Maybe we still should; maybe we can have some of the other ones do that.

The minister talked about the costs for government, which are approximately $2,250 for an adoption service. Are there other costs associated? Let's use the same hypothetical person in Fort St. John. Would they face extra costs of the home study for someone, let's say, to travel from the ministry's office in Victoria to Fort St. John, make those assessments -- and back again?

[1610]

R. Neufeld: Could the minister tell me the average time frame? I know it's about six or seven years with the government. What is it through the agencies?

Hon. L. Boone: They guarantee that they will get a home study done almost immediately. Then they're on the waiting list for a child, and when a child comes up. . . . So it's much quicker than it is. . . . A good portion of our wait is to get the home study actually done, as compared to the agencies. That's why you pay a larger fee there.

R. Neufeld: That surprises me. Are you telling me that it takes six to seven years for the ministry to complete a home study and that that's the hold up? The ability to adopt a child, whether it's through an agency or through government, is about the same. It's the length of time it takes for the government to get a home study done. I've never heard that before.

Hon. L. Boone: Our priority is in fact with special needs children. We only keep about 100 home studies with us, and we only place about 15 per year. We don't do the home studies, bring them in and then keep them on file. We keep about 100 on file at a time, but we only place about 15 newborns per year.

[1615]

Hon. L. Boone: I just told you that we only keep about 100 home studies on file at a time. So if we only place 15 per year, then we wouldn't be doing more home studies. It's not that we can't get around to them. We just don't do more home studies because we only have about 15 per year that we place. Our priority is in fact dealing with special needs children, to have them adopted. We don't do more home studies than we need to keep up our reserve of 100.

R. Neufeld: So if. . . ? Maybe I should find out first: how many adoptions did the ministry complete in total last year?

[ Page 13475 ]

R. Neufeld: How many were completed by agencies? I assume, then, that the 100 were special needs children.

Hon. L. Boone: There were 202 in total. That includes intercountry adoptions.

R. Neufeld: Were any of them special needs?

Hon. L. Boone: None of those that came from British Columbia were special needs, but some of those that came from other countries may have been.

R. Neufeld: Have there been any cases over the last year where people have adopted children and have actually lost those children?

Hon. L. Boone: There may have been. There are probably some out there, but we don't have an official way of recording it. I would be very reluctant to say: "No, it has never occurred." It could happen, yes.

[1620]

Hon. L. Boone: All the rules on adoptions apply to aboriginal communities, the same as they do to us. They would go either through us or through an agency, unless it's a custom adoption. Then they have to go to the courts to apply to get the special rules of a custom adoption. That usually occurs if an aboriginal child is already living with another family member. Those are the only specific things to deal with aboriginal children.

R. Neufeld: Two questions. Is, then, the aboriginal community subject to the same costs that everyone else is in that process? Secondly, how many special needs children do we now have up for adoption within the province of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: Special needs children up for adoption in the province: 361. And yes, the aboriginal community would pay the same fees, unless it was a custom adoption. Then they'd have to pay the court fees, because it would go through the court.

R. Neufeld: Just a couple of other things. On the access to records that are now available for birth mothers, birth fathers and children: are there any records kept that are public of how that access is going and how well it's working? I guess what I'm trying to get from the minister is some sense of just how well the legislation that was put through -- and it has been there for a number of years now -- has been working for people that want to find their birth mothers, or for birth mothers and birth fathers who would wish to find their children. How is that process working?

Hon. L. Boone: There were 318 reunions completed last year. We're getting figures for you. I can get them to you -- when we find them -- on the cumulative figures since the adoption reunion registry started.

[1625]

I was rather struck, when I walked into the room, though, at the number of people who were here. I thought: "My goodness, there's some real interest in the Ministry for Children and Families." I just wonder: are these people your staff, and is there any chance that you can let us know who they are?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we have a cast of thousands here, because this is a ministry that deals with so many different areas. We can get the list of names of everybody here, and we'll read them into the record for you later on.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Pardon me? Yes, and members of the public.

But this is a ministry, as I said. . . . The reason is that it's very important that people recognize just how vast an array of services this ministry delivers -- everything from adoptions, to school meals and programs in the schools, to addictions, to community living and the disabled. I mean, it's a huge ministry with a lot of different programs, and it requires a lot of good people to run it. We'd be happy to get all those names and read them into the record for you.

L. Reid: Just further to that, I would ask if, at some point before the debate ends today, we could actually have those individuals introduced. It would be very nice to put the names to the faces, so I would certainly appreciate that.

The minister's earlier remark regarding section 20, and again I reference the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act of 1997. . . . That section looks at the opportunities for family conferences. I raise that again in debate in terms of the millions of dollars that will be spent on legal services on behalf of this ministry. I understand that it's going to top $8 million this year. That family conference may indeed be a very nice segue into some kind of mediation practice that's currently not well-utilized by the ministry -- if indeed that might be a prompt to mediation, as opposed to court confrontation, which I think the minister would agree is not necessarily the best avenue to pursue in terms of some of those children appearing in a courtroom. At the end of the day, they're children. If there are ways for that to be avoided, I think that would be something that we should look at. If indeed that section has not been proclaimed, can the minister indicate when that might happen?

Hon. L. Boone: We have not brought section 20 into force because of concerns that Judge Gove had regarding the use of

[ Page 13476 ]

L. Reid: Can the minister tell me what portion of this $8 million that's currently allowed for legal services is currently expended on mediation services?

Hon. L. Boone: Mediation. Ninety cases went to mediation last year, and approximately $100,000 was spent on child protection mediation.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I trust that that sum of money will only grow in terms of reducing the number of children and their families who are put through a court process. As the minister knows, $100,000 is a small fraction of $8 million. Many, many individuals who end up in those court proceedings have no idea that mediation services exist. If there's any work that can be done on behalf of the ministry to ensure that that information is more readily available. . . .

[1630]

One of the other issues that I want to canvass this afternoon is the early intervention question and -- only to add to the record, because I know we've touched on this topic previously -- the federal government's announcement for a commitment to deal with social problems early on by improving the health and welfare of Canadian children. I want to enter into the record Motion M-261 of the members of the House of Commons on May 25, 1998, which calls for a national Head Start program. It states:

"That, in the opinion of this House, the government should (a) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY Preschool Program; and (c) ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000."

I want to add to the record a reference to the Head Start program:

"Head start is an integrated, comprehensive program for children and parents. All programs focus on strengthening the parent-child bond and ensuring that children have their basic needs met. Basic parenting skills, nutrition, discipline and other issues are addressed, and children enjoy a supportive and caring environment. The goal is to ensure that every child begins school ready to learn, in addition to positive effects in other areas of life.

"These programs have proven to strengthen the parent-child bond, keep children in school longer, reduce welfare dependency, decrease the rate of teen pregnancies and reduce juvenile crime rates. In Hawaii, the Healthy Start program reduced child abuse rates by 99 percent. A further potential benefit of early intervention is to decrease the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome, which is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in our country. The statistics are not dramatically different for Canada."

In terms of the issue I want to canvass in some detail this afternoon, foster care, I want to reference a memorandum of May 20, 1999. It's entitled: "Eligibility criteria for youth agreements." I want to move through a consideration of how all these issues come to play on foster care situations -- levels, satellite homes, etc.

"Attached is our preliminary draft of the eligibility criteria for youth agreements. Please ignore the absence of legalese in the wording. This will need to be firmed up once we've agreed on the general eligibility parameters.

"Please review, giving consideration to the following: Is this going to screen in the targeted group, i.e., high-risk youth? Will it screen out those who are not eligible for youth agreements? I would appreciate receiving your comments and suggestions by May 26. Thanking you in advance."

I want to have some discussion about what these criteria look like. Eligibility criteria for youth agreements:

"For the purposes of this section, 'criteria' has been divided into five sections.

"Basic criteria: must be 16 to 19 years old or may include a person who is under 16 years of age and previously married and currently separated or is an unmarried parent or unmarried expectant parent. Identity of youth has been confirmed.

"Section 2: in the family, in the opinion of the director, the youth does not have a guardian or responsible adult willing, able or available of providing care and control.

"Section 3: youth experiences psycho-emotional needs and/or alcohol and drug issues and/or involvement in a sex trade and failure to remain in school, work or day programs.

"Section 4: under supports and services, requires support and services to live independently that include but are not limited to safe housing, outreach support services and supported living arrangements and/or requires financial assistance to live independently and/or requires supports and services to assist in the reduction of some high-risk activities.

"Section 5: understands the concepts of mutual agreement; is able to demonstrate means to meet basic needs and safety needs; is able to demonstrate realistic alternatives such as school attendance, job training, employment opportunities; and is able to demonstrate willingness to reduce exposure to some high-risk activities by consenting to participate in community-support programs."

[1635]

[ Page 13477 ]

Hon. L. Boone: It's a little hard to discuss this, because we are looking at legislation that we'll be bringing forward. As you know, the legislation hasn't been introduced yet, so it's hard to discuss something upcoming that is future policy.

[J. Sawicki in the chair.]

L. Reid: The purpose of the discussion this afternoon is, for me, to frame the opposition's concern around what will happen to these very young people -- 15, 16, 17 and 18 years of age -- if indeed the current supports to them are withdrawn. We come back to the proclamation of section 9, which the government has not acted upon. The ministry yesterday indicated that that indeed may be something that comes forward. These eligibility criteria. . . . Again, I reference the question: "Please review, giving consideration to the following: Is this going to screen in the targeted group, i.e., the high-risk youth? Will it screen out those who are not eligible for youth agreements?" I would be pleased if the minister would answer even one of those questions. Does the minister have some confidence that this set of criteria will screen in the targeted group, which we know is identified as the high-risk youth in British Columbia today?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said before, this is future policy. We will be bringing in legislation to deal with this, and the member will have her opportunity at that point in time.

L. Reid: There are a number of issues I wish to canvass in the bailiwick of caring for children in the foster system. In her opening remarks, the minister made mention of moms and babies going into treatment around addictions. Indeed, these individuals go to these centres together, and often the child, previous to the mom being accepted into the program, is in a foster placement. The mom and the baby then head off to this program, and oftentimes when that mom and baby return from the program, the mom is not yet ready to take on full-time parenting responsibilities, but the baby has then lost his or her place at that foster home. The place has not been held, and that baby ends up being in a different foster home. When the mom is ready to go forward into a different program, the baby is picked up and taken along with the mom to that program. The mom returns not ready, again, to take on parenting responsibilities full time, and the baby ends up in yet a different foster home.

The information that's been shared with me is that there are babies who have been in six or eight foster homes before they are a year old. Now, it seems to me that it cannot be the desire of this ministry to do that. So what work has the ministry done in terms of ensuring that the original foster home placement for an infant in this province is maintained at least until they are a year old while their mom is seeking some kind of ongoing treatment? It seems to me that the disruption to their lives every single time they are moved cannot be in their best interests.

[1640]

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not aware of the situation that the member is talking about. Generally speaking, we do everything we can to keep mom and baby, mom and tot together once they go through a program. I would be very reluctant to say that we would keep a space open, because a mother might be in a treatment centre for a length of time -- several months, six months, whatever -- and to not use a resource such as a good foster home for other children that need good placement, I think, would be a real waste of a good resource. As you know, there are often times when we are really scrambling for some good placements, so I would be very reluctant to say that. I would be surprised if it was the norm to have moms go through a treatment program with their children and then lose them afterwards, but there may be the odd occasion when that does happen.

L. Reid: The scenario I outlined for the minister was not where people successfully completed those programs. The minister will know, because she will have the same correspondence that I have, that these are young women with babies and they begin a myriad of programs in a given year and may only be there two or three days. They may find that they're just not at a time in their lives where completing a program is something they will do, frankly. So the point is valid: that sometimes those babies are only gone from those foster homes two or three days, and that place has been filled, which necessitates them moving to a different foster placement.

I know that the minister has the correspondence, frankly, because I have the correspondence. So if the minister will simply acknowledge that the problem exists, then perhaps some little time and attention can be paid. I'm not asking any quality resource to remain vacant for six months. But I think a week or maybe two weeks is valid in terms of not choosing to disrupt that infant's life any further. The minister will know that this has unfolded in a number of scenarios, many scenarios where mom and babe go to the program. For whatever reason, mom doesn't complete the program -- isn't there, in some instances, more than two or three days -- which prompts that child being in a different foster placement. That's the issue; it's on the record.

I would simply hope that the minister will take that under advisement when it comes to immediately filling that space. I would like nothing better than to see those moms satisfactorily and successfully complete those programs. But the reality is that lots of them don't, which propels those children into a variety of different living arrangements -- and again, many different placements -- before they're a year old. So I'm only saying that it's an issue. I trust that the ministry will address that or at least acknowledge at some future point that it indeed exists.

I have a very specific number of foster home questions. Again, the minister has indicated of late that there are 750 new foster homes in British Columbia. Could the minister tell me how many of those 750 are first nations homes?

[1645]

[ Page 13478 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I read that into the record last night or yesterday. So if you'd like to look back in the Blues, I think you'll find it there.

L. Reid: In terms of my specific question, there was, frankly, not sufficient information. I have read the Blues, let me tell you.

In terms of individuals who are currently in the system at a particular level, what has transpired over the past 12 months in terms of raising level 1 homes to level 2 homes, and level 2 homes to level 3 homes?

Hon. L. Boone: Including all the foster homes, which in that 747. . . . I just want to be clear that it includes respite and relief foster homes. We've increased level 1 by 153, level 2 by 336 and level 3 by 151. We do not have a breakdown as to how many move up from one level or whatever. We know what the increases are in terms of the various levels.

L. Reid: My assumption would be that the move from level 1 to level 2 and from level 2 to level 3 would be based not just on placement of children but on some additional training that would allow them to take more severely involved children. The minister is nodding.

In terms of my next question, my understanding is that the basic family care rate for zero-to-12-year-old children is set at $637.77 a month. Would the minister kindly confirm that that's the number? If it is indeed the number, when was the last increase given? Is that sum of dollars tied to a cost-of-living increase?

Hon. L. Boone: A regular foster care home for ages zero to 11 is $637.77. For ages 12 to 19, it's $732.44. The last time it was raised was 1996.

L. Reid: The last part of that question is: is that sum of money subject to an annual cost-of-living increase?

[1650]

L. Reid: My question would simply be: why is it not tied to a cost-of-living increase?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, nothing that we have is tied to a cost-of-living increase. Our wage rates aren't tied to those things. Our rates for the community living sector. . . . Nothing is tied to those areas. They are based on budget decisions that are made by government.

L. Reid: An interesting response from the minister. The question was: why -- not that nothing else is -- was the decision never taken? However, it doesn't appear that additional information will be forthcoming.

My next question relates to the cost of reimbursement for transportation. If the foster parent were to be taking a particular foster child to a medical appointment, etc., it's my understanding that over and above this maintenance allotment they would receive 25 cents a kilometre and then 20 cents. . . . But if a social worker were to drive that child to the very same appointment, the kilometre reimbursement would be 35 cents. The question I have is: why the difference? Transporting the same child the same distance but a difference of 10 cents a kilometre in terms of reimbursement -- why does that happen?

Hon. L. Boone: The rate that is paid to a social worker is negotiated in the BCGEU agreement and is standard across government. The use of their vehicles. . . . The rates that are given to foster parents are not in that agreement, and those agreements are subject to differences. One might argue -- and foster parents have argued -- that in fact they're not employees. They don't pay, for example, income tax on the amount that they get. We had that discussion in depth last year. But they aren't employees, so they are not subject to the same employee agreement that the BCGEU has.

L. Reid: It confounds me, indeed, that somehow those sums of money would be different. These are children in the care of the government in the province of British Columbia. It doesn't cost the foster parent less money to drive them somewhere. I would simply put on the record that it confounds me, if indeed we're truly respecting the work that foster parents do, that the minister would justify those kinds of differentials. It truly doesn't fascinate foster parents in the province to know that a contracted, negotiated agreement is somehow the answer to the question. There's a dramatic difference there that needs to be acknowledged, I think, on behalf of the ministry. And again, I seek the minister's information on this question.

Apparently there is a breakdown, a per diem food portion, of the maintenance. Can the minister tell me what that is?

Hon. L. Boone: The family care rate budget guidelines. . . . That's all they are; they're just guidelines that are there. They can be moved around. The per diem is $3.51; it's $105.34 monthly. That's for zero-to-11-year-olds; for 12- to-19-year-olds it's $4.87, or $146 monthly.

[1655]

This is fascinating to me. The minister has suggested: "Well, they're only guidelines." Well, it's a set sum of money. So the guideline, if indeed this is another instance where someone has to rob Peter to pay Paul. . . . If they need to spend more than $3.51 to feed a foster child, yes, they do have the option to take that out of transportation dollars or babysitting dollars, etc., but it fascinates me that that would be a guideline.

It's not a guideline for anyone who works for government that we would somehow say to them: "You can spend $3.51 on three meals a day." We would absolutely not even attempt to suggest that that's reasonable. Yet it's reasonable for children in the care of this province to be allotted $3.51 a day for food to cover three meals. I would ask the minister to explain how that's a reasonable sum of money.

[ Page 13479 ]

L. Reid: Does the minister consider, perhaps, that the sums of money paid in other provinces -- of the list she has just read out -- reflect their cost of living and that British Columbia does have, probably, one of the highest costs of living in the entire country? So the answer. . . . What she has provided doesn't give me comfort. I can't imagine anyone opposite living on $3.51 a day to consume three meals. Yet that is what we would expect foster parents to do in terms of providing for the children in their care. That astonishes me.

In the Hansard debate of last year, June 17, 1998, the minister remarked: "Whether your child needs tutoring or a special wheelchair or you need more assistance in your home, those are paid over and above the [maintenance] payments. . . ." The example I have is from Nanaimo. A foster parent who had a high-needs newborn who needed round-the-clock care went to the Nanaimo office for a housekeeper to come in to assist 12 hours a week, so the caregiver could indeed concentrate on the infant's needs. This request was in fact denied.

There are numerous examples where the minister's words don't match the practice in the regional offices. So can the minister confirm that it is still the policy of her ministry that additional costs -- whether your child needs tutoring or a special wheelchair or you need more assistance in your home -- are paid over and above the maintenance payments already received?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they are, based on the needs of the child and the assessment that is done.

L. Reid: I have some questions in terms of a service payment and how those sums of money are arrived at. I have a number of questions. Maybe I'll just put two or three on the record, and then we'll proceed.

Is the service payment to be used to pay for extra transportation needs of the foster parent for a child in care? Is the service payment to be used to pay for extra respite or relief for the foster parent to attend case conferences, workshops, children-in-care doctor appointments, physiotherapy appointments? Is the service payment to be used for the children-in-care's annual holiday with the foster family? Any one of those three would be helpful.

[1700]

We are currently reviewing some of these policies and some of the criteria around this with the foster parent associations, because there's been some question around some of how this is applying. We are currently in a review process with the foster parent associations on this.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response in terms of the review. When did it start, and when will it conclude?

Hon. L. Boone: It started late last fall, and we're hopeful that we'll have some recommendations coming to us by fall of this year.

L. Reid: In that the review is not going to conclude for probably six months, I will certainly continue to put my questions on the record. I trust that they will be folded into this review process.

The minister indicated that this service payment would pay for respite care for up to three days. If the respite care is required to be of a longer duration than three days, how long is the process to receive approval for additional respite care?

Hon. L. Boone: Those are regional decisions. We believe that it should be done within a day. It could take a little bit longer, but it should be done quite quickly.

[1705]

The other one is a family who provides foster services in my riding. Someone very tragically died in their family, and they needed to travel immediately. There was not even a return phone call. Those foster children accompanied this family to the funeral, because no one responded quickly -- voice mail; left many messages. . . .

What do families do in those instances in terms of making the system more responsive to them, making the system work for them? Those issues came to me after the fact. Otherwise, I would have raised them directly. There needs to be some kind of process that allows people to make the system respond to them in those times of either family planning needs or urgent crises in their personal lives.

Hon. L. Boone: We know that we'd like to try to deal with some of these regional disparities as soon as we can, and we're bringing up some of these things with our regional directors. If you can make me aware of that particular case, I'd be more than happy to follow it up and find out exactly why it took four months. That really is not appropriate, and we should find out exactly what broke down there.

L. Reid: I'm happy to provide the minister with that information.

The second part of the question was what to do when a family crisis occurs and, frankly, families have to attend funerals. I mean, this was a very difficult time in their lives, compounded by taking these very significantly special needs

[ Page 13480 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I would say that if you have a length of time, like three months. . . . If you still had some time, I would have encouraged them to phone our complaints resolution process, so that we could have in fact dealt with that. But if it's really an emergency situation such as you're talking about -- a funeral -- and they're not getting any help, then I would say to contact the assistant deputy minister -- Vaughan Dowie would be happy to help you out.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, I thank you. Those individuals will be contacting you directly, I can assure you of that.

The other issues I want to put on the record today. . . . Some of this is for my information, but a lot of these questions I have been asked to pose as well. The service payment, which is all-inclusive. . . . This particular question is regarding physiotherapy equipment. I have one family who was told that this equipment should come out of that service payment allotment. The equipment far exceeded the service allotment. In the process to seek additional funding, I think they are in the queue. But they purchased the equipment because the physiotherapist required it. I appreciate that the minister has said some of these issues will be under review. I take my hat off to the foster parents who, when they had the word that this child needed this piece of equipment, purchased it -- and purchased it out of their own capital, because it far exceeded the cost of this service payment.

Will those kinds of issues take some priority when it comes to this review, in terms of making some distinctions between what are reasonable expenses, and if indeed a piece of equipment costs over X number of dollars, that it automatically propels the decision into a different framework -- i.e., some other avenue could be pursued in terms of getting a decision that's much more timely? This little person will probably be finished with this piece of equipment in another six or eight months. The family has no way of knowing if they'll ever be reimbursed for those costs.

[1710]

I think you would recognize that you can't just automatically pay for everything that somebody feels is important; that's just not possible to do. It's not possible for our budgets to be maintained in that way. We do need to maintain those controls there. So I would urge everybody to make sure that they do that and get those approvals before they run out and purchase something.

I just want to. . . . For the record, I said I would read these in here and beforehand just recognize the staff who are here, who worked very hard to get together information for the ministry.

The Chair: Minister, perhaps the Chair could just interrupt for a moment. If you're about to make introductions, perhaps you could ask leave to make introductions.

Leave granted.

Hon. L. Boone: Just to recognize the staff that are here in addition to the staff here who worked hard on the information and some of the background material, yesterday and the day before, there were several masters of public administration co-op students and executive staff. Executive staff then encouraged other staff to come into this chamber here, so that they can actually see the debate taking place and see what's happening.

So without further ado we have with us Glen Nuttall, who is the senior financial officer; Kim Henderson, who is the executive coordinator of regional ops; Valerie Hamilton, policy analyst for corporate policy; Janice Aull, director of corporate policy; Jeannette Carlson, manager of adoptions; Ken Bonner, manager of guardianship; Wayne Matheson, deputy director of child protection; Theresa Kerin, ADM of corporate policy and chief information officer; Dyan Dunsmoor-Farley, assistant deputy minister for policy; Vaughan Dowie, assistant deputy minister of regional ops; Laurie Duncan, director of youth and adult services; Robin Syme, assistant director of the child, family and community living branch; and, of course, the infamous Mike Corbeil, who was with us yesterday; and Les Foster. And everybody knows Ross Dawson, director of child protection.

L. Reid: I thank the minister. In terms of her comment on approvals -- whether foster families should seek appropriate approvals -- I think it's probably a communication problem. The social worker will indicate, "This child shall see this physiotherapist," as an example -- which is pretty much an authority that is recognized by foster families. When they are told that child X is going to see this physiotherapist, they see that as being legitimate. So when that physiotherapist -- which I believe now falls under the Ministry for Children and Families -- advises them that child X needs this particular piece of equipment. . . . What I'm hearing the minister say is that they should then go back to the social worker.

So perhaps the minister can clarify, because I think that in the foster family's mind, they would see both of those individuals as employees of the Ministry for Children and Families -- the social worker and the physiotherapist, as an example. And if one person or the other indicates that this child would benefit from X equipment piece or service. . . . Perhaps there just needs to be some clarification, as part of this review. Who has the authority?

[1715]

[ Page 13481 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Those are some of the things that will be reviewed. Currently, of course, as it happens, they look at the demands -- what is requested, what the implications are, what the needs of that child are -- within the other costs that are in the amount that they get, the service payment. If it seems reasonable, then they may receive extra dollars for it. But it needs to be much more standardized, and that's why we're doing the review.

L. Reid: Just for my information, then, can the minister give me a sense of what the grid looks like for the various ages of children in care and what the foster parent allotment would be for those various ages?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm a little confused as to what you're asking for, because I gave you the information with regard to the different ages, as to what the payments were for foster parents -- zero to 11, I think it was, and 12 to 19. What is the grid that you're asking for, then?

L. Reid: My understanding was that the numbers that the minister read out were maintenance payments, maintenance dollars. I'm looking for the service payment allotments.

Hon. L. Boone: Rather than reading all this in, how about if we send it over to you? We can give it to you later -- okay?

L. Reid: You could just bring it over.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay.

L. Reid: From the minister's response, I take it that there's a great range of dollars involved. I simply want to put a couple more scenarios on the record, in terms of some superb foster families that I've met in my tenure as critic and also as a special educator for many years. I had tremendous dealings with families who I think went the extra mile to support these children. It didn't matter if they were buying grad dresses and graduation photos because they happened to have a grad in their foster family or if they were buying birthday presents for these children to go to birthday parties with. Those things, for the most part, I think foster families do.

[1720]

Those are concerns that I have, not just as the critic today but as someone who has been involved as an educator with families who were fostering, and who knows that in lots of cases, they barely scraped by. But their desire was not to treat their own 18-year-old differently than their fostered 18-year-old when it came to a graduation expense. If the minister can give me some guides in terms of those kinds of commitments on behalf of the ministry and whether or not those particular issues will be explored under this review.

Hon. L. Boone: Once again, we are seeing some regional variations on this and how it's applied. We generally do pay for graduation. It's an important time for a young person -- graduation dresses or whatever it is. I mean, I've been there. It's costly. We do pay for that. But that will be part of our whole review, because we do need to make sure that the regional variations disappear there.

L. Reid: I want to spend just a couple of minutes this afternoon on the training component for foster parents. It's my understanding that a number of those training opportunities are in fact items that are charged to foster parents to participate in. Is that indeed the case?

Hon. L. Boone: If we are demanding certain training, we pay the costs of that training. If the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations is putting on training sessions, then they may pay for the training or charge their members accordingly. But if we are putting on something and have said, "This is training we expect you to have," then we do pay for that training.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. I would only ask that perhaps some regional disparities be explored, because it's my understanding that currently level 2 and level 3 foster parents have been charged for workshops that they have been required to attend. So if that information is indeed the case, I would simply appreciate receiving it at some future point.

I'll put my commitment on the record: to me, that's in-service. No matter what kind of occupation or career you're in -- and foster parenting is very critical to the success of this endeavour. . . . This should be considered in-service. I think the minister has indicated that she too believes that. If we could just investigate whether or not there are some disparities in the system.

[1725]

Hon. L. Boone: There are ministry representatives and representatives from a steering committee from the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations. We're not sure. . . . I can't remember the names, but if you could direct inquiries to Ken Bonner, then he can take them to the steering committee and deal with them there -- if that's okay with you.

[ Page 13482 ]

One of the issues I want to canvass is around the accreditation question -- the notion of cost. I believe it's $4.5 million that's being approximated in terms of the process. I have no strong aversion to an accreditation process that is grounded in what is indeed best practice.

There are, as the minister knows, accreditation practices and accreditation practices. Some become mired in paperwork, in process, in regulation, in meetings and in consultation. Those individuals who are now required to be part of that process simply want to do their job. I'll make the same commentary for the public school system. I lived through the early days of the accreditation process, where I had teachers on my staff who said: "I simply want to teach. I do not wish to become mired in this process that will go on relentlessly."

In terms of containing and managing the accreditation process, if the minister could give me some guidance today on how she anticipates this will be of benefit. Is there a cost-benefit analysis available that I might receive, in terms of the cost of this and the likely benefit of such a process?

[1730]

"The total direct cost of accreditation for the providers for whom accreditation is required is estimated at $3.7 million over the 4.5 years of the contract reform project. Once the approximately 384 contractors have earned the maximum accreditation of three years and the regular three-year cycle of accreditation is established, it is estimated that the annual cost for the direct cost of accreditation will be between $1.3 and $1.8 million, which is 0.16 percent of the total contract service delivery budget of $819.6 million."

The groups that have currently come forward to be accredited have come forward voluntarily. In fact, my indication is that they were most anxious to be accredited. We are most anxious to get them accredited as well and to get some kind of ability to analyze what we are getting for the amount of dollars that we're putting in. We have not had any measure of outcomes out there to determine the value that we're getting for the dollars we've put into service delivery.

We have two accrediting bodies that have been chosen by the ministry: the Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children Inc. and CARF, which is the rehabilitation facilities accreditation commission. They have a proven track record with human resource services organizations and many public service organizations. Both have standards that are developed jointly by Canadian and U.S. accredited providers; a focus on state-of-the-art professional practices; a client outcome focus; and evaluation, planning and site reviews by trained peers. There are currently 24 ministry provider agencies accredited by CARF in B.C., all with the alcohol and drug services sector. Four of the contracted providers are also development sites in the contract reform project. I look forward to seeing the results of this and to seeing our agencies actually go through this process.

L. Reid: I want to confirm what the minister has said. She is saying that indeed the 140 agencies will now be subject to accreditation, that $3.7 million will be the cost -- the entire cost -- for those 140 agencies. The information I have is that $4.5 million would cover only the initial 20 agencies that are up for accreditation. The minister is disagreeing, so we will put on the record her information, which is 140 agencies for a cost of $3.7 million over five years.

In terms of having been through an accreditation process, enormous administrative responsibility comes with that process. At the same time. . . . Again, I'm seeking some guidance on what I consider to be a somewhat hypocritical stance. At the very time that the ministry is looking to claw back 1.5 percent from administrative structures within these agencies, they are now overlaying an enormous administrative burden. Accreditation is an administrative process. It isn't anything else. The outcome may be better practice, but the overlay is an administrative practice -- an enormous commitment to increased administration. So how does the minister reconcile that very dilemma?

[1735]

L. Reid: The question to the minister was very straightforward: how do you reconcile an increased administrative burden with a decreased administrative dollar?

Interjection.

L. Reid: Let the record show that the minister talked about outcomes. We're not debating outcomes. We're debating enormous administrative burdens now in place for these agencies at the very time that this ministry is clawing back administrative supports. That deserves an answer, and again, the minister has chosen not to answer that question. It confounds me that that thought did not enter the minister's head in terms of placing an administrative burden on these agencies at the very time this minister is attempting to claw back those dollars -- disgusting.

In terms of another issue before us today is the contract. Let's perhaps engage in a moment's discussion on the thought that went into funding that contract, because indeed it's my understanding that the contract is not ratified in its entirety. I ask the minister to indicate whether that current contracted sector has been ratified or not.

Hon. L. Boone: CSSEA would be ratifying that. It's not something that I do. I don't negotiate. I'm not a part of that.

[ Page 13483 ]

Please answer the question.

[1740]

L. Reid: Who was Greg Wood representing at the bargaining table?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm sorry; this is not my jurisdiction. You'd have to ask the Minister of Finance this.

L. Reid: This is an enormous obligation that the taxpayer now has, in that it is within the responsibility of this ministry. It would seem to me that this minister would have taken a little more time to acquaint herself with the facts in terms of how this process unfolded, because I will contend that this minister was represented at the bargaining table. I will contend also that the collective bargaining process was politically interfered with in this instance. Indeed the employers were removed from that process at the behest of this government.

So the fact that the minister agrees or disagrees. . . . I would only ask that she acquaint herself with the facts and get to her feet and take some responsibility for an enormous outlay of capital cost as a result of a contract that was negotiated on behalf of this very sector, whose agencies are funded by this very budget.

Hon. L. Boone: This is my last thing on this, because it is not something I am responsible for. I can tell you that I was not represented at that table. I can tell you I wish I had been at that table. Many, many times I wished I had been at that table and had had an opportunity to have a voice at that table, but I didn't. And if you have questions as to how the negotiations took place -- whatever happened -- you're going to have to talk to the Minister of Finance about that. She is responsible for PSEC. I was not at that table.

L. Reid: Which ministry will be responsible for funding this contract?

Hon. L. Boone: The funding will come through PSEC, and it will come into our budget -- whatever we are responsible for, because some of it is, of course, the Ministry of Women's Equality. But the majority of it does come through us, and it will be in our budget, but it will come from PSEC.

L. Reid: From the minister's acknowledgement that some of this budget will come into this ministry, what is the cost of this contract? What portion of those dollars will flow to this ministry?

The minister has been heard many times on the radio programs of this province talking about this contract, talking about separating out the child care piece. I think it's only appropriate that she share that information directly with members of this Legislature. I don't think that's a bizarre request, so in terms of the child care piece, perhaps the minister can comment on what the anticipated cost is of that, because truly, for the minister to suggest that somehow she was not party to discussions in terms of the overall cost of this. . . . If this was not discussed at the Treasury Board, in terms of a cost to this government, what goes on in terms of the financial management of this province?

The Chair: Before I ask the minister to answer, I just will remind members that we are on vote 21, and the minister has said there are certain things within her ministerial jurisdiction and certain things that are not. So I would ask members to just keep that in mind in their questioning on this vote.

Hon. L. Boone: If the member would like to talk about child care and the CCP, I'd be more than happy to talk about that, because that is where I believe funding for child care comes from. As for the contract, the contract is between CSSEA and its employees; it's up to them to ratify. We have not received the final information on that. When we do get that, we will get it from PSEC, who will advise us how much money is coming into our ministry to pay the costs of that. But if you want to talk about child care and the CCP, I'd be more than happy to talk about that, hon. member.

[1745]

L. Reid: Your caution was interesting, because the contract extends into this fiscal year. It is a retroactive contract, as the minister is aware, so this indeed will have implications for this budget year which is currently under debate. That's a fact. In terms of additional dollars, when the ministry does receive this money, my understanding is that they will indeed be responsible for passing on additional dollars to those agencies, which will now have additional responsibilities and additional attendant costs placed upon them.

For the minister to suggest somehow some distance from that process -- I don't know how that's possible. It is not possible, in my view, to simply administer a sum of money without understanding the constraints of the contract.

Hon. L. Boone: We haven't got a contact.

L. Reid: Again, the minister says she doesn't have a contract. I believe the contract is in place, so if the minister wishes to comment on that I invite her to do so.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I have a number of concerns on this particular question.

I'm alarmed that the minister is not willing to share information, but I'm equally alarmed at her contention that she doesn't have the information. This will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400 million, an enormous outlay on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. Those dollars will come from the taxpayers' purse. There is no debate about that.

[ Page 13484 ]

Hon. L. Boone: We went through that last year. This is a policy of the Ministry of Finance.

The Chair: Member, on vote 21.

L. Reid: Again, on vote 21, this is a sum of money that will be administered by this ministry. This sum of money will not be administered by the Ministry of Finance. We established that earlier on in this very debate, maybe 15 minutes ago. The minister took responsibility for administration of this fund, so in terms of my question: will those dollars equally flow to union and non-union agencies? That will be a decision that is reached by this minister.

Hon. L. Boone: The moneys which we will be receiving for this contract, whenever it is ratified by both sectors, will come to this ministry to cover the costs of that contract, which is a negotiated contract between the union sector. . . . That does not include the non-union sector. Any dollars that would be given to the non-union sector would be a decision of PSEC through the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Chair, noting the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada