1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th 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 5, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12523 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

AIDS. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12523

Mrs. Boone

Oral Questions

Free trade with Mexico. Mrs. Boone –– 12524

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 12524

B.C. post-secondary institutions and global competition. Mr. Michael 12524

Bible Fellowship Housing Society Mr. Sihota –– 12525

Silviculture funding. Mr. Miller –– 12525

Presenting Petitions I –– 12526

Tabling Documents –– 12526

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12526

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Vant

Mr. Cashore

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we proceed to introductions, hon.

members, I would like to take the opportunity to ask you to welcome two

gentlemen to our Legislature this afternoon: the Hon. John Johnson, who

is President of the Legislative Council, State Senate, of the

Parliament of New South Wales, Australia; and John Evans, the Clerk of

the Legislative Council. Would you welcome them, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery are three very

close relatives of mine — as a matter of fact, four. My three colourful

and beautiful granddaughters are Ebony Rose, Ashley Rose and Emily

White, and they're accompanied by their beautiful grandmother.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today

are two gentlemen I would like to introduce to the House: Nobunori

Kanazawa, managing director of Ricoh Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; and

Hachiro Okazaki, manager of the Ricoh BP campaign promotion department.

Ricoh, as the House knows, is one of the world's leading companies in

office automation machinery, and 1,400 Ricoh dealer couples and 150

staff will come to British Columbia to participate in the Ricoh Better

Presentation tour for two weeks in mid-June. They're the first Japanese

incentive group of this size to visit our province, so I would ask the

House to please make them very welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would ask this assembly to join the second

member for Delta and myself today in welcoming 38 grades 5 and 6 pupils

from Richardson Elementary School, along with their teacher Mrs.

Gilmour and a number of adults. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the first member for Richmond and

myself, it is indeed a pleasure to welcome 61 grade 7 students from

Walter Lee Elementary School. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr.

Bussey. I would ask the House to please make then welcome.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Would members please join me in extending a

special warm welcome to Bill Robertson, a teacher from 100 Mile House

who's here doing some firsthand research on our political system.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Visiting us today is a former deputy minister with

this government, Mr. Jim Carter. He has visiting with him 14 Japanese businessmen

and businesswomen who are management trainers with a company from Japan called

Presstime. I'd ask everyone to welcome Jim back to the precincts and to

welcome these 14 Japanese business people.

Ministerial Statement

AIDS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial

statement. I would normally do this following question period, as is

our practice, but I have an appointment at Oak Bay Lodge shortly to do

with an accreditation award.

On a more serious topic, I'd like to bring to the Legislative

Assembly's attention, by way of a ministerial statement, that it has

been ten years today since the first cases of AIDS were discovered.

Over those ten years we have seen the incidence of AIDS in our province

increase to the point where it is among the top 12 causes of death in

British Columbia.

In response to the advances of this still incurable disease, I think

I can say that British Columbia has been a leader in developing

programs to help persons with AIDS cope in a variety of ways with this

devastating illness. I'd like to review briefly for the House a dozen

of the most significant steps that our government has taken and is

taking in our continuing efforts to deal with AIDS in British Columbia.

Firstly, we have AIDS virus antibody testing. This provincewide

testing and counselling, free of charge through physicians, health

units and the Vancouver ATEC clinic, began on October 7, 1985. By the

end of 1989, over 100,000 tests were performed, with over 3,500

positives. About 2,500 samples are tested by the provincial lab each

month.

We also have the AIDS pamphlet series, seven information pamphlets

which have been produced for various segments of the public. This began

in September 1985; six of these are still being used with the regular

revisions. Their target audience consists of the general public, health

care providers, parents, children, antibody test-takers and first aid

providers.

On September 14, the province kicked off an extensive AIDS public

education program. This provincewide campaign included television

announcements, bus shelter posters and the mailing of two AIDS

information pamphlets to every household in British Columbia; that's

1.2 million homes. In March 1988 an "AIDS in the Workplace" package was

released. This consists of a manager's manual, a pamphlet for workers

and a booklet for first aid providers. This package is in continuous

revision and reprinting. It is popular not only provincially but

throughout Canada.

There is much more that could be said, but I did want to bring to

the House the fact that it has been ten years since we discovered this

devastating illness. We're working. We're leading Canada in terms of

our research and public information processes. With that said, I take

my place.

MRS. BOONE: It has been ten years since this devastating

disease became known in this world we live in. It's unfortunate that

it's only in recent years this government has acknowledged the disease

for the tremendous problem it is and started to take some action. It

would be easy to stand here and make comments about some of the cheap

shots taken by

[ Page 12524 ]

members opposite, but at this point in time I will

not do that, because this is a very serious situation and one that

should not be taken lightly.

[2:15]

There are lives in this province and this country that have been

devastated by this disease, people who have undergone conditions that

none of us could even understand and who have sat by and watched

friends and family members die from this disease, and watched this

government virtually sit on its hands over many years.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the future years are better, and

that those working so hard to find a cure for this disease and to find

some means of making lives better for those suffering from this disease

will find their future much better. I also hope that the men, women and

children who are suffering will find some hope in the future.

Oral Questions

FREE TRADE WITH MEXICO

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism. I'd almost forgotten your title; you've changed it so often.

Eleven months ago the former minister of trade told this House it

was too early for the government to take a real stand on the proposed

Mexico free trade agreement. The trilateral negotiations on this deal

begin in Toronto next week. Can the minister table in the House today

his government's real position on the Mexico free trade negotiations?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to send her a card so that she won't forget what the title is.

We are consulting with the various stakeholders and certainly trying

to see what the effects would be of possible free trade between the

United States and Mexico — the various sectors that it would impact,

how it would impact and how we could mitigate that.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the minister. You put out a

discussion paper in January and asked for a very short six-week period

for input. You have not put out an official position paper on that yet.

Will you table in this Legislature a written position from this

government on the free trade deal with Mexico?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Although she's been here for four and a half

years, the member opposite obviously doesn't realize that we don't

discuss future policy.

MRS. BOONE: Have you decided to present to this Legislature a

written paper stating your position on free trade with Mexico prior to

the negotiations that take place in one week's time? I think the people

of this province have a right to know what the position of this

government is on something that is going to affect jobs in many sectors

of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question affects future policy. The minister can proceed to answer if he so desires.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment. I'm very

pleased to see that they are concerned about this whole issue.

Certainly in the fullness of time it will come to this House.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday at an

emergency meeting Richmond council unanimously passed a bylaw

prohibiting the dumping of industrial-grade contaminated soil from the

Expo site in the municipality. Since the Premier is well versed in

municipal affairs, I am directing my question to her in the absence of

the minister. Has her government decided to honour Richmond council's

decision to prohibit the dumping of industrial-grade contaminated soils

in that municipality?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I want to thank the member for the

question. I would be pleased to take it on notice for the minister and

get back to you with a response.

MR. CASHORE: Since the government ultimately has the power to

override this bylaw, has the Premier decided that her government will

not use this power to overturn the decision of the Richmond council?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The subject matter has been taken on notice, and we'll get back to the member.

B.C. POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

AND GLOBAL COMPETITION

MR. MICHAEL: My question is for the Minister of Advanced

Education. In view of the comments by Prof. Alan Rugman of the

University of Toronto that Canadian universities are failing to prepare

students for the new competitive challenges of the global economy, will

the minister convene a conference of key educators and business and

technological experts to assess and report on the priorities of our

post-secondary institutions and their adequacy in preparing British

Columbians for the rapidly changing job market?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Like the previous question asked, this concerns future policy. If the minister wishes to respond, he can.

HON. MR. DUECK: I think a conference might serve a good

purpose, but I think it has to be done in light of activities already

ongoing in this area. For example, the ministry currently maintains an

ongoing dialogue with key educators, business leaders and technological

experts on a variety of subjects. The people involved, if the House

would like to know....

MR. ROSE: Point of order. Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to make any point of order during

[ Page

12525 ]

question period. I'm not alone in that, and we

don't usually do it. But clearly the question, in my opinion — and it's

no reflection on the Chair — is one of future policy. It was clearly

out of order as was the case of yesterday when we had three planted

questions. All we have today is one — up to now. I would hope there's

no more of this, because it was definitely future policy, definitely a

representation and definitely out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just point out to the hon. opposition

House Leader that, as I'm sure he's aware, although it is a matter of

future policy and normally would not be responded to — and it's not

necessary to respond to it and not a normal thing to respond to it — if

the minister so desires he may respond.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like to respond. Since it's future policy, I will gladly answer it some other time.

BIBLE FELLOWSHIP HOUSING SOCIETY

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. Was it the Premier's

intention, when introducing legislation providing tax-free status to

the Bible Fellowship Housing Society under the Pacific Bible College

act, to provide tax-free status to the entire 53-acre site?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The subject matter falls under the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, and I suggest

that the question would be better put there.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Social Services and

Housing. Yesterday the minister indicated that he has a practice of

contacting municipalities when projects may be "impeded." What

circumstances existed with respect to this matter which would lead him

to conclude that there were impediments to the development?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: May I begin by making it clear that I

lobby a lot of people when it comes to housing. I lobby for the poor

that they will have decent housing; I lobby for the handicapped that

they may have suitable accommodation; I lobby for young couples that

they may have the opportunity to own their own home; I lobby for

children and families that they will have proper accommodation; and

finally, I lobby vigorously for seniors that they may have comfort in

their senior years.

I want to make it very clear what I do not do. I do not lobby for my

own interests; I do not lobby for the interests of a friend of mine or

anyone I know; I do not lobby for any political purposes. I lobby

simple to meet the needs of the needy in this province.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the same minister. In this case you lobbied on behalf of a friend. I want to ask the minister again...

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: ... if he may answer the question this time. You

have indicated that it is your practice to phone municipalities when

there are impediments to these types of projects. What circumstances,

with respect to this project, led you to believe that there were

impediments?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member opposite says that I lobbied

for a friend. In the press yesterday he was quoted as having said that

I lobbied for a constituent. As far as I know, the individual he's

referring to is neither a constituent nor a personal friend. As a

matter of fact, if my recollection is correct, I have met the

individual once in my lifetime. That was about one year ago, when my

ministry staff took me to visit different low-cost housing

accommodations to show some of the best being developed in the province

— and his happened to be one of them. Since that time — I want to make

it very clear — I have not met this person; I have not phoned this

person; I have had no contact with this person at all.

Again, I go back to my previous statement that there's a need for

housing for people in British Columbia, and municipalities have to

cooperate with us.

SILVICULTURE FUNDING

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Forests. Would the

minister confirm that the silviculture budget of his ministry will be

underspent by $16 million this year because of the lateness in bringing

in this year's budget?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this member asked that

question of me about three or four times last week. He asked the

question on Friday during the mini-estimates while I was away, and I

don't think it could have been put more clearly to him. It's

unfortunate that he only has one question to ask. When they run out on

the other side, they go to him and he repeats the same question. I

would urge him to come up with a new question or, if he's willing, to

maybe let me ask him a question on where he stands on some of the

forestry practices in some of the areas that are contentious. Maybe he

should explain to the people where he and his party stand when it comes

to the forest industry and to preserving the environment, which we on

this side of the House are endeavouring to do.

MR. MILLER: Further to the minister, who's had so much

advance notice but, I notice, didn't answer the question: would the

minister confirm that that $16 million could have been used right now

to treat approximately 6,700 hectares of forest land, plant 15 million

seedlings and create 264 jobs, particularly in forest-dependent

communities? That money could have been at work right now, but for the

incompetence of your government in bringing in a late budget.

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member forgets — I guess

conveniently — the answer that he was given last week on the subject.

Just on one item

[ Page 12526 ]

alone, when we were unable to conclude a

satisfactory FRDA II with the federal government, we put more money

into the program than the amount he's questioning in order to keep it

going, whether or not we had an agreement, to provide jobs, to plant

trees and to keep our commitment to the forest. The $16 million that he

is so worried about will be invested in the forests of British

Columbia. We have committed to $1.4 billion over the next five years,

and it will be invested. If, for whatever reason, we cannot hire staff

and get them trained soon enough, and we cannot spend $16 million of it

this year, the province need not worry. As long as this government is

in power, that $1.4 billion will be invested.

But the members opposite refuse to state their policy on what they

would do with such a magnificent program and what they would do in some

of the areas of this province that are dependent on forest jobs. We

don't hear them stating what their policy is in the forest; all we hear

is criticism.

MR. MILLER: We are all familiar with the government's

promises. My questions are aimed at trying to get at the facts. Why did

you break those promises, and why isn't that $16 million...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member couldn't have heard me. I said that the bell ended question period.

Presenting Petitions

MR. JONES: I rise to present a petition today This petition

is signed by a majority of residents in a neighbourhood in North

Burnaby whose quality of life will be negatively impacted by a highway

project — the Hastings-Gaglardi connector part of the Barnet-Hastings

people-mover project.

I request leave to submit this petition to the table for approval.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the five-year forest and range resource program for 1991 to 1996.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 21: minister's office, $316, 667 (continued).

MS. A. HAGEN: Several times yesterday afternoon the Minister

of Education stated that school boards were not spending money

allocated by his government on special-needs students. Would the

minister like to repeat and confirm his statement at this time

regarding the Vancouver School Board — namely, that the provincial

as a second language and that the board budgets $18 million for those

students? I want to be sure the minister has heard the question. I

believe he has.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, the amount provided by the

province for ESL to the Vancouver School District is $76,311,736. The

amount that the Vancouver School District has as a specific line budget

for ESL is $18,031,531.

MS. A. HAGEN: I believe the statements of the Minister of

Education seem calculated to mislead the public. I'm going to make some

comments at this stage of the game that I think will make it possible

for the public to decide whether the minister has in fact been

deliberately leading people away from the truth in respect of the

budgeting for....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must remind you

that using the terms that you did a while ago, and getting back to

them, is unparliamentary. I would suggest that you phrase your question

in a different manner.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me repeat that I believe his statements seem calculated to mislead the public.

HON. S. HAGEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the member for New Westminster to withdraw the previous statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for New Westminster please withdraw the statements made.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me withdraw that particular comment, and

note that I believe the statements of the minister have the effect of

misleading the public. Id like to provide some information that will

enable the public to make its own judgment about how accurately and

well the minister has presented information.

I would note that the minister is well supported by his ministry in

the statements he made. As the Education critic, I am attempting to

ensure that we have a frank, honest and candid debate on the public's

concerns about education. It has always been — as I believe people will

attest to — my goal to ensure that this debate is constructive and that

it supports our mutual goal with respect to children's education. So I

am profoundly concerned when there are matters conveyed and portrayed

by the minister that do not help in the process of people understanding

the facts of the case.

Let me now review the information the minister has repeated today —

namely, that in its funding, the ministry provides $76 million, in

Vancouver. What the minister failed to say is that the ministry

allocates funding based on a total education program for those

children. This is the funding formula the government uses. What the

school board does is provide an educational program for each of those

for special services to assist young people in acquiring the language

skills they need; that figure is

[ Page

12527 ]

$18 million. That figure is a special services

budget that is quite separate from the educational program budget the

minister has used.

Let me state that both figures are correct, but they are not

comparable. One figure is the figure the ministry uses to determine the

funding that will go to the Vancouver School Board for the 21,000

students who attend school in Vancouver. The second figure — the $18

million — is the special service budget of the Vancouver School Board:

approximately $800 per child to assist them in acquiring language

skills so they can get on with their education in the Vancouver school

system.

I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to clarify his

statement so that we can know both statements are correct but that they

are not comparable; that we are not comparing what the schools have

available for the total education program of those students and the

many special services provided in the Vancouver School District for

those students.

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, the member opposite knows well

that I never said the figures were comparable. However, they are

correct. If you recall back to your discussions and questions of

yesterday, this whole issue came up on whether or not the government

was providing proper and adequate funding to the school district for

special education. I listed the amounts of money paid to school

districts and the amounts that they line-budgeted for those items. If

you recall, in all cases the amounts provided by government were

greater than the amounts the school boards were budgeting. That's where

the issue came up.

Your insinuation is quite incorrect, and you know it's quite

incorrect. You're trying to make something out of something that really

isn't there. However, the figures are correct. At no time did I

insinuate that this was all the Vancouver School Board.... It's

interesting that you're only dealing with Vancouver when there are 75

school districts in the province. However, at no time did I insinuate

that that was all that was being spent on ESL. Anybody in your position

knows money is also being spent in regular classes when these children

are in regular classes for ESL.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm a great believer that the public

is the final decision-maker about the integrity of statements, and I would like

to read into the record the statement that the minister made yesterday and leave

it to the public to decide. The minister said yesterday: "The question

was raised for ESL. I'd appreciate if the member would write this down.

is receiving" — and this is intended to be from the government — "$76,

311,000. Now what have they budgeted in their budget for ESL programs? They

have budgeted $18,031,000." I believe that the case rests very well in

terms of the implication, if not the statement, that the minister intended there

be a comparison which would suggest that the Vancouver School Board was not

spending the money allocated by the government on ESL programs. He has just

acknowledged that, in fact, the figures are not comparable — but he never said

that yesterday.

Let's look at what the Vancouver School Board is spending on ESL

children. I can do this by straight arithmetic. There are 21,000 ESL

students in Vancouver, and the cost per child is slightly in excess of

$5,800. Multiply that out, and it's $123,207,000 for regular programs

for ESL children in Vancouver — well in excess of the money that the

minister spoke about. In addition to those regular programs, the board

provides, as the minister has allocated, $800 per student to assist

with those programs.

Let me note further that last year the ministry audited the ESL

program in Vancouver. A government auditor went in, because there had

been a lot of new students and there were many needs within the

district. The government auditor matched dollar for dollar, 100

percent, the resources coming from government and the programs

available for those students.

[2:45]

Mr. Chairman, it is not acceptable on this side of the House, when

the minister — who has briefing books this thick and figures coming out

of page after page — uses those figures to make suggestions that would

leave people thinking that boards are not spending the dollars that

this government provides for education. It is not acceptable to me or

my colleagues, and I don't believe, Mr. Minister, that it's acceptable

to your colleagues. It certainly wouldn't have been acceptable to your

predecessor that such a statement would have been made. He would have

argued vigorously in support of education, but he would not, by virtue

of the juxtaposition of those figures, have left a false impression. I

believe that the public will see quite clearly that you intended to

leave a false impression.

I've used this example because it is the most dramatic of a number

of examples yesterday. I want to conclude my comments about this

incident by noting that yesterday the minister peppered his comments

with references suggesting that boards are in some way not using the

dollars available to them for the best interests and the best programs

they can provide for children in their district. I happen to believe

that that minister and that government has a partner in education, and

that partner is each school board in this province. And each school

board is not, as I've noted in a recent speech, a middle manager. Each

school board is a creative, dynamic, elected group of people who have

the job of trying to provide the students in their districts with the

best quality education possible. It is important for this minister not

to undermine the credibility and the integrity of those boards, as this

minister did yesterday.

I want to proceed on some matters relating to funding. We're into

a new system of funding within our province. It's a system that

requires a great deal of predictability, stability and integrity. Over

the last few days we've had some demonstration that the decisions of

government on major policy issues have more to do with the whims or the

positions of ministers. Dual entry was strongly supported by a Minister

of Education who stepped down expecting an election, and who has now

resigned on principle because he was very

[ Page 12528 ]

unhappy about a decision to cancel dual entry. This minister was making a personal decision about education.

There are some messages there about the stability and predictability

of education programs that I don't think are lost to the public. That

stability and predictability was promised with the block funding

system. Indeed, if there was anything in the recommendations of the

royal commission, it was that the block funding system they recommended

should be stable and predictable and that the fiscal framework should

not be used to manipulate those figures.

If we have some people watching, I want them to know that what I'm

going to talk about for a moment is not always easy to follow, but I'm

going to try to make it as simple as I can. I'll go back to some of my

teaching time, which is a long time ago. I know that it's a complex

issue and that sometimes we have a hard job figuring out what's

happening in education finance. This is why honesty, integrity and

freedom of information are so important.

A couple of years ago the government introduced block funding. It

said: "We will put into the block the sum of all of the budgets of

every school board in the province at this particular time. Whatever

the source of that funding was, from local taxation or from government,

we'll put it all together and that will be the block." Implicit in this

commitment was that this block, which was made up of government

decisions and local taxpayers' decisions, would remain the basis for

future funding.

Many people interested in education and concerned about the

education of their kids are hearing that school districts are having

difficulty managing and that the block funding system is not working.

What's not working is the way this government is managing the block

funding system. What they have done is to take the block from each

district. Let's take Cowichan, from where my colleague from Nanaimo is

going to be the candidate in Cowichan-Malahat in the next election, or

Nanaimo, or Atlin or Boundary-Similkameen or Vancouver or Burnaby North

— looking at colleagues around. They've taken that block, and they have

said that they are going to adjust that block to bring everybody down

toward an average and more slowly up toward an average.

The problem with that is the speed with which they have been doing

those changes. If you can imagine that three years ago — let's say in

Lake Cowichan — there was a block made up of decisions that local

trustees and the government had taken to fund that school system. Both

those sums of money were in the block. So very important decisions were

taken about the quality of education in Cowichan. That block is taken

and it becomes the base, but each year, if that block happens to be any

different from the block in other districts, government has taken away

a good chunk of that difference — 70 percent of the difference over the

last two years. The result is that boards are trying to fund the same

level of services with significantly reduced dollars in constant

dollars.

If that was the government's intention, that should have been

announced when the block funding was announced. But it wasn't. The

block was seen to be the base from which funding would flow. The impact

of this on the system — the adjustments that have been required — are

very extensive, and in many districts they have caused great difficulty.

The minister has rightly said that there is more money in education,

but the distribution of that money to boards across the province is

creating real, demonstrable hardships that are entirely tied to the

ministry's policies.

I believe that what we should have had in this move to a new system

is one that allowed for some of the accommodation that needs to take

place over time. It may be in fact that we should all be seeing funding

per student moving more toward the middle, but if you do that so fast,

boards can't accommodate without major disruption.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note your own district, Abbotsford, which

has one of the lowest fundings per pupil in the province, based on the

fact that its boards in the past have not gone to the taxpayers for

additional moneys. The amount of additional dollars flowing into your

district is painfully, dribblingly slow, and the result is that

students are dealing with education programs being delivered for a cost

that is $400 or $500 less per student than in neighbouring districts.

We have on the one hand a real squeeze on districts whose funding is

over an average, and we have a really slow adjustment for the members

from Langley, the member from Abbotsford and members from Surrey.

The block funding system is basically sound, I believe, but the

distribution system used by this minister and this government has

created severe dislocations in many districts of the province. I don't

mean to name them. The minister well knows them. The people of the

province know them because they are front-page stories in their

districts. Once again, the minister is not providing the information so

that people understand the basis for that and that it is a deliberate

decision of the government to squeeze those boards and make it

difficult for them to maintain services and programs.

That's the reason we have the problems we have in certain school

districts and not all school districts, Mr. Chairman. It is a reason

that goes against the royal commission and that again makes me question

whether this government, which has pretended that it is in support of

the initiatives of the royal commission and demonstrated in many

instances that it is moving in a direction of change.... I question

whether that commitment is deeper than a changing minister and deeper

than a government which is not being truthful and up front about the

means by which it is making it very difficult for certain school

districts to maintain the quality of educational services.

One last point on this issue. It is interesting that the decisions

of local taxpayers to fund a certain quality of education have in fact

been confounded and avoided by a government that is taking central

control of funding. Boards have no means of making any decisions about

enriching their programs without going to a referendum on an annual

basis to seek the funds. At the time same, the dollars that those

boards decided

[ Page

12529 ]

with their taxpayers to make available for programs

in various districts like Creston, Vernon, Cowichan or Vancouver are

now being distributed to other boards. The central government has

co-opted the dollars that those taxpayers decided in their own wisdom

they wanted to have available for their districts, and it is

distributing them to other districts in the province.

I don't believe that when the block funding system went into place

anybody believed that that was the intent of the system. It certainly

wasn't the intent indicated by Sullivan and the other people who worked

on the royal commission. I believe that these are the sources of some

of the problems that certain districts are having. These are the issues

that need to be addressed so that we can indeed ensure that boards are

able to maintain the quality of service within their districts. The

minister may want to comment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.

HON. S. HAGEN: The comments of the member for New Westminster

are providing a tremendous education for the minister. I wish that she

would continue.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am prepared at this time to have the minister

comment. I would just like to note to the minister and to the Chairman

that I do then need to be out of the chamber for about half an hour. I

will be back after that time, and a number of my colleagues will

continue with issues that are important to them in their concerns about

education.

HON. S. HAGEN: I do hope that the member for New Westminster

will be able to stay and listen to my reply. It's going to be very

important for her, because I think, notwithstanding the fact that she

used to be a teacher — and probably a fair teacher; a fairly good

teacher — that again, as was so often the case yesterday, she's

incorrect. It's really very difficult for me to keep doing this to the

member for New Westminster, because I'm not — please believe me —

trying to embarrass her and to put her down. But I think it's very

important that the record be set straight.

I want to talk about equalization. The member for New Westminster is

insinuating that equalization is not a good thing to do; she also

insinuated that it was something that came up after the block

announcement. I want to remind the member for New Westminster that

equalization was announced at the same time as block funding.

I wish that she would listen to this, because it's very important for her

to understand it. Equalization was announced at the same time as block funding.

The reason it was announced was that there was a recognition that in some districts

of the province it was easier to raise supplementary funds. It was easier to

go to the taxpayer in some areas, because of the makeup of the community, to

get those extra dollars. The purpose of block funding is to ensure that children

and students throughout the province will all have equal opportunity to get

the best quality education, and that's fair and important. But it's

very significant, and it's important that you understand that.

[3:00]

The next criticism was that the distribution system — the fiscal

framework — was some connived formula devised by ministry staff, and

that there was some personal implication here. I can assure the member

and all members that the distribution system that we use was

recommended by the royal commission. It came out of the royal

commission.

The member said that she was sure this wasn't from the royal

commission. It, in fact, was from the royal commission. The

distribution system — and it is important for you to listen to this —

is endorsed by the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the B.C.

Teachers' Federation, the superintendents' association and the

secretary-treasurers' association. It's very important for her to

understand that.

The fiscal framework review committee is made up of four

superintendents and four secretary-treasurers appointed not by us but

by their associations, and they review the recommended changes to the

fiscal framework and to the distribution of the block on an annual

basis. Again the member for New Westminster is either not clear on how

the fiscal framework works or is not willing to admit that equalization

is important. It's important to me, as the minister, that students in

Fort St. John, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Williams Lake, the Okanagan, the

Kootenays, Vancouver, Victoria, Courtenay, Campbell River or Langley

have the same and equal opportunities for a first-class education.

That's what my job is, and that's what this government is providing.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me start off by saying that quite often when

we're in this debate, members, of course, come in and out of the House.

I was out of the House for most of the day yesterday, so some of those

issues...

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: "I'm glad the minister hasn't noticed," he says.

...that I want to flag may have been addressed in some way in the

past. If that's the case, I'm sure the minister will advise me of that,

and if it hasn't been, I'm sure I will get thorough and concrete

answers from the minister.

I want to start by asking the minister about an announcement he made

earlier this year with respect to additional moneys being made

available with respect to capital projects and requirements for school

districts around British Columbia. Is there a timetable in place as to

when one can expect to hear from the ministry regarding announcements

governing that additional money?

HON. S. HAGEN: That is a very good question. I assume that

you're asking that on the basis of your MLA duties, and I think that

that's very appropriate, obviously.

[ Page 12530 ]

This year we have tried to move the capital announcements up a

little earlier than before. I know that you may think there's another

reason for that, but I want to tell you my reason. I believe that we

should start announcing the capital programs as early as we can, in

April, May or June. Actually, I guess we maybe did do one in April. I

would like to do them in April, but we are doing them in May and June,

because in many areas of the province, the construction season is not

as long as it is in the Victoria or Vancouver areas. So that's why I'm

trying to get the announcements made.

The announcements are presently being made district by district, as

you may know, and they will continue to be made over a period of

probably the next month. But I would think that within the month, all

the districts will be announced.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd like leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's my pleasure today, on behalf of the

first member for Dewdney and myself, to welcome about 50 grade 7

students visiting us from the Mission community, along with Mr. Huth, a

teacher from Fraserview Elementary School, Mr. Dunham, a teacher from

Ferndale Elementary School, and some adults who are escorting. I'd like

the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I agree with the minister that it always makes

sense to make the announcements as early as possible. He's right. It

makes it very difficult to plan for construction. I know he didn't say

it, but I would agree with him that none of these announcements have

anything to do with the fact that we will definitely be into an

election some time between now and next fall.

You have indicated that the announcements have been made in some

instances, and others are anticipated over the course of the next

month. Will the minister confirm that announcements with respect to the

funding for capital projects in the greater Victoria area will be made

some time after next Monday, June 10?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not sure of the significance of June 10, except that it's next Monday. But, yes, that's the case.

MR. SIHOTA: The question I'm trying to ask is: has the

schedule actually been set? Does the minister know with some certainty

as to when the announcements will be made with respect to the greater

Victoria area?

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I don't have that

schedule here, and I'm

not even sure if there is a schedule. I know "guarantee" is a strong

word to use, but I can assure the member that most announcements will

be made in the next month.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll put my wager on June 11. How is that?

I want to ask the minister if he could advise the House as to what

decisions have been made by the ministry with respect to capital

allocations — and I'm not talking about new money; I'm talking about

pre-existing money, if I can put it that way — to Esquimalt high school

and the Lampson Street school.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm afraid I can't answer that question. But

the question with regard to capital announcements will be answered when

the announcements are made in the various districts.

MR. SIHOTA: Like I said, Mr. Minister, I will assure you that

June 11 will be the date for the greater Victoria area, or at least for

some of the announcements for the greater Victoria area. And I will

assure you that you won't even invite me to the press conference that

you will be having. But that's neither here nor there. It's not

absolutely essential that I be there.

The reason I want to raise this issue of capital requirements.... I

think it's fairly obvious that there are pressing needs in my riding

with respect to Esquimalt high school, Lampson Street school and View

Royal Elementary and the site acquisition there. In January of this

year the ministry confirmed that there would be money set aside for

View Royal Elementary. The necessary improvements to Lampson Street

school were announced last year, in terms of the planning moneys. I

want to get assurance from the minister as to what other construction

moneys would be forthcoming with respect to those two projects this

year.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sure the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

appreciates that in my position as the Minister of Education, it would

be common courtesy for me to talk to the school board — I'm not sure

whether he agrees with me on this — even before I let the MLA know. But

because of the process we use, the board makes the requests, the

ministry addresses the requests and adjudicates them, and then we make

the announcement.

MR. SIHOTA: As I understand the process, you made some

announcements in January in terms of preliminary approvals. In that

regard, I know that the View Royal elementary site acquisition was one

announcement the ministry made. Is there any reason to believe that

will not — I see staff is discussing with the minister — fall within

the coverage for capital requirements?

HON. S. HAGEN: We don't announce projects on that basis. We

give the board a list which shows what category they've placed the

project in and what category the ministry has placed the project in.

That should not be taken as an announcement.

[ Page

12531 ]

MR. SIHOTA: No, I don't mean to take it as an announcement. I

would expect that in normal practice there's not much deviation from

that. You indicate what priority you accord it, and the school board

indicates what priority it accords it. You can then determine what may

well get funded. Generally speaking, the minister would agree with me

that there's very little deviation from the list. Is that basically how

it works?

HON. S. HAGEN: I think it's a bit dangerous to make a general statement like that because, in fact, there may be some deviation.

At that time of the year, we are not aware of the funding envelope

we will receive from Treasury Board. At my press conference earlier

this year when I dealt with the entire envelope, which is $650 million

as you know, I made a comment that the high priority requests from

around the province totalled in excess of that, which it does every

year.

This year I think the high priority requests totalled something like

$687 million, and we were able to get $650 million out of Treasury

Board. I know that our budget amount last year was $350 million, and I

think the high priorities totalled over $500 million. So the high

priorities that are discussed on the list with the board are not — and

it should not be assumed that they will be — automatically funded.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not assuming that they will

automatically be funded. Generally speaking, if one takes a look at the

practice that has occurred over the past few years — with minor

deviations; only minor at that — basically what comes out in January is

what is ultimately approved when you get your envelope, depending on

the size of the envelope. There may be some changes with respect to

some of the projects in terms of timing and whether or not they can

proceed at that time or within that year.

But generally speaking, that's the way it has worked, and I don't

think there are any changes anticipated from that practice this year.

If I am wrong, I'm sure the minister will correct me. But with respect

to some of the projects announced in that regard this year, I hope

there will not be any deviation as it relates to the west side of the

Greater Victoria School District. I make that case to the minister

right now. I'm sure he will agree with me that there won't be much in

the area of changes. If there are, I'm sure he will hear the wrath not

only in my comments, but from the school board and from the parents as

well.

The reason I raise this is that the minister must understand that

there are some pressing needs for capital improvements in areas in my

riding, particularly as they relate to areas such as Esquimalt Senior

Secondary.

[3:15]

Recently the parents in the area, together with local officials, the school

board and municipal officials, took a tour of the site there. I want to read

to the minister very quickly one of the reports that came that sort of captures

what was said in all of the other reports. There's a letter written to me

by a constituent of mine which, interestingly enough, was written back on April

26. She was indicating to me yesterday when I was talking to her on the phone

that she's yet to receive a reply from the minister. There may be a message

there to the minister that you're a little bit slow in responding to your

correspondence.

Here's what the letter says with respect to the state of Esquimalt Senior Secondary.

"All of the science labs are inadequate to the extent

that significant parts of the lab component of the curriculum are not

offered. The library was built to service 500 to 600 students, not 900.

The lack of books and computers also restricts its use. The cafeteria

accommodates 40 to 50 students, so the rest sit on the floor in the

halls to eat. Study periods for students take place in the hallways.

Change rooms underneath the gymnasium are unsafe due to their isolated

location and proximity to the outside. Three math classes take place in

one woodworking shop while saws, hammers and power tools in another

woodworking shop across the hall make it almost impossible for them to

hear, let alone think. Toilet facilities are inadequate both for staff

and for the student population. The medical room consists of two cots

in the photocopying storage room in the administration office; there is

no washroom. The staff room was built for 32, but it's now being used

by a staff of 70, many of whom have no permanent desk or locker and

must carry their student records and supplies around with them in a

cardboard box.

"We hope this letter will prompt more than a formal

letter of response from the ministry, and like many other Esquimalt

parents feel desperate at the prospects of our child and for the future

of our municipality, who rely on these children for years to come. We

will pay for education now or welfare later. One cannot help but feel

that blue-collar workers are all that's expected to emanate from

Esquimalt by the Greater Victoria School District. If that is the case,

it explains the inequity in their funding to the western sector schools.

"My vote in the upcoming election will go to those who

not only promise but deliver what we the constituents want in the way

of quality education for our children."

Does the minister find that description of the state of the facilities at Esquimalt Senior Secondary to be satisfactory?

HON. S. HAGEN: I find it a little troublesome — and a little

disappointing I might say — that now that the capital budget has been

set and now that we are ready to make the announcements, school board

by school board around the province, this is the first time that I've

heard personally from the MLA from Esquimalt with regard to his

priorities for his school. This is the first that you have talked to me

personally and said: "These are my priorities."

However, the list has been made. I want to go back to the member's

comments where he was trying to lead me into saying that there would be

no deviations. I cannot agree with that, nor can I guarantee that. The

member will have to wait until the announcement is made to see which

schools and which projects are included on the list for funding in his

area.

With regard to the specifics of the letter that he was reading from,

I'm not able to comment on those because I have not yet had an

opportunity to visit

[ Page 12532 ]

Esquimalt school. However, I really appreciated the

last paragraph in the letter. I can assure the writer of the letter

that if she votes for the Social Credit Party, she will be voting for

the party that delivers, because $650 million capital this year is the

largest capital allocation ever made to schools in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member, I should

indicate that the discussions that have occurred over the last little

while have become a private debate rather than a debate for the House.

I would suggest that all members recognize the Chair in the debate and

that all debate zeros in on vote 21.

MR. SIHOTA: It does, and the minister knows that as well.

People don't want rhetoric; they want action. Let me also say this to

the minister: this is not the first occasion the issue has been raised

with you by myself. Albeit, it's the first time it's been raised on the

floor of the Legislature, because it's the first opportunity we've had

to debate Education in the House. I wouldn't want people to be misled

in that regard.

The minister should know this letter was directed to his attention

on April 26, 1991. There's been no reply. A copy of my letter of May

10, 1991 and reply was forwarded to him. There's been no reply for me.

I don't have my entire correspondence file here, but I will bring to

the minister's attention that there was a letter written by myself to

your predecessor on November 5, 1990, asking for confirmation of

capital allocations for Esquimalt Senior Secondary School funding and

the Lampson Street school. If it would satisfy the minister, I would be

happy to table that letter. I would be happy to go back to March 28,

1990, where I asked a similar question of his predecessor and....

HON. S. HAGEN: What year was that?

MR. SIHOTA: March 28, 1990. I've indicated to the minister

that there have been letters. In fact, I could pull my correspondence

file and go back from 1987 through to this year, when these requests

have come for the minister. When he came into this House, I assumed the

minister would have familiarized himself with the problems at Esquimalt

Senior Secondary School. He would have been briefed on them, knowing

that I was going to speak on them. If he had done either or had read

Hansard for the last few years, he would have realized that I've been

asking the government for several years now to take action with respect

to these problems.

Mr. Minister, I take considerable umbrage with your comment that

this is the first you've heard of them. It would cause great grief to

all of the parents from Esquimalt who have written to you. In fact, I

have a copy of a letter here from January 23, 1991, another letter of

April 11, 1991, one of February 1, 1991, written to the minister, again

raising all of these issues, another one on January 23, 1991, and

another one on December 7, 1990.

You've received more than your share of letters with respect to this

matter. You should be more informed about it than you suggest you are.

If you wish to visit Esquimalt Senior Secondary School, go ahead and do

that. I'd be happy to take you down there anytime after these estimates

get finished. We'll hop in my car, we'll go down there and take a look

at it.

HON. S. HAGEN: Let's do it this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA: I can't guarantee that your estimates will be finished this afternoon, nor should they be.

My question to the minister was this.... I have described the state

of the schools in the area, and I would have expected him to say that

he finds a state of that type and those conditions to be unacceptable

to him as a minister and to admit it is those problems that ought to be

attended to by his ministry as a priority. Given the fact there are

funding requests for Esquimalt Senior Secondary School in that regard,

then clearly the ministry should respond to remedying the situation,

which really, quite frankly, is deplorable and unacceptable.

The school board has asked for funding for several years, and I hope

the ministry, in its allocations this year, will see fit to provide the

funding. I look forward to the announcement next week in that regard.

I would also like to indicate to the minister that my area — the

Greater Victoria School District — has substantial and significant

growth. There are problems with overcrowding in the entire region. For

example, we have a problem at Rockheights Elementary, which has a

number of portables and an annex. The school is now being used by 560

students. It has a library built to accommodate significantly less than

that. In fact, it was designed to accommodate about 250 students.

The Rockheights annex at Lampson Street school has two unplumbed

portable classes, no library and no gymnasium. It is has a current

enrolment of 130 students. Toilet facilities for these young children

are isolated in the basement of the annex. I think that the minister

would find those kinds of conditions unacceptable.

Could the minister tell the House first of all whether his ministry

finds that to be satisfactory, and secondly whether it has any

allocations this year designed to attend to that problem of portables?

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to correct the member from

Esquimalt on his statement that greater Victoria has a growing school

district. The enrolment in 1989-90 was 22,289; in 1990-91 it declined

to 22,157; this year they have estimated a growth to 22,764 students.

Because of that pattern of either static population or a slight drop,

the Greater Victoria School Board has been reticent to concentrate much

on capital and therefore have not in past years brought in many

requests for capital. They have brought in requests that will be

addressed in future announcements. I just wouldn't want to leave an

impression that this is one of the fast-growing districts, because it

isn't if you compare it to other districts in the province. There are

many districts that have real growth problems.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the minister heard me. I was talking about the west side of the Greater Victoria

[ Page

12533 ]

School District, and I don't think he has figures

in relation to that. In fact, if I may go further west to the Sooke

School District, where they've got 53 portables at last count, there

have been significant problems. I don't think the minister would doubt

at all that there's been significant growth on the west side of the

Greater Victoria School District — in View Royal and Esquimalt and in

the Sooke School District. I am sure his figures would show — at least

for Sooke because he'd have them broken down — that there has been

growth.

The minister doesn't quite understand the geography and the

demographics of the area. That's fine. I didn't want to get into debate

on the extent of the growth. I don't think the minister in any way

doubts my words when I say that at Rockheights we have 560 students at

a school built for far fewer, annexes, portables and obvious emerging

needs.

It is because of those obvious emerging needs that the ministry has

recognized in the past the need to put in capital improvements at

Esquimalt High and Lampson Street School. Had it not been for

recognition of that emerging growth in the west side of that school

district, the ministry would not have made a commitment to proceed with

site acquisition for another school in View Royal, nor would it have

proceeded with the expansion at View Royal Elementary.

Mr. Minister, I know you're new to the portfolio, which is perhaps

part of the problem, but if you had been familiar with the pattern of

history in terms of development in View Royal and Esquimalt, I don't

think you would take issue with the fact that there has been

significant growth on the west side of the Greater Victoria School

District, which covers the constituency that I represent.

The minister never did answer my question. I asked him whether or

not he found that state of affairs as it relates to Rockheights to be

satisfactory. Now, having dealt with the issue that he raised about

growth, would he concur with me that the situation is not satisfactory

in terms of the condition of those schools?

HON. S. HAGEN: When I made the announcement a short while ago on the

capital envelope of $650 million — the largest amount of capital ever spent

on schools in British Columbia — I described what that money would be used for.

It will be used for new school construction, site acquisition, repairs or rebuilding

of schools, earthquake preparedness for school buildings...

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: There'll be some in Victoria as well.

...and the replacement of portables. So the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is right on this point that the minister is

addressing the needs of school construction, and all of those areas are

included in the deliberations that take place on focusing in on the

areas of greatest need.

[3:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I acknowledge, therefore, that the minister and I

both agree that that situation is unsatisfactory, and I think we both

agree that it needs to be attended to. I think we both agree that one

has to allocate priorities around the province. I'm saying to you, Mr.

Minister, that when you take a look at some of the problems in an area

of the school district that has been ignored or, in the case of Sooke,

underfunded by the ministry.... I don't want to get into the dynamics of

the block funding, but it was significantly underfunded historically. I

would encourage the minister to read Hansard in the past with respect

to the Sooke School District, and see that even his predecessor and I

agreed on the fact that the block funding was underfunded for the Sooke

area because of anomalies in the area.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I think he did. You should read Hansard , Mr. Minister, in that regard.

Given the priorities that you've allocated, Mr. Minister, and given

the needs in this area, I have no doubt that when you draft your final

list, you will have no difficulty in concluding with me that the

projects requested by the school board with respect to the west side of

that school district ought to be accorded priority. I look forward to

your press conference on June 11 with your two colleagues from Saanich,

wherein you'll make those announcements. I would hope and expect, in

fact, that the parents would demand that the funding be in place for

these capital projects. Let me make them clear to the minister:

Esquimalt high school, the Rockheights situation and the matter of the

Lampson Street School, to deal with some of the overcrowding that we've

got there.

There is another issue with respect to Harbour View, and that will

be best dealt with, in my mind, by the school board as opposed to the

provincial government.

I want to ask another question of the minister with respect to this

issue. Am I correct in assuming that the matter of lunch programs is

something that you do not consider to be part of your mandate? Is that

funded through another ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN: The lead ministry for school lunch programs is

the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services and Minister

Responsible for Families.

MR. CLARK: Just briefly, I would appreciate if the minister

could explain how the decisions are made on which schools get built and

which don't. Presumably each school board presents a list of projects

for which they ask for funding. Obviously every school board — the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew spoke eloquently on behalf of his

district, and I'm sure I could speak on behalf of Vancouver East —

needs money for capital, and I know there's money there. I'm interested

in what procedure the ministry goes through to authorize which schools

get built when or which projects get approved when.

[ Page 12534 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: That's actually an excellent question, and I'm

quite amazed. It's a good question because it relates back to the

reason we were able to announce $650 million for this year. The cynics

out there would have said: "The reason you announced $650 million is

because maybe this is an election year." But the real reason is that if

the planning money hadn't been allocated last year, which, if you

recall, was supposed to have been an election year, we wouldn't have

been able to announce the capital for this year.

So all cynicism aside, the planning process works. The planning

money was allocated last year; therefore the construction can take

place this year. The planning money that we allocate this year will

spawn construction projects in future years.

But when a school board submits a list of their construction

requests, we ask them to prioritize them as high, medium or low

priority. In some cases if there are a number of projects, we've even

asked them to prioritize their high priorities — in other words, give

them a grading. I don't think it's right for our ministry staff....

Let's say a large district comes in with 15 high priority items. If

they're all listed as high priority, and we can fund only 13 of them, I

would rather have the school board prioritize which of the 13 would be

funded.

I have here a document which describes how we determine a high

priority. The school board submits their listing with high, medium and

low priorities. Then the ministry staff assesses those projects and

also grades them high, medium and low priority. So when the process is

finished, you may have some high priority school board projects that

the ministry grades as medium, or you may have a vice-versa situation.

I'll just read you the definition of high priority; this is called

"Ministry Project-Ranking Criteria."

"Projects necessary to maintain the educational and

support services required to accommodate prescribed educational

programs, including the following..." — and there are not that many

here — "projects required to correct unsafe conditions or to prevent

major deterioration of the facility; new instruction space when

September 1993 enrolment projections exceed present school capacity by

50 or more students; additions and/or alterations required to

accommodate prescribed educational programs; additions and/or

alterations required to accommodate supplementary special-education

needs; equipment allowance for approved visually and/or hearing

impaired students; new bus requirements; major sprinkler or alarm

projects recommended in the most recent inspection report; site

acquisitions supported by September 1995 enrolment projections."

Those are high priority; there are medium and low as well. I'm not sure if you want me to read them into the record.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: No, I appreciate the minister's answer; that's

exactly what I wanted to know. Obviously when you get into the high,

low and medium priorities, they are subjective to some extent. I

appreciate the qualifications you've made for high priority. But

presumably there is a role at some point for the minister with the

advice of his ministry staff to make some judgments, because I assume

it's like anything in government. You could spend $2 billion or $3

billion and still have projects that people might request funding for.

So you have to weigh them, and I see that objective criteria.

Are there also subjective criteria that the minister has to use to

make those tough decisions between school districts as to what gets

funded and what doesn't? Where does the ministerial role come in?

HON. S. HAGEN: That's a good question. Fortunately, this

year, my first year as the minister, I haven't had to make those

choices. I'm not sure whether you were here, but I'll just repeat that

the envelope is $650 million, and the high-priority requests were $687

million — not a whole lot of difference there. I can see where there

would be a difficulty last year, for instance, where there was a

considerable difference between the high-priority requests and the

funding.

MR. SIHOTA: Judging from that response, Mr. Chairman, it's

obvious to me that the requirements for my area will get covered,

because that high-priority definition captures them all. Secondly,

given your earlier answer, I'm assuming that you will be making your

decisions on the August 1990 submissions by the school board to your

ministry. Am I correct in that assumption?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, that's correct.

MR. SIHOTA: If that's the case, then you've answered my

earlier questions, because most of the projects in my riding were

listed as high-priority on that list. So I would expect that the bulk

of the announcements, as they relate to my riding, which will be made

next week by the minister, will confirm that the projects will be

funded in that order, and most of them are in my riding. I'm happy to

hear that.

I want to ask the minister a couple of other questions on issues

that may be canvassed in the future or may already have been canvassed

by my colleagues. I want to be very quick in dealing with two other

issues. The first is on the capital side, the middle school in Sooke. I

don't think I need to make a pitch in that regard. The school board has

allocated high priority and, given the minister's answer, I would

suspect that that will be attended to as well.

The other area that I want to touch on — and it's really the final

area that I want to touch on today — is the matter of special-needs

children. Mr. Chairman, I want to convey to the minister the

frustration that the parents feel who come to my office and talk to me

about the difficulties they're having with respect to the dispute

between the province and the school boards as to the quantum of moneys

that have been allocated to school boards. There's a difference of

opinion. If one reads the statistics that the ministry puts out and the

minister articulates, it sounds like school boards are getting all

sorts of money for all sorts of programs. If one reads the statistics

that you get from the school boards, it sounds like they're getting

significantly less money than inflation. There's obviously a dispute

[ Page

12535 ]

between the minister and the school boards as to how much money in real terms is coming to school boards.

I don't want to get involved in that dispute, but I'll tell you who

does get involved in that dispute: the parents of special-needs kids.

They go to the school board and find that the programs aren't there.

They go to the minister, and the minister scratches his head and says:

"I don't know what's going on. I provided enough money. Believe you me,

it is my view that special needs is a priority and these kids should be

attended to."

They're caught in a game of political ping-pong between the school

board and the Minister of Education. They're victims as a result of

that political ping-pong. I can appreciate that there are games going

on. I can appreciate that in order to buttress his position the

minister says he's going to put out an investigator. I can appreciate

that the school board says: "Come and investigate us, because we're

putting the money wherever we can." But the parents get caught. A

number of them came to see me the other day in my constituency office

and here at the Legislature, expressing their sheer frustration over

their children not being provided with the services they need as

special-needs children, and expressing their wish that the ministry

would fund the program.

One of the parents gave an analogy which is perhaps not the best

analogy, but it is an interesting one. She said: "Look, if there was an

oil spill tomorrow off the west coast of Vancouver Island, people would

not be arguing over whether the federal government or the provincial

government should be paying for it. We'd be solving the problem, and

we'd argue later on as to who should pay and if necessary litigate one

another over it."

There is a dispute in this regard. The only appeal that I can make

to the minister is to provide the supplementary funds now to provide

the services and work it out with the school boards later, in terms of

whether you think that they've been appropriately funded or not. I

think that approach would solve the problem now and would provide

greater comfort to those parents.

I make that pitch to the minister. I would hope I would not hear

what I've been reading in the paper in terms of what he says versus

what the school boards say in Sooke and in Victoria. I'm just saying

that you've got some real problems that you're causing, or someone's

causing, as a consequence of insufficient funds being allocated to

special-needs children. I think you should tend to the problem directly

by providing the funding and then resolve your political fight with the

school boards later on.

HON. S. HAGEN: The member from Esquimalt raises an important

and significant issue. But first I want to go back to his discussion

with regard to capital.

I want the member to understand that with regard to Esquimalt Senior Secondary

I may have a real or perceived conflict of interest in that situation. I would

hope that I would not be called on that if the project gets funded, for instance.

I have a relative with the same name as mine who teaches at the school. Mind

you, I guess the assumption might also be made that she might be related to

the member for New Westminster. But I hope you wouldn't take advantage of

that situation.

[3:45]

With regard to the more serious question about special-education

funding, I can appreciate that you meet with the parents of special-ed

children, as I and, I'm sure, all members of this House do. But I want

you to understand the situation that the minister is in.

In the case of the Greater Victoria School Board — the closest one

to you, I guess — what happens first of all is that the school board

chairperson, after signing an agreement with the staff, calls a press

conference and says: "Yes, we've signed a collective agreement, but we

can't afford it." That's step one, and that statement is a matter of

public record.

A following statement then comes out — not necessarily the next

statement but certainly over the next couple of weeks — that "in order

to balance the budget, the first cut we're going to have to make is to

special-education programs." The first cut that's even mentioned is to

special-education programs. I'll leave it to the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to judge whether that may be a political

statement.

What I said after that was that I will not see school boards

balancing their budgets on the backs of special-needs kids. I was very

serious when I made that statement, and I'm still serious. I can assure

the member that in districts where they want to play politics — if

they're playing politics — I won't hesitate to send in an auditor to

audit their programs, because I know that we, the government and the

taxpayers, do fund the special-ed programs in those school districts.

They get the dollars. If they cut programs, they lose the dollars. So

there's no advantage to them to cut special-ed programs. I get tired

of.... It's certainly not all boards who play this game; as a matter of

fact, it's very few boards — one or two or three. But I will not see

the game played on the backs of special-needs kids.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it's important for you

to understand what my job and my position are as the Minister of

Education. With regard to your suggestion that we as government just

put the money in and then discuss or debate it later, it doesn't work

that way. As soon as we put money out there — whatever the funding

announcement is — it goes into teachers' pockets through agreements.

Unless you have an open-chequebook policy — and I'm not sure whether

you would support that — we must operate within the fiscal framework.

By operating within the fiscal framework, we give to the districts the

ability to provide high-quality education at something that's

affordable to the taxpayers — because, after all, the taxpayers provide

the money for the services of the people of the province.

MR. SIHOTA: This is my last note. I really do promise to end on this, because we could go on and on over this dispute.

The answer you've given me is a good debating point, quite frankly,

and it is consistent with what you've been saying publicly. I would

congratulate

[ Page 12536 ]

anybody who maintains consistency around an

argument. I think both the minister and I agree that there's an

important need here, and the minister and I both agree, in terms of

what he's had to say, that it is a priority need.

The way you've worded it, Mr. Minister, reflects your frustration

from your desk, and I've expressed my frustration from my desk. Yet it

doesn't solve the problem. That's the unfortunate aspect of it in terms

of dealing with the immediacy of the problem on our hands. As much as

we can clash in this House and articulate the frustrations, this is a

real problem that needs immediate attention. If the minister does not

agree with the proposal I've put forward, which I should say is not an

open-cheque proposal, I would hope that between him and his staff he

can work out something that attends to the immediate concern while he

works out and tries to resolve the political dispute that's going on.

I want to make it clear that maybe all sides in this dispute — the

boards and the minister — are playing politics. They may not be, but

there's a real problem out there that I think needs attention right now.

In any event, I've taken up a little bit more than my time. I thank

the minister for his candour. I look forward to the capital

announcements that will happen next week, and I'm sure that the

appropriate allocations will be made to the schools that I've asked for.

MR. BARLEE: This is a specific case. I have four separate

school districts in my new constituency, and this really concerns the

smallest of these, School District 13, which employs several dozen

teachers. Like all MLAs, I'm quite aware that the school boards in the

various districts in British Columbia operate under the School Act, but

that act sometimes allows them perhaps more latitude than they should

have. A case has been drawn to my attention in the last few months that

I think deserves further examination by the ministry than has been

given this particular case. I think that the school board — who are

elected representatives, as I'm well aware — passed judgment on an

individual, with monetary ramifications for this school district and

perhaps considerable legal costs to the people of the district.

This is the case. A maintenance supervisor by the name of Mr. Murry

Setzer was dismissed by the board — a difficult case, I know — after 14

months' service. I don't know Mr. Setzer personally. He was given no

reasons for his dismissal and was advised by the board that it was not

because of his work. He was then offered a $33,000 severance package,

which seems to me rather extraordinary, and he was essentially allowed

to write his own letter of recommendation, which I think is rather

unusual.

Here is some more background, which the minister may or may not be

aware of. There were no grievances against this maintenance supervisor

from CUPE or any members of CUPE in that district. His work record was

upgraded in those 14 months from average to good, yet less than three

months later he was dismissed by a newly elected school board.

Concerning the dismissal of this individual, two members of the board

abstained in that decision and two who voted to dismiss him had never

even met him.

Evidently, according to the information I get from a number of

sources, both the superintendent of the district and the

secretary-treasurer advised against taking this action. They were

essentially

overruled by the board. I think most of the individuals in this area

view this as kind of an arbitrary dismissal. A number of local people

were concerned. They wrote the minister, and they received a reply in

fairly short order from the minister saying that these complaints

should really be pursued through the appropriate legal processes. I

don't believe that is a satisfactory answer. Although the school board

operates under the School Act, there should be more accountability

taken by the ministry, and I don't think that accountability was taken.

Has the minister launched an investigation into this particular case?

HON. S. HAGEN: I thank the member for the question. I think

the member understands that this is a dispute — if there is a dispute —

between an employee and an employer. I will not — and I cannot, in

fact, by law — intervene. There are provisions for either party to seek

resolution. The school board is the employer in this case. The employer

or the employee has the responsibility to deal with the issue, but as

the minister I am not able under law to intervene in any way.

MR. BARLEE: I assumed that might be the response. I don't

think the response is adequate. It throws accountability back onto the

local taxpayers and the individual who was aggrieved. They have to go

through the various legal processes, and if they hire a lawyer at $160

an hour, it could be many thousands of dollars.

Does the minister not think that the act is flawed in this case?

Should there be more accountability by the ministry — which I don't see

in this case even from his response?

HON. S. HAGEN: Is the member suggesting that I break the law in dealing with this issue?

MR. BARLEE: No, of course not, Mr. Minister; I'm not

suggesting that. I'm suggesting that perhaps the School Act has a wide

variance. Something should be written into that act to allow an appeal

rather than having the appeal of the individual go to a lawyer to carry

out something that I think should be properly done under the ministry.

Yet the minister is telling me that the ministry cannot intervene in a

case like this, where it has significant ramifications upon the

individual involved. The chairperson of that particular board mentioned

at a public meeting that she didn't want to give the reasons, because

they didn't want to air their dirty laundry. This indicates that she is

casting certain moral doubt upon this person's integrity. He has to take

it through the various avenues of the legal process, and that can be

extremely costly for an individual.

I think the ministry should have something in the act so that they

could intervene in a case like that and send in a trouble-shooter to

hear both sides of the case

[ Page

12537 ]

and advise both parties. That has not been done.

Again, you fall back on the law, and I don't think the law is good

enough in this case.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to use this opportunity to deal with

some smaller items in terms of board budgets — items that reflect on

the difficulties some boards are having in balancing their budgets. I

hope the minister gives us some information about how funding

allocations are made for costs that are not usual education program

costs but obligatory expenditures on the part of boards.

I think it would be helpful for us to get some sense of the

implications, for example, of decisions of the Workers' Compensation

Board around worker safety and occupational safety. We have issues

around asbestos, which is, I think, probably one of the biggest ones,

since so many of our schools in British Columbia are old buildings and

would have been built with asbestos as part of the construction.

I well remember when I was a school trustee during the early

eighties. We were struggling very hard to maintain programs within our

district. We were compelled to spend, in a small district like New

Westminster, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy ICBC

requirements around fire upgrading. I must say that as a trustee, if I

had to look at the risk to children and workers in respect to a fire

versus the dollars that we needed for a quality education, I would have

opted for dollars for programs at that stage of the game.

[4:00]

I don't mean to underestimate the importance of health and safety

and fire standards, but I'm not entirely certain that the funding

formula acknowledges that these are in fact costs that boards don't

have a choice about putting into their budgets. When we're balancing a

block — and the minister has said that the block is a fund that the

board is responsible for using in the wisest and best way it can — then

expenses directly affect services to kids' programs in our schools.

Could the minister give us some indication of how the ministry deals

with those obligatory programs that relate to school board costs? Is it

a little bit like special-needs children, where there's an amount of

money that recognizes the actual costs and where there's a

balancing-out of the cost of upgrading the health and safety

environment in which people work with the dollars that come into the

system?

My sense is that very often boards are having to skim off some of those health

and safety dollars from other purposes, just as we had to skim off some of those

fire-upgrading dollars from programs in the last four or five years that I was

a school trustee. Those are tough decisions and, again, because the province

is the funding agency — as the minister has said over and over again — the province

determines entirely what the budget is. Therefore I believe it needs to be in

touch with these issues, to have some policies that are clear and fair to the

districts that face these costs.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure the member for New Westminster

that things have changed since both she and I were school trustees on

different boards in different communities. In fact, funding is now

provided in the operating part of the budget as part of the block for

district administration and operations for maintenance. We have "minor

capital," which boards can apply for if it's a case of insulation

replacement or that sort of thing. There's a relatively new program

called "minor capital allowance" that is also available for this sort

of requirement.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I then confirm that the actual costs of,

let's say, health and safety upgrading — such as the removal of

asbestos — is covered entirely by some allocation in the block for that

purpose, through an application process?

HON. S. HAGEN: Everything the boards fund gets its money from

the taxpayers, from the government. It comes in their budget, and it

either comes as operating or capital.

Just for your information, I will list off the projects that were

funded in New Westminster last year. This may help you understand.

These are minor capital projects that were all approved: Lord

Tweedsmuir Elementary, alterations to provide computer room and

relocate staff room; access for handicapped, various schools; loss

prevention, various schools; install emergency lighting, which may be a

WCB requirement; roof replacement, various schools; renovations,

various schools; upgrade electrical breaker panels; seismic upgrading,

Lord Kelvin Elementary — I went to Lord Kelvin school for one year; add

reinforcement to meet earthquake resistance standards, Lord Kelvin

Elementary; Herbert Spencer Elementary, plan the replacement of this

school's seismic; seismic assessment, various schools; equipment

allowance for hearing and visually impaired students.... The total

funding provided was $683,200.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm going to have to rely on my memory for

this, because I can't find my self-prepared briefing note. One issue

that has come up again and again from school boards is new costs that

boards must incur as a result of policies of either the provincial or

the federal governments, and how those are tracked into the funding

that comes to them. The most recent one comes out of this government's

budget. With the increases in Medical Services Plan premiums and the

fact that in most collective agreements the cost of those premiums is,

at least in part, paid for as a benefit under the collective agreement,

boards are faced with significantly increased costs.

I've actually got figures for a couple of districts. In a relatively

small district with a lot of young families, the actual additional cost

to them for the Medical Services Plan premium lift — the increase in

this year's budget — is in the order of $50,000. With a good-sized

board — one of the larger boards; older teachers, fewer families —

their estimated cost is $75,000. In the scheme of large budgets, those

are not huge amounts of money, but when every dollar is going to have an

[ Page 12538 ]

effect on a teacher or an aide in a classroom,

those unexpected costs as a result of government's budgetary decisions

have an effect on the educational quality of the district.

I could indicate other decisions, but perhaps the minister could

give us an indication of what you do when a block is in place and your

government, in its budget, makes a decision that has a direct impact on

the cost of providing service in a district — an impact that wasn't

known when you decided on the block and when boards were developing

their budgets? As I say, this one is of sufficient magnitude that

boards, who are scrambling for every cent to deliver programs, are

concerned about having to pay that cost and to diminish programs as a

result. If there's an answer that says that those dollars are flowing

into the districts, then people would be very pleased to hear that.

HON. S. HAGEN: You certainly used somewhat correct

terminology when you said: "If dollars are flowing into those

districts...." I can tell you that over the last two years, $459

million in additional moneys has flowed into school districts around

this province. That's an increase over that two-year period of 19

percent to the block amount.

I want to restate that if boards are spending the money, then the

government — through the taxpayers — is funding that money. All the

money they spend comes from the government. We get our money from the

taxpayers, which is a different system than what was in place when the

member for New Westminster was a trustee.

Through the fiscal framework and the work done each year by the

fiscal framework committee.... As you know, there's an economic

adjustment made to the block each year based on a lot of things, like

inflation. If her question is, "Every time the feds raise their UI

rates or percentage, do we fund that extra money?" the answer is no.

However, when you look at the 19 percent increase boards have received

over the last two years, I think that boards will be able to deal with

an increase in UI expenses.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chair, I don't intend to read the increases

that have gone to specific boards through the distribution process, but

looking over two years, there aren't very many boards that have got a

19 percent increase. Every one of these decisions costs in terms of

educational programs.

Let me just take one district that now has an additional cost of

$75,000 because of the Medical Services Plan premium lift in the

budget. That board also faces a $300,000 lift because of the GST. I

think the UI premium is in the order of $125,000 in terms of the

increased cost to that particular district.

We know that the overall lift was 3.75 percent, even though the cost

of living increase is now around 6 percent. Just looking at this

particular district, it has a 3.8 percent increase in enrolment and a

6.8 percent increase in its funding. Now I recognize that you don't

subtract 3.8 from 6.8 to get the real lift — that every youngster

doesn't cost 100-cent dollars. But we're looking at additional costs to

that district, as a result of just these kinds of decisions, in the

magnitude of — let me just add correctly here; $375,000 and $125,000 —

another $500,000. That board is already getting a lift that is

significantly less than the inflationary lift. The point I'm making on

behalf of those school districts that are not here to represent

themselves is that those kinds of decisions by governments have an

effect on their ability to deliver services to children in their

districts.

The minister is simply saying that this is all part of the overall

lift. I could buy that if the lift genuinely reflected the

cost-of-living increases. But the increase in Medical Services Plan

premiums is something that affects the cost of living. We all know that

every time we go out and buy anything, the GST certainly affects the

cost of living. For any business person and any person who's paying

salaries, UIC affects their cost of living.

These are the kinds of small amounts, if you like, that compound the

fact that the lift which has gone to school districts is nowhere near

the 19 percent the minister is talking about. This district is looking

at a lift in the order of 3 percent to 4 percent, when you factor out

the fact that it has new children whom it must provide for. I might

note that this is an urban district and that quite a number of those

new children are ESL children. In the Vancouver area, we're seeing that

many of the new people who are coming into the community are first of

all settled in Vancouver. Now, as we look into the greater Vancouver

area, we're seeing larger numbers of ESL children living in communities

like mine, Coquitlam, Burnaby or Surrey.

[4:15]

The fundamental issue here is that when the block is not increased

realistically related to the cost of living, these factors loom all the

larger. In this district, $500,000 is the equivalent of at least ten

teachers and something like 20 aides. That's a very significant loss in

terms of services to kids. I would hope that government fits this into

its planning.

I just wanted to make those points, because they demonstrate in

small ways that most of us can understand — because they're similar to

the kinds of things we deal with in our budgets — the kinds of

challenges and problems school districts are experiencing at this time.

HON. S. HAGEN: I must warn the member for New Westminster

that she's straying away from her party's new policy of fiscal

restraint and management. I wouldn't want her to get in trouble with

her leader.

I know that the other side doesn't understand this concept, so I

want to go on record with a few facts and figures. The member mentioned

the announcing of a 3.75 percent lift to school board budgets. I would

remind the member that when you take everything into consideration for

this year, the lift is in fact just under 8 percent.

Because she questioned the rate of 19 percent being the average lift

to school districts over the last two years, I would like to mention

some of some of the school districts and the percentages they've

received over the last two years: Grand Forks, 22.3 percent;

[ Page

12539 ]

Kettle Valley, 21.7 percent; South Okanagan, 23.5

percent; Penticton, 25.2 percent; Keremeos, 34.2 percent; Princeton,

19.1 percent — remember, I'm just listing the ones at 19 percent or

over, which I understand would be about half; Armstrong, 35.9 percent;

Central Okanagan, 29.7 percent over two years; Kamloops, 22.3 percent;

Merritt, 32.3 percent; Chilliwack; 28.8 percent; Abbotsford, 31.3

percent; Surrey, 23.8 percent; Richmond, 20.6 percent; Maple Ridge-Pitt

Meadows, 22.5 percent; Coquitlam, 22.1 percent; Sunshine Coast, 26.3

percent; Central Coast, 22.4 percent; Nechako, 19.5 percent; Sooke,

19.9 percent — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew forgot to thank me

for that; Nanaimo, 23.4 percent; Qualicum, 22.1 percent; Courtenay,

26.4 percent; Campbell River, 20.6 percent; Mission, 22.4 percent;

Agassiz-Harrison, 31.9 percent; Summerland, 26.7 percent; Kitimat, 28.7

percent; Fort Nelson, 22.9 percent; Terrace, 19.9 percent; Shuswap,

24.7 percent; and Nisga'a, 20.8 percent.

What's interesting about those numbers is this. I wonder how the

people who live and work in those communities — the men and women who

work in the sawmills in those resource-based communities, who drive

trucks and do other jobs.... I wonder how many of those received those

kinds of increases over the last two years.

There is a reality here. The opposition keeps on saying: "You're not

putting enough money into education. You should be funding that small

extra percentage for UI increases. You should be funding this. You

should be adding funding in here. You're not putting enough money in."

Mr. Chairman, the money isn't ours; the money comes from the taxpayers

of this province, and the taxpayers of this province work very hard to

earn that money, and they want to see it spent well. Nobody argues the

significance and the importance of education, but that does not give us

a right as politicians to pour money into something just because we

think money is the answer.

Money is not the answer; it's people who are the answer. It's the

people who are in the system; they are the answer. I really get tired

of the opposition continually focusing on money. What I'm interested in

is the students, the quality of the students; I'm interested in the

teachers, the quality of the teachers; upgrading. Certainly I'm

interested in buildings, but, you know, we wouldn't even have an

education system, we wouldn't even have buildings, we wouldn't even

have teachers, without the students. It's important to focus on the

important aspect of the system, and the most important aspect of the

system is the student.

Yesterday the opposition was referring to special kids. I said: "All

kids are special." Every one out there is special. We can't say one is

more special than the other.

I just want to reiterate that this government has made the largest commitment,

as a percentage of budget, to the education system from K to 12 and including

the universities and colleges — the post-secondary system — of any province

in this country. No province has made a larger commitment to education. Well,

NDP provinces like Ontario, who refuse to participate in assessment programs

— if you can believe that, Mr. Chairman.... The NDP in Ontario has backed out

of the assessment program for testing numeracy and literacy. They've backed

out of it, and at the same time they've reduced the amount of money that

they put into education. They spend more money in Ontario on social welfare

than they do on education. That is a major concern to this nation and to its

future. This government will never allow that to happen. We will continue to

fund education as a priority, but we also expect school boards to be fiscally

responsible. When I have school board chairpersons say to me, "We've

signed a collective agreement that we can't afford, so you have to give

us more money now, " I say: "The taxpayers don't have any more

money. You've got ample." Nineteen percent over two years is more than

ample to fund the system.

MS. A. HAGEN: I just want to make a brief comment. I know the

member for Cariboo has some questions that he's been waiting to ask the

minister. We began the session this afternoon with a discussion of

honesty in terms of figures and comparability. Once again the minister

patronizes us with a large list of numbers that are in his hands alone.

There are public documents which deal with the increases the school

boards have had and the increases in enrolment. I would just encourage

the minister not to patronize us, not to patronize schools boards and

not to just list off a set of meaningless figures. It doesn't really

help our debate.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN: Talk about patronizing, Mr. Chairman! The

reason I read that list was that the member for New Westminster

insinuated that there weren't many school boards that got over 19

percent. It was a patronizing insinuation on her part.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm talking about public documents. The

minister has documents in his hands which do not conform with documents

in the public domain about increases in funding. I think that's the

issue. We're looking for freedom of information, which this government

makes quite difficult for us to achieve.

HON. S. HAGEN: They are in the public domain. I just read them into the public domain.

MR. VANT: As most members of the chamber know, I represent a

very rural riding in the centre of British Columbia. It's about 39,000

square miles, and it comprises School District 28, Quesnel; School

District 27, Williams Lake; and School District 30, in the south

Cariboo. For the sake of brevity in these estimates, I will focus my

questions to the minister on School District 27, Cariboo-Chilcotin.

First of all, as I said, it's a very rural constituency. Indeed, no

less than 92 school buses take well over half of the students to school

every day. Out of a total population of 7,787 students, no less than

5,500 take a school bus to and from school every day. The buses travel

over two million kilometres per year.

[ Page 12540 ]

My initial question to the minister is: why has the dispersion

factor, as your ministry calls it, been reduced for School District 27?

That tends to emphasize that we're less rural and more urban. But if

there is any school district that is widespread and rural, it is School

District 27 — the Cariboo-Chilcotin School District. So why is our

dispersion factor in School District 27 being reduced? I understand

it's also being reduced for School District 28 in Quesnel, and I can

assure the minister that well over two-thirds of my constituents live

out in the unincorporated areas of the Cariboo.

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the question from the member of

that great constituency of Cariboo. It's beautiful country; I was just

up there within the last couple of weeks, and it was a bright, sunny

day. There are very free enterprise people in that great part of the

province.

The question is a very appropriate one and probably one of the best

ones I've had during my estimates. I want to give a bit of background

to the member with regard to the changes in the fiscal framework. This

is a very complex...

[4:30]

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Pay attention.

... calculation. Here are changes to the fiscal framework which

occurred in School District 27. New service levels were implemented to

achieve greater equity and changes in relative costs, and the number of

students in different programs was recognized. These changes did result

in a reduction to the district's block.

This did not happen just in School District 27; it was an

across-the-province calculation that took place. The calculation is

part of

the job of the fiscal framework committee, which is made up of four

superintendents and four secretary-treasurers. They are appointed by

their associations and not by us. They take all of the information in

hand, make the calculation and then make the recommendation to the

ministry.

MR. VANT: That brings me to my next question. I understand

that this year the enrolment in School District 27, for example — and

I'll just stick to the one school district for the sake of brevity —

increased by a total of about 80 students. In the forthcoming year they

have projected a decrease of about 14 students. It's a very slight

decrease in enrolment, yet in terms of calculating the block funding I

understand the weighting factor has for some reason been reduced.

I would certainly like the minister to explain to me why the

weighting factor was reduced, because there's no significant change

that I'm aware of in the operation of that school district. I am aware

that over the last two years, while a school district like Keremeos got

a whopping 34.2 percent increase, the increase for Cariboo-Chilcotin,

which is a very rural riding with a huge dispersion factor, is only a

paltry 12.7 percent. I must admit, Mr. Minister, that I and many of my

constituents are a little envious of the block funding increase over

the last two years which some of the other school districts have

received.

Now I realize there are different variables, but I did receive some

information about the pupil-teacher ratio of school districts similar

to School District 27. But unfortunately, it compared similar-sized

districts, and they were all what I would call, with all due respect,

postage-stamp districts. For example, they gave Courtenay, Sooke,

Chilliwack, Vernon, Cowichan and Saanich districts, which are much

smaller than Cariboo-Chilcotin School District. We're a very rural

area, so I would like to know why the weighting factor under these

circumstances has been reduced.

HON. S. HAGEN: I again thank the first member for Cariboo for

those very relevant questions. In the districts with a population of

7,000 to 9,000 that we compared, if you look at the Cariboo-Chilcotin

School District, their pupil-teacher ratio is 15.75; Courtenay's, which

is at the top of that group, is 16.99. There's a considerable cost

impact difference there. The other district you compared was Keremeos.

Let me go back to the establishment of block funding. When the block

was established, some districts were below the average, and some were

above the average in the cost of services they were providing. Keremeos

was way down below the average. They had had very low supplementary

budgets.

As you know, to assist the districts that weren't providing the

services that some of the other districts were, we ratcheted them up.

We ratcheted the higher spenders down. We ratcheted the low spenders up

more quickly. In other words, we've done that over a period of two

years. We are ratcheting the other ones down over a period of three

years to make it a little easier, because it poses some difficulty for

them. That's the reason for the differentiation between Keremeos and

Williams Lake.

MR. VANT: Finally, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the block

funding, School District 27 was very grateful to get a special-purpose

grant for this coming year of $492,545. I have been led to believe that

this was due to the fact that in the past they didn't have what you'd

call a supplementary budget, because nobody seems to know exactly what

the special-purpose grant is for. It certainly is very gratefully

received, and it does increase the block funding; this one-time-only

special purpose grant is about 1 percent. I'm just wondering if there

is another explanation for this special-purpose grant.

HON. S. HAGEN: If you go back to my previous discussion about

the average and the districts that were below-the-line spenders and the

ones that were above.... The special-purpose grant was an extra grant

this year so that we could bring the lower-spending districts — the

poorer districts — up to the line in two years instead of waiting three

years. That was the purpose of the special-purpose grant,

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to hear this

minister's selective way of responding to questions coming from our

side of the House and to those coming from the Social Credit side of

the House.

[ Page

12541 ]

Had the questions the minister just received been put by a member of

the opposition, I'm sure we would have had an answer very similar to

the answers that the minister was giving to our critic a few moments

ago, when he was accusing her of simply wanting more money. Obviously

the member who just asked the question was raising appropriate

questions, as we are raising appropriate questions. I would also like

to point out to the minister that as an MLA representing my

constituency, as is the first member for Cariboo, I don't have access

to all the information that this minister has. I'm standing in my place

now to raise some issues that have been raised by school trustees in

Coquitlam, and some of these questions are in keeping with the

questions that have recently been asked by the Education critic, the

hon. member for New Westminster.

I'd like to put the question in this context, Mr. Chairman. The

minister used the phrase that there seems to be some sort of

expectation that money will be poured in — to use his words. I think

that what is being asked for here, first of all, is the opportunity to

do effective and reasonable planning; and secondly, to be able to do so

on the basis of no surprises. The fact is that when school districts

are hit with a fiscal framework process that results in surprises, then

it makes it extremely difficult to do the planning that those school

districts, regardless of what part of the political spectrum the

members come from, have to do.

Some of the things that are chipping away at the ability of school

districts to plan and do their job have to do with something that I

don't blame the minister for: the goods and services tax. For the

record, I want to point out that Mrs. Louella Hollington, who is the

chairperson of the School District 43 board of trustees, wrote to the

minister on April 16 pointing out that although the block funding was

lifted by 3.75 percent, the cost of the GST amounts to 2.25 percent,

and having to absorb the cost of the GST leaves very little room in the

budgets to cover the true cost of inflation on goods and services. She

also acknowledges in her letter that she realizes that this minister

has been expressing his concern about the same issue. Given that this

impact was apparently not taken into consideration in developing the

fiscal framework, it makes it very difficult for school trustees to do

the appropriate planning.

I would turn to another issue that was raised by the member for New

Westminster. She referred to the increase in UIC premiums. Again,

Louella Hollington, the chairperson of the School District 43 trustees,

wrote to the minister on April 16, and she says: "Because our operating

budget is 87.5 percent salaries and wages, the increase in the

employer's UIC benefit costs is significant. For this district the

annual cost is estimated at $613,000, based on the information

currently at hand." This is another impact that is made difficult to

deal with, in view of its having been realized after the setting of the

fiscal framework. Mr. Chairman, I have written a similar letter to the

minister, asking him to deal with that issue.

Then there's the issue in the budget of the increase in the medical services

premiums, which again is an additional cost, an additional impact on school

districts for which they were not able to plan because of the timing vis-à-vis

the GST. In that context, I want to ask the minister how he expects school districts

to be able to plan, given the time line in which these formulas are set and

have to function.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm delighted to reply to that excellent

question, because it gives me an opportunity to outline some of the

things that have been going on in Coquitlam.

First of all, let me say that there are no surprises. There is

predictability, and there is stability. But just because you have

predictability and stability doesn't mean you stand still. It doesn't

mean you don't make changes when changes are needed. My predecessor,

the member for North Peace, sent a ministerial statement out to school

boards last October cautioning boards about the economy and predicted

growth for this year, and asking them to be careful in their

negotiations with their employees. I sent out a letter very soon after

I became the minister in January, cautioned the boards again and

provided each board with all the information we had as a ministry with

regard to what was happening with the economy and the economic

indicators.

It is little surprise to me that the Coquitlam School Board might be

having some difficulty dealing with UI-increased expenditures or GST

expenditures, when you look at the collective agreement they settled.

The collective agreement settled between the board and the teachers

provides for an 8.52 percent increase July 1, and a 1.59 percent

increase on January 1 - a 10.6 percent increase in one year. It is

little wonder that boards are having difficulty with some minor

expenditures like UI and GST.

What bothers me about the increases is that they're going to take it

out of the student programs which, as I said before, is the only reason

we have an education system. We do not have an education system so we

can build buildings. We do not have an education system to employ

teachers, custodians or other employees. We have an education system to

educate kids. When I look at information like this, I have to wonder.

Over a two-year period the Coquitlam School District has received

very large increases. How large, you ask? Over two years, 22.1 percent.

Now I ask you and the taxpayers of Coquitlam, how many of you received

wage increases of 22 percent over the last two years? How many? I

suspect not many.

[4:45]

Many people are now taking reductions in wages in order to keep the

company going so that it can keep on paying the wages. Don't talk to me

about problems in paying GST or UI payments, Mr. Member from Coquitlam.

Look at the money that the taxpayers have provided to your school

district: 22.1 percent — $22 million over the last two years. I think

you should find something else to ask about.

MR. CASHORE: I do have other things to ask about, but again

the minister did not answer my question. My question was about the

planning process. How can school districts do their planning when they

base it on

[ Page 12542 ]

a fiscal framework? That is the process that has

been accepted by this government and put into place to enable school

districts to do their planning. How does this minister expect them to

do their planning, when the basic process keeps changing in midstream?

With regard to what the minister chooses to read into the record

from a very limited document that he has before him and presents to the

House, I would just remind him that once we have an

access-to-information act in this province, we will be able to see the

numbers

that lie behind those numbers and to assess in a much more appropriate

manner what really is going on there, because there is very little

relationship between some of these statements and what appears to be

the actual fact.

HON. S. HAGEN: Are you calling me a liar?

MR. CASHORE: No, I am not in any way, Mr. Chairman, using

that word — which I will not repeat — with regard to this minister.

While he is usually not testy in this House, he certainly is showing

flashes of testiness today. I don't know if it has to do with some of

his future plans or not, but anyway, I'm glad to see that he's smiling

now.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move on to another

question, and I'd like to ask the minister to stop babbling and listen

to my question, so that he may give an equally erudite answer. I'll ask

him to pretend that I'm the first member for Cariboo, so that he will

respond in a reasonable way. If you can just suspend your sense of

critical judgment for a moment and assume that it's somebody you

consider a friend asking this question, then maybe I can count on you

to give an erudite and reasonable answer.

The question has to do with French immersion funding. In the 1991

fiscal year $375,000 was budgeted for School District 43. As I

understand it, under the normal process that amount of money would be

received in total by March 1991, the conclusion of that fiscal year. In

March 1991, when School District 43 received its payment for French

immersion, it was not $375,000. It was $357,000, which means that it

was down $18,000 from the budgeted amount. I understand that the

adjustment was due to an enrolment change. So I want the minister to

know that I understand why that amount of money was less, even though I

think it's difficult for planning when amounts of money are lost as a

result of that kind of formula. I understand why that $18,000 was not

there.

Now let's move on to the 1991-92 fiscal year. The board was told

that as a result of the fiscal framework, only $196,808 would be

received during that fiscal year. That amount is in spite of the

increased enrolment in the program. We expect that that money, which

will come in total by March 1992, is going to be $161,000 less than the

1990-91 amount of $357,000 — and that is happening at a time when

there's actually an increased enrolment. The board has written and

phoned the Ministry of Education, asking why the fiscal framework is so

much lower than in 1990-91. They've received no answer or

recommendation. I'd like to ask the minister to explain why there's

been that incredible change in funding for French immersion between

those two years, when the enrolment actually increased. Mr. Minister,

we're talking about a loss of $161,000, which is a lot of money.

I would also point out to the minister that I wrote to him on May

23.... I don't expect that he's had time to respond to that yet, so I'm

not criticizing that. I just point out that in my letter I said that it

was a shortfall of $179,000; for the record, I'm correcting that to a

shortfall of $161,000.

But the point still remains that given that the district of

Coquitlam is the pioneer French immersion district in British Columbia,

with the only francophone community in British Columbia, this is a

tremendous blow to that community and to those school trustees. And to

use the words of the minister — his oft-repeated words, in lecturing

our members — it's also a tremendous blow to the students of Coquitlam.

Would the minister please explain.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to go back to the member's

discussion on planning. "How do we plan?" was his question. "How do

school districts plan?" I can understand his asking that question,

because he's probably never had to plan. We expect school districts to

plan just like we have to plan. School districts are privy to the same

information we're privy to with regard to where the economy is going,

Mr. Chairman. It's not difficult to get that information, to find out

whether there's going to be an economic downturn or economic growth, or

what the prediction is with regard to the economy. There is no excuse

for boards not doing proper planning.

I want to point out that boards have never received their financial

information at an earlier date than they now receive it. I can remember

that when I was a school trustee, we didn't know until April or May,

after our fiscal year had started — or until the government's fiscal

year had started — what the amount was going to be. Now it's legislated

for February 1; they know for that year. With regard to the future

year's planning, boards should be planning just like everybody else has

to. There's no excuse for not planning.

I also want to reply to this stuff about access to information. The

collective agreements for the Coquitlam School District are available

to that member, just like they're available to any member of the

public. The budget is available to that member, just like it's

available to any member of the public. The lines that I was reading

from are from the budget of the district of Coquitlam. It's public

information. Go to the school board meeting and ask for it. Or phone

the chairman of the board. I know you know the chairman very well. Ask

for a copy, and I'm sure you'll receive it.

I want to make another point too, because I think the member is a

little confused about fiscal years. The provincial government fiscal

year, as you know, is April 1 to March 31. The school district fiscal

year goes

[ Page

12543 ]

from July 1 to June 30. Of course, the property taxation year goes from January 1 to Dece