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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12565 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12565

Freedom of Information Act (Bill M205). Mr. Jones

Introduction and first reading –– 12565

Oral Questions

RRI plans for Richmond waste disposal site. Mr. Cashore –– 12566

Enrolment cuts at Vancouver Community College. Mr. Jones –– 12567

Victoria-to-Seattle ferry service. Mr. Blencoe –– 12567

SkyTrain operational problems. Mrs. McCarthy –– 12567

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12568

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Michael

Mr. Jones

Ms. Cull

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Guno

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Fraser

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of guests today:

Ruth and Denis Doll from North Vancouver; Louise and Pat Mallaghan from

Shawnigan Lake, whom I had the pleasure of having lunch with today; Lil

Anderson, who lives in Victoria and is president of International

Training in Communication for the northwest region; Ruby Moon,

secretary-treasurer of International Training in Communication from

Sydney, Australia; and last but not least, Dr. and Mrs. Robert Goldman.

Dr. Goldman is chair of the department of health services management

and acting chair of the department of marketing at Golden Gate

University, and a lecturer at San Francisco State University. I would

ask the House to make all these guests welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the chamber today are three

gentlemen representing an organization in which I take some pride, and

for whose help we can all be grateful. Representing the CNIB, B.C. and

Yukon division, are: Glynn Spelliscy, Bob Nicholson and Frank Laird.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine,

Mr. Jim Chisholm, a member of the board of school trustees in Surrey

Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

MR. REID: I also welcome Mr. Chisholm, on behalf of the representative from Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale.

In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, I have two special friends from

my constituency: Mr. Bob Wood and Mr. John Ackerley, from PBK

Engineering. These two gentlemen represent the free enterprise system

and are certainly doing a commendable job in dealing with this

government.

MR. HUBERTS: In the House are two good friends of mine, Joe

and Pat Heald from North Saanich, who have a friend with them from the

United States, Mr. Laurence Surpless. Would the House please help me

welcome them.

MR. LOENEN: In the members' gallery is a wonderful couple

from Richmond, George and Sally Wood. They are retired now. Sally

worked with B.C. Tel for some 30 years. George is a great volunteer and

spends his time on behalf of the Optimist International. In fact, he is

the lieutenant-governor-elect for the Pacific Northwest region. I would

ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today I have five constituents:

Don and Bev Dunn, Wayne and Barbara Langdale and Shirley Clark. As well, Doug

and April Banks from Parksville are here. They're all here for the fire

chiefs' convention in Victoria, and I'd like the House to make them

very welcome.

HON. MR. MERCIER: In the Legislature today we have a teacher,

Mrs. Carol Taylor, with 30 grades 4 and 5 students from Armstrong

Elementary School in my riding. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of the second member for Okanagan South

and myself, I would like to introduce Mike and Eva Jennings, who are

constituents of ours from Westbank. They are accompanied by Helga

Jennings and Phyllis Rivers. It would be of interest to note that Mike

graduated from Victoria High School in 1941, and he's here in Victoria

celebrating the fiftieth anniversary. They are here in the House today

to watch the good temper and moderation which are characteristics of

this House in question period.

HON. MR. BRUCE: Several days ago four gentlemen returned to

my community, having just climbed to the summit of Mount McKinley —

some 20,000-plus feet. Mike Taylor, Doug Whale, Jon Heshka and Terry

Baum climbed the peak in a effort to raise money for cancer research.

To date they have collected up to $20,000 in their effort to assist in

the development of cancer research. I would ask the House to extend

their congratulations to all four of these gentlemen.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting with us today are approximately 50

students from Seaquam Secondary School in North Delta. They are

accompanied by, among others, Mrs. Diane Kelly, who is not only an

outstanding teacher but also my sister. I would ask the House to make

them very welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that a message be sent to the climbers from...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake to do that on your behalf.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled a report of the lottery grants branch

containing a comprehensive list of the Lottery Fund grants administered

by the Provincial Secretary for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991.

Introduction of Bills

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. Jones presented a bill intituled Freedom of Information Act.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to ensure

that the citizens of British Columbia, who have lived too long under an

administration with no legislative rights of access to information,

will now have open access to public records held by government bodies.

The act recognizes that citizens want to know and have the right to

know what their government is doing. At the same time, this act

recognizes that the government has an obligation to protect the privacy

of individual citizens who have provided information to

[ Page 12566 ]

the government on a confidential basis. Under this

act, access to public records cannot be denied unless and until the

government has provided clear and cogent reasons for doing so, and any

decision by government to deny access is reviewable by the ombudsman

and the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

RRI PLANS FOR RICHMOND

WASTE DISPOSAL SITE

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

Is the minister aware that the business plans of Resource Recovery

International's Richmond site include handling special wastes — that

is, a facility to handle the most hazardous wastes?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Before I proceed to answer that, I'd point

out that the member has been the opposition critic of this ministry for

some time now, and it can be presumed

Interjections.

HON. MR. MERCIER: It's very relevant to answering the

question. It can be presumed that he has an understanding of the

hierarchy and rating of the soils and describing the same. So I'd ask

that in all his comments that he refrain from using the word "toxic"

when he knows full well — or he should know full well — that it's not

applicable.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point of order.

MR. CLARK: The member can, in about three months, if he's lucky enough to get elected....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! A point of order must be addressed to the Chair, not to the member, so if you have a point of order, address it to me.

MR. CLARK: The member knows — just for guidance, Mr. Speaker

— that he can ask questions when he's on this side of the House. He's a

member of the executive council. He's asked to answer questions; he's

chosen not to answer questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, questions may be asked of

ministers. Ministers may or may not answer the questions, as they see

fit. We have allowed

preambles on both sides. The minister in this case

wishes to put forward a

preamble. This particular question happened to

be short, and it would be wonderful if that was a guidepost. I

appreciate the unsolicited advice from members, but the difficulty is

that not all questions have that. So let's continue and get back to the

subject.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, while the question may seem

simple, this is a very complex matter — as the opposition critic should

know, because he's been working on this case for some time. On the

point of order, I did not ask a question. I asked that he please

refrain from using the word "toxic" in cases where it's not applicable.

With respect to RRI, they are a private corporation. I'm sure they

have business plans, some of which I'm aware of and some of which I'm

not. With respect to the question, could you be more specific on which

plan you're referring to?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I ask a legitimate question, and I

get a lecture on this minister's definition. This minister will not

decide what the

definitions of terms are. We'll use the dictionary to

decide on our

definitions.

I ask the minister this: how can he justify the answer that he just

gave, given that the business plan states that the project has been

very well received at all levels of government?

HON. MR. MERCIER: First you actually look beyond the

dictionary for the

definitions. You look to the schedules in the

regulations in the act. The first question did not define which plan

was being referred to. I would like to answer, if you would tell me

which business plan of RRI you're referring to.

MR. CASHORE: The minister is very well aware that we are

referring to the RRI plan presented in 1989 to the National Harbours

Board and that this plan relates to the site that we have been

discussing with regard to Richmond.

A supplementary question. RRI's corporate profile clearly states

that their venture depends upon the "goodwill of politicians and public

servants." I quote again: "It is most heartening that to date the

project has been very well received at all levels of government."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

MR. CASHORE: Can the minister assure the House that his

ministry has not already given the green light to this hazardous waste

facility in Richmond, before there has been any public discussion of

RRI's intentions?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member has not specified the site, but

I can make a presumption as to the site he's referring to. The green

light that he's referring to would likely come from the Richmond

council, which has control over that site for their zoning and

development permit process. So I don't know which green light you're

referring to that you would like from this minister.

[ Page

12567 ]

MR. CASHORE: The minister referred to the Richmond council. He knows that he has already been defeated by the Richmond council.

When your officials met with the Richmond council recently, they did

so on the basis that they would not accept questions from the public. A

public meeting has been set for June 19 in Richmond. Can the minister

confirm that he has instructed his officials to keep that date with the

people of Richmond to answer their questions about the future of that

site?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I can confirm that we will do everything

possible to keep the public informed and provide them with correct

information, although the job has been made more difficult with all the

misinformation that has been put in the public arena by someone who

should know the specifics a lot better.

MR. CASHORE: Will the minister instruct his officials to

attend that meeting to answer the questions of the people of Richmond

about this issue?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member should know that I have already asked that my staff be there.

ENROLMENT CUTS AT

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

MR. JONES: This is a question for the Premier. Only a few

weeks after your throne speech, Madam Premier, in which you said

education is the most important and essential investment in our

province's future, we see some 1,000 spaces cut from Vancouver

Community College. The question to the Premier is: has she developed a

plan to save those much-needed nursing and other program spaces at

Vancouver Community College?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Premier — Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I know you haven't made your announcement

yet. [Laughter.]

Might I once again suggest, as I do day in and day out when

questions are put to me, that the question would more appropriately be

put to the minister responsible.

MR. JONES: Madam Premier, this is your throne speech, it's

your government and it's you who's confused about who the Premier is in

this province. It's up to you to direct your minister.

Perhaps I could try a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That Premier's government

has allocated some $123 million in the Advanced Education budget under the title

"Access Programs and Enrolment." How does the Premier reconcile that

commitment to improving access and enrolment with cutting back existing programs

at existing facilities?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I may have erred in my address to the

Speaker, but I can tell you one thing: we know who will not be the

Premier after the next election — the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, may I once again suggest that the question be put to the appropriate minister.

VICTORIA-TO-SEATTLE FERRY SERVICE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. In the last week or so, the minister has

not been able to answer any questions about ferries from Victoria to

Seattle. But I'll ask him a question today that I think he might be

able to answer. The Premier said recently in a letter to me that she

believes B.C. Ferries has the ability to run a ferry to Seattle from

Victoria. I wonder if the minister can tell us today whether he has

considered — or will be considering — contingency plans to run a B.C.

ferry from Victoria to Seattle, given that we have the potential to

lose $100 million in revenue in this city this summer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member knows that just a

slight turn of phrase could have actually made the question in order.

Would he like to rework that question so it's in order?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I thought I used the turn of

phrase. Has the minister decided to consider a B.C. ferry run from

Victoria to Seattle?

HON. L. HANSON: The other day the member directed a question

to me that should have gone to another ministry. I answered this exact

same question about ten days ago with the simple answer: no.

SKYTRAIN OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is also for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. SkyTrain has experienced a very serious

breakdown recently, resulting in very great inconvenience to the riders

— the customers of that service. In spite of the tremendous success of

SkyTrain — it has even rejuvenated the whole community of New

Westminster; a very great success — I do believe the riders need

reassurance that GVRD residents will not be inconvenienced in the

future. Could the minister tell us how he plans to overcome these

inconveniences and these operational problems of SkyTrain?

MR. SPEAKER: That's pretty much an open-ended question. I'd

ask the minister for just a brief response, if that's possible, or we

will use all of question period.

HON. L. HANSON: That's really too bad, Mr. Speaker, because

there is just so much information I could bring forward about how

wonderful SkyTrain is. I'm really sorry that you've made that ruling,

but in respect of your position and your ruling, the difficulty with

SkyTrain the other morning.... It failed at about ten to eight, in the

middle of the rush hour, and was

[ Page 12568 ]

back in service at about 11 o'clock, the difficulty being that the computerized system that controls the trains failed.

The difficulty, which everyone may not know, was not in the failure

of the computer; that's what stopped the train. The time it took to get

it back into service was the difficulty. The system we have in place

now is being modified, hopefully to be in effect this fall. That will

let us put SkyTrain back into service immediately. We now have the

difficulty of having to physically take a driver to SkyTrain, take it

into the station, take the passengers off, and so on. The number one

issue, of course, is passenger safety, and we do deal with that. But we

will have the computer system modified to allow that to happen early

this fall.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

[2:30]

MR. ZIRNHELT: My first question today deals with expenditures

on education and B.C.'s relative position with respect to education

expenditures as a percentage of gross provincial product. From the

latest figures I have going back to '88-89, it's my understanding that

B.C. is about in the middle of the pack. Mr. Minister, has that changed

in the most recent year?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to say to the member from

Cariboo.... These are not my statistics. These statistics were

developed by Dominion Bond Rating Service Ltd. When you look at the

percentage of expenditures according to the total budget of the

province, which is very significant.... In the budgeting process — and

I know you haven't had the opportunity to go through that — you have to

look at the total revenue available and how that money is to be spent.

It's very significant to note that British Columbia spends the highest

percentage of its total budget on education — the K-to-12 system and

the post-secondary system. That percentage is 27.4 percent of total

expenditures.

The percentage has increased each year: Dominion Bond Rating Service

Ltd. has gone back four years to 1987, and indicated that in 1987 the

province committed an investment of 23.3 percent of its total budget to

education; that went up the next year to 23.9 percent; it went up the

following year to 24.5 percent; and it went up this year to 27.4

percent. That's a very significant investment in education.

If you want to compare that to something, compare it to Ontario, the

wealthiest province with the largest budget of any province in Canada.

In 1987 the percentage of their budget spent on education was 21.9,

which is about 1.5 percent less than us; it, declined the next year to

20.6; it declined the next year to 20.4; and it has declined this year

to 18.4. It's important to recognize the relevance of those, and it's

important to see the commitment to education this province has made

over the last four to five years.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I've heard those figures and, while I haven't

been in the House all the time, I've been listening and reading the

Blues, so I've heard those figures before. I'm going by the Ministry of

Finance. Obviously, the government's own reports consider it

significant that you express expenditures in education as a percentage

of gross provincial product. It seems to me that you either have the

figure for this year or you don't. The figure for '88-89 was that B.C.

spends 3.5 percent; it's gone up to 3.74 percent. But how do we stand

compared to other provinces in this respect? As of two years ago, we

were number six in Canada — as I say, the middle of the pack. So that's

another measure, because education is, broadly speaking, an investment

in social capital, and I don't define social capital as simply

buildings. The people are the social capital. That investment is very

important for keeping a competitive and productive labour force and for

investing in research and development indirectly through investment in

the school system. If your Ministry of Finance considers it a

significant measure, I only ask that we compare ourselves to other

provinces with respect to this particular measure. Do you have those

relative figures?

HON. S. HAGEN: I thank the member for the question. I find it

interesting that the member opposite refers to expenditures on

education. We on this side of the House prefer to look upon it as

investment in education, because we are indeed investing in our future.

I can tell you that the budgeting process is not simply a decision of

the Minister of Finance as to what the investment in education is going

to be.

My predecessor, the member for North Peace River, fought the good

fight at Treasury Board table constantly and consistently to make sure

that the proper investment was made in education over a four-year

period. The fact that the percentage of investment compared to total

expenditures.... After all, we're talking about the amount that the

taxpayers have to spend, because the money comes from taxpayers. So you

can talk about the gross domestic product all you want. What we have to

deal with are the dollars that are provided to us from taxpayers. That

challenge was taken up by my predecessor and was taken up this year to

assure that the needs of the students of British Columbia are being

well met.

MR. BRUMMET: I had not planned to say any more, having made,

I guess, a fairly strong statement after a difficult decision and a lot

of soul-searching because of my concern for the new directions in

education and because of my tendency not to want to work on a team and

be critical of it. I knew that I was so concerned about the future of

the Year 2000 program that I wouldn't have been able to keep my mouth

shut, and so I thought I would fade away. But having read an

article

this morning in the Times-Colonist , I felt I needed to say something, because there are so many things reflected

[ Page

12569 ]

in that

article that are both wrong and dangerous

to the future not just of the Year 2000 program but really of the

education of children in this province.

In this debate there has been a lot of talk that many things were

done without consultation. That is incorrect. Hundreds of educators sat

together and put the program together. There were many discussions, but

I guess the BCTF version of consultation happens to coincide with the

NDP version of consultation: if you don't do everything that we demand,

then there ain't no consultation. That's the sad thing.

The BCTF representatives were members of the advisory committees

that approved work plans. I might say that the advisory committee's

idea of having a consensus from all the players in this province was to

have a majority of members on the advisory committee so that they would

have voting power and control. That is their idea of consensus: put

five other people on with eight of us so that we can vote everything

our way. That's what they demanded, and that's what we did not give

them. That's their idea of consultation: do it our way or else. Then,

unfortunately, they get out this constant harping on lack of

consultation and no consultation, which gets broadcast all over, and

then people get the impression that it is a fact.

Similarly, as the minister has been facing, we hear: "Cutting

expenditures in education. Underfunding, underfunding, underfunding." I

guess if you say it enough times people believe it. Unfortunately there

are a lot of people in the province who believe there was underfunding,

because it's been said so often. It is not true. There is plenty of

money for a good-quality education system. I think that the people who

constantly snipe at the funding for their own partisan political

purposes are doing a great disservice to the people of this province

and certainly to the students.

Yesterday there was a considerable debate about the extra funding

for the new initiatives and changes. I heard the Education critic —

presumably the most learned of the group over there on educational

matters — saying: "Are you going to keep the new funding in place

forever?" If people would just stop and think for one minute that when

a student first enters school there is a funding entitlement for that

student — let me use that analogy. In future that student is one of the

enrolment, and the funding entitlement is there for that student on a

continuing basis. You do not say, "This student is new this year, and

they promised that we would have ten years to do this program;

therefore for ten years this student is going to count as new and

regular" — in other words, double funding for students. It's so

ridiculous that you wonder why there was an hour's debate on it, that

you start something and you've got to keep starting it or paying for

the start all over again even though it's an ongoing thing. I'm very

concerned about that, Mr. Chairman.

I guess what it boils down to is that you have a lot of lip-service from the

critics about the desirability for change in education and the desirability

to do for the students, but when it comes to actual fact, by sniping away at

each item, it destroys the ability of the system to make those changes. "Yes,

we want significant changes, but don't change this and don't change

that." I get the impression that they're all in favour of change so

long as you do not change anything.

There's a definition of critics that says they sit on the hill while

the battle is going on, and then they come down and shoot the dead —

which is a pretty rough analogy, but I sometimes wonder if it doesn't

apply. In other words, lip-service to change, but sabotage every

element of change — and that is a shame.

The Premier gets lambasted for the amount of money that has gone

through the capital program in her constituency. A big deal has been

made of that. There seems to be absolutely no recognition of the fact

that two years ago they got about 33 percent of the capital funding

because the need was greatest there. We still couldn't meet it all, so

they increased their request for the next year. The next year we

increased the budget, and they got a quarter of that — a quarter for

one of the 75 districts. In that quarter they got last year was a lot

of planning money to acquire the property and develop the plans to do

that. So it was a logical follow-up. I'm surprised that with all of the

planning that was done Surrey got only one-fifth or one-quarter of the

money again this year. Yet the Premier is being blamed for collecting

that politically.

Those people know it. The president of the B.C. School Trustees'

Association knows it, yet look at the reaction she had. I hope she's

not speaking for all of the trustees in this province, because look at

her reaction when the minister announced the $650 million capital

program, which was discussed with the school trustees' executive last

year — that hopefully it would be that much. The reaction was purely

partisan: "It's an election ploy. Why didn't they just do it for other

reasons?" So we have all of those things.

Look at the reaction of the president of the BCSTA when the

dual-entry cancellation was announced: "Oh, they probably don't have

the money to carry on with it." She must have read the press release

and the information that the school boards and the trustees got earlier

in the year that the money was in place. That was not the reason for

the cancellation. However, let me suggest that a system.... The larger

the system, the more inclined it is to fight to perpetuate itself, to

preserve the status quo. That is exactly what is happening.

[2:45]

The Times-Colonist

article this morning is headlined: "Some

Kids May Repeat Kindergarten." After three years of discussion, after a

royal commission report, after all of that — I don't know whether

that's the reporter, the editor or whoever — the attitude still

prevails.

First paragraph: "Children caught in B.C.'s failed dual-entry

experiment may have to repeat their kindergarten year." This is from

people who on committees and everything else had paid lip-service to

continuous progress, to the mission statement of the ministry that each

child develop according to his or her potential.

Here's another one. It just blows your mind, really, that they say

that these students are going to be "out of step with their peers."

Sullivan and the education system all know that there is diversity in

the learning

[ Page 12570 ]

rate of students. But I guess the Greater Victoria

School District is considering splitting the January entry group,

putting some into grade 1 in September and keeping others in

kindergarten — like it is absolutely impossible organizationally to

keep some kids in a group and let them learn at the level they're

capable of learning at. That was the whole philosophy of the primary

ungraded program.

There is a primary teacher — despite the fact that many primary

teachers put the program together — who's against dual entry in

Victoria and who says that moving "dual-entry students into grade 1

would create an age gap." Well, there was an age gap of up to 12 months

under the regular entry system. This intelligent person goes on to say:

"'There's a real grey area, ' said Pearce, an opponent of dual entry.

'Now is the time to really watch these kids. They're just babies, some

of them, maybe two years out of diapers'."

This is a person who, because of being against dual entry, has got

what the BCTF put out in their issue alerts and what the NDP has

gobbled up, which is: why are kids starting school earlier than they

used to? Despite the fact that under the single-entry system the

youngest age at which a student could enter school was four years and

eight months.... The youngest age at which a student can enter school

under dual entry is four years and eight months. The difference is that

the oldest student doesn't have to wait until the age of five years and

eight months; the oldest they can be is five years and four months. Yet

these are the educated people.

I will agree with one quote from that primary teacher. She said

these children "deserved a more positive first experience with school."

Maybe had she made the effort to provide it, I will agree with that

quote. Even somebody from the Sooke district who thinks the program is

working says: "There was no consultation, no warning; nobody

asking...." So you have that.

Let me just suggest that some people, particularly those in the

education system who have had a lot of courses in the theory of

learning, should maybe read the royal commission report. I'm sure the

minister has; I think I've read it.

Going back to the major portion of the report, I just want to read a

couple of sections. I think it's worth saying. This is from page 93 of

the report of the Royal Commission on Education:

"At the present time, admissibility to kindergarten is

determined by chronological age. School districts must provide a

kindergarten program for all children who turn five in that calendar

year; all children enter the same program, regardless of their date of

birth within that year. Given the emphasis that early childhood

specialists place on the developmental needs of children and the

importance of adjusting programs to suit those needs, the use of such

arbitrary criteria seems unwise. Once started into that traditional

system of consecutive grades, the expectation is that every year will

mean another grade; anything less is considered a failure."

And the concluding part of that quotation is: "Such a system obviously requires revision."

In the abbreviated version of the report, the Sullivan commission,

assisted by educators, says: "...the commission registers its concern

about the number of students who leave school early. The educational

system and society it represents should not be prepared to tolerate a

situation in which approximately 35 percent to 40 percent of the

students who enter grade 9 fail to meet grade 12 graduation

requirements."

There seems to be complete and total agreement that it shouldn't

happen. But somehow the critics seem to feel that the way to stop it is

to put a rock on their heads or a chain on their legs so that they

can't leave, rather than to deal with the cause — that is, from the

beginning of education to encourage them to want to stay in school. You

can't keep them chained to the desk.

Anyway, to go on with the quotation, Mr. Chairman: "To provide better

service to British Columbia students, significant changes must occur in the

character of school programs and in the way they are delivered to the classrooms."

Could I repeat that? "Significant changes must occur in the character of

school programs...." To go on: "If curriculum and instruction are

to be responsive to the developmental needs of learners, then change must begin

at the school-entry level." I have to refer to the critics who said: "Well,

we're all in favour of change, but not at the beginning" — that is,

just after they get there on the old system.

To go on with the quote: "Children must be assessed and directed to

programs.... To provide for the wide range of developmental needs,

flexibility must be increased in the primary years; the curriculum must

facilitate flexibility and responsiveness by removing the rigid

structural constraints of the grade system."

Mr. Chairman, I guess a lot has been said; perhaps a lot will be

said in the future. And maybe more will be said by the people who know

and are working the system. It's happening, and it's doing very well

for the kids involved.

When I say the system is inclined to perpetuate and preserve itself, I probably go to the extreme: the university professors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

HON. S. HAGEN: I know that all of us were listening very

carefully to what the former minister had to say. I for one — and I

think I speak for all of us on this side — am very interested in

hearing some more thoughts that he may have.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief for the benefit of

others. As I said, the university professors.... When a report came out

recently that students from British Columbia's school system had done

very well in a national mathematics competition, the reaction from a

university professor — who I guess doesn't want to change the lesson

plans which he's had for the last ten years — was: "Why change

anything? It's the good curriculum that makes it possible for these

students to perform." Has that professor ever asked why these kids do

so well on these tests? It's because they're not restricted to the

textbook. They have ability.

[ Page

12571 ]

The professional teachers go way beyond the

textbook. It's not because of an ordained curriculum, but because the

student has taken a keen interest in learning in that field, and the

teacher has assisted that student. The students who go beyond the

curriculum are the ones who are excelling in the tests. Am I to believe

the viewpoint of some university professors that students cannot learn

as well or as much if they are interested and excited about what

they're learning as they can if they are constrained to an imposed

curriculum with a selected set of facts? I maintain that the professors

must feel very threatened. They have memorized a certain set of facts,

and these critics don't want students coming there knowing something

that the professor hasn't seen recorded in the textbook. That's the

only suggestion I can make.

I wish the minister and the ministry well. I am very concerned about

those people in the system who have been so busy doing a terrific job

making the program work — individualizing and so on. They haven't been

vociferous. So the impression through the media, in various ways, is

from the critics, the opponents of the system.

Let me conclude that everybody in education knows that there is a

diversity among children. The Sullivan commission and others have said

that you've got to capitalize on that diversity, recognize it and pay

more than lip-service to it; in other words, acknowledge it. But we

have a teacher saying that these kids are going to be out of step with

their peers. I taught for many years, and I never had the good fortune

to have all the kids in the class at exactly the same level. I don't

think we ever will have that. The only way we can have equality of

ability in a class is with the lowest common denominator.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest to the minister that whatever

changes are made, children can be physically grouped according to

criteria that make sense. They don't have to be put into grade 1 or

into kindergarten. In other words, we don't have to relabel the

pigeonholes and then work harder at stuffing them in them. In those

groups, they can learn at a level which is commensurate with their

individual ability. Actually, anything to the contrary has to be

suppression, because children do learn at the level commensurate with

their individual ability. To lock them into a "curriculum" to best suit

the organizational structure is wrong. It may be convenient, but it is

wrong.

It is far more productive — and it can and must be made an easier

workload for the teachers.... I didn't say easy; I said it can be

easier, once they adapt to the guidance of learning activities of those

students instead of adapting current teaching methods to...individual

progress. I guess that is still to come, because change is never easy.

Public education is a system supported by the universities; it's a

large system that tends to fight for its own perpetuation.

I guess I'm concerned, and I would hope that the professional educators

and others in this province will take hold of the vision that Barry Sullivan

and his group of people gave us to develop all students to their maximum potential,

to make the system serve those kids instead of making the kids fit the system.

If we can accomplish that, as Barry Sullivan said, we will leave a great legacy

for our children and for the future of our province.

HON. S. HAGEN: I wish to thank the member for North Peace

River for those words of wisdom and guidance. I want to remind the

members of this House that it was under the former Minister of

Education that the following mission statement was adopted for the

Ministry of Education: "The purpose of the British Columbia school

system is to enable learners to develop their individual potential and

to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to

a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy." That will

be the member's legacy, my friends, and we thank him for it.

[3:00]

MR. ZIRNHELT: Had I known that the former minister was going

to speak and allude to his legacy, I would have been happy to defer to

him. I'm glad to have had my line of questioning interrupted to hear

what he had to say, and I second much of what he said. I was chair of a

school board that sought to pursue some of the goals of the Sullivan

commission which have been, we hope, constant over the past two years

and will remain constant in the future.

What we're debating here is an overview of education that I wanted

the minister's feelings on. If he hasn't got the figures, that's fine —

they'll come out in due course. But I'm really interested in the fact

that he picked up on me saying that education is an expenditure. It

seems to me that I prefaced my comments by saying that expenditures on

social capital equal an investment. I mean, I said the same thing. I

don't want to quibble with words, but I say that this investment in

social capital may be critical not only to our social success but our

economic success. I allude here to A Nation at Risk ,

a document produced in the United States in, I believe, 1984, where

they suggest that there is a strong correlation between expenditures on

education — or investment in social capital, if you will — and

productivity and prosperity in the economy. I'm just asking that if you

have other measures, which I suggest the government has.... I want to

know if he has a measure for that last year. B.C. was 3.5 percent of

GDP spent on education in '88-89, up to 3.74 in '90-91. Do we have that

figure for '91-92? I will assert that it's as important a figure as a

percentage of the budget.

HON. S. HAGEN: I find the line of questioning very

interesting. I want to reiterate that if education was not the number

one priority of this government, we would not spend on education the

highest percentage of our total budget of any province in Canada.

The member opposite can play with old figures — he's talking about

1984, and I know the other one was 1989. I'm talking about 1991, this

year. The year we're talking about now is 1991.

It's significant to all British Columbians that this government

spends the highest percentage of total budget on education, not like in

Ontario, where they spend more money on welfare than on education.

[ Page 12572 ]

That's a very sad state of affairs, coming from

what used to be Canada's wealthiest province, the industrial heartland

of our country. Not so in British Columbia. We have our priorities

straight, and our priorities are students in the school system.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. ZIRNHELT: I could simply score a point by saying that if

it's such a high priority, then perhaps it should be the highest

percentage of GDP. I simply wanted some facts. If you haven't got the

facts, that's fine. I'll go to my next point.

The issue I'd like to address next, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the

situation in School District 27 in the Cariboo riding. I'm concerned,

as they are, about the stability of financing. As the minister knows,

the increase in that district was 0.6 percent this year, after a

double-digit lift last year of 12 percent. They were fully expecting

that at least the stability in the system was there after having made

major changes last year, only to find out that this year they decided

to change the level and only give them 0.6. This was after contracts

had been signed in the area. They felt they could have lived with the

provincial average of 3.75, only to find that they only got a 0.6

percent increase plus a special one-time grant.

I'd like to ask the minister if he is prepared at this time to meet

with the school board from School District 27 to discuss the reasons

for this. When they met with your deputy and other officials, they

weren't satisfied with the fact that they were told, basically, that

you get the same for operating a school in an urban area as you do in a

rural area. I'm alluding here to the fiscal framework that didn't

detail the reasons for the changes in the dispersion factor.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure the member that these questions

were already raised by the member on our side of the House yesterday.

However, I am always prepared to meet with school districts, and I do

meet with school districts around the province as my

schedule permits.

Obviously, when I'm in here doing my estimates, I can't meet with

school boards; but I would rather meet with school boards, as a matter

of fact. I'm quite prepared to meet with school boards, and I'd be

pleased to meet with the Cariboo-Chilcotin School District as my

schedule permits.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm pleased to hear that, Mr. Minister, and I'm

glad that you responded to assist in a problem in the Quesnel area,

School District 28 — the Pinecrest Elementary School. You went up there

to break the logjam that had developed there, and I'm sure you were

also helpful to the candidate when you were there. Next time you go to

Quesnel, do stop off in Williams Lake if you have an invitation — which

you did have — and you would solve their problem too, I hope.

The concern we have there is that, again, stability is something you

have to maintain in this system. We can discuss the levels, the ability

to pay and so on, but more than anything, what's needed is some

stability in the system. You'd have to admit that with a 0.6 percent

increase and a 1 percent special purpose grant, it doesn't constitute a

stable environment. I'm quite concerned that the efforts that have been

made over the years to adjust to the changes in the system were coming

along quite nicely, and there was an erosion because of the breakdown

over the contracts and the fact that they couldn't maintain contract

agreement. But they're working together again to try and raise the

profiles — working together, working with the community — and what's

coming out of that is some sense that we want some fairness and

stability. Will the minister give some assurance that he will restore

some stability to the financing in that area?

I listened very carefully to the answers that you gave to the first

member for Cariboo, and you indicated that the one-time special purpose

grant of roughly 1 percent was there because those districts that

overspent are being brought down to the level slowly over two years.

That would tell me a couple of things: that there will be another

special purpose grant next year, or this one-time special purpose grant

is fixed; if it is, it doesn't ease the transition, assuming that your

level is fair. Is that one-time special purpose grant going to be

forthcoming in another year?

HON. S. HAGEN: I would suggest the member go back and read

the Blues again, because that's not quite what I said. What I said was

that there are school districts in the province who were bigger

spenders than others, and there are school districts who were lower

spenders than others.

In the case of this school district, they were a lower-spending

school district, so we've brought them up closer to the line. We are

also bringing the heavy spenders down to that line. We were being fair

to the low spenders because we have brought them up in two years. We're

bringing the other ones down over a period of three years, because it's

always more difficult to bring your expenditure levels down than it is

to bring them up, as I'm sure you'll agree. So the one-time special

purpose grant for this year was the amount of money it took to bring

them up from where we had brought them up to last year to the line, and

it is a one-time special purpose grant.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The relatively larger increase of last year was

an attempt to bring the lower spending levels up to the line. So the

two years you're talking about are last year and this year.

The other issue that still needs to be addressed is the dispersion

and the sense this school district has that the ministry considers the

cost of running rural schools and urban schools to be roughly the same.

Words to that effect have been used in meetings. It's certainly the

impression conveyed to me by everyone I've spoken to. That does not

take into account the fact that these small schools all have a fixed

administrative overhead and can't move the schools and consolidate them

to achieve any efficiency without increasing busing costs and a lot of

other costs to the youngsters. There is no satisfactory explanation of

the dispersion dealing with the rural districts.

[ Page

12573 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: The changes to the service levels that you

talk about — the dispersion issue — were recommended by the fiscal

framework review committee, which I'm sure you understand is made up of

four superintendents and four secretary-treasurers. They made those

changes because they saw some areas that weren't quite fair. I guess

what happened was that some school districts won, and some lost. That

is not an issue that I deal with personally. I think it is an attempt

to make it as fair as possible, so that we can't be accused of

political interference in determining these things. These things are

determined by people in the field from the secretary-treasurers'

association and also the superintendents' association. They are looked

at every year. The committee sits and assesses during the year and then

makes recommendations once a year. The changes to the dispersion factor

were given to the boards on March 4 of this year — so they have those,

of course. But I stress that the changes were made because they were

felt to be fair.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have 66

grades 4,5 and 6 students from Berkshire Park Elementary School in

Surrey, accompanied by their teachers. I would ask the House to please

make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to

commend the minister for the way he has responded to the idea of

provincewide bargaining for teachers. I'm certainly very pleased. It's

something I have advocated for over eight years now. It's very welcome

news, and I believe it will prove very beneficial to the education

system. It will provide the teachers with more opportunity to spend

longer hours in the classroom. It will save the educational community a

great deal of money, time and effort, and will permit the senior staff

of the school system to spend more time in restructuring the school

system and looking at deficiencies and better ways to teach our

children.

I'd like to ask: is the minister giving any consideration at all to

any form of vouchers for students, perhaps starting in grade 11 or 12?

Has the minister put any thought into providing for a voucher system,

whereby a student could go to a private institution and perhaps take an

upgraded course in computer technology or a particular training in a

trade that he or she has an interest in — the agricultural area,

horticulture or whatever?

[3:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, as a matter of fact, I have looked at the voucher

system. I understand the voucher system was considered for at least four years

by the previous minister. I have determined that it is not the way to go.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I understand that the minister will make his

announcements on the capital program next week, but I wanted to raise

just one issue to underline the importance of one project that may or

may not get funding. That has to do with the Williams Lake Junior

Secondary School. Renovations are badly needed because of a serious

roof and heating problem. In the spring the temperatures go up to over

90 degrees in the rooms, and they can't control it. It's a serious

problem, but we're not confident that the planning dollars will be

available. It is really important to investigate what alternatives are

available to that school — whether the building can be renovated —

because you are doing planning on some of the other high-school

buildings in the area. So it would make sense to plan comprehensively

Can you give some assurance that you will provide planning dollars for

that particular project?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm unable to give that assurance to you

today. I know that you would like to have that assurance, but I'm

afraid that I can't do that. The funding announcements for capital will

probably be made within the month.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I didn't want to pre-empt the minister in his

statements, but I want some assurance that he will discuss this with

his officials and make sure that there is a satisfactory answer given

as to the funding of this particular project.

The next issue that I'd like to canvass with you is native

education. You'll no doubt hear from others on that. It has to do with

clarifying where we stand on responsibility for funding for native

education. I understand that presently two-thirds to three-quarters of

the full-time-equivalent block is funded by the Department of Indian

Affairs and that the rest of the block is picked up by the province. Is

that correct?

HON. S. HAGEN: We bill the federal government whatever the block amount is in a particular district, and they pay that amount to the province.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The whole of the block amount? Is that correct? Okay.

So you're accepting that the funding for native education is fully a

federal responsibility. Or are you accepting some responsibility for

basic funding for native education?

HON. S. HAGEN: Just to clarify that point, we as a province —

through the taxpayers — fund all the educational services provided to

native students. We bill the federal government for the amount of the

block.

MR. ZIRNHELT: In addition to the block, I understand there's

$700 to $800 for native education students — students who are

identified as being on reserve. So there is a topping up of the block

amount for native education students.

HON. S. HAGEN: While students may have different cost factors

— for instance, ESL students, special needs students, special-ed

students — the province

[ Page 12574 ]

funds all of those programs. But what we bill the

federal government is the average; in other words, the block amount.

There is no extra to the block. The block is all-encompassing.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm wondering here if we don't have a double

taxation system where native people that work off reserve or purchase

off reserve — whether or not they're living on reserve — do pay taxes;

they pay 85 percent of the taxes we pay, not in dollar amount but 85

percent of the range of taxes that are paid. So on the one hand as

provincial citizens they are paying taxes that contribute to revenues,

yet we're getting money from the federal government exclusively to come

back and cover the full 100 percent of the block amount. Is that not

correct?

HON. S. HAGEN: In dealing with the area of taxes, the member should maybe direct his questions to the Minister of Finance.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would be happy to discuss that with him in

his estimates when we get there. The point is that there is a special

cost regardless of whether they fit into special needs, often because

number of factors that have an effect. I wonder if you accept some

responsibility for this in the block funding and therefore charge that

amount back to the federal government.

HON. S. HAGEN: Let me just go through it again. Each student

or each group of students may have a different cost factor. Whatever

the cost of educating that student is, the cost comes from the

provincial government. Let me just use an example. If there was a large

percentage, for instance, of special-ed students — which would have a

higher cost of education — the province, through the taxpayers, pays

that cost. What we invoice the federal government for, though, is the

block amount. So in that case the province would be subsidizing the

extra cost of those students, because we bill the federal government

for the block. If on the other hand there was a group of students who

were less expensive to educate, then we would still be billing the

federal government for the block.

The question is whether or not it balances out. I don't know; you'd

have to look at each district, I guess, to see what group the students

were in.

MR. ZIRNHELT: So questions about the federal-provincial

agreements — the master tuition agreements and so on — as they pertain

to whether there's double taxation, are a matter for the Minister of

Finance.

I'm interested in the local education agreements that are now being

made all around the province, where there is in effect, through the

negotiation between the local bands and the local school boards....

They're actually coming up with a higher figure. I understand that some

$12 million in additional costs has been negotiated, which obviously

reflects a need in that area, and that the Department of Indian Affairs

and Northern Development has agreed to pay for that amount. Is this

true, or is it totally independent of any of your discussions with the

federal government?

HON. S. HAGEN: It is a right and a possibility for each board

to negotiate its own agreement with the federal government in lieu of

the federal-provincial agreement.

MR. ZIRNHELT: In which case, then, there is no provincial involvement in the funding?

HON. S. HAGEN: We would still recognize any additional costs

that weren't picked up in that agreement, whether they be for space or

buildings or that sort of thing.

MR. JONES: Id like to raise a social issue with the minister.

The members on that side like to suggest that it's not just this side

of the House that cares about social issues — that there is real caring

on the part of the government. They've had ample opportunity to

demonstrate that with respect to hungry children.

I'd like to approach this question sensitively, because it is a

sensitive issue, and it's one that I hope the government is approaching

with sensitivity. It is just as important to protect the dignity of

poor children in this province as it is to assist them with their

nutritional needs. What we've seen for a number of years in this House

and in this province is an abysmal record on the part of the government

— some of which is recorded in Hansard — in dealing with this issue.

When my colleague the member for Vancouver East raised this issue

some four years ago in the Legislature, the response from the

government was very negative. The government argued against school

lunch programs; it argued against feeding hungry children in this

province. In fact, that government went so far as to question whether

or not the parents of hungry children love their children. Not only

that, but the response at that time from that government that

questioned the love of the parents for their children was to ask the

schools to identify those children.

The purpose of that identification was a shameful one on the part of

the government. The purpose of identifying those children was so they

could be taken away from their parents. This government perceived that

they weren't loved by those parents — clearly totally lacking any

sensitivity. If human beings anywhere understand one thing, they

understand that there can be nothing more devastating for children than

to be separated from their parents — and that was the purpose of that

identification.

What we're talking about here is kids. One in six kids in this

province is poor. These are kids who are loved by their parents; these

are kids who are hungry, and because they are hungry their ability to

learn in our school system is impaired. Their only crime is that they

come from poor families. I think we can appreciate the kinds of

experiences they have, with a diminished ability to learn, because of

nutritional problems. These are the students who experience difficulty,

who fail and drop out of our school system and create social problems.

Some of these children will end up creating

[ Page

12575 ]

social problems, the cost of which we, as taxpayers, will have to pick up.

I would remind the minister that a school lunch program is not very

expensive, but it costs something between $40,000 and $50,000 a year to

incarcerate an adult. As the minister has talked about education

spending being an investment, so I would see these programs being an

investment as well.

What has the response of the government been? When the Vancouver

School Board, Vancouver city council and community groups appealed to

this government, up until very recently they were basically rebuffed.

In fact, they were more or less told to get lost, a totally

inappropriate response to individuals advocating on behalf of perhaps

the most vulnerable in our society — those hungry children.

There's been a change in recent weeks. At least there have been some

promises. I suppose promises are better than nothing. Even the Premier

has indicated that we should not judge this government by its promises

but by its action. We've seen no action, and that's why I'm on my feet

at the moment — to ask where the beef is, where the action is.

Basically the Premier said: "Don't trust me. Watch what we do; don't

trust my words."

It's not just that statement....

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. JONES: I didn't mean to twist that in the sense that

there was any untrustworthiness. Judge us by our actions; don't judge

us by our words. I don't want to judge you by your words; I want to see

the actions. It's not just that lack of action that I'm concerned

about. There are a number of other things that do make me a little

skeptical. Let me outline what they are, other than just the statement

about judging the actions.

The second one is a line that was in the Vancouver Sun

yesterday, attributed to the member for Saanich and the Islands. That

member said that the Premier is not sincere about the reforms she is

promising. I'm wondering if he's referring to the line in the throne

speech about providing for hungry children as one of those reforms

about which the Premier and this government is insincere.

The third item that makes me skeptical about the sincerity of the

government with respect to this program is what happened the other day

regarding what has been described as "using schoolchildren for a

political backdrop." The government has been very strongly criticized —

as it should be — for its abuse of schoolchildren to try to prop up its

image.

The last one is a meeting that I think the minister would be very interested

in. This was a meeting between the three Burnaby MLAs — two of whom are cabinet

ministers in this administration — and the Burnaby School Board. At that meeting

there were four items on the agenda, and three of them, in my view, were not

particularly fruitful discussions in the sense that the ministers did exactly

what the Education minister did. They had all their statistics there and we

ended up arguing about statistics — wasting our time, spinning our wheels on

disputes on the figures.

The fourth item on the agenda was a school lunch program for the

Burnaby School District. I said to the two cabinet ministers: "Look,

we're wasting our time on the funding issue, the Bill 82 issue and the

other economic issues, but there's one issue that apparently this

government agrees with. Let's use the time in this meeting with the

Burnaby School Board to see if we can find some common ground in terms

of feeding the one in six children who are hungry in the Burnaby School

District."

I was quite surprised by the response, because the Premier had been

quite vocal about her support. They were creating a new government

image, one that was caring and concerned about issues such as a lunch

program for children. Yet the response of those two ministers was not

very positive to this program. Again, we ended up arguing about the

merits of the program. This was a real opportunity for those ministers,

who I assume are on-board with the Premier on this issue — even though

they didn't seem like it — to get behind it and help develop a program

in the Burnaby School District that could help meet the needs of those

children.

I'd like to provide a platform for this Minister of Education to

outline the steps that have been taken. I assume that his ministry is

the lead ministry in promoting this concept and that most of the

planning has gone on to deliver this program to the hungry children of

the province through the Ministry of Education. There must have been

considerable work done. I would like some evidence that this isn't just

smoke and mirrors — as myself and the member from Saanich and the

Islands suspect it is — that there is some real planning going on, some

real commitment of funds and some real thought about a sensitive,

non-stigmatizing program that will meet the needs of those children;

and that the minister understands the importance of this issue.

HON. S. HAGEN: I certainly do understand the importance of

this issue. However, I would remind the member for Burnaby North that

the lead minister in charge of putting this proposal together is the

Minister of Women's Programs and Government Services and Minister

Responsible for Families. He should propose his questions on the

process that has taken place to that minister when her estimates come

up.

MR. JONES: The minister says that there is.... I don't want

to put words in his mouth. Let me ask. Is the minister saying, then,

that there is no money in his budget — and I don't expect all the

funding to come from the provincial government — to help set up

programs to meet the nutritional needs of hungry schoolchildren?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN: The money in my budget for lunch programs is

to fund the programs that have been in existence since 1989-90 with the

Vancouver School Board. Those programs were in place prior to the

[ Page 12576 ]

implementation of the block, which I'm sure you understand, and were rolled into the block.

You're talking about future policy here as well, I might add. Any

additional funding that might be for new programs will be in the

ministry that I mentioned before this: the Ministry of Women's Programs

and Government Services and the Ministry Responsible for Families.

MR. JONES: The minister is saying that there is money in his

budget to continue the program in the Vancouver School District, but

there is no money in his budget to establish programs in Nanaimo,

Coquitlam, Burnaby, Duncan, Sooke, Prince George or Maple Ridge. Can

the minister advise the House: does he have any knowledge of the

program that will be set up by that ministry? Has the minister been

advised by the lead ministry of any planning that's gone on to meet the

nutritional needs of those hungry children?

HON. S. HAGEN: I have been very kind and patient with the

member for Burnaby North, and I've explained to him twice that the

questions he is posing to me should not be posed to me. They are not

questions involved with my estimates. They are questions that should be

directed to another ministry, and he knows what that ministry is. They

are also questions with regard to future policy.

MR. JONES: What I asked the minister is not future policy. I

asked the minister: has he seen the plans? Can he advise the House of

any of the details of a policy that's already been announced? It's not

future policy. It was a promise. The Premier said: "Don't judge us by

our promises. Judge us by our actions." I want some indication from

that minister that there's something there, that there is some action,

that his ministry will be the one that delivers this program. This

program will be delivered primarily by the Ministry of Education in

1991-92, unless it's all smoke and mirrors. Then this program will be

delivered in the schools, will be delivered through the Ministry of

Education to the schoolchildren of this province.

The Minister has already indicated that he funds part of this

program in one school district. I don't think he has seen any of the

plans. I don't think he has thought about it. I don't think he knows

anything about it. I don't think he cares about it, and if he does,

then let's hear some of the details right here and right now.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that the member for Burnaby North is being deceitful and trying to ask questions about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, minister. Would you withdraw the word "deceitful, " please.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, I'll withdraw the word "deceitful." The

member for Burnaby North, Mr. Chairman, is not being honest and upright

in his line of questioning.

MR. MILLER: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm already going to take up the point, hon. member, unless you have something else.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't want to deal

with the topic and resorts to hurling barbs at the questioner. He'd be

better off if he simply answered the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding, hon. members, is that this

doesn't fall within the purview of the Minister of Education but of the

Minister of Women's Programs and Government Services. This is what I

understand.

MR. JONES: That minister has indicated that the lead ministry

is the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services. I have no

argument with that. The delivery of this program will be primarily

through the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education is not the

lead ministry, but clearly the schools of this province are going to be

the vehicle for the delivery of that system.

Now I don't mind if the minister wants to be evasive and wants to

use these technicalities to avoid the issue. That's fine; it's on the

record. I asked the minister if he had any understanding, any concern,

any of the details of the delivery of this service through the school

system, and he declined on a technicality. If that's where the minister

wants to leave the record of Hansard

in the province of British Columbia in these legislative debates,

that's fine with me. That's clear. I have to come to the conclusion

then that it's smoke and mirrors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister on a point of order.

HON. S. HAGEN: That member, Mr. Chairman, knows full well

that he is stretching the truth and that what he is saying is more

fiction than truth. He is talking about something that is not part of

these estimates. They are part of the estimates of another minister.

Now if he can't understand that, I'll write it out in a letter so he

can understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what we've run into here is something

that's happened a few times latterly, and that is that we've got a

difference of opinion between two people. The minister has taken his

stand — and we accept that — and so has the member. Perhaps it would be

in the interests of going ahead with the estimates that we move on to

another subject.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, referring to the previous point of

order which I raised, you said you would deal with it, but the minister

did not withdraw his comments referring to the honesty of this member.

I would ask that you instruct the minister to withdraw those comments.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll withdraw those comments.

[ Page

12577 ]

MR. JONES: I will move on to another topic, because I think

the position of the minister on the issue of hungry schoolchildren is

very clear.

Let me raise another issue that I was told by that minister was in

the purview of his ministry last Friday. I hope that he will be a

little more forthcoming on this issue than he was on the other one. The

minister has had advance notice, so there's no good reason why he will

not be forthcoming on this issue.

Let me start off with a very simple question about the kaon project.

I'm wondering why,

whereas feeding hungry children isn't within the

purview of that ministry, the kaon project is.

HON. S. HAGEN: I think the member for Burnaby North knows

this full well: any moneys dedicated to the kaon factory proposal are

not in the Ministry of Education.

[3:45]

MR. JONES: We are dealing with the minister's administrative

budget. The minister is responsible for the kaon project. That minister

is on record, as is the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and

Technology, from last Friday night suggesting to me that he is the

minister responsible. What I'd like to hear from the minister is that

he is not the minister responsible for the kaon project and that he

doesn't deal with the kaon project from his administrative office as

Minister of Education.

HON. S. HAGEN: My understanding is that we are here today to

talk about the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I assume that

that's your understanding as well.

Any moneys budgeted for the project that the member is referring to

are not in my budget. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

MR. JONES: We are here today discussing the estimates of the

Ministry of Education. We are dealing specifically with a budgetary

item — the minister's office. Everything the minister does from that

office or is responsible for is open to debate, in my view, in this

chamber. Now is that minister responsible for the kaon project or not?

HON. S. HAGEN: Far be it from me to suggest that the member

is out of order, but I think anyone who reads through the estimates can

see that there is no budget for the kaon project in the Ministry of

Education.

MR. JONES: For the third time I'll try the question Has that

minister been designated by the Premier of this province as the

minister responsible for the kaon project?

HON. MR. BRUCE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This is getting to

be fairly tedious and repetitious, I would think. We are here to deal with the

estimates of the Minister of Education, and it would seem to me that the member

opposite ought to be directed to deal with the estimates of the Minister of

Education. This is going on and on, and I think the people of the province of

British Columbia would like us to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of

Education. So I would ask that you direct that member to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the minister for his help. I believe

there was a question posed to the Minister of Education, and he is not

obliged to answer the question. I think the minister also stated fairly

clearly — for my ears — that this does not fall under his

responsibility. But if he would like to respond to the last question of

the member for Burnaby North, it's perfectly okay by me.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to answer any questions

from the other side of the House — or from this side of the House, for

that matter — dealing with the budget estimates of the Ministry of

Education.

MR. JONES: Very clearly, this minister, as he indicated in

the House last Friday night, and confirmed by the new Minister of

Advanced Education, Training and Technology, is the minister

responsible for the kaon project. He will, in his promotion of that

worthwhile project, handle phone calls in his office....

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With respect to

standing order 61 (2) and the point of relevancy, the hon. member

opposite is clearly not relevant to the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It seemed to the Chair that the member for

Burnaby North was leading up to something there. I think that was a

preamble that he just threw in to make the point. Would you like to

continue?

MR. JONES: Very clearly, the record of the debates of last

Friday night will show who is responsible for the kaon project for

which this minister, in his perambulations through several ministries,

has retained responsibility. I think he has done an excellent job of

promoting the kaon project in this province.

Why at this time he wants to hide behind a technicality and not own

up to the fact that he was appointed by the Premier to be responsible

for the kaon project, I don't know. Obviously he has something to hide,

and I will move on to new territory. But let the record show that the

minister had advance notice of some of my questions. We had a private

conversation where I indicated concern about the large dollar amount

that's being expended in the lobbying for the kaon project. In his

usual charming manner the minister laughingly accepted responsibility,

but today in the House where in answering questions he would have to be

forthright....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this is clearly

out of order. A number of times members on this side of the floor have

stood on a point of order ruling this member out of order in the debate

that's

[ Page 12578 ]

going on. I know it's very difficult for the

members opposite to find fault with this minister's budget, but I don't

know how many times I've heard the minister say the kaon project has

nothing to do with his estimates. Any discussion thereon is out of

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Member for Burnaby

North, perhaps we could be relevant when dealing with these estimates.

I think the subject with respect to kaon has been relatively well

covered on both sides. Perhaps we could move along to something else.

MR. JONES: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, but obviously the

member for Omineca wasn't here last Friday night when I asked the

Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology about the kaon

project, and he said he wasn't the minister responsible and I should

raise it under the estimates of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member!

MR. JONES: I'll move on, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first of all clarify what this minister is responsible for.

Is this minister responsible for school boards in this province? I

think it's a correct assumption that he is responsible for school

boards. Let me ask a question about school boards.

In 1975 Bill Bennett ran on a platform of restoring autonomy to

school boards, and what we have seen from that day till today is a

continual reduction of the autonomy of school boards in this province.

In an earlier debate with that minister, when again he wasn't

responsible for things, but he was responsible for post-secondary

education at the time, we were talking in this chamber about restoring

democracy to college boards, and I used the analogy of school boards as

being the democratically elected local body responsible for education

and that they were a good model of how we might consider restoring

democracy to our college boards. The Minister of Education said at that

time that he really didn't want to get into that kind of democratizing

college boards because those school boards "engaged in political

posturing" — that's a quote. He didn't like school boards very much in

those days. Yet what we hear in this House is that he receives all

kinds of input from school boards, that he's very sensitive to the

concerns of the major stakeholder groups in education, and that really

they play a major role in shaping the decision-making that his

government engages in.

What we have seen year after year after year is this government

running roughshod over the views and the rights of school boards;

running roughshod over their ability to tax; forcing them to go to

referendum; confiscating the non-residential property tax; destroying

bargaining rights under the compensation unfairness program; and now

today we see another knee-jerk reaction that has not been called for by

anybody.

Clearly the only call that we've seen for the announcement the

minister made today was from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — the

member from Queest Beach resorts. In a statement last Friday he called

for provincewide bargaining and said he had been banging on the door

for eight years for this government. Nobody else had been banging on

the door except the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

What we see is another knee-jerk and another jerk lurching back and

forth from one side to the other in terms of education planning. There

is no forethought or consultation — just closing the barn door and then

deciding to talk to the stakeholder groups. It's a shameful record in

this province continued by this minister in terms of appropriate

consultation by school boards. This announcement today is a

continuation of the thoughtless approach this government takes to

education. It does nothing to restore the stability that we thought a

couple of years ago, under the previous minister, was beginning to get

on the right track. There were proper consultation processes, and there

was some predictability, some planning and some forethought. This

minister has destroyed much of the belief that school boards in this

province are to be respected and that proper planning can take place.

Again, Mr. Chairman, it is a sad announcement from the minister

today which is again running roughshod over a proper consultation

process.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman; I didn't realize that the member for Burnaby North was finished.

MR. JONES: Do you want some more? I can give you some more.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sure he's got some more.

I could not help but catch some of the comments he made. It's pretty

obvious to me that the member for Burnaby North is playing up to the

BCTF today. I can only assume that he must have a job application in

there, so when he's defeated in the next election he will have

someplace to go. It's shameful and sad that the members opposite are so

controlled by special-interest groups.

I can remember when the member for Burnaby North was on the school

board. He was on the Burnaby School Board, as I recall, and I think he

was a teacher in an adjoining school district at the same time. Of

course, he was voting on pay increases and other benefits. I'm sure he

sees no conflict of interest there, and I'm certainly not insinuating

that there might be one. I think some people might see that as a

possibility — just a possibility — when you sit at the table and

negotiate collective agreements which might have some benefit to your

income or other things. However, it's always interesting that when it's

on that side of the House, it's okay. I'm going to leave it at that.

However, I want to address his vociferous complaint about the

announcement I made today. It gives me an opportunity to expand on that

announcement. The reality in education is that the one-year cost impact

of agreements negotiated between school boards and the teachers' unions

around the province amounts to 9 percent to 13 percent. When you look

at the growth in the economy of the province, which is somewhere

between 0 percent and 1 percent because of

[ Page

12579 ]

a downturn, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to

figure out that that system is not sustainable on this basis. The

boards have been doing the bargaining with the teachers' unions. It's

pretty obvious that the unions have done a great job. They've won every

battle at the bargaining table. Some people would say that's fair, if

you're on that side of the bargaining table.

[4:00]

I heard the member for Burnaby North complain that we had taken

taxing powers away from the boards. I expect there are a lot of

taxpayers out there saying: "Thank goodness for that, because we

couldn't afford to pay any more taxes."

MR. SERWA: Mr. Krog is the only one who would have known that.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Krog, one of the upright NDP candidates

who speaks from the heart, has admitted that the NDP would have no

alternative but to raise taxes. Or if you look at Ontario, which is the

only provincial government in Canada with an NDP government...so I

think it's only fair to refer to that.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's a socialist government. They not only

raise taxes but have a $10 billion deficit this year. I see some of the

members shaking their heads and saying: "No, no, that's not a deficit."

You know what the NDP candidate in North Vancouver has said about the

federal deficit? He says: "It's not a deficit. It's like a loan within

the family. It's no different than advancing your children's

allowance." Mr. Chairman, I've got five children, and I'm glad I don't

have to advance my children's allowances to the tune of $10 billion.

That is absolutely irresponsible.

The member referred to the lack of consultation. Let me explain what

I announced today. I announced that the government of British Columbia

is moving to provincial bargaining with teachers — but not tomorrow or

next week, because we want to allow time for the consultative process

to work. I'm extending an arm of invitation to the BCTF, the B.C.

School Trustees' Association, the Association of B.C. School

Superintendents, the B.C. School District Secretary-Treasurers'

Association, the B.C. Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association, the

Business Council of B.C. and the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business — people who deal with this issue all the time — to give me

advice so that I can develop a proposal for provincewide bargaining for

teachers and bring some equality and rationale back into the system.

Because of different districts bargaining at different times, we presently

have things happening in the districts that are very sad to me. It's very

sad to me when you have teachers in a district who tell their grade 12 students:

"You know that you may not be able to graduate this year. You may not be

able to go on to university. You may not be able to qualify to sit for government

exams. Therefore you will not qualify for bursaries or scholarships." I

ask the House: is that a fair way to bargain? I don't think so.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: The second member for Vancouver East said we

designed it. We did not, in all due respect, Mr. Member, design a

system where teachers can hold students to ransom in order to come to a

collective agreement. That may be your idea of fairness, Mr. Member,

but it is not my idea of fairness. It is not fairness to these members

on this side of the House. If you think that's fair, you're living in

the wrong country.

Let me get back to the consultative process. It's very important to

me that we involve people who deal with labour relations to come up

with a provincewide bargaining system that is fair to all parties. I

believe that the bargaining process must be fair to all parties, and

that's why we haven't imposed this.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I know members on the other side of the House might have said: "You

should have brought it in right away." No, we're not going to do that.

We're seeking input for the best possible process designed in British

Columbia for British Columbia issues. That's what we've done, and I

think that the people of British Columbia — particularly the people in

the Peace River country, in the Fraser Valley, on Vancouver Island and

in the Okanagan — will be very pleased with this announcement today

that finally....

I was a school trustee in the seventies, and school trustees were

talking about this issue then and have never come to grips with it.

Finally, today, we've come to grips with it so that we can continue to

guarantee the best quality education for the students of British

Columbia.

I'm getting a lot of interruptions from the people across the floor.

When I start talking about the students of British Columbia, they want

to interrupt because they don't want to hear that. They think the

system is there to employ their friends and special-interest groups.

The system is there to educate children.

Yes, we need good high-quality teachers, and we have them in the

system. And yes, they should be fairly paid. But I believe that $51,000

a year average, including benefits, is a fair wage. We believe in

fairness; that's why we've designed the process this way, why we're

getting the input and involving the expertise.

MS. CULL: It's interesting to hear the minister talk about

consultation. I just would like to note that it's in the traditional

Social Credit manner of announcing the decision and then following with

the consultation.

I want to change the subject a bit. I want to talk about facilities

and planning for a little bit, and I want to begin by asking the

minister to bring us up to date on what has happened with the

implementation of the Cornerstone study, which was done in 1989 and

continued into 1990. The minister last year advised us that the

recommendations had been received and were being looked at. I'd like to

hear, in terms of facilities planning, what has actually been

implemented in the ministry.

[ Page 12580 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: I apologize to the member. I was busy writing

a note here — a very important message that I have to send out — and I

missed the question. Could I ask you to repeat it?

MS. CULL: Perhaps he's just rewriting the last press release in terms of the consultative model.

I was asking about a study that was done for the ministry by

Cornerstone Consulting. It started in 1989, I believe; it was completed

in 1990. It looked at the entire facilities planning process for the

Ministry of Education. In that case, as I understand it, it did get the

consultation and decision-making in the correct order. A lot of

consultation was done with people interested in facilities planning in

education. A number of recommendations were made. Last year the

Minister of Education advised me, when we discussed it during the

estimates debate, that the recommendations were being considered. I

would like to know what has been done to implement the recommendations

brought forward from that study.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am not sure whether there's any budget

implication to that, so I'll wait for my staff to arrive and ask that

question; then I'll give you an answer.

MS. CULL: I see the minister's staff have come back, and I'm

hoping that he will have a chance to put the question to his staff so I

don't have to repeat it a third time, and then find out what the answer

is. Is the minister ready to answer the question about what's happened

to the Cornerstone facilities planning study, and which, if any, of the

recommendations of that study have been implemented by his ministry in

terms of their administrative procedures, which I believe is part of

what we're here to do in this debate?

HON. S. HAGEN: I apologize for the delay. Thank you for the

question, and I'm pleased to inform you that in fact Cornerstone

Consulting have done an excellent job. As a result of their study we

have informed the boards that we are working on five-year planning and

we are taking many of the suggestions in the report and putting them

into practice.

MS. CULL: I wonder if the minister could be a little more

specific. One of the recommendations was for multi-year funding.

Another was related to the coordination with other ministries. Another

recommendation related to assistance to boards for planning — and I

don't mean the kind of planning that is already part of the budget,

which is site-specific and school-specific, but district-wide planning.

I could go on with some of the other recommendations, but I would like

to hear more than just the generality of: "Yes, it was a good study and

we're looking at it." A full year at least has gone by.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am pleased to report that besides the

five-year planning process, one of the items that came out of there was

the disposition and sale of assets. We are working with Lands very

closely on identifying land on reserve or Crown lands.

MS. CULL: Could the minister advise me as to the progress of multi-year funding approvals? .

HON. S. HAGEN: I remind the member that we are already into

two-year funding commitments because of the planning and then the

construction cycle. We are working with the boards on five-year

planning cycles.

MS. CULL: I'm sorry to keep going down through this list, but

since the minister is not answering the total question, I'm just going

to run through the list.

Could the minister tell us what is happening with respect to

coordination with other ministries in the facilities area as a result

of the recommendations?

HON. S. HAGEN: As I mentioned, we are working with Lands to

reserve Crown lands that are properly situated in growing communities.

We're also working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MS. CULL: Is there any coordination going on with other

ministries that have capital budgets to build facilities that might be

built in cooperation or in conjunction with school facilities — in

other words, side by side, at the same time? The ministries identified

at the time in the study for Social Services and Housing and Health

would like to hear whether they are also part of the consultative

process.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, I'm pleased to inform the member that we

are working very closely with Treasury Board to coordinate all the

capital projects, to make sure that there is no duplication. I might

also say that in my meetings with the BCSTA and with school boards I

encouraged close cooperation between school boards and city councils,

so that — particularly in areas where there is a fast rate of growth —

there can be a coordinated effort to identify school sites, and also so

that city councils can get a look at the proper zoning that would be

necessary.

MS. CULL: One of the other recommendations was for planning

assistance from the ministry. A lot of discussion took place about the

models used by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in terms of providing

planning assistance to municipal councils. Suggestions were made by the

Cornerstone study that similar initiatives be taken by the Ministry of

Education. I was wondering if the minister could tell us what has been

done in that area.

[4:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: That's a very interesting area, and it could

be one that you end up pouring a lot of money into. However, I'm not

downplaying the importance of planning. We do have a couple of pilot

projects in districts that we're dealing with, to see exactly how it

might work.

[ Page

12581 ]

MS. CULL: Could you tell me which districts the pilot projects are in, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN: Surrey and Nanaimo.

MS. CULL: As I understand it, one of the things discussed in

the study was this notion that the ministry provide some support to

overall district-wide planning. The staff of your ministry has provided

good assistance to districts on site-specific planning initiatives.

When an area is identified as needing a school and a decision is made,

all the support is there. I know you have the technical and

professional staff to do that. But the Cornerstone group identified the

need for more generic, district-wide planning. That's something the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs discovered about ten years ago, when they

had to implement a system to encourage all municipalities to put a plan

in place. In fact, the Municipal Act requires municipalities to have in

their official community plan a five-year supply of land for

residential purposes. Is the ministry working with school districts to

put in place a similar model for school districts? Will there be

professional planning assistance to school districts on the broad,

generic district-planning? Will school districts be required to prepare

a five-year plan identifying their needs into the future? Similar to

municipalities, will they be required to estimate their facilities

needs more than just one or two years ahead, which is now the case?

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, I couldn't agree more that planning for

the future is important. Boards are now, in fact, carrying out

five-year capital plans. I mentioned the pilot projects that we had.

We're going to let those continue and deal with some of these issues.

But I can't stress enough the importance of boards working very closely

with municipal councils. In most cases they do. As I travel from

district to district, it's sometimes very easy to see the boards and

the staff that are working closely together so that they're aware of

where growth is taking place and can see far in advance where new

school sites should be located. I would describe Campbell River as one

of those communities where the board is working very closely with the

council. In Courtenay it's the same; it's been that way in Courtenay

for probably 20 years.

Those are some of the results that came out of that consultant's

report. I should also say that we're not carrying out all of the

recommendations; but I would guess that we're carrying out most of

them, and we'll continue to monitor those pilot projects. Burnaby, by

the way, is another district with a pilot project.

MS. CULL: Can the minister tell me whether the block funding

includes an allowance for a district to hire a planner to carry out the

five-year planning studies? Is that costed into the block funding?

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, the benefit of block funding, of course,

is that a board can choose whatever they wish to do with that money. So

if a board chooses to hire a planner, they can do that. With that

choice, they may have to choose not to do something else.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chair, the minister was just agreeing with me

about the importance of planning to school districts. Considering the

kind of budgets we're talking about for capital facilities, I think

it's very important that we do this in a professional manner and that

it's well thought out and well planned. The minister has said that it's

basically up to the board: if they want to hire a planner, then they're

going to have to take the money from somewhere else in their budget.

In calculating the block, the minister adds up a number of things

that are considered to be the basic requirements of education. Those

items go into the basis of the block, and the block is calculated on

that. Is a facilities planner or a portion of an FTE for facilities

planning included in the block calculations that come up with the basic

per capita amount?

HON. S. HAGEN: I think maybe the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head had better get together with the member for Burnaby North. The

member for Burnaby North is saying that we've taken all the

discretionary powers away from the boards, that we don't give them

enough discretionary powers; the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head wants

us to dictate to the boards what they spend their money on. You can't

have it both ways. You've got to have flexibility in there and give the

boards some choices, or we might as well just dictate to them line by

line how they're going to spend their money. If that's what you're

advocating to me, I can't agree with it.

MS. CULL: The minister knows full well that there are funds

attached to spending and that there is a way the board actually goes

about spending that money. I'm not saying this quite correctly, so let

me back up.

The ministry, in calculating the money that it's going to give to a

school district, just doesn't pull a figure out of thin air. They look

at what they think is needed to run the education system, and they

calculate into that amount of money the services and facilities and

staff. Everything from supplies on up to the district superintendent, I

imagine, has been looked at to see what it costs to run a school

district.

Having given that block funding to the school district, then, of

course, it is up to the district to determine how they're going to

spend that money. I think that is entirely appropriate. I'm just asking

the minister to tell me, when his ministry tots up all the numbers for

the global budget that will be used to determine the block funding, if

facilities planning is important enough to his ministry that some

allocation is made for hiring someone to actually undertake that job at

the district level.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's interesting to me that the answer to

everything from the other side is to hire more people and spend more

money. But I'm pleased to inform the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head

that school boards that I'm aware of already have people on staff who

are good at that function, unless you have a job creation program for

planners. Secretary-treasurers and facilities people on staff have been

doing this for many years in some districts; they have been operating

[ Page 12582 ]

very successfully. As I said before, if the member

for Oak Bay–Gordon Head wants me to provide specific money for a

specific function in the board office, then maybe we should look at how

many principals, vice- principals or counsellors a board employs in a

school. I see a nodding of agreement there. That's why the block

functions the way it does. It's flexible, and it gives the boards the

opportunity to place their emphasis exactly where they want to place it.

MS. CULL: I think the minister, in a long and roundabout way,

has said no, that money is not in there and that, while there are a lot

of fine words about the importance of planning, that's certainly not

one of the things that's funded. I know that in some districts people

are assigned to do this work, and there are people in districts who do

it. In any event, they have to do it. We don't hire planners to teach

our children, and I don't really know why we would expect educators to

do planning in this fashion. But no money has been allocated, and

districts will have to make their own choices, as they have been doing

all along.

I want to ask about the timing of capital budget submissions and

approvals. I wonder if the minister could tell me if there is an annual

date set by which capital budget requests have to be submitted to the

ministry.

HON. S. HAGEN: We did canvass this yesterday, but I don't

mind repeating it. I would love to get into my dissertation on capital

budgets again, but I'll answer the question very briefly. It's August 1.

MS. CULL: Could the minister tell me if there is also a date

by which the ministry undertakes to advise the districts of the

approval of the capital budget? They submit it on August 1, and some

time must transpire and then they must hear the word. Could the

minister tell us if there is a set date? And if there is not a set

date, could he tell us what date will be met this year? If I'm correct,

they have not yet been announced on an individual basis to the

districts. I'm not certain.

HON. S. HAGEN: We did canvass this before, but I appreciate

that the member may not have caught it. There is no date set as a

deadline for the announcement of capital programs, but I think it

should be clear that Treasury Board has to assess all capital requests

from all ministries. While the Ministry of Education is the largest,

they also have to look at Health, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General,

Advanced Education, Training and Technology and any other ministries

that have large capital envelopes, because it obviously affects the

borrowing capacity of the government.

I'll be very quick in finishing this. Historically, I think, capital

announcements have been made during the summer months. We have tried to

move that forward in the year. As I said to the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew yesterday, in order to take advantage of the

construction season, particularly in areas in the central or northern

part of the province, some announcements have been made in individual

districts. I expect they will all be made by the end of June.

MS. CULL: I'm sorry I wasn't here yesterday. I was with the

Minister of Health at the Oak Bay Lodge dealing with their three-year

accreditation celebration, so I apologize for having missed that.

I want to explore submissions that have to be made to the ministry

by August 1; obviously work has got to be done in the districts some

time prior to that — several months prior to that — to do their work

and determine what should be at the top of their priority list: what

projects need doing, what's new and what's emerging from last year.

Even with the best planning process, it's going to take some time to

prepare. The difficulty many districts face is they don't hear about

their capital budget for almost a full calendar year. I appreciate what

you just said about trying to shorten that time.

The point I want to make here about the difficulty is that when you

don't hear about last year's budget until the end of June, you can't

prepare for the next stage in next year's budget if you don't know what

you've got approved.

One of the problems we have in greater Victoria is related to

earthquake safety. The district has put forward a number of proposals

to undertake the studies that are needed. One can't go out and fix a

building until one knows what has to be done to it. I understand this

district has just learned that funding may be available for earthquake

safety, but another year will have to come along before they can put in

the proposals for the continuation of the funding.

Would the minister agree that this time cycle from the ministry is

taking too long. There has to be some chance of the district's getting

an earlier announcement so they can prepare for the next budget cycle.

We're not going to be able to have a five-year planning cycle if we

have these missed years in between because of the length of time it

takes to get the announcement from the ministry. Would the minister

agree that this is very important and does need to be pushed back, and

that the end of June is just too late?

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't want to be too hard on the member for Oak Bay, but I'll take you back to our discussion on....

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, it's not condescending. I could have come out very heavily against her.

We just talked about five-year planning processes. We are in a

five-year planning process, which is updated each year, so as

announcements are made, those projects drop off the list because

they're going to be built or purchased, and you move into the next

year. The planning process is continuous. There's no delay; there's no

lost time in the planning process. It's a five-year process which gets

updated each year. As this year drops off, you pick up a year five

years down the road.

[4:30]

[ Page

12583 ]

MS. CULL: The member for Vancouver East said that you

basically only have two months to prepare for this in the best of all

situations. In many cases, it's just not enough. You have to actually

get into the queue of the five-year planning cycle to be able to

prepare for the next. If you keep putting it in, and you don't know for

a full year whether you've got the funding, you've already prepared the

next year's capital budget before you know whether you're getting the

funding for year one. That's the problem with this system.

We need to tighten this up a little bit. If the minister is really

concerned about planning.... We should all be concerned about

facilities-planning given the importance of the work that needs to be

undertaken, particularly in the area of safety to students. Given the

size of the budget in the overall provincial capital budget, this is

one area that the minister should address. It's an area that was

identified by the Cornerstone study and by all the people who

participated in it.

I'd like to know whether the ministry has, as a result of its change

to a five-year planning cycle and support for more long-range

initiatives, changed from what was characterized by one of your staff

as a "whites of their eyes" policy. By that I mean that the ministry

basically funds schools when the children have arrived in the district

and can be counted as being there and requiring a school, even though

it may take 18 months to two years to actually build that facility. Is

the ministry now prepared to fund site acquisitions and the

construction of additions or new schools, if necessary, on the basis of

planning work that has been done in conjunction with municipalities, to

meet expected future growth, so that we can acquire some of these sites

while the land is still relatively undeveloped?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, the decisions are now being made on projections.

MS. CULL: I want to ask the minister about another item that

the former Minister of Education spoke about last year, and that is the

acquisition of land for schools. Earlier, in a response to another

question, the minister did say that consultation has been going on with

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Could the minister tell us what

progress has been made with respect to changes to government practice

to allow school districts to acquire sites at the time of development?

Last year the former Minister of Education suggested that schools

should be an integral part of development and that it would just take a

little imagination to have this happen. Has the ministry advanced at

all on that in the last year?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, there are discussions going on between my

ministry and the Ministry of Lands — not Municipal Affairs. Any changes

in practices would require legislation. However, the discussions are

taking place now between those two ministries.

MS. CULL: Did I hear the minister correctly? Did he say that discussions

are taking place with both the Ministry of Lands and the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs on this, or is it just with Lands? He's nodding and saying both.

The Ministry of Lands is fine in those areas where we have Crown

land available to be developed and therefore available for school

sites. Unfortunately, in most of the critical growth areas, right now

in the lower mainland and greater Victoria, Crown land just isn't an

option in providing for school sites. Is the minister telling me now

that, like his predecessor, he is prepared to ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs to consider whatever legislative changes are

necessary so school districts can acquire sites at the time of

development?

HON. S. HAGEN: As I said before, we're working on that.

MS. CULL: Well, Mr. Minister, you were working on that a year ago. Has any progress occurred in the last year?

HON. S. HAGEN: I wasn't here last year, so you've only asked

me once. I can tell you that progress is being made. At the last

meeting I had with the BCSTA executive, this was a topic of discussion,

and the BCSTA executive has one person designated to work with us on

this issue.

MS. CULL: I appreciate the minister wasn't here last year.

But sometimes, with the way cabinet shuffles have been going on, it has

been hard to keep track of who is in fact responsible and who you put

the questions to the last time.

I just have one final question related to the whole area of

facilities planning. It's somewhat related to the Cornerstone study,

but it's related to a number of concerns that people have when new

schools are being built. When a school is built in a new neighbourhood

— and we have an awful lot of opportunities in Surrey and Saanich and

places that are rapidly growing right now — there is also the

opportunity to have other community facilities there at the same time.

I'm not suggesting that the Ministry of Education budget would cover

the cost of building or operating those facilities, but certainly the

opportunity is there for schools to also house day cares, health

centres or community activity centres. Many of these other kinds of

community activities are funded by other provincial ministries. The

difficulty arises because a school is built through consultation with

the Ministry of Education, and there doesn't seem to have been in the

past any ability to deal with the other ministries which might also be

looking for space in that community to carry out their activities.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Can the minister tell me, in the last year has there been any

discussion with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the

Ministry of Health about joint use of facilities, about pooling of

capital resources and about the ability to build more community-based

structures, rather than a school which is essentially

[ Page 12584 ]

available for the use of children in the daytime Monday to Friday?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to give a very positive reply to

that question. In fact, districts are now encouraged to do some joint

planning and joint looking at things with their municipalities. The

ministry encourages this. As I mentioned before, Treasury Board

coordinates this because of all the capital projects that are underway.

I'll give you two examples in British Columbia that are very

successful examples of this type of planning process. One is the Thomas

Haney Centre in Maple Ridge, and the other is the Burnaby South 2000

project in Burnaby.

MS. CULL: I'm not familiar with either of those two projects.

Who are the partners besides the school district? Are they municipal,

or is the Ministry of Social Services and Housing one of the other

provincial ministries involved?

I'll give my second and hopefully last question at the same time. I

am pleased that the ministry is encouraging school districts to

coordinate with municipalities and other local bodies. They have been

doing that for some time, as far as I am aware, and doing it as

successfully as they can. My question is: is the minister now doing

that with his counterparts in Social Services and Health?

HON. S. HAGEN: Again, the answer is a positive yes.

You asked me for the partners in these two projects. In the Thomas

Haney Centre it's the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and

Technology, Douglas College, the municipality of Maple Ridge and School

District 42. In the Burnaby South 2000 project the partner is the

municipality of Burnaby.

You made the point that we are encouraging the working at the local

level, and that's in fact what we're doing. We're not imposing anything

onto them; we're just saying: "Have you looked at this?"

I think of another project up in the Cariboo, where we've had a submission from the municipality with regard to a joint project.

MS. EDWARDS: Since you've been talking about buildings and so

on, I'll ask my one question which is related to the capital funding.

Some time ago the Minister of Education — I'm not sure which one, but a

Minister of Education of this government — said that in capital

funding, any building more than 35 years old would have some priority

in attention. We have a school in Cranbrook which is more than 40 years

old and which is on the list. We have no announcement yet as to what

capital projects will go ahead in School District 2. I wonder if the

minister could tell me whether that will continue to be a priority.

Would a building that is 40 years old be likely to get some priority in

this decision?

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't understand why the member for Kootenay

has difficulty keeping track of the Ministers of Education of this

province. There have only been two in this term.

With regard to your specific request for your specific district, I

can tell you that the capital announcement for that district has not

yet been made but will be made shortly. The answer to your question

will then be known to you.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to thank the second Minister of

Education in this government. It must be a record for this government

to have a ministry that only had two ministers. I wonder if the

minister could answer my question, which is: do buildings more than 35

years old have priority in the minister's decisions?

HON. S. HAGEN: The answer is yes.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to deal with a point — a fairly short one

— related to the recent decision of the minister to end dual-entry

kindergarten. I have some concern with someone in my constituency. Of

course, I won't say what the occupation of that person is, because I'd

hate the minister to be prejudiced against that person if I happen to

admit they might be a teacher, a trustee or whatever working for the

school district. The minister has strange feelings.

It was mentioned to me that it seems, with the whole process we'll

have to go into in dismantling the dual-entry kindergarten system, that

there are really no ways that would be general right across the

province. The suggestion was made that it would be an excellent idea to

have individual districts be allowed to decide how they would dismantle

the program, move into the next phase and deal with those children who

might have to have a six-month hiatus or whatever. I wonder if the

minister would answer whether or not he is going to give a fairly free

rein to the districts to decide how they will dismantle the dual-entry

kindergarten process.

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to clarify a statement the member

made. I think she was questioning my feelings towards teachers. I can

assure the member that I have the utmost respect for teachers in this

province or anywhere else. My sister is a teacher, and my wife is a

teacher. I hope that two or three of my children become teachers. I

wouldn't want her to cast any feelings on that.

My difficulty that you probably just walked in on when I was

discussing with the member for Burnaby North.... The only time I have

difficulty with teachers is when they serve as school trustees at the

same time. Otherwise, I have the greatest respect for teachers and the

teaching profession.

With regard to your question of whether or not the move from

dual-entry might be optional, the answer is no. The people in the

system with whom I've checked — and I've talked to teachers, parents

and administrators — assure me that it would be an absolute disaster.

[4:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I think I'm going to move on to block funding and talk a bit to the minister about the

[ Page

12585 ]

problems that are occurring in School District 2,

the Cranbrook district. That district is now suffering the problems

that were predicted by a number of us at the time block funding came

in: if the block funding was not administered as well as it might be,

some of these school districts were going to have very difficult times

as it went ahead. It seems that school districts that are medium-sized

— 4,000 to 8,000 students — getting the main impact of the difficulties

with the block funding these days.

The Cranbrook School District is one of those districts, and it is

having a very severe time this year. It is going to have to make a $1.4

million cut in its budget — just in the budget needs — to continue the

programs that it already has. It had begun putting together some

programs that had been requested, and which would have been logical —

extensions which would have been reasonable improvements on the

programs that are there. They finally quit doing that when they were at

another $1.4 million.

That's not to say the board would have spent that money, Mr.

Chairman, but it does say that there are needs there. Even to stay at

the level the district was at would take at least $1.4 million. The

cuts that this school district had to make included some very important

things. It included nearly half a million dollars' worth of capital

equipment. That equipment, if it isn't bought or replaced, has a major

impact on what happens within the school system. It included a wellness

program, maintenance funds, cultural programs and recruitment.

I might mention to the minister that because the district is right

next door to a number of other districts which are under the new rules

that were introduced and under which school districts have to work, the

ones next door are not going to have staff under the direction of the

compensation commissioner. Therefore they will able to pay teachers and

recruit teachers much more easily than our district is. Despite that,

the budget will have to be cut by $30,000, which is going to have a

major impact on our district. It's going to be extremely difficult to

recruit teachers in a district that is under the compensation

commissioner, when you're right next door to districts that are not

under the compensation commissioner. They are going to have to cut

their recruitment budget even so.

In fact, what the school district chairman has said about the cuts

that have had to be put in — and of course there are whole

extracurricular programs that have had to be cut — is that the budget

cuts the board is contemplating are worse than the measures the board

of school trustees had to take during the restraint program of the

early eighties. We all know that was a time of extreme cuts, and that

there were very great damages to the school system at that time.

So these cuts that are now happening to School District 2 under this

block funding are extreme, Mr. Minister. I would like the minister to

respond to this issue. It seems to me that there is no excuse in the

world that we should.... Does the minister support wellness projects or

cultural programs? There are a number of professional development

activities that won't be carried out.

The minister already has a letter from the Cranbrook district parent

advisory council, which has said that the devastating cuts will affect

all students, but in particular the special-need