1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 3

[ Page 685 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

P. Dueck: Visiting us today in the precincts are 40 grade 11 students from MEI, which is a private independent school in the Matsqui district. Their goal is quality education, and they are a very efficiently run operation. Accompanying them today are two teachers, Mr. Bartsch and Mr. Reimer. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

F. Gingell: In the gallery I have a constituent, Karen Morgan. I would ask this House to help make her welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I would like the House to join me in welcoming 20 adult students of the Native Education Centre in Vancouver, who are enrolled in the native public administration program, and their instructor John McBride. I hope the whole House will join me in making them very welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting the House for the very first time are my younger son, Joel Hagen, and my executive assistant, Renée Saklikar. I've asked the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a businesswoman from Chilliwack, Miss Ona Singleton, who plays an active

part in our community and is one of my more avid supporters. If you'd make her most welcome, we'd appreciate it.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, I would ask the House to send its regrets to the family of Mildred Osterhout Fahrni, who just today passed away at the age of 92 years. Mildred Fahrni has been a long-time friend to many of us in Vancouver. Her political career was very distinguished, although it never resulted in her being a representative in this House.

Mildred Fahrni was born in rural Manitoba and was there when the CCF was formed. She was at the Regina convention where the original manifesto was written. She gave the homily at J. Woodsworth's funeral. She has been a long-time and well-respected member of the peace movement in our province, in our country and internationally. She was a friend of Gandhi and of Martin Luther King; she was someone they looked to when she was younger. We will really regret her passing. Over many years she has been a friend to all of us in Vancouver who have cared about the peace movement and about justice.

She was awarded the Vancouver peace award in 1991, and the MOSIAC humanitarian award. She has been, as I said, a friend to all of us. I would ask this House to join me in sending sincere regrets to her family.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Is it the House's wish that we send those regrets?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, with your indulgence and that of other hon. members, I would like to add very briefly to what the minister has said. Mildred Fahrni was undoubtedly one of the great British Columbians of this century. The biography presented last year when she won the Vancouver Citizens Peace Award described an individual whose accomplishments few of us could even imagine, let alone emulate. She had a certain dignity and peacefulness about her that anyone who knew her will never forget and those of us who didn't know her can only imagine.

I'd like to attempt to convey that to members so they know the kind of person about whom we're talking. She'll be an enormous loss, but she's left an indelible mark on the province.

V. Anderson: I would like to add my personal greetings to the family in the passing of Mildred Fahrni. It was 45 years ago at the University of Saskatchewan that we first had the privilege of meeting Mildred when she was speaking and conveying her convictions to us with her Fellowship of Reconciliation. She has maintained that over these years and had a long-lasting effect on the lives of many students across Canada and around the world.

It was only about three months ago that Mildred was in a group meeting with our congregation sharing her concerns and her interests, even then leading the rest of us and guiding us and overwhelming people by her sincerity and her modesty and her supreme effectiveness.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. With the will of the House I will ensure that those regrets are sent from this House.

Before we begin question period you will find some interesting information on your desk.

On Thursday last, hon. members, the government House Leader and both opposition House Leaders rose on a point of order relating to the conduct of question period in the House. The heart of the guidelines for question period are embodied in the words of standing order 47A(b), which reads as follows: "...questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion."

While from time to time the Chair has recited this particular subsection and believes all hon. members are quite familiar with its intent, based on the comments of last Thursday's point of order, quite clearly neither government nor opposition are completely satisfied with the way question period is unfolding. The Chair has also examined the official record of this House covering the last two weeks of question period, and while many questions and answers conformed to the rule, many did not.

Unless the members in framing questions and

preambles and the ministers in formulating their answers conscientiously observe the spirit of

section 47A, the House is in difficulty. The Chair is powerless to rewrite questions or rephrase answers for hon. members. Presiding officers throughout the Commonwealth have stated time and again that members must take the ultimate responsibility for conforming to the rules,

[ Page 686 ]

which are of course the members' rules and not the Speaker's rules.

To assist members in better understanding the areas which appear to be giving the House the most difficulty, I have asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to circulate a decision of a former Speaker of the House, which may be found on page 86 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. The Speaker's comments of June 30, 1982, deal very specifically with the same complaints voiced by all hon. House leaders on Thursday last. I am also supplying to each member of the House the rules as stated in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which hon. members may wish to keep readily available to assist in framing questions and formulating answers during question period.

The Chair in this Legislature, as in all Legislatures in the Commonwealth, is prepared to guide and assist, but ultimately it is up to all hon. members to take responsibility for making question period in this House effective and in accordance with the well-established rules. So I hope hon. members will find the information on their desks of assistance.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Health. Over the past two weeks all the members of this House have received numerous calls from distraught family members of British Columbians who are eagerly awaiting emergency surgery. Can this minister finally come clean and admit today to the people of this province that the current levels of essential service in this province are totally inadequate?

Hon. E. Cull: We have the ability in this province to designate essential services, which are negotiated and put in place to make sure that emergency health care is available to everyone who needs it. Beyond that, because of some of the concerns around the disruption in some hospitals, we have also made available -- where the physicians deem it to be necessary -- the ability to fly patients to other hospitals in Alberta and Washington. We are doing all that we can to maintain essential emergency services.

G. Farrell-Collins: According to her comments last week, the minister said that Monday was D-Day for this dispute. It's Monday, and both sides are farther apart than ever. There are hundreds of people who are suffering because they cannot get the medical treatment they need. When will the minister finally act on behalf of the people of this province who are in urgent need of health services?

Hon. E. Cull: The member is asking about the labour dispute, and I think that question would be better put to the Minister of Labour.

[2:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't hear the question. The member may want to repeat it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, once again we're playing games in question period. This is a very serious matter.

I will repeat the question. The Minister of Health stated last week that Monday was the deadline in this dispute, and if nothing had been done by Monday she would look into it. Today is Monday. There are hundreds of people in this province who are in very serious situations regarding their health. I would like to know when some minister -- any minister -- of this government is going to stand up and take responsibility for the people of this province.

Hon. M. Sihota: This government is always pleased to stand up and take responsibility for all the issues that face the public in this province. I can assure the hon. member of that. The fact of the matter in this case is that there are concerns about essential services, which the hon. member raises. This government has made it very clear that it will not compromise on the issue of essential services. British Columbians will receive quality health care in this province.

I noted over the course of last week that both the union and the hospitals indicated that if there were gaps in the provision of essential services, they were prepared to go back to the IRC and seek further clarification and orders in that regard. We welcome those applications. We have an assurance that the IRC will deal with them expeditiously.

The hon. member also implies in his question that no progress has been made in the past week with respect to this issue. He's wrong on that point. Quite frankly, the parties have made considerable progress over the weekend. I understand that there was a new offer put forward on Sunday that reduces the cost to government somewhat significantly from the previous offer.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's very encouraging to the people who are sitting in hallways -- as we saw last week -- to know that this government is willing to go back to the IRC and engage in negotiations on essential services. They'd like some answers now. Obviously the fear of offending anyone by intervening in this dispute is hampering the ability of at least two ministers to properly manage the people's business. Will either of these ministers finally set a realistic deadline for the resolution of this dispute? Enough is enough.

Hon. M. Sihota: In terms of setting a deadline, I don't think it makes any sense to impose artificial deadlines on the parties. The parties are well aware of the need to have this issue resolved, as is the government. The government, through the IRC and mediation mechanisms, is actively involved in this matter -- contrary to what the member wishes to suggest. The fact of the matter is that the government has made it abundantly clear to the parties that our patience is wearing thin with respect to this dispute.

[ Page 687 ]

ABORIGINAL TITLE

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. On December 10, the ministry issued a press release, in which he referred to British Columbia's recognition of the political legitimacy of aboriginal title and the inherent right to self-government.

Hon. G. Clark: A little late, Jack.

J. Weisgerber: Yes.

Later, on April 8, both the minister and the Attorney General rose in the House to make ministerial statements. The Attorney General said: "...the government recognizes the existence of aboriginal rights in the province, which may be described as an interest in respect of land

sui generis ." Will the minister explain for this House and British Columbians the difference between these two positions?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure there is a difference between the two positions. The first position was that we recognize the political legitimacy of aboriginal title. That is our political commitment, which we fully intend to act upon at the negotiating table. The second position is the position we're taking into court, and it is a position that directs itself to the

interpretation of the common law and the legal situation.

That, I suppose, is the distinction between the two. If the member wants to define further for me what kind of differences he's looking for, I'd be happy to respond.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps for those of us who aren't as fluent in Latin as the minister might be, I think British Columbians clearly would like to know if this government still recognizes aboriginal title. Is that the position? If that's the case, it would have been much simpler for us -- aboriginal people and British Columbians who are interested in this issue -- to have simply reaffirmed your position of recognition of aboriginal title. Will you tell us: is there a difference between the recognition of aboriginal title and the statement made by the Attorney General in respect to the recognition of rights in land?

Hon. A. Petter: I think I can answer the question by reading from the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul in which they say:

"The inescapable conclusion from the court's analysis of Indian title up to this point is that the Indian interest in land is truly

sui generis . It is more than the right to enjoyment and occupancy, although, as the Chief Justice pointed out in Guerin, it is difficult to describe what more in traditional property law terminology."

So the short answer is that the Supreme Court itself has defined aboriginal title as an interest in land

sui generis . That's the terminology we're using too. The difficulty with the term aboriginal title is that the members opposite constantly misinterpret it.

SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET CUTS

J. Dalton: My question is for the Minister of Education. In order to address a serious budget shortfall, the Vancouver School District has announced 115 teacher layoffs for next year. Does the minister endorse the axing of teachers to balance district budgets?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe the question is out of order because we are in estimates today, but I would certainly be happy to deal with that question in detail during the estimates debate that will follow question period.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have a new question?

J. Dalton: I have a supplementary.

The Speaker: Unless the member has a new question, then I would go on to the next question.

TEACHER LAYOFFS

J. Dalton: New question, Hon. Speaker.

Hundreds of teachers have recently received their pink slips from school districts. Can the hon. Minister of Education tell this House where she expects these teachers might find future employment in education?

Hon. A. Hagen: I would repeat that we are in estimates, and these matters are to be canvassed at that time.

CROWN COUNSEL

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General, especially given that the Crown Counsel Association on Friday voted 96 percent in favour of withdrawing their services after June 15. I wonder if it is the minister's view that we are headed towards yet another public sector strike in a vital component of our society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all.

A. Warnke: It's interesting, hon. Speaker. In the past, both the Premier and the Minister of Labour criticized the Crown counsel office as being weak and subject to political interference. What specifically is the government doing about establishing a strong and independent Crown counsel office?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm absolutely committed, and so is the government, to a strong Crown counsel process and force in this province. I think it's clear to anyone who looks at the situation that there are some inadequacies in the current remuneration schedule; there are some problems with the contracting-out that took place almost a decade ago; and there are a number of other issues that need to be dealt with and are being dealt with. In fact, the Crown Counsel Association is now in the process of meeting with government

[ Page 688 ]

representatives to discuss these outstanding issues, and I'm fully confident that a resolution will be reached.

A. Warnke: A final supplementary to the same minister. Since different professions have been on strike lately, ranging from BCIT, UBC and so forth, when is this government going to change its attitude of bargaining with these people and specifically the Crown Counsel Association?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, hon. Speaker, the Crown counsels are not covered by a collective bargaining situation. They are not under the PSLRA, and as a result, they have asked for a voluntary acceptance on our part that we discuss with their association, outside of the framework of collective bargaining. We've agreed to do that. We've agreed to sit down and talk to them about the problems they face. They have a series of objectives that they wish us to accept. We're prepared to talk about any and all of them. We're not prepared to accept absolutely every one of them, though, I might say.

GYPSY MOTH SPRAY PROGRAM

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, Btk is the active ingredient in the proposed gypsy moth spraying. It was last tested for toxicity to humans between 1956 and 1958. It is now 16 times more potent than it was then. My question to the Minister of Health is: are you satisfied with this spraying providing new test results from the 500,000 lower mainland residents exposed?

Hon. E. Cull: There has been extensive review of the studies done on the toxicity of the Btk. The best advice that I have from the provincial medical health officer is that there is a small risk to people who already have breathing difficulties from the spray and from the substance that it is in. But there is a larger -- although also extremely small -- risk from the moths themselves to that same population. In other words, the public health risk from either the spray or the moth is small, but it is larger from the infestation of the moth itself.

J. Tyabji: My question is for the Minister of Environment. The minister claims it is safe to spray Foray 48B over watersheds, based on ten years of spray research in Ontario. This same research lead to a cancelling of aerial spraying for gypsy moth. Does the minister plan to conduct an additional ten-year test on the province of B.C.?

Hon. J. Cashore: As a responsible government, we'll be paying attention to all information that becomes available to us. As I have stated, as a responsible government we've had to make a decision in an emergency situation. The fact is that the stickers and the spreaders that are employed in the Btk, sometimes referred to as surfactant, are the culture that the Btk grow on. These are primarily carbohydrates, such as ground potatoes or ground soya beans. They are also used in proteins, sugars and cornmeal. There are no secret chemicals. Also, all the ingredients are tested and passed by Health and Welfare Canada.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: I thank to the Minister of Environment for all kinds of information I hadn't asked for. Will the Minister of Environment bear the cost of evacuation of people who, on the advice of physicians, must leave the lower mainland for the two-month duration of the spray program?

[2:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to remind this hon. member that she was the one who last week appropriately raised the caution that this not be something -- albeit an emergency -- dealing in hysteria. She was absolutely right about that last week. We are dealing with an emergency here, but it is absolutely imperative that the public not be put in the situation, through the manipulation of information, to have to panic.

Ministerial Statement

TREE-SPIKING IN WALBRAN VALLEY

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a statement on tree-spiking, which is an issue of grave concern to everyone with an interest in B.C.'s forests. I make this statement today as a result of a number of trees with spikes being discovered in the Walbran Valley. Various people have been reported in the media as suggesting that tree-spiking does not present a hazard to people employed in the woods or the mills of our province. I want to disabuse anybody who retains that foolish notion.

Early last week an employee of MacMillan Bloedel narrowly escaped injury after his saw struck a large spike embedded in a tree in the Walbran Valley. MacMillan Bloedel employees subsequently discovered that a number of trees in an active cutting area in the Walbran had been spiked. In response to media reports of the discovery of some 34 spikes, Mr.

Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society claimed in the Vancouver Province that he not only knew of some 2,000 other trees in the Walbran Valley that had been spiked, but that he had developed the tactic in an attempt to save old-growth forests from logging. Mr. Watson said that spiking is not a tactic aimed at injuring human beings, but rather it is intended to cost logging companies a great deal of money. Mr.

Watson went on to say that tree-spiking cannot hurt loggers or sawmill employees, because both chainsaws and milling equipment have guards that protect the operators in the event that blades hit foreign objects in the wood.

A Mr. Jim Gillespie was also quoted as saying that tree-spiking posed no threat to loggers or millworkers. Mr. Gillespie suggested: "They can name the tree and put in as many spikes as they want. There's no danger whatsoever." This is utter nonsense. The 34 spikes discovered in the Walbran were deliberately inserted in such a fashion as to prevent their detection and to cause them to fly out of the tree when struck by a saw blade.

[ Page 689 ]

Many sawmills, such as that in Youbou, have experienced incidents where a saw blade has exploded upon striking a metal object embedded in a log. If I can deviate on a personal note, I have worked in a mill in British Columbia -- with a bandmill -- and I have seen that saw torn off its seat as a result of boom chains in a log. I know workers who have been injured when that saw broke into many pieces, causing them severe injury.

Moreover, the people who put the spikes in the trees made no attempt to warn the company of the presence of spikes before logging crews entered the area. From this, one can only conclude that the responsible party did not want to prevent or delay the felling of trees, but rather wanted to injure forestry workers. Tree-spiking is quite simply

an act of violence against people.

The environmental movement has worked hard to establish a meaningful dialogue on land use in this province. I sincerely believe that through such government initiatives as the Commission on Resources and Environment, this positive working relationship will flourish and allow all parties to reach agreements on the future of land use in B.C. Tree-spiking, however, only undermines this process. It is not an attempt to protect trees or encourage cooperation on land use, but is instead a conscious and deliberate attempt to cause injury and death to our forest industry workers.

I have asked the Attorney General to raise with the federal Justice minister the possibility of including tree-spiking as an offence under the Criminal Code. I would also call on all members of this House to condemn these environmental terrorists and demand that the members of the many responsible environmental groups in B.C. use all the means at their disposal to seek out these individuals who would undermine their commendable efforts.

W. Hurd: It's a privilege to respond to the ministerial statement on tree-spiking, which the opposition equally abhors. I can certainly recount that felling is a dangerous enough profession of the woods without having to deal with the psychological terror that may go on when dealing with trees that have been spiked. I am also encouraged to hear that the government intends to pursue the idea of criminal charges against people who engage in this kind of activity. Certainly a charge of criminal negligence, if an action results in bodily harm or injury, is worthy of immediate consideration and would be endorsed by the opposition.

I hope that a day will come in this province when people have enough faith in due process of law and in consultation that these types of activities will not be defended in the media and will not be the subject of hero worship by some misguided people in our society. I really do hope that the environmental movement will take it upon itself to advise the authorities of who might be responsible for this type of activity, because I think it reflects badly on a very worthy environmental movement. I would hope that they will take the kind of action that they deem to be necessary.

We certainly support the ministerial statement and hope that we can include this type of activity in the Criminal Code as soon as possible.

L. Fox: I'm sure we can all support the minister's statement on tree-spiking. That is why the previous government passed Bill 35 in 1990, which makes tree-spiking an illegal act punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or a three-year jail term where it results in physical injury. Believe me, if the Social Credit caucus had its way, tree-spiking would be punishable under the Criminal Code and subject to much tougher treatment than now accorded it under provincial law.

When Bill 35 was debated two years ago, every member of this House condemned tree-spiking as a senseless act of violence that could not be excused and should not be tolerated. Given the incidents that have recently been documented, I would urge this government to review Bill 35 and evoke much harsher penalties for tree-spiking before this session is concluded. Every member of the Social Credit caucus will support tougher fines and tougher jail terms if this government uses its power to ensure that tree-spiking simply doesn't happen.

Again, we support the minister's statement and urge him to bring in tougher provincial penalties for tree-spiking as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR

MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

On vote 24: minister's office, $398,558 (continued).

J. Dalton: To the Minister of Education, welcome back, after a day off -- as I guess we can describe it -- to the estimates debate.

I appreciate that in question period today the minister chose not to answer some specific questions on teacher layoffs. I'm going to make some comments today about that particular issue, which is becoming more and more evident. I might say, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Minister of Education that some of the remarks I'm going to make were precipitated by a newspaper

article of last Saturday, in the Sun, and comments that the minister made in an interview with, I presume, the reporters who wrote this article. I think the timing is very appropriate.

More and more of what I would describe as the bad news is coming in from various school boards and districts about the underfunding of education. I made this observation last Thursday as well, when we commenced these debates: there is more and more evidence of board, or district, underfunding. We in the opposition are certainly very concerned about that, and I trust that the minister is equally concerned.

If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to some of the comments attributed to the Minister of Education, because they are appropriate to our discussion in the estimates debate. In particular terms, the Vancouver district has now had to come to grips with its budget shortfall. It has given approval as of last week

[ Page 690 ]

for a $326 million operating budget for the 1992-93 fiscal year. That is in response to the funding formula and the money provided for Vancouver, and also in response to the very difficult task that that board, and many others, have either gone through so far or are in the process of going through.

In the case of the Vancouver School Board, 115 teachers will be given layoff notices for the upcoming school year to take care of significant shortfalls; in addition, there will be another 105 non-teaching staff who will also be given layoff notices; and this all in the aftermath of the shortfalls and the budget preparation of the Vancouver district.

When the hon. Minister of Education was asked to comment on the particular example of Vancouver, in these very difficult times that teachers, students, parents and everyone else in that district in particular are facing, she suggested, in answer to a question about layoffs, that the about-to-be-laid-off teachers in Vancouver could find employment in other suburban or lower mainland districts. While that may or may not be the case, Mr.

Chairman -- and of course we cannot speculate on whether other school districts will be in a specific position to hire laid-off teachers -- the fact is that there is a significant budget shortfall; that many teachers and also support staff are now facing the very unpleasant news that their jobs are about to be terminated for the upcoming year.

This particular

article was originally drawn to my attention by a newscast that I heard on Saturday morning on my way to a West Vancouver School Board meeting. Every time you turn around there's a correlation between all these difficulties the various school districts are facing. At that time -- before I had actually read this newspaper

article -- I raised the question to myself, and I also posed it to the superintendent of schools for West Vancouver. I'm wondering where the minister feels these teachers who have now been given layoff notices are going to find employment, given that other school districts are facing similar budget shortfalls for next year.

[2:45]

I am not only going to ask myself and ask other school officials that question, but I think it would be appropriate for the minister, if she cares to, to make comments on these layoffs and on the prospects for future employment in other school districts. I do appreciate that some school districts are in a growth position, and I think, for example, of Surrey, Langley and many of the districts in the Fraser Valley. Richmond School District is in a growth position.

It is somewhat speculative, of course, to indicate exactly what the numbers would be in the fall. We do know that there are funds set aside, and I think we're going to have the opportunity to question later in these debates about what to do as far as fall enrolment -- if it's higher or perhaps in some cases lower than anticipated -- by looking at the actual figures each school district has in front of it now.... However, coming back to the budget shortfall and the awkward situation that these boards are placed in by having to lay off their teaching and non-teaching staff, is it realistic for the hon. Minister of Education to state publicly -- as she has done in this newspaper

article and in public meetings -- that teachers are going to find employment in other districts? This, in essence, is the theme of the question that I tried to raise in question period today, so there is a correlation between the two. Quite frankly, it's a bit misleading to suggest to those teachers who are going to open up their pay slips one day -- if they haven't already -- and find that pink slip drop out: "Don't worry about it. Your educational career is not being put on hold. You can find employment elsewhere."

For example, many of these teachers have families in particular communities. Is the minister inviting these people to uproot themselves and their families to find employment elsewhere, which may or may not be available? Given the very real uncertainty of budget shortfalls in a majority of districts -- and later today I'm going to comment on a survey that will substantiate this -- I am going to suggest to the hon. minister that it is both misleading and inaccurate to suggest to teachers: "I'm sorry that you got laid off in Vancouver or wherever else it may be.

Go and find employment elsewhere." I don't think that's quite the approach that teachers are expecting to hear, and I'm hoping that teachers will look at this in a more realistic sense than perhaps the minister is prepared to do.

The fact is -- and this is demonstrated more and more as budgets come in -- that many districts are facing the same shortfall that I have already referred to as far as Vancouver is concerned. Vancouver, being the largest district in the province, is naturally going to get more publicity than other districts might receive.

However, Vancouver is only one of many examples of shortfalls, and I'm hoping the minister doesn't have a game plan in mind whereby she's saying: "We'll just farm off the surplus teachers out of Vancouver, because they can't afford to pay for them, to other growth districts." I'm suggesting that these so-called growth districts -- and they are in a growth situation -- are not getting the proper funding, either.

There is another difficulty I would point out. If growth districts are to receive extra funding, it would not arrive until the September enrolment occurs. There is certainly no assurance that they would then be in a position to hire on extra faculty or support staff for their education delivery.

It's not an easy time for anyone involved in the process of education, and it is anything but an easy time for those who are getting the bad news from districts like Vancouver and hearing statements attributed to the Minister of Education saying, in effect: "Don't worry about it. Go elsewhere. There is employment available elsewhere."

As I've already suggested, I think it's misleading. I think it is an unwarranted way to approach this problem. It certainly is true that in the long run we all have to address -- we made these comments on Thursday of last week as well -- the whole question of funding for the education system. In the short run -- these are the points that we are bringing up in the estimates now -- many districts are facing the unpleasant situation of getting to the bottom line, as I will describe it, of presenting their budgets for next year and

[ Page 691 ]

finding that they are definitely in a shortfall position. I am sure I will have the opportunity later to make reference -- and other members as well -- to other districts. I don't want to use Vancouver as the only example; it's one that is useful to use right now, because as my line of questioning is suggesting, to take Vancouver teachers and park them somewhere else in the growth districts, if indeed they have the financial wherewithal to hire these teachers.... So I am going to summarize this line of reasoning by suggesting again that the growth districts may not be in a position to hire surplus teachers.

It is unfair to laid-off teachers to raise false expectations, which I think is happening. I'm sure many teachers in Vancouver -- who are anticipating, if they haven't already got the unpleasant news -- are going to read this

article or hear the newscast and say: "Thank God, now I can go off to Surrey or whatever district it might be and find other employment." I don't think that is a likelihood in the reality of the underfunding of the system in a general sense.

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, I want to say that all of us are concerned about the difficulties the school boards and other levels of government are having in preparing their budgets for the coming year. Let me address a couple of points which the member has taken from an

article in a weekend newspaper, one which put some words into my mouth, as is sometimes the wont of newspaper writers. I was asked if there were growing districts where there would be opportunities for new teachers. Indeed, there are growing districts which will require new teachers. Perhaps the best way to give testament to that is to look at the number of teachers employed this year over and above the number employed in each of the two previous years. In each of the two previous years in British Columbia, 1,200 teachers have been added to our teaching complement.

A great many of those teachers are added because of increases in enrolment, and that doesn't include principals or district staff. So there are 2,400 more teachers employed in British Columbia in 1991-92 than in 1989-90. Our enrolment projections are that there will be increased numbers of students as well.

It's important, too, to note that each year a certain number of teachers retire or take leave. This provides some space in terms of the staffing arrangements that every district goes through each year, as it plans to prepare for next year's enrolment of youngsters in our school system.

The other matter that was addressed at that time -- and it's an important matter for me to address in this House -- is the increases that this government has provided for the school districts of the province in this most difficult of budgeting years, when we are facing at a provincial level an actual deficit of about $1.75 billion. The block of funds to school districts for operating year over year is up 6.5 percent. The overall increase in dollars is $232 million. If we look at all the funding going to school districts this year over last year, it's $300 million, an increase of over 9 percent. Our provincial budget is up 4.7 percent, so we clearly have targeted money to school districts.

Now let me look to the particular district that the member has cited in his comments, the district of Vancouver. Vancouver is not growing. It has had some modest growth over the last two or three years, but this year the enrolment projections agreed upon between the ministry and the district are pretty flat -- a very modest increase in students. So Vancouver receives pretty well the average per-block increase compared to what all other districts receive. It's about 2.2 percent. However, Vancouver has some special circumstances, and those have been acknowledged in the funding that goes to Vancouver. I have communicated this to the chairman of the Vancouver Board of School Trustees.

Vancouver also has received some assistance for costs that it incurred last year for its excellent school meal program -- almost $1 million in 1991-92 budget terms, to assist us with costs it had incurred. This is, in a sense, some new money that they might not have expected and that will assist them in their budgeting. That school meal program will translate into $1.6 million estimated for next year for programs that are in place or contemplated.

Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, there has been a 6.5 percent increase block over block to school districts this year. Vancouver has received an increase parallel to the increase that has gone out to most districts on average, plus funds that will be targeted to some of the special needs of Vancouver.

I might add that although this next item does not deal with operating, Vancouver has already received word of $11 million in capital funds and will be receiving word this week of additional funds to assist it in upgrading its schools as per its requests to the ministry. I would just note, Mr. Chairman, that the $11 million was for last year, 1991-92, and the other funds that I'm speaking of are for the upcoming year. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

J. Dalton: As I believe I said the other day -- and I would like to reiterate it -- the minister is very generous in her answers, and certainly we appreciate the information that is forthcoming. However, that doesn't mean that I am intending to be overcomplimentary or not critical of this whole question of budget shortfalls that we are addressing.

As she did on the first day of the estimates debate, the minister today refers, appropriately from her perspective, to the budget increase, and we recognize that. We have seen the figures, and we know that 9.1 percent overall in her ministry.... We are aware of the lift on the funding formula of 2.4 percent for economic adjustment, 3.5 percent for increased enrolment and the other factors. I don't think that we need to go over old ground or have specific figures restated for us.

[3:00]

[ Page 692 ]

There is a reality out there, and I think that now I wish to address some of the reality. The reality is an ongoing thing. We've referred in our comments to Vancouver -- there is a really harsh reality. It is true that Vancouver has received -- as the minister kindly provided -- a 2.2 percent increase in the funding as opposed to the provincial average of 2.4. That's close enough. However, that doesn't take into account other costs which are certainly going to affect Vancouver and the other school districts.

I don't believe that at any time in my comments, either in the first day or today, have I made any reference to anticipated salary increases for teachers.

Maybe that's a topic that nobody wants to address, because should we suggest to teachers, "By the way, we all recognize that your districts are in financial difficulty, and we're going to expect you to pay for it indirectly by not asking for an appropriate salary increase for 1992-93...." I don't think that's realistic or fair to teachers, and it's not very likely that teachers are going to come to their local school boards and say: "We know that you're in difficulty and that you are not the cause of it -- it's the provincial government ministry -- and we'll certainly be happy to surrender salary increases for next year in order to bail you out." That's not going to happen.

Certainly teachers that I've talked to are not suggesting that they are going to be greedy, but I can assure you that teachers, as with any other public sector group in this province, have an expectation that they should be treated fairly.

This government is more than often prepared to talk about fair wages, pay equity and all of the things that have a nice ring to them -- some of which may be more predictably part of what this government is going to bring in than others. But teachers have to be treated with the same respect and fairness that any other public sector group would anticipate.

I would just add as sort of an aside, as we're going through the estimates and talking about budget shortfalls, that we haven't even got around to the very unpleasant prospect of districts being placed in an even more awkward situation because of salary increases that no doubt will be negotiated or at least asked for in the upcoming year. That's a topic that we may revisit later.

Right now, there is a very consistent theme from school districts that they're in difficult economic times. The thing that they then add, as I've already alluded to in my comments, is: "By the way, our budget shortfall doesn't even include the possibility of an increase in salaries." As salaries go up, it's obviously going to impact it even further as far as district funding is concerned.

Let me return to the first theme that we are commenting on: budget shortfalls. I'm going to refer this committee to a survey of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. This survey was recently completed, and the results, as I see from the cover, were presented to the hon. Minister of Education and the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on Friday, April 10, 1992. The information from the B.C. School Trustees' Association is of interest to this committee and all the members present. The minister no doubt has a copy, and I now have a copy in front of me.

Some of the information contained in this report will be of interest to everyone, including school administrators, teachers and parents, who hopefully will be listening in or receiving this information through other sources. I could go on and name everyone who will be concerned and interested in this survey.

The survey was sent out to each of the member boards of the BCSTA. I can't recall the exact number, but there are some school boards that are not members of the BCSTA. The significant majority are members. They responded to particular questions put to their individual boards in March, the last month the survey form came out. It's headed "Statement of Issue: School District Concerns About Education Funding." This is not a detailed survey. I'm not going to go through a lot of facts and figures, because the BCSTA did not ask for those. It just wanted a general overview reaction of school districts to the funding situation for '92-93.

The information provided in the response to this survey is certainly of interest. As of April 3 of this year, 82 percent of member boards had responded to this brief survey. I might add as an aside that we have been doing our own research, as you might suspect, and the information I see here in

summary form does not surprise me one bit. It's very consistent with the information and messages we've been receiving in our independent research.

Let's examine some of the facts and figures that have come to light from this survey. Here's a heading: "Funding and Economic Conditions." The boards were invited to comment on their evaluation of funding levels for the '92-93 fiscal year. Some 39 percent of the responding boards felt that the funding was appropriate. I don't know how to interpret "appropriate," but I presume that means they are more or less satisfied. The next figure is certainly of significance to us: 52 percent were of the opinion that the funding level was inappropriate.

This isn't just an expression of opinion; this is a fact based on the budgets they've put together. Over half of the responding boards have indicated in the survey they have now shared with the minister that the funding received is inappropriate.

I will give you my

interpretation of what that means. I would say "inappropriate" means that these boards, as we are demonstrating in our examples, are going through varying degrees of financial agony. Some of the agony in the cuts is, of course, far more serious and severe for some districts than others, but the fact does remain that over one-half of these responding boards are responding "inappropriate funding."

Here's another heading: "Impact of the Allocation." That is the funding formula, of course, and the funds allocated to each of the districts. Table 2 of this survey indicates that, as far as the impact on funding allocation is concerned, 17 percent of the responding boards feel that it's "drastic." I don't think that's necessarily an overstatement; in fact, if I might refer -- as I did the other day -- to one of the two school districts in my own constituency of North Vancouver, I would suggest that North Vancouver has probably described its economic circumstances as drastic.

Tomorrow evening, April 14, North Vancouver has to go through the final throes of its budget exercise; it will be producing its

[ Page 693 ]

budget for '92-93. I know full well that this will be a drastic budget. I can assure this committee of this; I've heard from many constituents within my riding and elsewhere in North Vancouver who are of the same opinion.

Twenty-eight percent of responding boards felt that the impact on their district would be "severe." So here we have an interesting range of adjectives. First we have "drastic"; now we're into "severe" -- and 28 percent. In fairness, we have to go on and give the other responses: "moderate" was 37 percent. I guess "moderate" would probably tie into the appropriate funding that the first question asked for a response on, which was 39 percent. So there's a very close similarity between the two figures. "Minimal" impact was 13 percent.

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting. You go through the list and the percentages decrease quite significantly as the positive reaction to funding is invited as a response from member boards. So we've gone through the very significant numbers -- drastic, severe, moderate -- and now we're into "minimal" with 13 percent; "no effect" with 2 percent -- almost a non-existent number; "positive" with 2 percent -- it would be interesting to see which boards feel that they're in a positive position, but there are certainly not very many of them; and "no response" with 2 percent -- so there were some member boards who have either not gotten around to responding yet or chose not to.

I have one other thing, and then I will invite comment from the minister. I'm just reading from a survey given to her by the BCSTA. The third survey aspect of this report dealt with staff and program cuts. Based on the responses to questions about funding impact, it is not surprising that 74 percent of the boards answering expect staff reductions to result from the funding allocations -- 74 percent expect staff layoffs.

That does come back to the point that I started with today, which precipitated this whole line of questioning: the Vancouver layoffs and the response the minister gave publicly about teachers finding employment elsewhere. I can't see, in all honesty, how teachers are going to find employment elsewhere when so many responding districts are facing -- 74 percent in this case -- staff reductions.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to acknowledge the work the member has done in reviewing the survey, which, as he noted, the Minister of Finance and I received in a further extensive discussion with members of the B.C. School Trustees' Association executive, accompanied, at their invitation, by members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. As I have noted over and over again, we are all facing difficult challenges in this time, and one of my responsibilities is to understand as much as possible what is in the budgets that boards have to work with. I want to just comment briefly about the survey that was done.

It represents just over two-thirds of the boards. There are 75 school districts in British Columbia, and as I listened to the analysis, it would appear from the survey that about half of those boards are looking at some changes in their staffing as a result of this year's block allocations.

First of all, I want to be sure that we understand the decisions that are local decisions and the decisions that are taken provincially. Provincially, we build our budgets based on a great deal of information that comes directly from school districts. One of the largest costs of school districts is salaries, because it's a people business; whether it's teachers, principals, support staff or the district staff, those salaries make up somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of school district budgets. Our budgets are built with an acknowledgment of the fact that teachers grow in their professional capacity.

They get increments based on their years of experience, and they get increases in their salaries based on improved professional qualifications. Those are all acknowledged in the block of funds that go to school districts.

[3:15]

In the matter of negotiations for settlement of salaries, benefits and working conditions -- class size, preparation time, supervision -- all of those matters are negotiated between school districts and their boards. We have a system that acknowledges the increased professional and experiential qualifications of teachers. Districts are responsible for the negotiations, and the outcome of those negotiations is the result of the intensive work that goes on at district level. As I think I noted on Thursday, both of those factors have an effect on that important component of a budget. Some of them are our responsibility as a provincial government; some of them are local responsibilities.

I have often talked about the fact that we are cogovernors, comanagers, each accountable for certain decisions that we take. It's important for all of us to understand, when we're talking about budgets and management of the system, that we're talking about decisions we've taken for which I've been providing answers to the members of the assembly here today, and we're talking about decisions that are taken at the local district level.

The other comment I'd like to make is that I set out, at the start of my new responsibilities as Minister of Education and Multiculturalism and Human Rights, to work closely with the partners in education, and I have met with them frequently over the last number of months. I have some flesh on the bones of those surveys that the member is discussing, because I have been in face-to-face meetings with boards as extensively as possible.

Those meetings have been very productive where we have taken a problem-solving perspective on the situation we face in managing to maintain services to children in classrooms in the context of difficult economic times. I would like to acknowledge the problem-solving approach that boards of school trustees and their officials -- sometimes accompanied by representatives of parents -- teachers and support staff organizations have taken. I've met with -- I've lost count -- probably 12 or 14 boards at this time, and I have meetings scheduled with another dozen boards over the next month.

Those boards are helping us to look at the longer-term challenges we face with respect to providing services for students.

I have been impressed with the principles that boards have had around dealing with their budget

[ Page 694 ]

reality, just as we as government have principles in dealing with our budgeting realities.

Without identifying a board, I'm going to note some principles which one board has shared: to protect services and programs; to maximize attrition and minimize layoffs -- I think every board is looking to ways in which its teacher complement can be as strong as possible with as few changes, in terms of people leaving service, as possible; to maintain equity; to avoid a disproportionate impact of reductions -- in other words, to spread the decisions in ways that protect the system; and to examine all expenditures and reduce expenses as much as possible to make sure that inflation impacts are minimized.

The overarching principle of this particular school district is to maintain services to classrooms.

I believe that boards have taken the same principled approach that we have. We have tried to maximize the resources that go to school districts in this difficult time. I won't repeat the figures; the member knows them. He said: "Please don't repeat them." But we have indeed indicated our support for education. I appreciate the work of school districts in cooperation -- not always cooperation, but in consultation -- with the people affected by their decisions.

I'm sure that at times it's hard to deal with some of those very difficult decisions. I appreciate that boards are working diligently in their area of responsibility, because we have shared responsibilities for our budgets -- I and our government in the block that goes to boards, and the boards in the decisions they've taken. And boards are dealing now -- in sometimes very difficult circumstances, I certainly acknowledge -- with managing those budgets at this time.

J. Dalton: Again I appreciate the remarks of the minister, and I certainly cannot take issue with her comments about local boards. They are dedicated. I've always admired people who were prepared to stand for a trustee's position because, in my opinion, they're underpaid and overworked -- perhaps even more so than we are, if you members can believe that.

I've met with many boards, as the minister has, and I certainly know many people involved in the delivery of education: teachers and volunteers. This morning I had the opportunity, before I left my constituency, to meet with two classes of one of the high schools in my riding. I can tell you that the students -- these were grade 11 students -- are as equally concerned, objective and positive about the importance of education, and all the work and the effort that must go in to ensure that our quality of education is preserved, and will hopefully be expanded upon. I certainly do concur with the remarks that the minister has just made in that connection.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to also go on record as not wishing to be only a naysayer and only bringing up the negative implications of reports that we may receive, or consultations that we will have with boards and other people affected by education delivery. Coming back to the B.C. School Trustees' Association report of last Friday, there are some positive things in it. I've referred to the negative, the drastic and -- what were the other adjectives I referred to? -- severe.... It sounds like an operation that went bad -- and the figures may support the very negative tone that some parts of the survey have taken on.

But there are some positive things. I must say that these are for future consideration, so I'm not inviting the minister to specifically respond, unless she cares to do so.

The survey has come up with some excellent suggestions. I think we touched on some of them last Thursday, when we started our estimates. They've come up with some excellent suggestions on long-term options that should be considered. I just wish to draw these to the attention of the committee and the members. I know the minister shares the same optimism for the long term. I know I'm convinced that we can work on a collaborative, cooperative effort to address these long-term solutions, such as a review of funding, distribution and taxation policy.

Sixty-five per cent of the responding boards felt that this would be a desirable long-term option. I've also been told this in meetings that I have had with school trustees and superintendents.

Here's another interesting long-term option, Mr. Chairman: the return to supplementary taxation; 43 percent of responding boards suggested that might be something desirable at least of examination.

Here's one -- I don't even know whether I want to touch this now; and again, it's future policy, but I will add it to the list of long-term options that were surveyed: provincial bargaining. Seventeen percent of responding boards were of the opinion that that issue should at least be addressed. That is something that no doubt we will all have to collectively and individually address and discuss in the future. Right now we are dealing with the specific budget for this ministry, and the estimates that we have to more closely examine.

There are some short-term options surveyed as well. The response was as follows. On the early retirement program, 30 percent were of the opinion that more incentives for early retirement should be provided for teachers. I point that one out in particular, because in recent discussions that I've had with educators and administrators on the North Shore, they've brought up the same suggestion. It would be good if we could come up with a realistic early retirement program.

I'm not saying that early retirement is just a way to get rid of the high-priced and, obviously, older teaching staff; that's certainly not the objective of early retirement. But many teachers in the 55-plus category whom I've spoken with would certainly like to have the option of early retirement presented to them; they may or may not take it. But I think it's a very desirable thing. I come from the post-secondary system and the college level, and the same thing is very true as well of the members of whom I'm aware in the college system.

They would like the opportunity for an early retirement program to be presented to them. At least then they can feel comfortable as to whether they would or would not care to react to that. Quite frankly, there is a bottom line to this line of option as well. There could be savings demonstrated to school districts if an early retirement program of a realistic nature was brought in. I don't want to raise that as just a way of saving money, because some people might misinterpret that as thinking: "Well,

[ Page 695 ]

we'll get rid of some of the higher-priced help and bring in lower-priced help." That's certainly not the purpose.

The purpose would be twofold. It would take care of the concerns that many teachers have about the possibility of early retirement. I think we would all like to retire early from whatever function in life we perform, would we not? It's always nice to think of the possibility of sitting under a palm tree, putting your feet up and not having to go to work every day. That's a desirable option. Plus, of course, there is a realistic feature of it as well.

If you can allow people the dignity to retire early, then you can hire the younger, energetic -- not to say that older teachers aren't energetic, because they are -- faculty who come in with new ideas and are probably, in a sense, a little more in touch with the student population. So I think there are desirable objectives as well.

I just point those out to the committee, because there are some very positive things that this survey has dealt with in a long-range, future-policy way. I am hoping that through the education committee that has been put together -- and other avenues -- we'll be able to explore these in more detail.

Hon. A. Hagen: I have two, perhaps three, comments on the member's proposals, referring to the survey of the B.C. School Trustees Association. I might note that that survey relates to 54 of 75 boards. For example, when we look at those figures, we find that about 25 percent of the boards are talking about experiencing the kind of difficulties which he is talking about. That's a lot of boards, but I think we have to put it in the context of all boards.

On the matter of the longer-term options that the member spoke of, I announced at the time of block funding on January 31 that government would be reviewing the funding and financing processes involved with education. It's quite a complex area. I know it perhaps too well, as do some other members on your side of the House, hon. member. The issue of funding and financing for schools confounds even wonderful accountants like your critic on the finance side, and he's been on that part of the governance table at some time in his life as well. However, we do plan to undertake that review and are now working on the process which will allow us to do it in a timely way.

The member also spoke about early retirement as an option. I want to make two or three comments about that particular proposal. It's a very significant proposal in terms of human capital, which, if you like, our teachers are. I noted earlier in our discussions this afternoon that there are 2,400 more teachers employed in British Columbia now than there were two years ago, and we still have enrolment increases occurring that are right up there with the pattern of the last couple of years, even though there are increasing numbers of students in our education faculties.

We are pressed in respect to our human resources. I do believe that the combination of attrition people who leave.... Women -- and men -- on parenting leave and people who choose other occupations provides a natural attrition within our teaching force each year, and with those increased enrolments, we are pretty well in balance in respect to our human resources, as we need them and the ones who are available.

[3:30]

There are concerns about early retirement in that regard. I happen to have a great respect for the older teachers in our workforce as well as admiring and welcoming the exuberance, enthusiasm and new talents of young teachers. Let me just draw a parallel here with the provincial government, which in 1989 decided that it was going to enter into a very major early retirement program, and a lot of middle and upper management went out of government. All of a sudden, government found itself without the wisdom and knowledge and experience of those people, and a lot of them had to be hired back.

There is a very high cost, too, for early retirement. I can't give you an exact figure of that early retirement package, but it was well in excess of a hundred million dollars against the public purse. I have done some examination of an early retirement package that would be equitable across the public service at this time. I don't think we could say that it would apply in this district and not in other districts; I don't think we could ever bring in a proposal of that nature. The costs run into the hundreds of millions of dollars for such an early retirement proposal to be put into place.

It is a very costly item, borne entirely by the taxpayers. I think we have to decide how our priorities work, looking at our human resource needs and at some of the options, such as a financial incentive to retire early and the cost of that package to taxpayers in the province. So those may be some helpful comments on the proposals that the member has just made.

R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, the provincial government has announced an increase of 9.1 percent in funding for the '92-93 school year. On the surface, this sounds like an extremely generous provision. However, approximately $585 million of this amount was previously scheduled for capital projects for desperately needed new schools. A further approximate percentage for projected growth in student enrolment.... Another estimated $50 million was required to cover school board deficits carried from the '91-92 fiscal year.

Most of this deficit situation -- created by the government's flip-flop in the middle of the school year, as a new government rescinded the old government's legislation under Bill 82 -- leaves less than 2.5 percent to cover inflationary increases, teacher increments and other pressing needs of the school districts. This is wholly inadequate to provide for the education of our children, and the result is that it is forcing school boards all over the province to make massive program cuts to lay off young teachers and to generally shortchange students.

This situation will be exacerbated by my prediction of major labour disputes between school boards and their respective staffs. When the poorer districts are unable to offer an appropriate wage increase to their employees, it results in labour disruption and strike situations throughout the province, which can be expected during the '92-93 school year.

My question to the Minister of Education is: in light of the massive cuts to programs and teaching staff being experienced by some school districts, will the minister

[ Page 696 ]

make additional funding available to address these shortages?

Hon. A. Hagen: I know it's really very complex when we're dealing with all of these figures, so let me first of all deal with the first figure that the member quoted, which is the increase in capital funding. Except for the debt servicing of that capital funding, none of that is in the 9.1 percent increase. Last year there was a larger capital envelope than this year, $650,000. There's debt servicing that continues for that, plus the new capital envelope. Overall, of the $300 million of additional funding going into schools, $55 million of that is new debt servicing. That's a pass-through.

What we need to know is that school districts pay no costs directly for building schools. They're built by this government. They're financed by this government, and the debt servicing for them goes directly to school districts to pay them down. It's just a direct transfer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the funding that goes into school districts. Let's go back to the funding that does go into school districts, which is 6.5 percent more, block over block, than last year. This includes full funding for enrolment.

I just want to make a point about that particular full funding for enrolment, because we often talk about what happens when kids leave home and our costs don't go down. Some of our kids come home these days, and our costs don't go up in proportion to one more person. We still pay the taxes, we still pay the light bill, we still pay the heating bill. Even though there is an increase in enrolment, there are some ways in which school districts are able to accommodate that growth by virtue of the youngsters going to the same school, sharing the same principal, sharing the same office, sharing the same heating bill, the same electrical bill, travelling on the same bus.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't additional costs; of course there are. We have in fact provided for those additional costs, and added some more costs to reflect the fact that some districts are growing so rapidly that there are increases throughout the year.

I repeat to the member, Mr. Chairman, that the increases that have gone to school districts are well over and above the increases in inflation. There have been mandate improvements in computer technology, assistants for ESL, and school meal programs in rapid growth districts. I won't go through all those figures again, but we have looked at a whole range of ways in which we can assist districts in setting their budgets.

I repeat again the comment I made to the previous member that there are also decisions taken by local school districts which have an impact on their budgets. We share decision-making. I have some that are my responsibility and the responsibility of my government. Districts have some. Each of us is looking to manage our affairs in the context of those decisions.

R. Chisholm: Labour Minister Moe Sihota's legislation to implement a fair wage policy for government construction projects in excess of $1.5 million makes a mockery of the government's previously announced intention not to interfere in the area of labour-management negotiations. But in addition to that obvious contradiction, this legislation is bad because it will interfere with the capital projects presently underway in a variety of school districts and with other government projects.

Where a project using a non-union contract....

The Chair: Hon. member, just a moment, please. You are discussing legislation, and as you know, we are dealing with the administration of the Ministry of Education. So I would caution you with respect to reflecting on legislation.

R. Chisholm: The question for the minister, at the end of all of that

preamble, is: will the government compensate non-union contractors and/or school districts that find themselves in a cost overrun situation or with a major project being unreasonably delayed?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not sure there is a question there in respect to my ministry. The member, I believe, is hypothesizing on the basis of a policy of government, and I'm not able to provide him with an answer on the basis of that hypothesis.

The Chair: The member should reconsider the subject of his concern and try to relate it to the actual administration of the Ministry of Education.

R. Chisholm: My concern here is, if the legislation goes through, will the school boards be unduly burdened? That's the problem.

The Chair: With all due respect, that is a hypothetical question. You should address your question to matters of fact, not speculating on matters that may or may not have occurred.

V. Anderson: I, too, would like to thank the minister for the way she responds to the questions, both when we were dealing with the warrants and also with the estimates.

Two questions I would ask together at this particular point. When we mention the increase of 2,400 for teachers over the last two years -- just for clarification of whether that's net growth or gross growth -- is that 2,400 new teachers after those who have left are discounted? That's one part of the question.

I couldn't help but raise, in response to my colleague here, the question: how significant is the number of "mature" persons who are changing occupations and coming into the teaching profession against the young people out of high school and then directly into university? This is a very significant input and one we need to think about, because many of these people will never get to early retirement but have a significant contribution to make because of the other skills they bring with them out of their life and previous experiences.

I would ask both of those questions.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me provide the member with the actual total of full-time-equivalent educators in the

[ Page 697 ]

system -- '89-90, '90-91, '91-92, according to my figures. This is where the 2,400 additional people.... This is actually more people. I don't know how many have gone in, how many have left, but the figures I have are that in 1989-90 there were 29,798 full-time educators. The next year, 31,147 -- that's '90-91 -- and for '91-92, 32,373.

It's important to note that there are all kinds of arrangements our educators make: there is team teaching, part-time teaching and so on. I believe the count is something in the order of 40,000 educators who are in some way or other involved with education, but that's off the top of my head, and I will offer it in that context.

[3:45]

I really appreciate the comment of the member about people who are choosing to become teachers, having perhaps had other professional or para-professional careers. Indeed it is a very significant number. I don't have those figures, although I believe our faculties of education are watching that phenomenon. I agree with the member wholeheartedly that those people bring into their teaching a range of life experience that will make them very valuable people in our education system.

The fact that they are choosing teaching, I think, suggests something about their optimism for that profession, but it also suggests something about where their values are -- that they've done other things, that they have made a choice and believe teaching will be a very satisfying and enriching occupation for them. I think those are things that we would all accept as attributes of the health and well-being of the system -- both their choice and what they give to the system.

V. Anderson: You have mentioned some special program costs that have been given to schools because of special circumstances -- Vancouver, Victoria and other areas throughout the province. Two questions arise from that particular comment. One that wasn't mentioned was the special funds which might be available to students with disabilities. In the integration process this has become a very significant program for many areas and has changed not only the number of students in the classroom, but the whole process within the classroom. For that reason it requires a different style of teacher training.

It also has raised the question of student aid or student-support persons -- some of them even needing to be full-time -- with students who have extreme physical disabilities or hearing or sight difficulties. I raise the question of the number of additional persons or aid available for that very important process -- which I commend. I also raise the question of what kind of cross-ministry funding is available, and I think particularly of health workers who are part of the Health ministry but are also working within schools. So it's cross-ministry. There will be others as well, but I use that one as an illustration.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me see if I can provide some information to the member. Indeed there are funds within the block that go to each school district to meet a wide range of special needs of students, and that's in the context of those students being a part of the mainstream, integrated into regular classes -- which is the commitment that we have, both as a ministry and within the system.

When looking at funds to support students who have special needs, one looks at the amount of money in the block for those students -- as there would be for any student -- and then at the incremental amounts that are available to provide additional services for them. The incremental amount is in the order of $351 million.

In addition to that, we must recognize the costs associated with the running of a school. So we have the regular teaching costs, incremental funding to assist the boards in how they plan an educational program for each of these children, and then the fixed costs of administering the school. The important thing for us to recognize, as we look at these students being a part of every classroom and each neighbourhood school, is that all those funds do blend together to provide for those kinds of needs.

The member has also asked about the interministerial work. I can't comment about the estimates of other ministries like Health and Social Services, because the Chairman will call me to order if I do that. But I can let you know that we work in a cooperative way around providing those supportive services. You may want to inquire of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Services at the appropriate time about the way in which those kinds of complementary services are organized and funded.

We always have more to do than will be in place. All of us will agree with the challenge that is there. But the system is well accommodated to look toward that kind of improvement, as we see more children in our schools who wouldn't have been there two or three or four years ago. I think that's wonderful.

I was at a conference last night with about 700 people attending, not only from B.C. but from other parts of Canada and the United States. They were looking at the collaborative working relationships between specialists -- maybe health and other specialists, or specialists within the system -- and the regular classroom teacher in providing the best of educational opportunity for every child who attends a school in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I might just add to the comments I've made so that the member has a complete answer. We have a special educational technology centre, which deals with the way our high technology can assist students. There is nearly $2 million in funding to that centre in support of the kinds of equipment that students need. It may be computers, or it may be Bliss boards that allow them to communicate; the scope of technology at this time is really quite phenomenal. This provides the best of analysis and planning to provide those resources for students, and that's very helpful.

In addition, there are provincial resource programs. So if we have students in hospital or homebound, there are programs to provide for them as well. These sums are over and above what goes directly to school boards. There might be a hospital program, but they are in excess of those. They are special funds that recognize those special needs. If the member would like more detailed information on these matters -- it's hard

some-

[ Page 698 ]

times to deal with them across the floor -- we would be pleased to provide that information.

B. Jones: The member opposite raised a previous question about special-needs students, and I wanted to rise to raise concerns in that general area. But before I do, let me first say how much I've appreciated the efforts of the minister in the last six months -- in these difficult times and with a neophyte government. I'll just mention one thing we have raised many times in this chamber in the last five years, and that is the student hot-lunch program.

Time and time again we raised the point that the nutritional needs of students were a priority, and that the education of those students was incumbent upon a government assisting with that. It was very, very heartening to see the minister's announcement. I was very, very proud to have seen that issue develop, to have raised it myself and to have seen at least the beginnings of that program implemented. So I very much wanted to commend the minister for her efforts in that regard.

With respect to special-needs students, I want to make a comment both in terms of the public school system and in terms of the independent schools. My vague recollection of how things worked was that a percentage of students were deemed to have qualified for special needs under the previous financing scheme, and regardless of the setting -- whether it was urban or rural -- there were deemed to be that number of special-needs students, in terms of funding.

I think we raised many times in this House the need to review that and to try and sharpen the pencil to better meet the individual needs of school districts by having a closer look at the actual number of special-needs students -- the number of students that are receiving special-needs treatment.

I understand that there is a review of education financing planned for the province, and what I'm hoping the minister will say at the end of all my remarks is very simple: "We're going to take a very serious look at this, and this will be part of the review." I can assure the minister that my school district still shares those concerns which it shared last year and the year before, in terms of the large number of identified special-needs students who are receiving intense and specialized education services that are very costly. There is a concern about funding in that area.

I want to raise with the minister a very similar kind of concern from the independent school system. I understand that there are about six schools in the province that treat solely special-needs students. I wrote the minister recently with respect to one of them, the Vancouver Oral Centre for Deaf Children. This school provides special-needs services to deaf children. The goal of this school is to integrate deaf students into the public school system and into the independent school system.

They want to mainstream these students so that those that are able to function within the regular school stream don't end up in that school, but that they go on to the regular school stream. So we end up with a population of students that are receiving very specialized treatment, and this is a very atypical school population. I don't know if there's another school population like this, save perhaps the Jericho system.

If I understand it correctly, because of the intense nature of the training for these students, their per-pupil costs are high. As a result of the fact that their per pupil costs are high, they end up in the group 2 funding category which receives 35 percent funding rather than the 50 percent funding. Hence if I'm reading it correctly, they are virtually penalized in terms of funding, because they are a special-needs school and don't have a typical student population.

I appreciate that there are two special grants that they receive: the special education grant that has been retained for those six schools, and they receive another $75,000 grant for their itinerant services. Because of the cutbacks in the grants to the independent schools for special-needs children, I expect that they are no longer able to contract with other independent schools, because those other independent schools no longer have that grant available. In answer to my question -- will the minister review this situation? -- I'm hoping this one can be reviewed as well as the one from my own school district.

The minister on many occasions has expressed a strong concern for these children, and I'm sure we all share that concern. The current situation is a new one that I think needs to be reviewed. I think the funding for these children can be reviewed on an ongoing basis. I hope the answer to the question I posed is that both of these situations will be incorporated into the review that the province is planning to hold.

[4:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for those excellent questions. To refer to his first comments about the school meal program, when the member for Burnaby North was the critic for Education, he was one of the earliest members in this House to raise the issue of the importance of school meals. So I know the pleasure he has -- as we all do -- in the fact that those programs are now available in over 100 schools in British Columbia.

In a general way, let me respond to the questions that the member has raised around the need to look broadly at our funding and financing system, including the way we look to provide for special-needs children. That is, of course, something that will be encompassed in the review.

Let me just make a couple of comments. One learns a great deal as one talks to school districts, and one of the perceptions we in the lower mainland sometimes have is that we are unique or different from the interior. One of the things I am finding is that the dispersal of children with special needs is very broad throughout the province. It's going to be interesting, when we look at this from a review point of view, to find out whether our perceptions about the differences between Burnaby and Burns Lake are reality.

I'm not sure, as we educate children closer to home -- whether they be hearing-impaired children, blind children or children with mental challenges -- that we won't find that the dispersal is in proportion to the population. I think we should be

[ Page 699 ]

open-minded about that. The question certainly needs to be addressed.

On the matter of the half dozen schools that the member speaks about -- and particularly the Vancouver Oral Centre for Deaf Children -- yes, there are some special circumstances in respect to those schools, and they have been recognized. Funding for those schools will be continued, recognizing that they serve a different population. It's a population that is entirely, in the case of the Vancouver Oral Centre for Deaf Children, serving the hearing impaired.

I know their intent is to provide the kind of schooling and training that enables students to go to their community school and eventually to be a part of the school district. I am very pleased that we are able to provide them with those resources.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

We have made a change in the funding for independent schools. They are receiving funding according to the act based on 10, 35 or 50 percent of the public school funding in their school districts, and that is the basis for the funding. It includes, of course, funding for special needs because in the block that goes to the school district, there is funding for special needs. So it includes, within those percentages, an amount that reflects the resources available for special needs within the community. If the member would like further information, I'd be happy to talk to him about that.

V. Anderson: As we go along, it's exciting to see the picture unfold and more parts of it come to light. The first one I'd want to respond to is also commending the government for moving on the hot lunch program, since this is critical and certainly needs to be undertaken. I would hope, though, that this will be the first stage; that out of the hot lunch program will come more awareness between this ministry and others about the family situation that caused this need in the first place, and so that interrelationship can be undertaken.

I'll probably have a question that I'll ask to all three ministries you mentioned -- Social Services, Health and Education -- because I expect, and properly so, that each one of them will say that I could only ask a part of the question in their ministry. I will ask the question: when can I get down and sit with you three altogether so I can ask the question in an interministerial place? Fundamentally, that's where it needs to be dealt with. Perhaps you can suggest a process -- either in the estimates or afterwards, which is probably more appropriate still -- where that can happen.

Also I would comment on the technology and also as it relates to special needs. I would commend -- from my understanding -- the transfer of the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf into the ministry programs and the new school that is being built in Burnaby for that program. I understand the state-of-the-art technology in that building will be very valuable for all of us. It raises the question of not only enhancing the computer technology within the school, which is a process I know you are encouraging, but also looking at other types of technology available so these may be more available to the school program.

Let me, at this point, just raise one other one. In the capital funding program, which presumably will be for new schools and for replacing portables that we all approved of very much.... Also within that program or a separate program is the need for upgrading because of earthquake concerns; in many areas schools have been targeted with an urgent need for that to take place as quickly as possible.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd be delighted to talk to the member about the interministerial work. As he might imagine, given that not a lot of this was going on in a previous administration, we have work to do. But I can assure him of a couple of things that may save him a little bit of work and may reassure him.

First of all, with the school meal announcement, we coupled it with the initiatives that the Ministry of Health is doing in what are called healthy schools. We recognize it's not just a lunch, but all of the things that are part of the curriculum of the school and the work that happens with health professionals in the school in supporting a good knowledge of nutrition and other activities that enhance health and learning.

I might note, too, that we have an interministerial committee that has worked on the school meal program involving the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, and the Ministry of Social Services. We have an active working group I'm happy to applaud for the excellent effort they made on behalf of that program and getting information out.

In connection with the Burnaby School Board, let me just be sure we understand that the Jericho students are now students in Burnaby;

that's the school district now that is responsible for that program. There are two schools: the new Year 2000 school, as it's called; and the other school is Sussex elementary school. Those two schools will be receiving the children who live out of town and children who come from various parts of the lower mainland to attend that school. It's been a very exciting program. The actual building of the secondary school -- I see it as I drive back and forth to home -- is coming along very well, and I understand that the target opening date is January, 1993.

Every time I pass it, it's looking more and more as if they may be successful with that. In September of '92 the elementary school will be ready. These children are now part of a school district. I think that that is an excellent move. Burnaby has both planned for and welcomed these children in a very fine way. We have worked very closely with them in making that transition.

On the matter of the capital envelope, yes, it does include the kinds of improvements that need to be there for buildings in high risk areas. I think last Thursday -- perhaps in my initial comments when we began the estimates -- I noted that there are three prongs to our capital envelope. One is either additions, or new buildings, that deal with growth; a second is what we call "rejuvenation" -- I like that word -- which is designed to bring buildings into a more contemporary mode for their programs. Quite literally we're planning that to extend the life of buildings so that they'll

last

[ Page 700 ]

longer and be contemporary in their design and their facilities. The third is dealing with what I call "safety features," including seismic features. There are a number of upgradings and changes that will reflect that. People will be informed.

As I said last Thursday, school districts will be informed of that before Easter. There's going to be good news and some disappointment, because we've said that not all of the initiatives that boards have on their drawing boards can be accommodated. Again, I just want to note the tremendous work that's gone on at the school district level and with my ministry staff in getting this information finalized and out to districts a good two to two and a half months earlier than has been the pattern in the past, so they can get on with their real life work of building and improving and making our schools safer.

V. Anderson: I'd like to move to another area. Much of the discussion we've had so far in the initial part has been on the money that goes to school boards to do their programming. That's the largest part of the money, of course.

Following up on the minister's comment just now about the excellent work that the staff has done, and this I commend.... But I listen to the discussion of what's coming up, the excellent work that the staff is going to be expected to do. I have a few questions around the resources for that opportunity or privilege that they may have of working late nights and long week-ends, and a few other things, as it sounds. Because I took the budget for the minister's office and operations and discovered that it has been reduced by $1,164,000.

Yet, and in spite of that reduction, it has added some $7 million for the three new programs: multiculturalism, immigration, and human rights. I haven't taken the third category but there seems to be, then, a considerable reduction.

Of the five categories, not counting the three I've just mentioned, four are reduced in funding and only one is increased. First of all, I commend the ability to do more with less, but as I hear the things in the programs that are being planned, I am just wondering about the realism and optimism of this. What is enabling this major shift to take place? I'm not complaining about you not spending as much money, but I am asking how the operations are being remoulded to make this possible.

Hon. A. Hagen: It is important for everyone to understand that we are comparing year over year. When we look at the increase in the budget for the whole ministry -- Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights, and immigration -- we have already factored in the '90-91 costs. They also include the immigration settlement branch, which was first funded in the '91-92 school year. We are comparing the whole ministry as if it had existed before November 5, 1991 -- if I make myself clear. We are looking at the same set of services year over year. The member is correct. There have been some readjustments.

[4:15]

Let me just give you a bit of information, if I may. The Human Rights Council will see some improvements in its staffing. As you may know, the council has really been challenged to keep apace of the work dealing with complaints -- investigation, mediation and then to a full hearing if necessary. They have looked at a whole range of ways in which they can accommodate their mandate better. Some of those are internal management ways, which I commend them for. We are also going to be adding six full-time-equivalent staff to the Human Rights Council, and that will assist them in their work for the coming year.

I appreciate the member's concern that we do have a lot of work to do. There is the educational change movement, a very large capital envelope to be processed with school districts and the ongoing work of budget planning. We are undertaking some reviews, as we have indicated. Like everyone, we are looking at ways in which we can manage and do our job better without cutting any of the programs, services or work that affects kids in classrooms.

We're dealing with travel costs. I know; I just made reservations for a trip I am taking, and I am dealing with that on an economy level. We are cutting back on travel and really looking carefully at whether that travel is necessary and how we can make the trips that do occur more efficient. When I travel into the interior or the north to visit school districts, for example, it's my plan to take the time to do several important pieces of work in that community. I will only be travelling once in the immediate future, rather than needing to go back.

We're looking at equipment economies, the communications budget. We are looking at personal-service contract spending, where we very often have higher costs for the services we get. We are prioritizing the work of the ministry, which is equally important.

The other aspect is efficiencies and economy. We are prioritizing the important tasks that the ministry needs to undertake at this time. As I indicated earlier, we are looking at our tasks particularly with respect to education change and how we can most effectively use the excellent human resources in my ministry and our financial means to assist school districts in their work of educational change. That is where it happens. The classrooms and the communities of the province are where the improving and the constructive change of education take place.

V. Anderson: Thank you for that response. Under the deputy minister's office explanation are three areas that I would like to inquire about within the discussion you've just presented, to ask what the implications might be. First, what are the implications of the Education Advisory Council? What is the mandate of that council? How many people does it involve? What are the financial implications of the mandate of that council? Second, what are the implications of the legislative changes suggested here and the policies that come out of the report on the Royal Commission on Education?

Third, will there be an increase or decrease or realigning of the grants that partially support the societies that offer programs which are related to but

[ Page 701 ]

are outside of the regular budget of the educational institutions listed here in the explanation?

Those are three areas that I am asking about in particular at this moment.

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, I'll answer two of those questions, but for the third question I'm going to ask for some clarification. I'm not sure what the member was asking.

The Education Advisory Council was established by statute in the School Act. It has 24 members who directly represent key organizations, such as school trustees, teachers, CUPE, labour, principals, vice-principals and superintendents -- in terms of the formal in-school people. It represents parents through a variety of members and also other interested sectors, such as post-secondary, business, labour, the arts, languages and native people. So there are 24 people on that council, and their mandate is to advise the minister on all aspects of the education of our children.

I have had the pleasure of working firsthand with that council. I have taken a little different approach from my predecessors in that I believe that if the council is advisory to the minister, it is important for us to have a direct working relationship. Although I may not be able to sustain an active presence in the council meetings on an ongoing basis, it is my goal to be present for some of each of their meetings. I find that they provide perspective in their work, which is very important, and I see them playing a very useful role in bringing a broad perspective to our planning.

The issue of education change is important. We have targeted funds within our total ministry budget for education change to the amount of about $30 million. Those funds will be used as effectively as possible to assist teachers in classrooms and school districts as we move to develop the intermediate and graduation programs.

I believe that all members of this House recognize that change is not a terminal activity but an ongoing one that will involve us from now on as we work to keep our education system relevant and appropriate for youngsters, and as we modify one of our strongest institutions to be a more active and effective means for our children to prepare themselves both for their personal lives and their lives as citizens and workers.

We are committed to that ongoing work in very close cooperation with the schools, communities and districts of the province. We will be sharing with them, once our estimates are through, some of the ways in which we plan to use these resources to assist them in the coming year.

V. Anderson: On the third question, I think I was right. What I'm reading from is the description in the estimates themselves, and I'll make a comment on it: "This subvote also provides grants to partially support societies offering programs not provided by educational institutions, and provides for projects to develop and enhance the provincial educational system." You may not be able to give me offhand all the grants, but at least I would like to get some idea of what grants and societies and what kind of programs and funding may be in that area. I'd like to know whether community schools is involved in that.

I'm very aware of the very significant place of community schools in the wholeness of communities -- from an educational perspective not only of the children but of the adults, and particularly now in the area of multicultural communities, where the school is the place where much of this interaction takes place.

I would highlight an experience of a few years ago when -- I mentioned it before, but it's worth mentioning again -- a meeting of city council was discussing a community centre. The people from the community were there to discuss the centre, and after the professionals had given all the argument to city council about the validity of having such a centre, the citizens and parents who were there to support the professionals in putting forth the argument got up and said one after the other: "In essence, it's fine if you want to have a community centre. We'll use it, and it will help us to some extent, but please remember that our community place is the school."

For many immigrants, particularly the new ones, if they need advice on anything at all, the one person they know is the teacher and the principal of the school. They go to them for that kind of support. That's an extra responsibility for the teachers. In community schools, where this kind of support is built in and made available, it is a very excellent use. I'm wondering if that's the kind of program that would come under this particular category. I know it would get a lot of support in the community if that's so.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not able to provide the member with details around the societies grants. They will be determined once we're through the estimates. If he would like to inquire, we'd be happy to provide that information at a later time.

The matter of community schools is a very germane and generic discussion that takes us again into not only interministerial work but work that involves municipal bodies as well. I note the member's comment about "We don't really need a new community centre; we just need to use our school more effectively." I'm sure all of us can cite examples -- I certainly can from my district -- where parks and recreation make the local school a community school by running programs after hours. They are a part of the community's planning for people of all ages and all backgrounds.

In some instances there may be some funding from other ministries. I'm not sure that I could cite examples specifically. Well, baby clinics with the Ministry of Health and public health would be an obvious one. I suspect, although I'm not able to say this directly, that immigrant-serving agencies working with school districts bring services into the school as well.

What the member is really talking about is the matrix of services, and what some of my friends who used to talk to me when I worked in the non-profit said was the blending and rolling of dollars, so that they all complement services to people in a community -- not necessarily dollars from Education, but because Education has provided a structure or a building with quite a lot of assets in the way of gyms, meeting rooms and so

[ Page 702 ]

on. Very often there are staff who cooperate. I can think of any number of schools in the province that are exemplary in that regard.

It's interesting too that some of the community schools have begun to be entrepreneurial, in the sense of offering services to the community that bring in some income to help defray the cost of services that one wants to have available on a pro bono or an open community basis. There is no limit in this regard, and certainly the ministry -- and school districts particularly -- is very open to those cooperative relationships. I believe we have a lot of work to do there to make sure that our facilities are used to the maximum, and that we blend the kinds of services that may come from other parts of the infrastructure besides Education, where we can be as supportive as we can.

[4:30]

J. Beattie: Hon. minister, I'd like to thank you very much for pursuing these estimates in the House and for answering the questions of the members.

I come from a district where, in one of the towns in particular -- the school district of Kelowna represents the community of Peachland -- they have quite a rapid growth. My question is about the rapid growth fund and the 1 percent qualifying in the growth rate from September until the end of January. I'm wondering about that growth and how those funds are applied. Or is it that school districts' growth is relative, and districts that have the highest growth qualify for that fund? Could you explain that to me, please?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, first let me say that a youngster is a youngster, so this is not a relative fund. But what the member is talking about is that we've added a new source of funding for those rapidly growing districts. There is now -- and there has been -- funding for the enrolment that comes into the school in September.

I don't understand the technicalities of this, but I understand the ministry has tried to make it very easy for districts to figure out what additional funds will be available with the youngsters who come at the usual time in September, so that they have the staff and resources for them. But if there is a net increase of 1 percent after September 30, then there will be additional resources available to the school districts that are experiencing the growth.

The plan, as we move into this -- this is a new program for us -- is to take another snapshot of the enrolment growth at the end of January for elementary schools and at the end of February for secondary schools. Many are on semester, so they have another intake in February. And then, if there is a net growth of more than 1 percent, there will be a disbursal. It will be prorated, because those youngsters haven't necessarily been there all year. If the member would like a little more information, I'm not quite sure that I can provide all those details. I just want to say that a youngster is a youngster.

This is not something targeted to the first one past the post; it is targeted on the basis of net enrolment over that period of time. I hope that makes it clear to the member.

B. Copping: I have two school districts in my riding, Burnaby and Coquitlam. Both of them certainly have a large and increasing component of ESL. When I was on the school board, we felt that this was a federal responsibility. I would like to ask the minister if there are any ongoing discussions. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel as far as getting federal funding for ESL? I recognize that your ministry has committed some funds for ESL, but how will that affect our district? Will those that need it get it?

Hon. A. Hagen: I did not acknowledge the role of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on Thursday. She is my parliamentary secretary and has provided me with excellent assistance in my role. I want to take this opportunity to introduce the hon. member to the House in that role and thank her publicly for her work on behalf of children.

B. Copping: Regarding these funds that are yet to come, when will the districts be informed when these funds are coming?

[ Page 703 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: There's a net amount and a per-pupil amount, and as soon as those enrolments can be determined and provided to the Ministry, the dollars will flow. One of the things I'm learning about districts is that they are increasingly very knowledgeable about their predictions. I know they are working on anticipating and being prepared for that information to flow back to the ministry in September.

When we went through the school program, the extracurricular activity in which teachers were primarily engaged was sports and recreation and everything associated with that. One of the things I am discovering now is that for many of these students sports are not a primary interest. There is a whole new interest in music, drama, the arts and culture. Musical instruments are far more expensive than sports instruments.

If we're working to develop the whole student, then these skills and abilities must be developed, because they are skills they'll carry over and which will give many of them their professional opportunities. If they go on as teachers, art and music and drama will be a fundamental part of the skills they'll carry into the profession with them. So one of the items that I would raise is whether this shift in teaching needs and opportunities is being taken into account in regard to the new people coming into our community, who are pluses.

On the same question and dealing primarily with the three new aspects of your ministry, I'm delighted that multiculturalism, immigration and human rights have been added to the Education ministry. It seems to me very appropriate that they should be in that ministry and related to each other. What is the effect first of all in having these three put into the overall planning, finance and administration of the ministry?

I'm sure it's going to have a lot of impact financially, and in the numbers of people that need to be brought on. You've mentioned the ones for the Council of Human Rights, but I'm presuming there's an increase in staff for the multicultural concerns and for the immigration concerns. How do people, deputy ministers or senior persons, concerned in these areas relate to them if they want to follow up these concerns about the ministry? There's the overweight of administration and finances, the kind of way they contact and the way these ministries have impacted the education.

Do they then in effect also change the curriculum and become part of the educational process of the curriculum itself? Because multiculturalism, immigration and human rights are all related to many of these new students when they come into our school.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to share the delight of the member in the broadening interests of any school, and indeed I am sure that school districts will be responding. I know that one of the things that happened in the eighties was that we saw some constraints on the arts program in my district. I've been to one major play in the last two months; there's another major musical that's done in cooperation with the community that's just opening. A plug for Oklahoma! to anyone who is watching in New Westminster: go see it. It's starting at the end of this week or the beginning of next week.

Those kinds of programs are part of our education program, where fine arts is a major strand. The member is indeed very accurate.

I remember when the critic on our side of the House spoke about fine arts and the effect on the tourism industry and in fact on the economy of the province. I can't recall the exact figures, but people in the performing arts are among the top employee groups in our province. They play a very significant role in the economy of the lower mainland and regions, and schools indeed do provide the basis both for vocational and avocational activities.

Last night at the Focus '92 conference -- the conference I spoke about that is looking at collaboration and integrating special-needs students into the schools -- there was a community choir of young people aged 12 to 15, the Greater Victoria Youth Choir, which was just exemplary. That's a community choir, but many of those children get their first exposure to choral music in the schools, and then those who have an interest and excel go on.

[4:45]

I'm happy, too, to speak about the new ministry responsibilities. I share the member's perspective that this is a good marriage, as I've called it. There are many ways in which bringing these components into the ministry increases the efficiency and effectiveness -- the words we use. There are cost savings by virtue of our being able to share administrative costs and all of the straightforward costs of running these programs. But there are much more tangible benefits, I think, in the policy development and the working relationships.

Let me just take the multicultural program, for example, which now works very closely with the languages and multicultural division of my ministry. That program can assist us in policy development. There are ways in which we can share resources. The immigrant settlements program, which comes under the immigration part of the ministry, is working closely too with the multicultural part of the ministry.

There are lots of ways in which shared planning under our executive committee and in respect to our programs makes us able to do more with the same resources to expand the work of our multicultural programs and of our immigrant settlement initiatives. Again, my approach to that has been an open door and a very close working relationship with the agencies. I am truly amazed at the outreach of the people in the ministry in immigration and in multiculturalism. They have a very solid connection not only in the lower mainland but throughout the province, and that's very helpful to our schools and communities and program

[ Page 704 ]

development. In fact, we get increased service and an increased understanding of how to improve service with the resources we've put into one ministry at this time.

C. Tanner: I'd like to ask a couple of questions concerning French immersion. Specifically, could the minister tell us how much the government receives from the federal government for French immersion? How is that money distributed and on what basis? When you've answered that question, maybe I can ask you a second one.

Hon. A. Hagen: This particular funding is a transfer payment. It is accounted for outside of my actual estimates, so it's not a part of the matters we're dealing with.

C. Tanner: In that case, could the minister tell the House who administers the funds once they've reached the various school districts?

Hon. A. Hagen: Those funds are administered via grants to the school districts from the Ministry of Education.

C. Tanner: I've got a funny feeling I'm falling between the cracks here a little bit. If the funds don't go directly to the school districts from the federal government, they must go through your department. If they go through your department, they must surely appear somewhere on your books.

Hon. A. Hagen: It's my understanding that the funds are distributed to the school districts, and then, under a

section of the Financial Administration Act -- which is not a part of my ministry -- those funds are recovered from the federal government. It's an account under

section 22 of the Financial Administration Act.

C. Tanner: I have a suspicion that the minister, too, has some difficulty with answering this question, and I'm obviously having difficulty asking it. Perhaps we could leave this for a further time.

In the meantime, could the minister inform the House as to what provincial funds, if any, are devoted through her department to French immersion?

Hon. A. Hagen: The children who study in a French immersion program are children in our school systems. They are supported in the same way that all children are, with funds that go to their school districts based on them being students in that school district.

C. Tanner: Is there any cost to the province of British Columbia for French immersion in British Columbia schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: Core French, which is French as one of the subjects that children learn in school, is part of the education program. Education programs are defined in our School Act, and any programs that are offered are funded through the block funding program. I think I've answered the previous member's question in respect to recoveries that come through

section 22 of the Financial Administration Act for what we normally call immersion programs, where children are learning with French as their working language in the classroom.

F. Gingell: Just for greater certainty, because I'm not sure now: a child who is in French immersion is counted, and there's block funding for that student exactly the same as though the child were not in French immersion. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me try to be as clear as I can. The child who is studying in a French immersion program is provided for, as we noted, in the regular program. There is also some funding that comes from the federal government to assist in the programming. It has some technical names that I don't think really inform our discussion particularly, but there is a transfer payment that comes to students via a particular

section of the Financial Administration Act.

F. Gingell: So the funding from the province is exactly the same whether the child is in French immersion or in the regular schools. The funds that are paid to the school district under this

section 22 of the FAA are funds in addition to the funds provided by the province. This recognizes that the school district receives from the two levels of government a greater sum per student for students who are in French immersion. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: We fund those students through our block, and in addition there is funding that comes from the federal government for the French programs. I want to be very clear that when we fund students it is in a block, and the board determines how it arranges its education programs. There's a block of funds that goes to school districts, based on the numbers of students, and there is funding that comes through federal grants for those kinds of programs.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 705 ]

The Chair: The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that from where you are you sometimes can't see me, so I'll have to draw your attention. I'll do that in dulcet tones, rather than wait for you to see me and wave my arm.

One last question. I still have some problems with what the minister is telling us about French immersion. Maybe I'll start with another question. My question pertains to funding which the ministry receives from the federal government for French immersion education in this province. Can I ask the minister this question: do any of my taxes, as a taxpayer only in this province, go toward funding French immersion in this province?

But there are additional funds, and I suppose we could say that those are your tax dollars too. They are not provincial tax dollars; they are federal tax dollars. I can provide you with information on the amount of money that we anticipate on the basis of the agreements that we have regarding support for these programs: it's $11,093,000. Those are the anticipated funds for French programs from the federal government that flow through the Financial Administration Act, based on agreements with the federal government.

C. Tanner: As I understand it, the minister is giving us information now that is not actually in her vote. It's out of another vote. Is that correct? And if so, could the minister share with this House the way in which the money for French immersion education is received from the federal government and distributed? And is there any follow-up done, once the moneys have been allocated to the specific school boards for French immersion programs?

Hon. A. Hagen: Back to my original point,