1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12689 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Crown Counsel Act (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 12689

Tabling Documents –– 12689

Oral Questions

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Rose –– 12689

Dual entry in school system. Ms. A. Hagen –– 12689

Sales tax on imported goods. Mr. Clark –– 12690

DND contract for light wheeled vehicles. Mr. Serwa –– 12690

Sheriff service cutbacks. Mr. Sihota –– 12690

Access to government information. Mr. Jones –– 12691

James Tyhurst case. Mr. Vant –– 12691

Access to government information. Mr. Jones –– 12691

Government rental of office space. Mr. Clark –– 12691

Mailing of partisan material from minister's office. Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 12692

Ministerial Statement

High-seas driftnet fishing. Hon. Mr. Chalmers –– 12692

Mr. G. Hanson

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12693

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Guno

Hon. Mr. Bruce

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 12702

Mr. Perry

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Clark

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1991

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, today is the anniversary of

a historic moment in the annals of this province. Exactly 39 years ago,

on June 12, 1952, William Andrew Cecil Bennett formed a minority Social

Credit government which was to pave the way for a vibrant and

prosperous future for decades to come.

British Columbians have now enjoyed many years of buoyant growth,

fostered by a firm belief in their own individual worth and their

ability to succeed. Moreover, to assist them in building for the

future, they have continued to re-elect a government which reflects,

encourages and makes possible the realization of those dreams. This

same Social Credit government will continue for many years to come to

champion the cause of a strong, progressive, dynamic and free

enterprise people. William Andrew Cecil Bennett would be proud.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of this party, I am pleased to rise and

honour the thirty-ninth election anniversary of a renowned British

Columbian, Premier W.A.C. Bennett. Mr. Bennett, who in 1952 was known

as the stormy petrel of B.C. politics, toppled a rotting coalition

government of Liberals and Tories which had been patched together to

keep the CCF from achieving power. In 1952 B.C. voters faced political

turmoil and chaos not unlike the kind they face today.

At the time, in 1952, I lived on the Bennett property, and Cec, as

he was known to his friends, and his wife May, were extremely kind to

my wife, young children and me. In fact, my kids still refer to W.A.C.

as Pop Bennett, because that's the way he wanted it. It may come as a

surprise to some that as a naive young schoolteacher, I voted for Mr.

Bennett. I voted for him because I believed him when he proclaimed fair

treatment for all and special treatment for none. But Social Credit

today is no longer the party of W.A.C. Bennett. Today special favours

to friends and insiders have become its hallmark. The party has lost

its vision and has lost the confidence of British Columbians.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair certainly appreciates seeing the

introduction period being its usual non-political, fair and

good-tempered self. Are there further introductions, hon. members?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would like to introduce to the House the

Ambassador of Ireland to Canada, His Excellency Edward J. Brennan.

Would you please make him welcome.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Visiting the House today are 40 grade 7 students from

Simonds Elementary School in Langley, along with their teacher Mr. McGowan.

Half of those students are in the House now. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: In 1989 our Legislature was well served by a

young intern, Barry Penner. In the gallery today are his brother Reg

Penner and his wife Edith, and their two young daughters, Camilla Mae

and Kristen Danielle. They are in the gallery today for the very first

time, enjoying a visit to Victoria for a family vacation. They live and

work in Chilliwack. I would like the House to give them a very warm

welcome.

MR. REID: In the gallery today are 25 students representing

Hall's Prairie Elementary School in South Surrey. I wish the House

would give them a special welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CROWN COUNSEL ACT

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Crown Counsel Act.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this bill enshrines into legislation the

culmination of months of work by ministry officials based on the report of special

commissioner Owen.

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for 1989-90.

Oral Questions

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Government Services. What is the minister's policy

restricting the use of government jets for the Socred leadership

campaign?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to view that as

a political question. But I can tell the member opposite that

government airplanes are used only for government business.

DUAL ENTRY IN SCHOOL SYSTEM

MS. A. HAGEN: I have a question to the Minister of Education.

Last October the ministry issued the results of a poll conducted on

parent and teacher satisfaction with the dual-entry program. The press

release said: "Poll Finds 96 Percent of Parents Happy with Dual Entry."

Yet last week the Ministry of Education cancelled this program. Could

the minister please tell us how he reconciles his statements on the

opinions of parents with his own ministry's poll of just seven months

ago?

HON. S. HAGEN: As a matter of fact, your figures are out of date, because more recent public surveys

[ Page 12690 ]

have indicated great support for the decision the ministry has taken.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, this minister has either

discovered a massive change in public opinion, or there was something

less than scientific in the polls the ministry conducted last October.

Has the minister decided to let taxpayers see the results of the study

they paid for — both of them, if there's more than one — and table in

this House all documents relating to his ministry's public opinion

surveys on dual entry?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, you know, it's interesting. I've

been in my estimates for five days, and this issue has been canvassed

very thoroughly. The opposition critic stated that she favours this

decision, and members of the opposition have supported the decision. So

I'm really not sure what point they're trying to make and whether this

is pressing and urgent business.

MS. A. HAGEN: A question to the Premier. When the Premier was

sworn in she indicated that her government would have nothing to hide.

These polls were paid for by taxpayers. Has she decided now to advise

her minister that he should make that information public, since these

polls are public information paid for by taxpayers' dollars? It's a

freedom-of-information issue, Madam Premier.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can tell the critic and all members of the

opposition that this government has nothing to hide. It was the correct

decision to make for the children of British Columbia. That's what

we're talking about.

[2:15]

SALES TAX ON IMPORTED GOODS

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Development, Trade

and Tourism. As recently as this past weekend, the minister was still

insisting that the province would be collecting provincial sales tax on

goods purchased in the U.S. This view does not appear to be shared by

all of his cabinet colleagues. Can the minister inform the House what

exactly is the policy of this government — at least today — on the

collecting of provincial sales tax at the U.S. border?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I defer that question to the Minister of Finance. The collection of taxes is in his realm.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Trade. This minister had a

press conference with Otto Jelinek to discuss a new government policy.

On the weekend this minister was announcing to people in Nelson that

they were going to collect provincial sales tax at the border. Does

this minister and his ministry have a policy on the government's

decision to tax people at the British Columbia–U.S. border?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, all these questions from the

opposition over the last few days seem to be coming from misinformation

gathered when the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was in my

constituency. If he had actually paid a little attention to the people

I talked to, he would not be coming back with misinformation of that

nature.

DND CONTRACT FOR

LIGHT WHEELED VEHICLES

MR. SERWA: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the

Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism. Western Star Trucks has bid

for a $300 million Department of National Defence contract for

light-wheeled vehicles. The final decision is expected within the next

two or three weeks. Forty percent of the value of that contract is in

direct benefits that would accrue to the province of B.C. All of the

western provinces, and their federal caucus, have supported this; the

western caucus has supported it and the federal government caucus has

not raised any objections to it. Will the minister consider strong

support from the government of the province of British Columbia for

this very important contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order. The member might

be invited to rephrase the last sentence of the question so that he

could get it answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Has he decided?

MR. SERWA: Thank you very much to my colleagues on this side

of the House and opposite. Has the minister decided to come out in

strong support of this bid for British Columbia and Western Star Trucks?

HON. MR. DIRKS: We find ourselves a little on the horns of a

dilemma, because two bids have been placed by British Columbia firms

for that particular contract. Since there are two competing bids from

the province, we agreed in a meeting with the president of Western Star

that we would take a neutral stand on which British Columbia company

should be awarded the contract. However, we will be impressing upon the

Minister of National Defence the need for British Columbia to get its

fair share of any contract that is given out. We'll certainly be

pressing them to award it to a British Columbia firm. I understand that

there are only four firms bidding — two from Ontario and two from

British Columbia. We will do everything in our power to ensure that

that contract does come to British Columbia.

SHERIFF SERVICE CUTBACKS

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question for the Premier, who I'm sure

would agree with me that one of the ways to deal with increased crime

levels is to increase the number of police officers on the street.

Because of the government's decision to cut back sheriff services,

police officers are now required to serve subpoenas, issue summons and

do additional paperwork, which

[ Page

12691 ]

keeps them off the street. Is the Premier now

prepared to concede that the cutbacks in the sheriff program have kept

police officers off the street? Is she now prepared to restore sheriff

levels to previous levels?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'll answer that as far as the police

officers are concerned. We have not cut back on police officers serving

in municipalities or in the RCMP. We also have a great number of

volunteers who assist us in that. The sheriff department comes under

the Attorney-General.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier passed the question to the wrong minister when she passed the question about sheriffs to the Solicitor-General.

I want to ask the Premier again a question with respect to law and

order in British Columbia. You could put 48 police officers on the

streets of Vancouver tomorrow by simply asking them to no longer do

custodial work and to go back on the streets. That custodial work can

be done by sheriffs or corrections officials. Police officers are

highly trained for other responsibilities and are underutilized. For

all the Premier's tough talk on matters of law enforcement, this is

another area of lack of government action. A question to the Premier:

are you now prepared to deal with this issue and to direct that

additional services be put into custodial requirements in Vancouver so

as to release the police officers onto the streets?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I find amusing the types of questions

that members opposite continually refer to the Premier. The members

opposite realize full well that we have ministers responsible for each

of those areas. The absent Leader of the Opposition, who once again is

not in the House, should have properly informed members of his caucus

how the question should be placed. I would suggest the question would

be more appropriately put to the minister responsible.

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

MR. JONES: A question to the Premier. The Premier's throne

speech promised long-awaited access to government information. Can the

Premier tell this House if she has seen a draft of how that might

operate or if she has seen a timetable for implementation? In other

words, can the Premier advise the House that this proposal has even

progressed that far?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Might I suggest that the question is out of order?

JAMES TYHURST CASE

MR. VANT: My question is to the Minister of Women's Programs, who

yesterday apparently could not hear clearly my question over the locker-room

jock talk and the guffaws and laughter coming from the NDP corner of this House.

My question today concerns a basic human rights issue especially hurtful to

female victims of abuse from men in positions of leadership. Will the minister

advise this House whether she has considered investigating issues raised since

Dr. James Tyhurst's conviction, especially since the recent disclosure that

complaints were raised as long ago as the early 1970s? Further, can the minister

investigate why the response to those complaints was to transfer the victim

instead of dealing swiftly with the abuser? Madam Minister, will you find out

who in high places this man knew? Who covered up for him? And why, even today,

is this issue being met by deafening silence by those usually willing to speak

out?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to

apologize to my colleague from the Cariboo. I was having difficulty

hearing the entire question.

Reflecting on the answer that I gave yesterday, I decided to take

some action. Deputy Minister Isabel Kelly has contacted Dr. Strangway's

office at UBC and will hopefully be meeting with the sexual harassment

committee at UBC. I think we should all be concerned about this kind of

issue. I do wonder, though, why the question hasn't come from the two

members for Vancouver–Point Grey, particularly as one of them is the

critic for Women's Programs. Perhaps the laughter yesterday tells us

the answer.

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

MR. JONES: I put a question to the Premier, the first

minister of the government of British Columbia and the spokesperson for

that government. Has the Premier decided to answer questions put to her

in that capacity?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the question is out of order

because it involves future policy, and then the question is rephrased

to say "has the minister decided," then we're really stretching the

point. I think the member has had an opportunity to reflect on how he

might phrase the question in the first place, and you still have an

opportunity to do so. If you ask the question now, you may elicit an

answer.

MR. JONES: Has the Premier decided to honour her throne

speech commitment to ensure that before we adjourn this Legislature

there will be freedom-of-information legislation on the statute books

of this province?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, I can respond to the member's question in this way: that reflects future policy.

GOVERNMENT RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Government Services.

Will the minister confirm that as of April 1991, 8,600 square feet of

empty office space at 815 Hornby Street in Vancouver is leased by the

government and that taxpayers are paying over $136,000 per year for

that empty office space?

[ Page 12692 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: I can't answer that specific question, but I

can give the NDP member some comfort. They have asked BCBC several

questions about office space in the last few weeks, have received

detailed answers and I think have been accommodated very well. All of

the members on that side also know that B.C. Buildings Corporation is

one of the top-rated corporations in this country, and the vacancy rate

is the lowest in Canada. It is lower than 1 percent. Whether the space

that you speak of is part of that....

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction or a short statement.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great feeling in

this House about the tennis match coming up this weekend against the

press gallery by some members, I thought the House would like to know

that Canada's Grant Connell has scored the upset of his career. The

North Vancouver native upset the defending champion Ivan Lendl at the

Queen's Club tennis tournament in London today. He won the second round

match 5-7, 6-3, 6-4, and I'm sure this House would like to congratulate

him.

MAILING OF PARTISAN MATERIAL

FROM MINISTER'S OFFICE

HON. MRS. GRAN: I wish to answer a question from the

opposition House Leader taken on notice yesterday regarding mailing

privileges, in particular a piece of mail that came out of my ministry.

I want to first clarify that the postal distribution branch is in

the Ministry of Government Services and that's why the envelope used

was in my ministry. The piece of correspondence came from a private

member. All private members on both sides of the House have mailing

privileges to communicate with their constituents. I want to table

three pieces of communication from the other side of the House, just so

that we can demonstrate that both sides of the House use the privilege

and not just one.

I want to go further and share with this House exactly what it cost

the taxpayers of this province last year for mailing privileges for our

members. For the Social Credit....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I appreciate the coaching;

nonetheless, I'm bound by the rules that I'm given. When a question is

taken on notice, the minister is entitled to answer the question —

within the scope of the question. If, in answering that question, there

is an elaboration beyond the scope of the question, that's acceptable;

but if it gets into a matter which could be argumentative or debatable,

then it's going to have to be treated as a ministerial statement. So it

can be handled that way, but I would appreciate it if the answer was

restricted to the question and did not get into what I suspect is

coming.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, my statement is not

argumentative; it's fact. Because of the question yesterday, the matter

of cost was raised. All I want to say is that for the Social Credit

caucus it was $116,000; for the NDP caucus it was nearly $405,000.

Ministerial Statement

HIGH-SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the House

aware of the scientific conference on north Pacific driftnet fishing

being conducted this week at Dunsmuir Lodge in Sidney.

Monday evening, on behalf of the province of British Columbia, I

welcomed teams of top-notch fisheries and oceans scientists from eight

Pacific Rim countries. They are here to exchange information on the

impact of driftnet fishing on the high seas and will produce from their

conference a set of recommendations for debate at the United Nations

General Assembly this fall.

The international driftnet fishery fleets have the potential to

decimate British Columbia's salmon stocks. Moreover, the thousands of

kilometres of nets deployed capture countless non-target marine

mammals, seabirds and fish, thereby endangering the entire marine

ecology of the Pacific.

Between May 13 and 18 of this year, a government of British Columbia

fisheries biologist accompanied Department of National Defence Pacific

Air Command surveillance missions over the north Pacific. These

missions observed activities of the Pacific high-seas squid-fishing

fleet. As well, searches were made for pirate driftnetters operating

north of the legal limit for this fishery, targeting juvenile salmon.

The four-day mission covered 720,000 square miles of north Pacific

patrol.

The mission uncovered two illegal salmon driftnet boats. Documented

photographs of the pirate ships, for example, are leading to their

identification and documentation, and may facilitate their eventual

arrest in harbour. Identification of these salmon pirate ships helps to

build international pressure on governments to crack down on illegal

fishing.

Through hands-on participation such as this, British Columbia is

clearly fulfilling a leadership role in meeting the challenge presented

by this complicated international issue. Since the British Columbia-led

North Pacific driftnet declaration in 1989, B.C.'s input into the

international decision-making has steadily grown. This year British

Columbia's contribution to the United Nations' debate on a moratorium

on driftnet fishing will not be limited to the work of political

leaders and scientists. The voice of all British Columbians will be

heard by the United Nations through a document compiled from

presentations made at the B.C. driftnet symposium this spring.

Over the past few months, thousands of British Columbians have

contacted my office with petitions, letters, posters and a variety of

personal appeals. I'm sure you will join me in wishing the delegates to

the international driftnet meeting success in their delibera-

[ Page

12693 ]

tions. The nations of the Pacific Rim hold the

living resources of the ocean in trust for all generations who follow

us. British Columbia continues to uphold that trust. We will work to

ensure that our salmon fishery is secure and the Pacific marine

resources are sustainable in the long term.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out to the

minister that eight years ago this side of the House first raised our

opposition to what has been called the "curtain of death" — the

strip-mining of the oceans — and our opposition to the high-seas

driftnet fishery.

We pointed out at that time that it was a threat to the incidental

catch of salmon and other anadromous fish — steelhead — that have part

of their life cycle in the Pacific Ocean and are subject to risk by

high-seas driftnet fishery. We pointed out that there were other

nations — Korea and Taiwan — that were renegades outside of the normal

international arrangements, that had fleets and were taking these fish.

We pointed out that our precious salmon resources were at risk, and

that action had to be taken quickly.

Mr. Speaker, this House has long heard the voice of the opposition

on this matter. We support any initiatives to have this action stopped

as quickly as possible for the good of our resources and the good of

British Columbia's future.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we go to Committee of Supply,

I would ask leave of the House for permission for the Special Committee

of Selection to meet this afternoon at 2:45.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, it's always a pleasure to have

you in the chair, especially when we're dealing with a set of estimates

in which I know you have a very great personal interest.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: No, he's a good friend. I think he's an excellent chairman, and we should sometimes acknowledge that in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to begin my discussion this afternoon with a question

to the minister about access-to-information policy within the ministry itself.

Could the minister please advise us what the policy of his ministry is regarding

requests that come from MLAs for information on ministry policy?

HON. S. HAGEN: I can be very brief on that answer. If it is public information, any MLA who requests it receives it.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask if the minister considers the

information he sent on June 7 to all board chairpersons, carbon copied

to all superintendents and secretary-treasurers, to be public

information yesterday?

HON. S. HAGEN: Could the member for New Westminster please tell me what the memo was? We send out many memos.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is a memo from the Ministry of Education

to all board chairpersons by fax only, dated June 7, signed by the

minister and addressed: "Dear Board Chairperson. Re: Year 2 Funding for

January 1991 Dual-Entry Students. CC: All Superintendents and All

Secretary-Treasurers." Could the minister advise if that was public

information yesterday?

HON. S. HAGEN: The answer is yes.

MS. A. HAGEN: Then could the minister please explain why,

when a member of my staff called his ministry to ask for a copy of that

letter, he was assured it would be sent, yet was phoned back a few

minutes later and told that the matter had to go through the ministry

office and that the minister and his ministerial assistants were

absent? Therefore the whole thing was left in limbo.

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't know anything about that, Mr.

Chairman. If the member opposite would care to give me the name of the

person she spoke to, I would be pleased to take it up. You probably

have a copy of that letter by now.

MS. A. HAGEN: The issue is not whether I have a copy of the

letter but whether the ministry was prepared to provide me with a copy

of it. I probably would not raise this question so specifically if it

was the first time this had happened, but I have on occasion called the

minister's office and asked for information relating to existing public

policy, and have found since this minister came into office that I am

advised by members of his staff that before they can answer the

question it has to go through the minister's office. In fact, quite

often the answer comes from the ministerial assistant, who frequently

refers me back to the person I asked the question of in the first

place. Would the minister care to comment on the practice of his office

with respect to policy that he says is his policy: namely, that if the

issue is public information it is available to MLAs. I haven't

necessarily found that to be the case.

HON. S. HAGEN: All I can say is that my instructions to my

staff are that public information is certainly to be released to MLAs.

If the member opposite has specific instances that she wishes to draw

to my attention, I would be very pleased to hear from her and deal with

them. I can't deal with generalities, but I

[ Page 12694 ]

would be pleased to deal with specific instances. If information is public, it will certainly be released.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would note to the minister that I'm referring

to a very specific piece of information. I don't intend to name the

ministry person at this stage of the game, but I will read you the memo

from my staff person about his experience. "I spoke to...." He names

the person in the Ministry of Education. "The funding announcement was

made in the form of a letter from the Minister of Education which was

faxed out to all school board chairpersons and copied to all school

superintendents. This person agreed to fax me a copy of the letter." I

would note that I found out there was a new policy through the

newspaper; there was no press release. I'll come back to that in a

minute. "A few minutes later this person phoned me back. He was told

that my request would have to go through the minister's office."

Mr. Chairman, I think the case is very specific. I wonder if the

minister could give us some further assurance in respect of this issue

— which is not the first issue where I've had this problem — about how

he intends to ensure that when I or any other MLA calls his office

about a matter of public policy, we will receive the information

post-haste.

HON. S. HAGEN: I guess I'd have to ask the question: did the member get the information, or did she not get the information?

MS. A. HAGEN: This is not the first time I've had to go to my

school board and ask them to fax me information about this minister's

policies. I find it a very reprehensible state of affairs that a

minister in this House, in as important a ministry as the Ministry of

Education, requires me to dance through hoops in order to get

information about public policy statements of the ministry. That's the

issue. It's not something that is acceptable to us.

Access to information is something that all of us are entitled to in

order to do our job and represent our constituents. I can cite any

number of examples in other ministries where I have been accorded the

greatest courtesy and timeliness in response. I raise my concern in

this public place that this minister, through his ministry, has not

been so forthcoming.

Let me go on, Mr. Chairman. When I am finished, the minister may

wish to respond. We spent some time last week discussing the issue of

dual entry, and we requested very quick action on the part of the

minister in respect to the 14,000 young children who were in dual entry

in 1991 and what arrangements would be made for them next year. The

minister obviously made a decision on June 7, which was last Friday. We

were in the House until 1 o'clock. He gave no indication in the House

of that information; nor, to my knowledge, has there been any press

release to that effect. There has been a letter to school board

chairpersons, copied to superintendents.

[2:45]

Some 14,000 families in this province are awaiting information about

the minister's decision on dual entry. This ministry has increased its

information and advertising budget by 2,000 percent, from $140,000 to

nearly $3 million, and this minister hides this information under a

barrel in a letter to board chairpersons, leaving it to school boards,

presumably, to get that information out to every parent. That is

another aspect of access to information about public policy. I don't

think that there's any issue in the public domain right now that is of

more importance and interest to the parents affected. I really believe

that this minister has not served those parents well: first of all, by

not having his act together around the whole dual-entry decision when

he made the announcement; and then making the announcement by the most

circuitous route that you can think of, making it difficult for people

to know about it, failing to provide any kind of public announcement on

that policy.

Mr. Chairman, we are concerned that public policy should be

something that is readily available to people. This minister has

failed. He may have some feeble excuse to make for that failure, but I

believe it's clear for all to see that the whole dealing with dual

entry, including its cancellation and informing parents about what is

happening to them and their children next year, has been botched. I

think this little case study is sufficient unto itself to place in

question the minister's openness and willingness to have public policy

out there where the people affected know about it and then can act on

the information that they should have readily available to them.

HON. S. HAGEN: May I point out to the member opposite that if

she had had the courtesy — the single courtesy — to ask me those

questions instead of taking the liberty of phoning up any person in my

ministry thinking that they have the authority to deal directly with

you, she would have gotten the answers that she wanted. All that that

member or any other member of this House has to do if they seek

information is drop me a note, stop me in the hallway and ask me, or

send me a note across the House, and they will get that information. So

don't be so coy in sitting there that you think you can just phone up

any person in my ministry and seek that information. If you want to

know information in the ministry, just have the courtesy to ask the

minister. That's all you have to do: just send me a letter, make a

phone call to me or send me a note, and I will certainly provide you

with that information.

With regard to her criticisms on how we have handled that

announcement to school boards, if I don't send the information out to

school boards, who am I supposed to...? Would you do away with school

boards? Would you take total control from here and do away with school

boards? Is that what you're suggesting? Is that what you're getting at?

I deal with school boards. School boards are the publicly elected

bodies that are charged with the responsibility of providing the

education in their individual districts.

The other thing is that I could not be more specific because, for

the member's information, this requires legislation, and legislation

has not been introduced. It will be introduced, and as soon as the

legislation is

[ Page

12695 ]

introduced then the details will be known. I think

the member knows very well that I can't be more specific until I

introduce the legislation.

She made some offhand references to the communications budget in my

ministry. I want to just point out what the communications budget

entails and what it's for. It's mainly for the distribution of Year

2000 materials, but it also includes the annual report. It includes

information on the deputy's newsletter, the Year 2000 program, the

primary program, intermediate program draft, graduation program draft,

progress report, newsletter, media relations, informational ad

campaigns, direct responses — because we want responses from the

public; we don't arbitrarily make policy without getting those very

important responses from parents and other members of the public. We

have FaxNet, the specialty responses to the Year 2000 program document,

steering committees, development sites, the Education Policy Advisory

Committee and the Education Advisory Council. All of this is part of

the consultation and communication process that we have in the Ministry

of Education.

MS. CULL: The minister says that if we on this side want

information, all we have to do is call the minister's office, and we

will receive it. The last time we were talking about this in the House

— on Friday — the minister said to my colleague the second member for

Victoria that if we wanted information on the capital funding

announcement, all we had to do was ask. We took him up on that. We

believed the minister was extending an honest invitation to come to the

capital funding announcement, and we talked to him in the corridor

immediately afterwards. He said that he would be sure to let us know

when and where it was.

On Monday morning I phoned his office four times — not just any

staff member in the ministry, but the minister's office. It took four

phone calls to receive an answer to that question. So I would like the

minister not to stand up and say: "Gee, just give us a call, and we'll

be able to provide the information to you." It's extremely patronizing

to receive those kinds of comments from this minister when, as my

colleague from New Westminster has demonstrated, the information is not

always forthcoming from his ministry — despite the fact that it should

be public information available to us all.

However, I would like to give the minister one more opportunity to

deal with something on a direct request from a member of the

Legislature. This is something I haven't had an opportunity to raise

with the minister because I've only just become aware of it this week.

It relates to the dual-entry funding program. When we were discussing

it earlier in committee, I raised the point that the cancellation of

the dual-entry program affects not only the public school system, but

also independent schools and day care centres throughout the province.

They are having to adjust to the change in enrolment.

There is in my constituency a Montessori preschool that offers a kindergarten

program as well — they stop at kindergarten. It's called the St. Christopher's

Montessori School. As a result of the cancellation of the dual-entry program,

they will be losing from their operating budget this year between $8,000 and

$16,000. On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a large amount, but

that is 4 to 8 percent of their budget, and for a non-profit organization that's

a very significant amount of money. The loss occurs because the school is not

able at this late date to juggle its kindergarten students around. It cannot

refuse the students who have already been accepted for September and replace

them with students who would be eligible for the funding. So I would like to

ask the minister if he will make a commitment now to look into the funding for

schools such as St. Christopher's Montessori and see whether something can

be done to assist them with their budget problems, which are a direct result

of this late change to the dual-entry program.

HON. MR. FRASER: I always like to get into the debate on

education because it's such a critical thing for the students and the

population of B.C. One of the reasons I wanted to jump in at this

particular moment is that it's so interesting to listen to the

questions from the members opposite — the members who say: "We will

take over MacMillan Bloedel if we have to, if they leave the Alberni

Valley"; the members who say: "We'll fight tough policies whenever the

election comes"; and the same members who will go to a big convention

where their leader, in making a significant contribution, will do what

he has to do to evade discussing any kind of difficult question. So the

members who brag about being tough and strong when it comes to

leadership — "We'll do all these amazing things" — now ask the minister

about answering the phone. It's really incredible, Mr. Chairman, how we

can go from the Education minister's office to these magnificent

policies. While they talk big when they don’t have to do anything, when

it comes to asking a question they can barely get out the question.

Would the minister mind answering the phone! Of course he'll answer the

phone. He answers the phone all the time. He answers the phone to

constituents. He answers the phone from school boards, getting out the

message of education, its importance to all the students of British

Columbia; getting across the message that the students in B.C. are

doing well — especially well compared to other people in other

provinces. He's getting across the message on the costs of education to

the people of British Columbia, telling everybody that the change in

the size of a classroom to one pupil less across the board would cost

$100 million a year. And then we get into the petty, small stuff. Where

is the policy? Where is the argument from the other side? All we hear

about is: won't the minister answer the phone? What a devastation! What

an admission of failure, Mr. Chairman! No wonder they will never lead.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to respond to the member's

questions about her telephoning my office. I am informed by my office

staff that she did indeed phone my office, and that she was called back

and informed that there was no formal announcement but that a press

release would be going out that day.

[ Page 12696 ]

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important for all members to hear why we

sent out a press release for the Greater Victoria School Board

announcement, instead of holding a press conference. I think it's very

important for the members of the House to understand why we did this.

Victoria is a major school district in the province of British

Columbia, and they have major needs that we were addressing — and are

addressing; and addressed, as a matter of fact — in the press

conference. We had a situation where my staff phoned up the Greater

Victoria School District, and said: "The minister would like to make an

announcement on your capital program." The chairperson of the Greater

Victoria School Board said: "It's inappropriate that the Minister of

Education would make that announcement in the school board office."

My staff then went out to try and rent space to hold a press

conference. When I learned that my staff was trying to rent space

because they couldn't use the facilities of the Victoria School Board,

I said: "No, we are not going to spend public funds on renting space to

hold a press conference." So I instructed my staff to send a press

release out instead.

I know the member is miffed because she wanted to be at the press

conference to try and take credit for something that she had had

nothing to do with. However, I would not expend, or commit to expend,

public funds when the board office was not made available. I might add

that that is the only instance in the province of British Columbia

where the board office was not made available for an announcement on

capital funding.

Here we are building schools to house children, to replace

portables, to reconstruct schools for earthquake preparedness, to buy

school buses, to do minor capital and major capital, to purchase land

for new schools and for additions to schools, and the school board

office was not made available. That's why we mailed out the press

release.

MS. CULL: The minister is not disclosing all of the

information about that press conference. He failed to tell the

committee that the school district — the board chairman here — did not

refuse the minister the opportunity to come and make an announcement in

the school district boardroom. In fact, the board chair phoned the

minister's office back to make it perfectly clear that the minister

himself was more than welcome to use the boardroom for that purpose.

What the school board of greater Victoria objected to was the

minister's attempt to turn it into a partisan event by inviting only

two of the six MLAs in the area that greater Victoria covers. The two

MLAs happen to be the Social Credit MLAs, and the other MLAs who worked

every bit as hard for the school district in their ridings were not

invited and in fact could not find out where the event was going to be.

It was only after repeated calling of the minister's office — which was

done because the event was about to happen — that we learned it had

been cancelled.

So, Mr. Minister, please stand up and tell the whole story when you

want to talk about people playing around with capital funding, because

I believe it is you who is manipulating this process for purely

political purposes, when in fact it's something that all of the

children, teachers and parents in this province are very interested in.

[3:00]

Furthermore, I don't know why we have to drag this out as some kind

of circus. If this is so important — and it is important that school

districts find out when their capital funding is available — surely

it's important that they learn it at the earliest possible opportunity.

That could have been done several weeks ago, right after the

announcement was made at the B.C. school trustees' convention. The

amount of money was known, the global budget was known, and surely the

amounts for each of the districts were known. The Premier was able to

go into her riding and make her announcement, but the rest of them had

to wait until some kind of staged event for Socred MLAs could be

arranged so that each district could find out what it wanted.

When we were talking about capital budgets a week ago, Mr. Minister,

you told me you were concerned about the late date of capital funding

announcements, and you assured me that your ministry was in fact trying

to bring that date forward because of the building season in the north

and because of the whole capital budgeting cycle. At that time I didn't

know that you were just stringing these out into a series of political

circuses.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think, Mr. Minister, that you should go back to the comment that

you made to me. If we really are interested in getting on with

improving the school facilities in this district, then getting that

information out to districts at the very earliest opportunity and all

at the same time — the way it's done for most of your other ministries

— is the way we should be conducting our business here.

HON. S. HAGEN: I admit that I did not tell the whole story,

and here's the rest of the story. When my staff phoned the Greater

Victoria School District, they did not even talk about which MLAs were

going to be invited or not invited. All they asked for was the use of

the board office to make the announcement. There was no discussion

about which MLAs were going to be invited.

There is one other small omission on my part, which is that I

understand that the chairperson of the Greater Victoria School District

desires to be the Victoria Member of the Legislative Assembly — I think

it's the Hillside seat. I read it in the media — it must be true. I'm

sure that has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that she has no political

aspirations, except maybe to run for the opposition. Why anybody would

want to run for a party that is always going to be in opposition, I

don't know; the party opposite is always going to be in opposition.

That's the rest of the whole story, Mr. Chairman. There was no

discussion about which MLAs would be present, and secondly, the

chairperson of the Greater

[ Page

12697 ]

Victoria School District wants to run for political politics.

MR. GUNO: It seems we have a sort of dispute over facts.

I have a very specific question to pose to the Minister of Education

relating to a specific capital project that apparently is pending in

the community of Dease Lake in my riding. I'm sorry I haven't had the

opportunity to phone you, Mr. Minister. I just heard about this today,

and I thought this would be an opportune time to point out exactly what

is happening with regard to this capital project, which is an expansion

of the present facilities in Dease Lake.

The problem with the fact that there seems to be some withholding of

the final formal announcement of this project is that the construction

period in the far north is fairly short. The people from the Stikine

district are quite anxious to get on with planning and developing this

project so they can meet their target date of September 1992.

Can the minister cast any more light on the status of this project

and whether there is going to be an announcement fairly soon? Unless

that happens, I think the target date will have to be moved even

further back. In Dease Lake there are a lot of activities going on, and

the population is growing. The present facilities are overcrowded. Can

the minister provide us with some answers to that?

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the question and your interest in

that particular project as well as the interest in your districts that

you always express. I cannot comment specifically on that project, but

I can tell the member that the overall capital announcement for your

school district will be made within the next two days. However, I am

unable to comment on the specifics of the announcement, because I wish

to inform the school board first.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm sure the minister is getting a very strong

plea from all our members to get those announcements to school

districts immediately. It is something that shouldn't — and can't —

wait. If the minister is prepared to provide information to all

districts in the next two days, I'm sure it will earn him a great many

Brownie points, even if he doesn't end up traveling to as many

districts around the province to make those announcements in person.

We believe these announcements should be made in the interests of

the districts, not in the interests of the fact that we are coming up

to an election, when people like to have photo opportunities and all

that sort of thing. Kids shouldn't be a part of that political process.

I would note that my colleague from Atlin is indicating that the Stikine School

District meets on Friday. With the distances that exist there, I know that a

meeting of the school board is not like a meeting in my riding, where it takes

people ten minutes to walk — let alone to drive. I hope the announcement within

two days is indeed going to be by the end of the week when that school district

is meeting. We note that the minister is affirming that across the floor. On

behalf of the member and myself, that's helpful information.

I want to stay with a theme that has been around since we started

meeting this afternoon: access to information. I want to go back for

just a few minutes — and I don't intend to spend too long — to some of

the discussion we have been having around royal commission funding.

that policy and royal commission are, I believe, very important. All

sides of the House agree that the royal commission and the initiatives

coming out of it are the most important ones on the public's mind these

days as they look ahead to their children's education.

Just to do a brief reprise — we discussed this last week during

debate — the minister has declined to provide any information about

what he says is the $115 million for royal commission activities that

is — I think you've used these words, Mr. Minister — "in the block." He

says that he wants to inform school boards directly before he makes any

public announcements. I'd like to ask the minister if that is a

personal policy that he has adopted, because it's quite different from

the policy of the minister last year.

Last year the Education estimates took place between May 10 and May

14. On May 2, a full week or so before we went into estimates, the

Minister of Education issued a press release. Because the former

Minister of Education has retired from the House, I can use his name:

"Brummet Provides Details of School Funding in Addition to the

Provincial Block." That press release goes on to list royal commission

activities and the amounts for those activities — not

district-by-district but global amounts. We have asked in this House

for the minister to provide us with some information about the global

amounts that will be allocated for various activities that will be in

the block. Could I ask the minister if he has a personal policy that

says that he has decided not to provide the public with that broad

framework of information during his estimates, and on what basis he

made that decision?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm informed by staff that the information we

have given out this year during the estimates is no different than the

information given out last year during the estimates.

With regard to releasing specific information, as the minister it is

a matter of courtesy on my part to the boards of the province that I

release the information to them first. What I said last week.... I have

no difficulty in going through all of the details again, which are

already on the public record. If you want to take up the time of the

House, I'm quite prepared to do that. I detailed all of the information

on the amount of the Year 2000 funding related to the block. I am not

prepared to give out any further information until I release it to the

school boards. What I said to the member last week was that I will send

the letters out to the school boards immediately upon my budget going

through the House. I don't think that's radical or difficult to

understand. But I think that the school boards out there would

appreciate the courtesy that I've extended them to notify them of the

funding that

[ Page 12698 ]

they are about to receive, and will receive in this

fiscal year, with regard to the $185 million available for the Year

2000 program.

All of that money is allocated for testing, assessment, learning

resources, program implementation, parent advisory councils — all of

those topics that I discussed last week — full-day first-year primary,

teacher assistants, transportation program implementation, equipment

support, a portion of non-teaching days, accreditation and a portion of

learning resources.

MS. A. HAGEN: With respect, Mr. Chairman, last year there was

a different system. The global amounts that would be in the block and

that would be going to school districts were announced prior to the

estimates. I am going to pursue a line of questioning for a few minutes

to see if the minister is prepared to provide us not with

district-by-district information but with global amounts under some of

the headings.

For instance, last year on May 2, one week before the minister's

estimates were before this House, the minister's press release stated:

"September enrolment adjustments and January adjustments for first-year

primary, $64.2 million." Is the minister prepared to advise us what

amount of money is within the $115 million globally for September

enrolment adjustments and first-year primary?

HON. S. HAGEN: As I said before, I'm prepared to send that information out to school boards upon the passing of my budget through the House.

[3:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me pursue this question in another vein for

just a moment. On May 2, 1990, the then Minister of Education announced

that there was $64.2 million in dual-entry, first-year primary

September enrolment adjustments. On March 4, 1991, the minister

announced that there was $23.5 million for children entering first-year

primary in January 1991. Can the minister provide us with an

explanation for the difference in those figures?

HON. S. HAGEN: The difference is based on enrolment differences.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying that on

May 2, 1990, they anticipated enrolment that would cost $64.2 million,

and by March 4, 1991 they found in fact that they had enrolment that

cost only $23.5 million? If that's the case, can the minister explain

why such a massive discrepancy in their estimating?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

MS. A. HAGEN: I think, Mr. Chairman, I have asked a question

that the minister is having difficulty getting a response on from his

officials. There's a $40 million discrepancy in last year's royal

commission funding estimate for dual-entry and first-year primary. The

estimate was $64.2 million, and an official statement from the ministry

in March of this year indicates that school districts received $23.5

million for children entering first-year primary in January.

HON. S. HAGEN: That question pertains to last year's estimates, and I'm afraid I don't have that information.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps I could ask the minister to undertake

to provide that information for me — I will formalize that. But usually

in estimates when we don't have information available, the ministry

takes the question on notice.

I want to return to the May 2, 1990 press release of the ministry —

a week before the estimates — in which the minister announced that for

school district activity, such as teacher orientation, lead schools and

parent information, there was $6.8 million. Is the minister now

prepared to provide information about what will be available in

learning resources and assistance to teachers for Year 2000 in the

global amount under the $115 million that he is keeping under wraps?

HON. S. HAGEN: I have already done this at least once last

week, but I don't mind doing it again. I'm pleased to detail both the

headings and the amounts, which, as I say, I gave out last week. The

money pertaining to the royal commission communication and

implementation activities, grants to school districts directed to

teacher activities to develop parent support and participation and to

foster leadership and innovative ways of implementing the plan is

$10,953,000; the expansion of teacher education programs, grants

provided to universities, $10,580,000 — that includes the rural teacher

education program; the forgivable loan program to teachers, $690,000;

provincial teaching awards....

MS. A. HAGEN: That's in the $115 million, not the $71 million?

HON. S. HAGEN: That's in the $115 million.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, that's the same thing I said last week; I read it out.

Provincial teaching awards, $150,000; native language and culture

programs, $1.3 million; independent school contributions, $23.3

million; independent school monitoring, $193,000; research and

development grants, $175,000; support services to schools, which are

grants to school districts and funding directed through the Ministries

of Health and of Social Services and Housing to support interministry

protocol agreements dealing with health care services for all students

in the school system, $6 million; curriculum development resource

materials, which will focus on the primary program curriculum, $7.9

million; assessment and accountability, support to schools for

development and operation of learner-profile systems, $8.2 million;

gender equity programs — remember we discussed that last week —

$405,000; sexual abuse program — we dis-

[ Page

12699 ]

cussed that last week — $600,000. That makes up the $114,956 million.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's quite obvious that the minister is not

prepared to provide some information to this House. I want to quote

from last Wednesday's Hansard .

I asked him how much of the funding for the royal commission was in the

block. He said $115 million dollars: "The amount that isn't in the

block is $71 million...." What I'm asking the minister to provide is

information about the $115 million that is in the block which,

according to him and again quoting Wednesday's Hansard ,

covers such matters "as dual entry, full-day first-year primary,

teacher assistants, transportation, program implementation, equipment

support, a portion of non-teaching days...testing, assessment,

accreditation and a portion of learning resources" — and home-school

student registration.

I have a very simple question, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister

was prepared to answer, we would be able to get on with the estimates.

I am simply asking him for the global amounts for those particular

activities — global amounts that were announced last year a full week

before the estimates, and which he is declaring he is not prepared to

announce. I am not asking this minister for information about what is

going to boards from any royal commission activities. But I am asking

him to provide the public, through these estimates, with information

about those dollars for those activities.

He has declined for a reason that I don't believe has any

justification or precedent. His predecessor clearly believed, as this

minister appears not to, in the fact that his estimates and his

announcements should be there to inform the public. It's passing

strange that we're dealing with the minister's estimates, he's

outlining programs, and he's not prepared to tell the public what the

global amounts are for those matters. If he is prepared to answer that

question now, as his predecessor Mr. Brummet did, I will be delighted.

If not, I think the case is made that this minister is not prepared to

be open with the public around budget matters that clearly he has

information about.

He says he has the detailed information drafted and ready to go out

to school boards. What are the global amounts for those various

programs, Mr. Chairman?

HON. S. HAGEN: In deference to the member for New Westminster

— and it will be on her head that she found out this information before

the school boards — I am quite prepared to list out this information. I

will list it out with the dollar amounts: parent advisory council,

$263,000; equipment support, roughly $6 million; learning resources,

$19.45 million; testing assessment and accreditation, $12.75 million;

non-teaching days, $20.47 million; program implementation, $13 million;

primary transportation, $3 million; teacher assistants, $4.8 million;

home schoolers, $690,000; full day first-year primary, $4.7 million;

first-year dual entry, $29.28 million.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I have kind of a different nature of questioning that

I'd like to get into with the Minister of Education. I'd like to deal initially

with a little more philosophical view. This year, as I understand it, about

28 percent of the B.C. budget will be spent on education. In comparative numbers,

as I understand it, in Ontario — it being an NDP government — only 18 percent

of their global budget will be spent on education.

I bring this forward as a comparison. I think it's important,

particularly when we are as close as we are to a general election, that

people in this province understand the differences of priorities that

one form of government would have over another. It's important that we

take a look at what has happened in the Ontario situation with an NDP

government and what's happening in British Columbia in education in

respect to a Social Credit government. The actual difference of 28

percent of the global budget of British Columbia being spent on

education,

whereas in Ontario it is only 18 percent.... I suppose

numbers could be argued every which way.

What concerns me even more than that aspect is philosophical change.

Indeed, in the province of Ontario, under an NDP administration, they

are now spending more money on social services and welfare than on

education,

whereas here in British Columbia under our administration —

the Social Credit government — we have health first in our expenditures

and education second. In fact, in Ontario, with the NDP government that

they have, welfare spending has increased some 40 percent to $4.9

billion. That's about a 100 percent increase over the last two years.

Just as an aside — it is not in reference to this particular ministry's

estimates, but I thought you might be interested — metro Toronto's

welfare allotment is more than the entire budget of Prince Edward

Island.

What I would like to ask the minister about in respect to the

philosophical bent of his ministry is, in his discussion with other

Ministers of Education across the country, this whole aspect of

priority of spending. I'm sure that discussions must go on, and I would

be interested in your comments in regard to priorities when a

government is looking at its expenditures. The priorities set, be they

health, education or welfare.... Obviously at this time you are placing

our emphasis on education, well in excess of the welfare side —

contrary, I might add, to what's happening in NDP Ontario. I would be

interested to hear the comments you may have in respect to other

Ministers of Education on the philosophical side.

On a more practical side, which bothers me greatly, I hear members

of the opposition, virtually whenever they speak about education,

talking about cutbacks. It makes it sound like there has been cutback

after cutback after cutback in the Ministry of Education. As I

understand it, this year we are going to spend some $3.3 billion — I

believe that's the estimate for the Ministry of Education. If I'm

correct in my recollection of the amount last year, I think it was

around $3 billion. That would say to me that we are about $300 million

more in projected expenditure this year from last year. I have a hard

time understanding, when it was $3 billion or so last year and it's

$3.3 billion this year, how that translates into the misconception that

[ Page 12700 ]

the opposition tout that that translates into any

form of a cutback. Could the Minister of Education tell me, when one

looks at the global budget of Education over the last five years, if

there is any cutback? What was the real amount of dollars spent in

1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991? Is there any way he can show me,

in real numbers, a lesser amount spent in the one year from the

previous year? I would be really interested to hear from the Minister

of Education the philosophical side, as I was mentioning, as to what's

happening in NDP Ontario with their emphasis on welfare rather than

education, as compared to our emphasis here in Social Credit on

education and encouraging people to find work rather than going on

welfare. I would also like to hear from the minister on this whole

issue of exaggeration when on& talks about cutbacks. I would be

interested to hear from the Minister of Education on both those lines.

[3:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the very good questions from the

member from Cowichan. From time to time I also read articles about

opposition members talking about cutbacks to education. It's important

for the House to know that in the last four years increases in the

Education budget, on a per-pupil basis, have been 39.6 percent. Let's

be specific about the dollars being spent. I can do better than the

member requested I can go back over the last ten years. Let's go back

to the year 1981, the amount of money that went into the Education

budget at that time was $1,606,245,000. We had an enrolment at that

time of 492,000 students. Our budget in 1991 is $3,286,151,000, an

increase of 104 percent; the per-pupil increase in the same period is

75 percent. But the members of the opposition ask: what about the

growth in the number of students? It's significant that while the

budget has grown by 104 percent, the student population has grown by

2.65 percent. So how anybody in the opposition could state that this

government is not spending enough on education, I don't know. Those are

astounding numbers. There isn't a province in this country that has put

the emphasis on education....

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.)

When the member raised the question about the difference between Ontario and British Columbia with regard to emphasis....

AN HON. MEMBER: NDP Ontario?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, last fall there was an NDP government elected in Ontario.

I want to refer to a couple of comments made by the second member

for Vancouver East, who isn't here today but will, I'm sure, appreciate

me refreshing his memory. In February of this year, when asked about

the campaign themes in Ontario, the second member for Vancouver East

said, and I quote from BCTV news: "A lot of the campaign themes that

were run in Ontario are very appropriate for British Columbia, so we're

looking for the same kind of message." What's he really saying there? I

don't know whether the second member for Vancouver East was a member of

the transition team that went to Ontario or not, but if you recall, the

Leader of the Opposition said: "Oh, yes, we sent...."

I'm moving right into education. The next comment is on education.

MS. A. HAGEN: Point of order. We have on occasion asked the

minister to be relevant to his estimates, and I think we would all

appreciate it if he were.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the minister will recognize the point of order.

HON. S. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to smile when

the members opposite talk about relevancy to the debate, because if

there has been non-relevancy in this debate, it has come from the other

side of the House.

However, with all due respect, I was asked a very good question by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat. He asked about the philosophical

difference between the NDP government in Ontario and the Social Credit

government in British Columbia. We're talking about funding. The NDP

government in Ontario has committed a larger portion of its budget in

dollars and percentage to social welfare programs than it has to

education programs. This is the first time in history in this country

that any province has done that. The education budget in Ontario is

something like $9.7 billion; social welfare is $10.4 billion.

This province commits 27.4 percent of our total budget to education.

In answer to the question that came from the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, when you compare it to the amount committed by the

Ontario government, which is 18.4 percent, that certainly must indicate

to the people of this province the emphasis that we place on education.

Let's talk about philosophy. The province of Ontario is the only

province in Canada not participating in the school achievement

indicators program. They were participating. A year ago, when we made

the announcement in Canada that all of the provinces and the two

territories were going to participate in the first national school

achievement indicators program in numeracy and literacy, all of the

provinces said that it was about time. The public out there were asking

what was taking so long. Obviously it was about time. Parents were

saying they wanted to know how their children stacked up, and students

were saying they wanted to know how they stacked up.

After the election in Ontario, the NDP education minister came to

the meeting that I chaired in February and said: "I'm sorry, we're

going to pull out." Why would they pull out? I'm not sure why. I'm not

sure whether it has something to do with commitments made in the

campaign to special interest groups like the Ontario Teachers'

Federation or the Ontario Federation of Labour. I can't believe that

they would care so little about education to take this stand. But the

other provinces are going to carry on. British Columbia is carrying on

with the assessment program. We're going

[ Page

12701 ]

to make sure that our children and students in this province get the best possible education they can get anywhere.

MS. CULL: I just wondered whether the minister has now had

some time to consult with his staff and can give me an answer on St.

Christopher's Montessori School.

HON. S. HAGEN: We're unable to make any commitments on

specific schools. The independent school programs operate on a program

basis. I would hope that school can function within that program, just

like all the other independent schools do.

MS. CULL: Mr. Minister, will you be looking into the funding

problems of the independent schools that find themselves in difficulty

because they had their child care programs designed to meet the

dual-entry program as it existed only a few weeks ago, and that has now

been cancelled? Will your ministry investigate this problem to see

what, if anything, can be done to assist them to adjust through this

transition year?

A year ago I brought to the minister's attention a problem being

experienced by another small independent school in my riding that was

trying to adjust when dual entry was going the other way. Is the

minister willing to look into this matter and provide me with some

answers on it when his ministry staff has had a chance to investigate

further?

HON. S. HAGEN: I would remind the member that independent

schools are, in fact, independent schools. We don't interfere with what

they do. Boards take the decisions they take for whatever reasons they

do. I'm not about to interfere with the decisions boards have taken. As

I said, that independent school will have to live within the bounds of

the policies and programs that all independent schools in the province

live by.

MS. CULL: I'm not asking you to interfere with the decisions

of the board, Mr. Minister. It was the decision of your ministry to

enrol children in January that made the board accept children for

registration this September. The decision of you and your ministry to

cancel dual entry places them in this situation. I'm not asking that

you interfere with their decisions; I'm simply asking that you have

your ministry look at the financial implications and see if there is

something that can be done to assist these schools in the transition,

exactly as you have done for public schools.

HON. S. HAGEN: May I point out to the member again that it

was not compulsory for independent schools to accept the dual-entry

program. I am not prepared to make an exception to the policy which all

independent schools in the province are living with.

MS. CULL: One final comment. It was not compulsory, but the grants those

schools received for their kindergarten children were based on your policy,

and they make their decisions on that. They could not decide not to go into

the dual-entry program and still receive kindergarten grants. I take it, though,

that your answer is no, and I will convey that to the Montessori school.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm troubled by the last question, because I

think it indicates some of the uncertainty and confusion that has

existed around policies that change like a pendulum back and forth.

That appears to be the climate in which Education is attempting to

operate at this time.

Mr. Chairman, we're about to conclude our examination of the

minister's estimates. There are many other issues that we have not

examined, partly because it has been difficult at times to persuade the

minister to be as straightforward and swift with his answers as he

might have been. That's unfortunate. I would like to have had more

opportunity to discuss issues that I have on my list and that

colleagues have on their lists that we really haven't been able to

examine as much as we might like: multiculturalism and racism; the

issue of at-risk kids; health, sex and family education; AIDS

education; literacy issues assessment and accreditation policies;

contracting out; teacher supply; teacher training — to name but a few.

We began with a discussion of dual entry, and we've ended this day

with a discussion about dual entry too. I am disappointed that the

minister, in terms of the information that he has been giving, has made

it difficult for us to get information. It doesn't behoove this

ministry, which is about people knowing, people understanding, people

examining and making decisions.... Fundamental principles of education

should be modelled in the ministry. I hope that in the days and weeks

ahead the ministry will be able to provide some additional information

to us on matters that they've agreed to come back to us on or that we

may want to explore further.

[3:45]

This is the people's business, and I've chosen to conclude these

estimates with two brief quotations. One is a wonderful letter from a

woman in Vancouver who writes because she's concerned about the

conflict and the confusion and the chaos in education. She describes

some experiences her children have had: three days with teachers in a

wilderness camp, a parent meeting and a musical presentation. I want to

just read a bit from that part of her letter.

"The script was written over his December break and

directed by our music teacher. Nine other staff willingly volunteered

hours of extra time....

"Nearly every one of our intermediate students were

involved on stage. The children were brilliant — all of them shone.

There were big grade 7s and shy grade 4s, students from the ESL class

and other special-needs kids. There was a spot made for everyone, and

it was a top-notch performance — another building-block of self-esteem

put in place."

But the purpose of the letter was not to extol what was happening in

her school. It was to express her concern about what was happening in

education. Her second-last paragraph says:

"My concern is that the...policies of the ministry

undermine morale and create a climate of distrust. This is not useful

to teachers, to administrators, to schools,

[ Page 12702 ]

to students. We need a climate that supports teachers as they

innovatively reach out to our children in the ways I have described here."

I believe at the end of these important estimates it's very useful

for us to remember the vision that's represented in that letter.

The other brief comment I want to make comes from the column of a

person who's well known to most of us, Crawford Kilian, who writes

weekly in the Vancouver Province on education matters. This is

an

article from a year ago — March 27, 1990 — and the headline is

"Schools Face Hollow Reforms." At this time when we're undergoing a

review of the royal commission and the work of that very important

body, I found a saliency in what Mr. Kilian wrote at that time. He was

interviewing a person whom many educators in the province and the

ministry have known, worked with and respected. He begins his article:

"One of B.C.'s most respected educators doesn't like what he sees

happening in our schools."

I'm not going to read it all, but he makes a few comments that I

think are very significant and that we should take to heart as we look

ahead to what is coming for education. He says:

"The government's policies are self-contradictory and self-destructive.

"That change is embodied in the Year 2000 document,

based on the Sullivan commission report on the schools...many studies

confirm the value of Sullivan's suggestions."

But he goes on to express concern about those reforms and concludes by saying:

"Real improvement means a radically new kind of

schooling. 'As an environmental educator,' McClaren says. 'I am

constantly reminded that my generation and the one before it are now in

power. As the best products of industrial-era education, we have

managed to systematically wreck the biosphere. We continue to do so

even when it is evident that we are straining the fabric of life on

this planet. Doing more of the same kind of education harder or faster

may well be disastrous.'

"To achieve real improvement rather than meaningless

change...'B.C. has to create a truly appropriate post-industrial

version of education for as many of our young folk as possible. I don't

see it happening, but I sure hope it will'."

Mr. Chairman, this minister has announced that within a couple of

weeks he will be making some pronouncements about Year 2000 and the

royal commission implementation. It is important for all of us to work

toward the education of our children in a way that brings stability,

predictability, fairness and openness to that process, and I would hope

that some of our discussions over the last several days have enabled

people to learn a bit more about how a complex system works, to see and

understand some of its problems and to make some assessments about

government and its endeavours and us and our endeavours on behalf of

education.

I'd like to thank the minister's staff for their very stalwart and

excellent support of their minister. He has been well briefed on many

issues, and I'm sure he has appreciated that endeavour. We'd like to

extend our thanks to the minister for the time we've had in discussing

these estimates.

MR. ROSE: I hesitate to tack a coda onto the symphony we've

just heard, but I wanted to take this opportunity — even though I

haven't been part of the debate, for a number of reasons — to thank the

minister and the members of the staff for providing me with the

statistical information on the fine arts and practical arts programs.

I'm very interested in them, and I know a great number of people are

extremely interested in the health and welfare of these arts programs.

Even the Minister of Forests over there is an ex–fine arts student,

although sometimes the effect of that education doesn't shine through

particularly brilliantly. Nevertheless, he was exposed to it.

I am reassured by the fact that the music, art and theatre programs,

if not flourishing — and I think they are — are certainly holding a

steady course and pace. They involve some 41,000 students studying art

at the secondary level, 27,000-odd in music and 26,000 in theatre,

which surprised me. I didn't realize the strength of the theatre

program there. There is no separate statistic for stage band, but I

think that you would find the growth in that has been extremely

vigorous.

Anyway, some 100,000 of our young British Columbians are enrolled in

these programs, and I think a lot of people are very happy about that.

I don't think there's anything better for the relationship between the

school and the general public, unless it may be the athletic program,

than these very fine programs in music, art and theatre.

Vote 21 approved.

Vote 22: ministry operations, $85,173,133 — approved.

Vote 23: public schools education, $3,108,736,034 — approved.

Vote 24: independent schools, $91,925,166 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $360,045 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: While we're waiting for staff to arrive —

and I'm sure my critic is assembling a series of questions for the

duration of this afternoon's

[ Page

12703 ]

debate — I'd like to touch briefly on a few issues dealing with Health.

Earlier today I had the good fortune to be on one of the open-line

radio shows — the "Bill Good Show" — where the topic of conversation

was the downsizing of the Riverview institution. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, it has been a characteristic and a feature of this government

to downsize the large and in many cases nineteenth-century-type

institutions that we had in British Columbia — Tranquille, dealing with

mentally retarded people some years ago and lately Riverview, dealing

with mental illness. We have downsized the facility to 1,026 beds, and

we have provided some community services for those patients.

Concern was expressed today by a Dr. Donnelly, who specializes in

and community-based services to those people who are coming out from

big institutions like Riverview and indeed going into a community

living situation. I assured the good doctor — and assure other people

listening today — that we had a solid commitment to these programs,

that we were expending some $20 million in terms of enhancement for

community services and would continue to meet the need as best we can.

I don't think there's any question that if we look at institutions

like Riverview and at some of the better community health protocols,

procedures and training programs that have been developed, we clearly

have to recognize, as we enter the twenty-first century, that there's

always a far better way of looking after those who suffer from dementia

and from mental illness.

Of course, we're all aware of the horror stories and horror

situations that existed in times past, where people were literally

incarcerated under deplorable conditions with absolutely no treatment,

no ability of those providing care — if you could characterize it as

care — to in any way enable them to improve their mental health. That

indeed was a despicable time and a very troubled time of our history.

However, society has seen that as unacceptable, and I guess we all

welcome the knowledge and the necessity for governments, for

institutions, for those who are concerned about the care of those who

are suffering from mental illness, to provide better therapies for

them, to provide far better community living standards and in general

make their life better and to provide therapeutic care to ensure that

they are given the best possible services.

I want to leave with this committee — at least for this brief

introduction — my comments regarding mental health and the government's

position toward the provision of those services. I know there may be

some debate and discussion on that later. I'll be more than happy to

entertain those questions and provide answers to the committee. With

that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my place and await further questions

from members opposite.

[4:00]

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chair, the debate reached such intellectual

profundity the last day that I've actually recruited my eyeglasses to

study more carefully some of the materials — the first time in about

six months I've had to use them. I don't know if it's the excitement of

the impending election or really the excitement of the debate that's

brought them out of their case, but I see that they're still here, at

least, and still seem to work.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: A sign of maturity, says the Minister of Health — very delicately put.

I don't intend to exhaust the subject today, but since the minister

has broached it I'll respond very briefly to the situation of the

chronically mentally ill in British Columbia.

There are no easy solutions to the problems we face, in part because

we don't generally understand anything about what causes mental

illnesses. Sometimes we think we do; we have theories on depression and

wilder theories on schizophrenia, but we basically don't know anything.

Even the drugs used to treat people with those conditions were

discovered by accident, but fortunately they are somewhat helpful to at

least assist the majority of people with depression and schizophrenia

and other mental illness to function and sometimes lead a normal life

in society. Until we learn what really causes those conditions and can

cure them or manage them more effectively than we do now, we will have

an ongoing and difficult struggle to provide a reasonable quality of

life for people with severe mental illness.

I know we have made progress in British Columbia. We no longer have

quite the same stigma attached to mental illness as we did in the past.

It's not quite so fearsome to admit that one has mental illness in the

family. It's no longer so stigmatic to be under the care of a

psychiatrist. Hopefully recent events will not have put us back in that

regard. As the medical professional cleans up its act with regard to

the abuse of patients, particularly women patients, hopefully it will

become even less of a stigma to be under the care of a psychiatrist in

the future. Although we have made some improvements, there is a long

way to go. I don't share the relative complacency of the Social Credit

government with the actual present situation.

Since the minister referred to Dr. Martha Donnelly, I'd like to

refer to something I intended to raise a little later in these debates.

She was quoted in the Vancouver Province on June 7, commenting

on the downsizing of Riverview Hospital, particularly the facilities

for the geriatric population with mental illness or dementia:

"'If you don't have the resources, you do have to lock

them up. And if you don't have the staff in the lock-up facilities, you

have to overmedicate them in order to keep it safe."'

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

article points out that Dr. Donnelly is a respected geriatric

psychiatrist active at Vancouver General Hospital. She was supporting a

resolution proposed at the recent B.C. Medical Association annual

meeting warning the provincial government of the consequences of

downsizing Riverview's geriatric division.

[ Page 12704 ]

The

article goes on to say:

"Donnelly, vice-chairman of the BCMA’s geriatrics

committee, said all the money in the world still won't divert" — I

think it means "avert" — "a catastrophe.

"'My concern is the government is not really listening

to something very basic — put the money into training, and when you get

the people trained then build the services. When you are doing

geriatrics you have to have both a medical and a psychiatric knowledge

— you have to understand how those two things interact'."

That reflects a point that Dr. Donnelly, Dr. Janet Martini and a

number of other distinguished geriatricians brought forward to the

Royal Commission on Health Care during their hearings last fall — that

is, the paucity of training positions and experienced geriatricians

both at the family practitioner level.... That point was represented

by, for example, Dr. John Sloan of Vancouver and Dr. Duncan McPherson —

I believe is the name — a prominent gerontologist from Victoria, who

participated in that submission. They brought to the attention of the

royal commission the extreme difficulty in improving the quality of

geriatric care because of the limited number of professionals with

expert training not only in medicine but also in nursing, psychology

and allied fields, such as the highly trained patient care aids or

licensed practical nurses with specialized training in the geriatric

area. Perhaps in geriatric psychiatry the situation is most difficult

of all, because by nature it's probably the most difficult field, and

it is the most frightening to both lay people and professionals not

sufficiently trained.

So I think we have some major problems there, and I share Dr.

Donnelly's concern, which was echoed in that

article by Dr. Ray Ancil,

the head of geriatric psychiatry at UBC and the director of the

geriatric program at Riverview Hospital. He was quoted as saying that

the lack of a flexible long-term geriatric game plan — not Riverview's

downsizing per se — is the biggest threat.

"If we don't plan properly, geriatrics will be in every

hospital bed, and you and I won't get in." Ancil said. "There

doesn't yet seem to be a coordinated set of plans with the timetables and

moneys set to it. We assume seniors are some alien life form, but in five, ten,

15 years, it's us." Perhaps the minister and I like to kid ourselves that we have a little bit

longer before we reach that stage, but it will come eventually, we hope.

Mr. Chairman, we know that seniors aren't an alien life form. We

have the greatest respect for our chairman in this Legislature and for

many other seniors. But the point Dr. Ancil is making is that at the

two ends of the spectrum of life, both in extreme old age — even in old

age — and in extreme youth, citizens often have a lower priority in our

society and perhaps fewer rights — or their rights are more difficult

to assure.

I think the fact that Dr. Donnelly and Dr. Ancil speak out so

clearly on an issue like this should cause all of us to feel some alarm

at the ability of our society in British Columbia to provide adequately

in the field of care for elderly people in general and particularly in

psychiatric care.

I wanted to raise that briefly. I will return to it later on in

these debates. Also because the minister referred to the downsizing of

Riverview, I thought I would just remind him — perhaps as a warning —

that we will not let him off the hook quite so easily in these

estimates debates. Downsizing has proceeded in excess of the rate of

provision of community services. I don't think there's very much

question about that. Perhaps in the last year there has been some

improvement, but there remains tremendous concern about the long-term

commitment of government to make up in the community for services

formerly delivered in institutions.

Here is an example sent to me by Mrs. Helen Hardern of Vancouver,

who quotes from a letter she received, written by the Rev. Jim Elliot

of the First United Church in Vancouver. This letter is dated May 21,

so this would have referred to an event that happened this spring. I

quote Rev. Jim Elliot:

"The other morning I responded to banging on our

church door prior to regular opening. The young woman causing the

disturbance was a disturbed person herself. She was upset as she told

me that Mona (not her real name) was asleep in our loading bay. Mona

has a drug problem and is one of the many shelterless people in our

city. As she told me of Mona's situation, the other woman wept and

said: 'No one cares.' We were able to give Mona a cup of soup, soap and

towel for a shower, some clean clothes, but not provide a place to

stay. This story is repeated in this community daily."

My correspondent Mrs. Hardern sent me a copy of a letter she sent to

the Minister of Women's Programs, seeking some particular empathy, I

suppose, with this woman's situation. Mrs. Hardern writes:

"As a woman I cannot imagine what it would be like to

be in the position of having no roof over my head, no washing

facilities, no clean clothes, no food, no bed. I wonder if you can

relate to this in any way. I can't. My question becomes: what is your

government doing, or planning to do, for women in such circumstances? I

realize that drugs can be and probably are involved in many cases, and

that many of these shelterless people are mentally disturbed, but what

is to become of them? Does anyone care?"

My answer is that many people do care, and many people remain

ignorant of that reality. It's very well hidden from us. It certainly

doesn't often permeate the walls of this Legislature. I think in the

two years and a bit that I've been here, we once had a visit from the

Friends of Schizophrenics, who brought two or three young people

suffering from schizophrenia and who perhaps sat in the gallery

briefly. But we don't often face the incursion in this sanctum of the

kind of people described in that letter.

I'm very worried about them. I'm worried also about the community's

backlash to people who are perceived as frightening or perhaps

dangerous. I've seen this recently in Vancouver in a newspaper

article

regarding citizens' reactions to a proposed new housing project or

group home by the Mental Patients' Association, a group which runs some

beautiful facilities.

The second member for Richmond and I were among others who were

invited to and visited homes. I visited one run by the Mental Patients'

Association; I think the second member for Richmond visited a different

home last fall. The one I visited was very

[ Page

12705 ]

nicely administered; it blended very nicely into

its neighbourhood. One would have never known it was anything other

than a standard apartment, and it provided perhaps lifesaving shelter

for people with severe mental illness.

There was one problem there that I could ascertain on a brief visit.

I think members thinking about this issue would be concerned in the

same way I was. I asked one of the young people there how he felt about

living in this place. He had his own very modest, small apartment and a

shared cooking area with six or eight other people, some kind of lounge

facility and some support workers intermittently. There was usually one

person, if I recall, available all the time in that apartment.

He said: "Well, it's been wonderful. It's really got me on my feet

for the first time, but I have to leave soon." "What do you mean, you

have to leave soon?" It doesn't make sense, does it, that somebody with

chronic schizophrenia who's now out of Riverview, able to function on

his own and comfortable in a modest apartment should leave if they're

functioning well there? It's completely illogical, isn't it?

His answer was: "Well, the staff are forcing me to leave." The

staff, when asked, said, "We have to, because those are our criteria.

After two years we have to let in someone who is more severely ill."

You can imagine that from the staff's point of view — and perhaps from

a bureaucratic point of view — it makes sense. From a rational, logical

human point of view, it makes no sense. Having just gone a long way to

resolve that individual's fundamental problem and provide him a secure

environment, to then say, "Now you've had your two years, your time is

up and out you go," is crazy.

I wanted to raise that issue. I see perhaps I'm exceeding my time, and I will return to the issue later on.

MR. BARNES: I'd be pleased to intervene on behalf of the

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey. His points are quite

interesting, and I'd like to hear what he has to say.

[4:15]

MR. PERRY: Did you want to respond?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the first member for Vancouver

Centre — I guess we both do — for his intervention. But the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey wants me to respond.

First of all, the member mentioned having to wear his glasses;

that's something that happens to all of us as we mature. I've always

had to wear glasses, but lately I've had to have another type of

correction so I can read — either that or get longer arms. I know what

you're going through. It happens when you're about 45. It didn't happen

to me until I was closer to 50, but these things do happen. It's a sign

of maturity.

With respect to the mental health issue, I have quite a few things to say.

I do take umbrage at the comment that we are being complacent, because that

is not correct. The evidence I'm going to present to you, Mr Chairman, and

to members of this committee, will demonstrate that. We are not complacent at

all about this issue, and I will not accept the member's accusation that

we are. We are reacting with sincere determination to the issues of geriatric

dementia and other mental health concerns. Our record is clear and extremely

good.

I'll give you an example of the Riverview downsizing. Riverview is

currently at 1,032 beds. This downsizing has occurred in order to

improve care at Riverview, as well as to enable further developments in

the community. Although we have reduced by 188 beds at Riverview, these

have been replaced by 300 beds and services in the community. Further

improvements are in the planning stages. For example, through this

restructuring process, Riverview has been able to upgrade 12 wards,

increase nurse-to-patient ratios and improve its responsiveness to

community needs by a ten-bed emergency response unit, leading to a

significant reduction in waiting-time.

Another interesting new program is the Riverview education outreach

program, which seeks to transfer the necessary knowledge and skills

required to assist the seriously mentally ill to community care

providers. In the radio interview I did early this morning, Dr.

O'Shaughnessy mentioned that those concerned welcomed the $20 million

we have put into expanding and enhancing services for the mentally ill.

In terms of better training — particularly better medical school

training — there is the Barer-Stoddart medical manpower committee now

working to provide some answers to the medical manpower demands of the

province and the country as we enter the twenty-first century. We have

made our submissions to that committee with respect to any deficits we

see in the particular skills that should be taught at medical school.

This, of course, would be one. We know, for example, that the number of

seniors and those experiencing mental illness is going to increase from

400,000 to well over 600,000 shortly — into the next century. Clearly,

if there's a discipline at medical school that must be enhanced, it is

the training of geriatric psychiatrists.

With respect to the capital infrastructure, there are a couple of

things. First of all, the member should note that in the throne speech

we did mention a legacy fund we set up from the sale of lands from

Woodlands, which will go for any capital infrastructure needed. Also,

if any lands are sold from Riverview, those proceeds will also go to a

special fund for capital infrastructure for community services for the

mentally ill.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Tranquille?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll get to Tranquille in a while.

Let me just break down our $10 million commitment to date for

increased supported housing. Questions were asked about our plan of

supported housing, and we do have the following to comment. In the

Fraser Valley, annualized costs of $400,000 to improve the

availability, quality and effectiveness of residential

[ Page 12706 ]

care support to service-providers and residents. In

the Vancouver-Richmond area, for the same type of program, $340,000. In

Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam and North

Vancouver, $100,000 to increase supported housing, which would increase

the number of workers to assist psychiatrically disabled persons to

live independently outside of hospitals and residential care

facilities. In Campbell River, Port Alberni and the Capital Regional

District, $105,000 for community residential beds. In Kamloops,

Penticton, Kelowna and Vernon, respectively $80,000, $35,000, $10,000

and $50,000 in community living support services, providing life-skills

training programs to equip people with mental illness to live in

community settings. In Kamloops and Nelson, $150,000 and $20,000

respectively, to provide intensive residential care facilities. In

Dawson Creek, $78,000 for community residential beds. In Prince George,

$40,000 for community living support, to assist staff to assist people

with mental illnesses to continue living in their own homes; also, that

same program will provide $25,000 in Williams Lake and $25,000 in 100

Mile House. In the New Westminster–Fraser Valley–North Shore

communities, $200,000 annualized, staffing and services to provide

emergency after-hours response to local communities. The list goes on

and on, until we reach the $10 million level that I spoke of earlier.

Clearly we cannot accept any criticism that says we are being

complacent with respect to this issue of community services for the

mentally ill. Mr. Chairman, the record, as I've indicated — and I'll

carry on and read more numbers if you wish — is there, and our

commitment is there. It is a priority of this government to ensure that

community resources are available for those who are suffering from

mental illnesses.

I'll take my place now, Mr. Chairman, and await further questions from the members opposite.

MR. PERRY: It's time that we get into this, Mr. Chair. Let me

give an example. Perhaps for a change we can actually have some

thoughtful and useful discussion in this committee. I see on this side

two immediately concerned members in the issue I'm about to raise: the

second member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Vancouver East,

who may also wish to express some opinion or observation.

Let me give you an example of where I don't find the government's

approach very effective. I emphasize, again, that what we are

discussing is not so much how to spend more money in British Columbia,

because the amount of money available in the Health budget is

substantial. In a year in which there's a $1.2 billion deficit, an

accumulated provincial deficit of $20 billion, there is a clear and

present limit to how much money can be spent on services. We're really

discussing much more how we assure that we meet the real basic needs of

people, and in this case the most vulnerable people in our society,

within the present funding by and large.

I'll give you an example where I have to admit I'm not impressed. I

can't claim to know the answer, but I'm not impressed by the government

approach. A couple of years ago, after meeting with the Friends of

Schizophrenics, I asked them to spend a day showing me around the lower

mainland, visiting schizophrenics on the street, in grotty rooms in

downtown old hotels, in high-quality boarding-homes, in less opulent

boarding-homes — wherever they wanted to take me. I actually visited

the new Francis Court before it was officially opened by the former

former Minister of Health. It's a wonderful facility in the riding of

the member for Vancouver East. I've visited the Coast Foundation

facilities and a boarding-home in my own riding. I also visited the

Triage facility on Main Street, just south of the Georgia Viaduct, in

what used to be a Bank of Montreal building.

Mr. Chair, it was a depressive — and in some ways a frightening —

experience. In many ways it was a moving experience not only to see the

people living in that facility but also to see the people who were

working with them. I recall that one young man who worked on my own

campaign, a university student, worked as a volunteer in that facility

at one point. Clearly in any modern society it is a very unacceptable

way to house people who are in the most severe stages of mental

illness. Perhaps the residents of Triage are better off than they used

to be in Riverview. Certainly they are better off there than sleeping

under bridges or out in the open in Vancouver. They are perhaps better

off than sleeping in a park in Comox or some other part of the

province. But nobody could possibly argue that that is a good

environment for any human being.

At the time I wrote to the ministry, raising concerns about what

could be done to.... I guess I wrote later to the ministry, after

Brother Kozinsky was in charge of the facility. He notified me in the

spring of 1990 that the lease was up on the building and that there

appeared to be no place for those people to go. I raised that concern

with various people: I attempted to convene some prominent citizens,

and even people from the business community in Vancouver. I wrote to

the Lieutenant-Governor, hoping that through his patronage he might

initiate a movement to help these people who are probably the most

destitute in our society. I had no response from anybody.

Later on, the city, I presume in conjunction with the Ministry of

Health, began to address the issue, and has clearly gone through an

extensive process of attempting to find a solution to the plight of

people now living in Triage and the plight of others on the street.

I see the minister shaking his head. Let him not misconstrue me as

suggesting the ministry or the city was heartless about this. I have to

tell you a bit more of the story to make the case and begin the

discussion.

When plans were announced earlier this year for a new Triage

facility on East Hastings in Vancouver, there was a community revolt.

Not exactly the same community revolt I alluded to earlier in the case

of the Mental Patients' Association or that which probably any member

is familiar with in their own constituency of people exhibiting the

NIMBY — not in my back yard — phenomenon. This revolt was somewhat

different.

[4:30]

The first sign of it that I was aware of, as an elected

representative and Health critic, was from John Turvey, an experienced

streetworker who works in the downtown east side with a similarly

disadvantaged popula-

[ Page

12707 ]

tion, including some of the same people but

particularly those afflicted with intravenous drug-use problems,

alcoholism, AIDS, etc. The next signs began to emerge from the

Chinese-Canadian community in Strathcona, from people who had fought

the construction of the freeway through that neighbourhood 20 years

ago. Other signs of concern began to emerge from people who have spent

most of their lives advocating for the dispossessed — people, for

example, who have worked in OXFAM in attempting to improve conditions

for very poor people in other countries. Clearly, in my

interpretation

at least, the phenomenon is not simply the same typical, vicious

NIMBYism — that it's fine for somebody else but it won't be in my back

yard. The difference was that in this case the arguments were

consistent from across that social spectrum, with very few exceptions:

that the Strathcona neighbourhood was already severely overstressed

with the population of British Columbians whom no one wants to live

elsewhere and who drift — partly because of that force, partly by

chance, partly because of their own alcoholism or schizophrenia or

whatever the underlying pressure in their life is — towards the

downtown east side of Vancouver, as they do in other big cities. But

the Strathcona area is so overstressed already that the imposition of

one more facility catering to people with the most severe psychiatric

problems in our society might be unbearable for that community.

I confess that my initial reaction was some suspicion: why are

people complaining about this? Is it the usual NIMBY phenomenon? But

when I looked at the breadth of the community concerns I became

considerably more worried, and I have attempted, for example, by

writing two months ago to the mayor of Vancouver and proposing a

meeting of a Vancouver caucus of city councillors, members of the

provincial Legislature and expanded to include professionals in that

field, patient advocates for the mentally ill and also members of the

affected community.... I've done everything I could to encourage a

process to attempt to resolve the issue in a constructive way.

It might be, for example, that a facility ought to be built on the

new Expo lands site and that not only the ultraprivileged should be

allowed to live on that site which once belonged to the people of B.C.

Maybe there's room to incorporate an ultramodern optimum facility for

people with serious mental illness close to the existing Triage

facility, close to where such people now live on the edge of the old

Expo site.

I would like to know in some detail the minister's account of what

has been the Ministry of Health's role in this issue and what solutions

he sees to this problem which right now is languishing between several

levels of government, community activists and the people with the least

power of all, the ones that the new Triage project is meant to serve.

I'd also like to invite my colleagues the second member for Vancouver Centre

and the member for Vancouver East, who may have been dealing with this issue,

to comment on it. Perhaps we can shed some light on the issue in this assembly,

since to the best of my knowledge it has not been very thoroughly debated elsewhere

in public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. members, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: It's a great pleasure to stand here today and

introduce my son, Cameron Ree, his wife Geraldine and seven-ninths of

an additional grandchild, who are in the gallery today. I'd ask this

House to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: May I offer to Mr. and Mrs. Ree my best wishes for good health. It's nice to see you here.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

First of all, the member opposite said at one point that I was

shaking my head. I wasn't shaking my head, but maybe it indicates a

need for a visit to the ophthalmologist.

I do have to take umbrage again at the comment that we're not being

effective. As a matter of fact, as the member points out, what he would

like to see happen is happening. I think the list of community care

facilities we're putting in place and the work we're doing indicates

that we are effectively dealing with this growing concern in an

efficient, expeditious and responsible manner.

With respect to the Triage society, I can give the committee a bit

of an update. This note may be a bit dated, and there may be some more

information coming, but it says this: the Triage society is a

residential resource for persons with mental illness. There's no

question, as the member has described people in that area of Vancouver,

that some of the cases and some of the circumstances are pretty grim,

as one could imagine in a big city like that. It doesn't mean they're

acceptable; nevertheless, they are grim. There are some very sad

circumstances and some very sad stories there.

The details of the site are these. The city of Vancouver owns a

parcel of land at the stated location. That will be the site at which

the Triage society plans to build a new residential facility with 28

emergency beds to replace the 28-bed Triage facility currently at Main

and Prior. In addition, this new site will have 30 bachelor suites for

the more stabilized clients who are not ready for independent living.

The tenants in these 30 bachelor suites would be provided with a

variety of in-house support services. Because the parcel of land in

question is quite large, the city of Vancouver may choose to sell part

of it to Triage and the rest to another agency which may also build

some residential accommodation for another client group such as seniors.

I can advise the committee and the members that the Triage society

and the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society are working

closely with the city of Vancouver to develop this residential resource

[ Page 12708 ]

for persons with mental illness. In-house support

services will be available. I can assure the committee, as Minister of

Health, that we will do all that is within our jurisdiction — we're not

in the housing business; that's another ministry — to ensure that the

clients of the Triage facility are looked after to the best of our

ability. We assure the committee that we are genuinely concerned with

the provision of care to all British Columbians, even those who are in

a situation like this — which, as I said earlier, in most cases is a

very sad personal situation.

MR. CLARK: I hadn't planned to enter the debate. I don't

profess to have much knowledge in the area except for anecdotal

evidence, but it is a concern as MLA for Vancouver East. I know that

the member for Vancouver Centre probably has the same problem, and it

is evident that there is an increasing number of homeless people in

Vancouver. It is evident that in certain parts of Vancouver there are

people who clearly are mentally disabled.

I'm conscious of two things when I raise this question: first, I'm

conscious of and concerned about the NIMBY approach, which is of great

concern to all of us in terms of how you cope with people and provide

services for people in communities; and secondly, I'm conscious of

discrimination against people in that position. Nevertheless, it's

absolutely clear that if you walk in my riding at Broadway and

Commercial Drive, for example, there are several people who clearly are

not able to take care of themselves, who clearly have serious mental

handicaps — problems — and who clearly are panhandling, with all kinds

of problems associated with that in terms of safety and the concern

that people have.

As the MLA for the constituency, I get phone calls on this question.

It appears obvious — this is a causal link which the minister can

refute if he'd like; I don't have any problem if he does — to residents

in parts of my community and to me as the MLA that there's a causal

relationship between shutting down institutions and the increased

problems associated in parts of my community, my neighbourhood and my

riding with people who have these kinds of problems.

It's a concern, I must tell you, to constituents. It's a concern

that I get as an MLA, and it's one with which I have a great deal of

difficulty dealing as the MLA. I don't want to make political points on

a question like this. I don't want to just say it's the government's

fault, or deinstitutionalization is the fault, or whatever. But

nevertheless, as a layperson, the anecdotal evidence is very clear:

there are more people on the streets today who have problems, are

unstable and who are causing problems and concerns for people in the

constituency.

So it appears to me, again as a layperson, that the government is

not doing enough to deal with these problems, and I think they're

problems largely caused by deinstitutionalization. I completely support

the move to deinstitutionalization, but the services.... There's

clearly a gap there, or at least it appears to me to be a gap. I wonder

if the minister could address that and give some comfort to my

constituents who phone me with these concerns about people and problems

There is the threat that people feel in terms of safety when there

is this increased number of homeless and panhandlers and the like who

clearly do not have total control of their mental faculties.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll just briefly respond, Mr. Chairman. I

see my good friend from Vancouver Centre wants to enter into the

debate. I'll be more than happy to hear his comments as well.

It is upsetting when one hears of the NIMBY syndrome, and we hear it

whenever any societal group wants to put someone who doesn't really fit

the neighbourhood norm into housing in that neighbourhood. I've seen

examples of it in Prince George, and I'm sure every MLA in this chamber

could recount examples of trying to provide housing for those people

who are maybe just a bit different than what the neighbourhood has

traditionally housed. But I think there is a good awareness in society

that we have a responsibility to provide housing. We have a

responsibility to be better neighbours and to be more aware of those

people who are less fortunate than ourselves, and we should welcome

them into our community.

The downsizing of Riverview has not gone on without an awful lot of

care and attention being put into backup and support of community

resources. As I said earlier, there is a $20 million commitment to

that. The medical opinion that I heard today while I was discussing

this issue on an open-line show indicated solid support for government

initiatives in terms of providing this community support. As I said,

it's an enhancement of $20 million to our program, and we are

increasing that.

I don't think there's any question, though, as the member for

Vancouver East points out, that as people come out of institutions....

And there's nothing wrong with that, because I think as a society we

would all be prepared to take a bit more risk on the street and in our

communities to ensure that someone is not incarcerated and kept in some

of those really deplorable, almost nineteenth-century conditions. I

think society is ready to take a slight risk in terms of having those

people back in the community.

But I do maintain that we have, through many support groups.... The

Ministry of Health doesn't run these. We pay for them, vet them and

encourage them, and do everything we can to help them. But through the

expertise and work of many groups in our communities — societies and

agencies that provide this type of care — we are providing the backup

support for those people who are becoming deinstitutionalized.

I recognize the member for Vancouver East.... I recognize the

concern they have in their neighbourhood, and I can assure him that all

concerns that he brings to this ministry, and to me in particular, will

be addressed in any way we can. I'm aware of his concerns and the

concerns of his neighbourhood and his community, but it's our

commitment to downsize the institutions whenever possible and to

deinstitutionalize. It's also our commitment to all communities that

whenever we are putting more people into the commu-

[ Page

12709 ]

nity, we will provide adequate community backup services in every way we can.

[4:45]

MR. PERRY: I don't want to derail the minister's and our

train of thought. I'll come back to this issue in one moment. I had

planned that we would probably get into it in the third or fourth week

of the Health estimates debate. But since we're into it, I will come

back. I had promised to attempt to allay some anxieties of people in

Vancouver on another issue. I realize we're already getting close to

our deadline, given the amount of discussion we can continue on the

Triage.

I'd like to change the subject briefly for a moment. News reports

yesterday alarmed a lot of people about the future treatment of babies

born to mothers