1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 5

[ Page 737 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, it is my honour to introduce a visitor seated in the members' gallery this afternoon: the Malaysian consul general in Vancouver, Mr. Zinal Zain. Would the members of the House please join me in welcoming our visitor.

R. Neufeld: I have two people that I would like to introduce. One is my right-hand person in Fort St. John, who works in my constituency office, Dorene Callison; the other is the mayor of Fort St. John, Mr. Steve Thorlakson. Would the House make them truly welcome.

C. Evans: I'd like to introduce a few fine people who came to visit us today. They are members of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union -- the kind of people who pay the money to keep us here. Please join me in welcoming Jack Nichol, Nick Carr, Burma Lockett, Jim Sinclair, Bjorn Storness-Bliss, Brian Averill, Linda van Dorn, Sue Averill, Janet Duplisse, Jeanie Park, Raphaella McLean, Bob Grant, David Lane, Mary Douglas, Verna Heaney, Dan Kruk, Lorne Iverson, Dale Mundy, Mary Teranishi, Joyce Yamamoto, Lila Craig, Jackie Campbell and Lorry Foster.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the Legislature the grade 5 to 6 students from Monterey Elementary School who are in the Speaker's gallery along with their teacher Mr. Toleikis. They have just spent the last half hour talking to me about what it's like to be an MLA, and they asked some very good questions.

Oral Questions

SENDING PATIENTS OUT OF PROVINCE

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, last week the government announced with some ceremony that they were going to start to fly patients out of British Columbia to Washington and to Alberta -- those people who required essential care. My question to the minister is: of the approximately 120 people that we understand are on a waiting-list, how many people has this province actually sent out of the province for medical care since last Thursday?

Hon. E. Cull: I'd just like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the patients who are being sent out of province are being sent on the advice of a physicians' panel. To date they have determined that two patients needed to be sent to Alberta for treatment: one for cancer surgery and one for cardiac surgery.

G. Wilson: My understanding then is that of the total 120 discussed last week, only two have gone out of the province.

I refer in my supplementary to the report by the BCMA president, Dr. Gur Singh, who says that the government's move to send more than 100 cardiac and cancer patients south for treatment is unnecessary, and he suggests further in this letter that the only crisis that we have -- and indeed he recognizes there is a crisis -- is the inability of this government to make action possible to resolve the health care crisis in the province in the HEU dispute. Could the minister then tell us what action she is prepared to take today to initiate some kind of settlement in what has become a real crisis in health care provision in B.C.?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, the number of 100 patients came from the BCMA; it did not come from the Ministry of Health. As I said in response to questions along this line last week, we anticipate that very few people will actually have to go out of province for needed medical care. Essential services are the way that we respond to emergency medical care. I have been advised on a daily basis by the major hospitals as to their status with respect to essential services.

As of today, the reports I have are that all essential services are being met, and in fact a number of the hospitals are back at the IRC, expanding the number of beds that they are allowed to have open. And they have been successful in having this approved.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary to the Minister of Health. Insofar as the Minister of Labour is absent, could the Minister of Health then tell us what this government intends to do to try and bring a resolution to this question? When it was put to the minister that binding arbitration might be a solution, it was suggested that the government didn't wish to do that because the settlement may be more than the government was prepared to pay HEU workers. Would the minister now tell the House what plan of action she has to bring about resolution to this crisis in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware, this is a dispute between the hospital labour relations association and one of the unions whose workers they employ. I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that fact. He asks what steps are being taken. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am disappointed that the gap between the two parties is so large in this set of negotiations. Because of that and because the negotiations are broken down, I have requested the Minister of Labour meet tomorrow with the parties.

FAIR WAGE POLICY

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the Minister confirm that the fair wage or fixed wage policy does not apply to the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels, snow sheds, drainage, that sort of construction project?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Fair Wage Act does not apply to highway construction.

[ Page 738 ]

L. Hanson: Supplementary to the Premier. Has there been a change in the application of the fair wage policy since it was originally introduced to us? Has there been a change in the application of the policy?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not sure of the specific way that the hon. member thinks that there has been a change. He just heard from the Minister of Transportation and Highways that it does not apply to highway construction, maintenance. So I don't really understand what change he's aware of. I'm not aware of any.

L. Hanson: For clarification, I have in front of me a request for a tender on a project that is described as the excavation of a 420-foot tunnel, approximately 22 feet wide by 30 feet high, at the Revelstoke Dam. A second tender is invited for the excavation of approximately 8,000 yards of overburden, 6,000 yards of rock drainage and road paving and rehabilitation slope protection. The question is asked of B.C. Hydro: does the fair wage policy and skills policy apply?

Hydro's answer is yes, it does apply. Then there's obviously some change in the direction we were originally led to believe the fair wage policy applied to.

The Speaker: Hon. member, to whom was that question directed?.

L. Hanson: The question -- if there is some confusion -- was directed to the Premier. I asked the Premier if there was some change in the application of the fair or fixed wage policy as to what it applied to. The suggestion was that no, he didn't know of any change. I'm suggesting that our understanding of the application of that policy was that it did not involve tunnels and road construction and that sort of thing; and yet one of the Crown corporations is applying it to that project. Has the government changed their application of the fair wage policy?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member is mixing apples and peaches, and he should know that Crown corporations are included under that fair wage policy. This is a construction project that involves a tunnel and bridge, I would assume, by the Revelstoke dam that collapsed by the spillway and is part of the dam facility.

CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX

F. Gingell: To the Premier. B.C. business leaders were amazed yesterday to hear, on your return from Washington and Oregon, you advise them that their tax rates are competitive with the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Does this mean this government anticipates that those states will bring in a competing corporate capital tax?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm going to need the assistance of a linguist to interpret those three questions in one, but I'll attempt to do that.

I can tell the member that the response I had in Portland was very positive -- from the governors of Washington, Oregon and Idaho -- to working cooperatively on the question of this very hypocritical and vexatious countervail on log exports.

But there are some areas where we're friendly competitors. It's not me saying that we are competitive; the Ministry of Economic Development had a study commissioned that showed that in the area of high tech we were very competitive, if not more so, than Oregon, Washington and California, and that was backed up by the independent work of an accounting firm the opposition would, I'm sure, approve of -- Price Waterhouse.

F. Gingell: I note this study that you refer to is a hypothetical plan. The opposition is more interested in jobs in plants that are still here. Will the Premier please table this report, and will this Premier commit to investigate each actual and threatened relocation of business south of the border so that we can stop dealing with the hypothetical and start dealing with the real world?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not interested in hypothetical businesses or hypothetical questions. I am interested in making sure that we have new businesses coming here. I can assure the member that new businesses are coming here. If the member would like to know more about this particular study and the backup work that was done by Price Waterhouse, I'm sure the minister would be willing to inform him of that.

At the appropriate time, that report will be tabled. We'd we more than delighted to talk to you about it and to look at ways that we could encourage new businesses to come here. I'm sure the member would back the trade initiatives that I've taken so far, and will be continuing.

F. Gingell: I'm interested in your world tour, when you were drumming up business for British Columbia. At that time did you tell potential investors about the corporation capital tax? Did you tell them that we would be hitting the business sector with $400 million in increased taxes? Did you say: "Come to B.C., invest your money and we'll tax your assets"? Or was your invitation for them to come as a tourist on their way to setting up businesses on the U.S. west coast?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Quite frankly, I am pleased to welcome visitors here as investors, tourists or whatever. I'd encourage them to come as both. That was exactly what I did when I visited Asia and when I went to New York.

As a matter of fact, the member should know that the response of the New York bond agencies to our latest $500 million bond issue was very positive. The response came after the budget, and our borrowing rate went down four points. I think that's a very positive response. As a matter of fact, there was a press release issued by one of those bond-rating agencies saying that this is the government that had the courage to do what it said it was going to do.

When I was there last January or February, I said that deficit financing was not acceptable to this

govern-

[ Page 739 ]

ment and that we were going to cap the deficit and reduce it to below $2 billion. We did that, and that showed up in the fine rating we got in New York with that $500 million placement.

ABORIGINAL TITLE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. Last Thursday he made a ministerial statement in the House. At that time he made a couple of significant statements. The first was that the government recognizes the existence of aboriginal rights, that may be described as an interest in land sui generis. Yesterday the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs advised the House that in his opinion there was no difference between that statement and the statement that the government would recognize aboriginal title; in his mind both were the same.

The second statement that the minister made was that the government recognizes that a blanket extinguishment of aboriginal rights -- the same word again -- throughout the province did not occur at any time.

Those two statements taken together appear to me to be a direct contradiction of the decision of the Chief Justice in the Delgam Uukw case. How can the government on one hand pretend to suggest that aboriginal title was not extinguished, how can it make those statements, while on the other hand pretending to argue in the courts that in fact aboriginal title was extinguished?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, my comments last week in the House in the ministerial statement had to do with the instructions to counsel on the government's behalf in respect of the argument in the appeal, which begins in about three or four weeks or so.

The factum in that appeal is being filed tomorrow, I expect, and in that factum we have -- as I indicated to the House -- revised some of the arguments and some of the positions taken by the previous government. I think it's important for British Columbians to understand it; in fact for all members of this House to understand that there exists much confusion in people's minds around the terms "aboriginal rights" or "aboriginal title." The terms are in many cases by many people used interchangeably.

Interestingly there is a very positive response on the public's part to the term "aboriginal rights," and among some people, including members of the third party, a relatively negative response to the term "aboriginal title," when in fact in the case before the appeal court the terms are interchangeable.

Aboriginal title does not in any way convey....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, if the answer's too long, I'll sit down.

The Speaker: Attorney General, if you could wrap up your comments, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Aboriginal title does not in any way convey a sense of title in the fee simple sense that we Europeans understand it.

L. Reid: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House, to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the crisis in delivery of health care services in our province due to the labour dispute between hospital workers and their employers. Advance notice has been given to the Chair under practice recommendation No. 8.

This dispute, which has lasted 14 days, has now reached a critical stage where patient care is being seriously threatened. The B.C. Health Association said today that 423 more surgeries were cancelled at 29 hospitals from April 7 to April 10, bringing the total number of cancellations during the labour dispute to nearly 2,700 surgeries. The silent, suffering, elderly British Columbians requiring immediate care, patients needing critical treatment and surgery are being seriously affected by this dispute.

Today as talks in the labour dispute have broken off, and we face the threat of a full-scale provincewide strike, there is a need for an emergency debate in this House on this crucial matter of urgent public importance.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In helping the Speaker to come to a decision about the appropriateness of this request under standing order 35, I think it's important for the Speaker to know that the Industrial Relations Council has been and is dealing with the issue of essential services, and has made modifications to the previous order. It's important for the Speaker to know as well that the Minister of Labour, as indicated by the Premier a few minutes ago, is meeting with the parties tomorrow and that in fact no emergency exists in British Columbia in this respect.

J. Weisgerber: I would support the opposition's call for a debate. I believe we have waited for two weeks in this House for some positive response from the government. We've been patient, we've waited, and in fact there has been no response other than: "We're going to do something tomorrow." Yesterday the Minister of Labour advised us he was going to find a quick resolution to the problem. We find today he's in Ottawa. There in fact is no real focus by the government on this issue, and I think the intent of the request for an emergency debate is to focus the government's attention on what is becoming an emergency in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Hon. member, is this a submission on this application?

D. Mitchell: Yes it is, hon. Speaker. With respect to the guidance that's been offered to the Chair already on this, particularly from the acting government House Leader, the standing order 35 deals with an emergency situation, where there's an urgent need to debate a matter.

[ Page 740 ]

The submission made by the member for Richmond East deals not with the industrial relations aspect of the current dispute affecting hospital workers in the province but with the need to debate the matter today. Contract talks have broken off. This is an urgent situation, a matter of definite urgent public importance.

We believe that this submission should be ruled in favour of because of the need to debate this in the House today. It's critical today. We're not dealing with a continuing problem or an industrial relations issue. We're dealing with an issue affecting more than 2,700 British Columbians today. It's a definite matter of urgent public importance, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you for the submissions, hon. members. I will return my opinion as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think we may have our procedures in place now for how we deal with the committee. I'd like to announce that the House now go into Committee of Supply:

section A in the Douglas Fir Room,

section B in this chamber. Votes 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Ministry of Attorney-General are referred to

section A. The sitting of

section A shall begin in five minutes in the Douglas Fir Room.

[2:30]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR

MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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

D. Mitchell: I'd like to thank the minister for the comments she made before we adjourned at noon today. We were dealing with an important matter. The minister made a commitment that the youth health survey certainly would not be administered or distributed to students in the province of British Columbia without the express consent of their parents. I thank the minister for that commitment, because that's what we were looking for in our discussion this morning. There may be further comments on that particular survey by other members, but certainly I would like to go on to a different topic now.

I have a question with respect to facilities issues, in particular with respect to two school districts -- West Vancouver School District 45 and Howe Sound School District 48. Before I ask a couple of specific questions with respect to those two school districts in particular, I would like to ask the hon. minister about her budget. Her budget contains capital construction provisions for some $582 million in the 1992-1993 fiscal year.

I'd like to ask the minister if she could share with us how that $582 million is going to be distributed, roughly speaking, on a provincewide basis, and whether or not that $582 million of school capital construction is going to be covered by the government's proposed fair wage policy, which has been discussed in the House as well.

Hon. A. Hagen: I advised the House earlier about the fact that there is a capital budget. It's separate from the operating budget. Debt services are included in the estimates that we are dealing with. The process by which approvals for various capital projects are chosen is a matter of very close collaborative work between my ministry and the school districts. Although it's not a subject for this particular debate, because it belongs under the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, I will advise that the policy of the government applies to projects that are $1.5 million and more.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for her answer. While I appreciate that this issue relating to the fair wage policy does relate to the Minister of Labour, I think it is a vital issue here, with respect to the capital construction part of her own budget, which is a significant portion of that budget.

I believe that the school districts around the province would want to know whether or not they have the ability, on their own, to manage the allocation of those funds for construction projects and upgrading projects of schools in various districts in the most cost-effective manner, so that they can get the greatest value for these taxpayers' dollars, or whether they're going to have this fair wage policy imposed upon them.

I take it, from the minister's response, that any project in excess of $1.5 million will be subject to the so-called fair wage policy of the government....

The Chair: Pardon me. With the greatest respect, hon. member, the matter that you are discussing is under consideration for future legislation, and as such would not be an appropriate matter for discussion in Committee of the Whole.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the government has repeatedly told us in the House that there is no legislation forthcoming on the so-called fair wage policy, so this is not a matter for future consideration under legislation at all. In fact, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I really believe it's important to address this issue, because school districts are very concerned about the allocation of precious capital construction dollars.

While I don't intend to pursue this to any length at all, I simply wanted to establish -- and I have; the minister has confirmed it -- that the fair wage policy is going to apply to the $582 million in her budget for capital construction costs, and that any project in any school district that is in excess of $1.5 million is going to be governed by the fair wage policy, which does not require legislation, according to what the government has told us in the House.

I would therefore like to ask one final question of the minister on this. Given that $582 million is certainly not going to satisfy all the needs of all the school districts in the province, it doesn't make sense to tie the hands of the school districts with this policy. Would it not make better sense to allow the school districts to spend those moneys as they see fit to try to maximize the value of those precious dollars for construction and renovation

pro-

[ Page 741 ]

jects, without imposing this fair wage policy on them?

Hon. A. Hagen: Although the member is clearly talking about something that is in the domain of another ministry, let me just advise him that the policy of government has always applied to funds that flow through to school districts, and that my ministry and school districts will work very carefully and diligently to maximize the effective use of those dollars.

D. Mitchell: With respect to School District 45, West Vancouver, there's currently a controversy relating to facilities, and the minister has certainly received representation on this matter -- as have I and the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. It's a difficult issue because it has divided the community and has pitted one neighbourhood against another.

I refer to the controversy relating to the proposal to basically eliminate Hillside Middle school in West Vancouver, to dispose of the assets relating to that school, and to use the proceeds to build a new school in the western portion of the municipality of West Vancouver at Caulfeild Plateau. It's a controversial proposal which has, as I indicated, split the community. It's a difficult issue, and I know the school board is having some difficulties with it.

Could the minister tell the committee whether her ministry has taken a position on this issue, and whether there are any general guidelines offered to school districts that come up with these kinds of proposals, that are innovative, but certainly cause some concerns in communities when existing facilities are phased out, and there is an attempt effectively to sell them off so that funds can be raised to build a new or more modern school?

Hon. A. Hagen: The issue that the member raises is not in our current capital plan, and I would just note again that the district is working through a discussion on its priorities, and will share that with our ministry.

D. Mitchell: One last question for the minister. Does the Ministry of Education have any policy or guidelines that it would provide to school districts who wish to develop innovative solutions to modernizing schools, because sufficient funds are not provided in the budget to address all school districts' concerns and needs to modernize, build new schools and renovate existing facilities?

When a school district comes forward with a proposal such as the one we have in West Vancouver, where there is a proposal to sell off an existing school and to use the proceeds of that sale, or of the possible development of the land involved, to essentially build a new school, does the ministry provide any direction or guidance, or does it have an opinion on this?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to provide the member with a copy of the guidelines on capital projects which the ministry makes available to school districts.

D. Mitchell: I'll move on to another question relating to School District 48, Howe Sound; again it's a facilities issue, relating to the northern portion of this district. It relates to a concern about Whistler, Pemberton and Squamish. We have high schools in Squamish and Pemberton. There is currently a concern as to whether the small but growing community of Whistler warrants a high school of its own. I know the minister has appointed a facilitator in this matter to inquire into the needs and concerns that have been expressed both from trustees and from various communities.

Could the minister indicate to the committee today the status of the facilitator's report, whether that facilitator's report will be made public, and the rough timing for that?

Hon. A. Hagen: The district is in the process of examining its future needs and plans with the help of a facilitator, and in due course, I'm sure, the outcome of that work will be made known to the members of the community of Whistler and the Howe Sound School District.

D. Mitchell: The minister has confirmed what I think is already known publicly when she indicates "in due course." Is it possible to be more specific than that? This is an issue of real concern in School District 48, particularly in the northern portion. Does the facilitator have a mandate that goes beyond looking at facilities management? Is the facilitator also taking a look at the composition of the board and the number of trustees from various communities? Does the facilitator's mandate go beyond facilities management per se? Does it deal with other concerns in the Howe Sound School District?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, I note that the facilitator is employed by the board, and the member may wish to discuss with the board the terms of reference the school board has with the facilitator.

D. Mitchell: I'm not searching or fishing for information here; I'm simply seeking an answer. My understanding is that the facilitator was appointed by the minister pursuant to a visit to the school district, which I understand was one of her first visits to a school district after she assumed the position of Minister of Education. I understood that the facilitator was appointed by the minister and given a mandate. While the facilitator may be working with the board, I simply ask if the minister can provide information to this committee today as to the terms of reference for the facilitator and the expected timing for the receipt of the report.

Hon. A. Hagen: As the member noted, I met with the Howe Sound School District, and we discussed some of their concerns. To facilitate the work that they wished to do, I indicated that we would support them in their wish to have a facilitator. That support is 50 percent of the cost of the facilitator. We provided some names; they could choose whoever they wished and set the terms of reference for the work the facilitator would do on their behalf.

[ Page 742 ]

D. Mitchell: At this point I'll move on to another issue. I would like to talk again about an issue relating to School District 45, West Vancouver. But it goes beyond that, and I think it is an issue that has relevance provincewide. It started with a fairly recent story relating to Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver appointing or hiring a development office to raise funds privately for Sentinel Secondary. I wonder if the minister could share with this committee whether or not the Ministry of Education has any general guidelines or policy dealing with high schools and their abilities to raise funds privately.

There is a serious concern about this. Many schools throughout the province are looking for alternative means to raise money -- through alumni of high schools in the community. There are various fund-raising drives, and that's nothing new to schools in British Columbia. Many of our best schools throughout the province have been very creative over the course of time in terms of various fund-raising programs and activities to supplement programs in their schools, whether they be for travel abroad or in the province or for raising money for special projects.

Recently this controversy was livened up a little by Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver hiring a development officer with the specific purpose of raising funds.

I would like to ask the minister if she could provide this committee with any information about the ministry's position on this kind of activity, and whether or not this is the wave of the future. Are high schools throughout the province going to have to look toward private fund-raising increasingly as a means of funding basic programs -- core programs -- in schools simply because of the serious crisis in underfunding in our schools today?

[2:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: The School Act requires that each school district provide education programs to the children in their district free of charge. Boards have the autonomy to set policies, including policies around fund-raising, consistent with their bylaws. Any board in the province will have the autonomy to take those decisions.

D. Mitchell: As with the few previous questions I've asked, I'm not going to pursue this at any length. I'm simply asking the minister to tell us what leadership the Ministry of Education is willing to provide in some of these areas. It's simply not sufficient to say that school districts can manage their own affairs if, in fact, they're not given the resources to manage their own affairs.

We can aspire to the ideal of autonomy for school districts in a number of areas relating to the management of their school district, their schools and curriculum, but what I'm looking for today in this committee is some demonstration of leadership on the part of this minister and the Ministry of Education in a few very basic areas. These are not necessarily controversial areas; there is no element of partisanship here.

I'm simply asking for some commitment from this minister and in the budget estimates we're reviewing right now for 1992-1993 to some leadership and guidance for some school districts who are asking questions -- they're not complicated questions -- on this particular matter of private fund-raising activities for schools.

Does the Minister of Education support the idea that individual schools should be going out, whether it's on a pilot-project basis or on a permanent basis, and hiring development officers and private fund-raisers to raise money so that they can either engage in activities relating to their basic core activities of school program curriculum development, exchange programs and what have you, or go over and above the existing programs to develop enriched programs for curriculum development? What is the minister's position on this?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, we've spent a great deal of time over the last three days in this estimates debate examining the resources that the provincial government makes available to school districts to provide education programs for their children. I think it's also been clear in these discussions that I have a great deal of respect for decisions that local school districts take in policies that affect their districts, and I know that those school districts are guided by the principles of our School Act and the values we hold to ensure that every child has an opportunity for an education.

The principles of fairness and equity apply. They then are translated into decisions that local school districts take. The member is referring to one school district that has developed some policies. There are many school districts that have policies in respect to fund-raising. I would hope that they would engage in those policy discussions with parents and the community and arrive at statements of principles and guidelines for any fund-raising that goes on within their communities.

All of us from time immemorial have been involved with the ways in which communities support schools, and I believe that school districts are indeed the place for those policies to be discussed thoroughly within the general principles of a free education to every student within British Columbia.

D. Mitchell: Just one more time on this question.

We need to know whether this government and this Minister of Education are willing to commit the resources that are necessary to provide the educational services that our young people in British Columbia need and deserve -- whether that commitment is there and whether leadership is coming from this minister and from her ministry, or whether school districts now need to be harnessing the creativity, energy and drive within their communities, families, alumni and support groups of the schools within school districts so that private fund-raising efforts and initiatives can be developed to provide the basic educational services that are supposed to be provided through the Ministry of Education as a funding mechanism, or for enhanced programs as well.

There are two dimensions to this question: (1) is the commitment there to provide the funding so that we don't have to rely on private fund-raising; and (2) if private fund-raising is to be encouraged, if the minister is looking to school districts to come up with proposals, does that mean she

[ Page 743 ]

supports the idea that if an individual school district or school has the ability to raise funds that will allow for enriched programs to be developed, technology programs to be built into school programming or other kinds of advanced programs developed in schools, that is the way we should be going in British Columbia? Does the minister support that? It's a simple question.

Hon. A. Hagen: The supplying of resources for education is a provincial responsibility, and it's something that local school districts take as a very important part of their role. We have many ways in which local communities enhance, enrich and augment the schooling that is offered within our school systems. I applaud those initiatives. I could talk about many ways in which local communities have assisted with the enrichment of the educational opportunity in our schools. It's a Canadian tradition, I believe.

The member is looking at one particular school district and asking for my comment. I have commented that the policy should be well and thoroughly canvassed in that district, as in any other district. We have noted over the past three days our commitment to education in terms of the resources available for the operating of schools right across the province with equity, fairness and consistency, the fundamental principles for enhancing the school buildings and in proceeding with educational change. It's a challenge for all of us, and we as a government are committed to human and financial resources to that end.

D. Mitchell: One other question on a different topic.

I note the government has made provision for declaring sections of the Ombudsman Act that have been previously unproclaimed. This would allow the ombudsman's office to investigate concerns and questions that come from the general public dealing with school districts, which previously have not been covered by the office of the ombudsman. In the budget for the 1992-93 fiscal year, has the minister made any special provisions in the administrative portion of the budget for addressing or dealing with the volume of inquiries that may be anticipated through this new level of scrutiny that may result from this

section of the Ombudsman Act being proclaimed?

Hon. A. Hagen: We have signalled our intent to proclaim that long-unproclaimed

section of the Ombudsman Act. The member may wish, when we come in this House to debate the estimates of the ombudsman's office, to make inquiries about the implications it may have for the office of the ombudsman.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments, but I wasn't asking about the office of the ombudsman; I was asking about the Ministry of Education and whether or not this decision -- a good decision on the part of this government -- to proclaim these sections of the Ombudsman Act that have not yet been proclaimed may have any budgetary impact on the Ministry of Education. It hasn't happened yet, but there has been an indication we can expect this.

If a number of inquiries, complaints and concerns of citizens dealing with school districts might now be expected or anticipated, does that have any budgetary implications for the Ministry of Education in terms of the responses that are going to be required, from either individual schools or school districts? If it does, can the minister tell us whether or not her budget provides for that?

The Chair: Before the minister responds, I should caution the opposition House Leader that while the Ombudsman Act is in place, the

section he's speaking of is not yet proclaimed law, and does fall under the standing orders which prohibit the discussion of legislation that is before the House. It is not yet law. I'm not suggesting that there is no relationship, but be cautioned by the nature of the question.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would just very briefly repeat my comment that it's appropriate for the member to ask questions when the ombudsman's estimates are here. I would note that the ministry is currently within the ambit of the ombudsman, as are all ministries of government.

D. Mitchell: Thank you for your comments. I take it from your answer that no special provision has been made in your budget for dealing with this, and that's fine. We'll monitor with interest how this all works out once the sections of the Ombudsman Act are proclaimed, and see whether in fact they do have any impact on your ministerial budget.

I have one other question, and it deals with what we have been discussing for the few days that we have been reviewing your estimates. I think it is a theme that has been developing here: the serious state of underfunding of education and the provision of educational services to our schools in British Columbia. We're talking now of K to 12. I understand that as a result of the serious state of underfunding, many school districts are now looking at laying off teachers in large numbers. This relates particularly to school districts in the lower mainland; it certainly relates to the two school districts that I've been asking questions about -- in particular West Vancouver.

I would like to know if the minister or the Ministry of Education has given any thought or consideration to responding to school district proposals for allowing for early retirement programs for teachers, which would allow the issue of teacher layoffs to be dealt with in perhaps a more manageable and humane way -- in a way that can be managed more easily. I understand that the whole issue of pensions is part of the block funding formula.

But would any consideration be given to the idea of removing the whole matter of pensions from the block funding formula, so that individual school districts on their own initiative could develop early retirement programs -- perhaps enriched early retirement programs -- to allow some of their older, more experienced teachers to accept early retirement voluntarily, and in that way deal with a situation where layoffs were not required?

[ Page 744 ]

It is a serious financial crisis that we are facing in education today. This early retirement option might be one tool that individual school districts in a number of areas of the province could use to alleviate the situation, without taking the draconian measures that we've seen over the last number of days, with announcements of massive layoffs, particularly in the lower mainland.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm delighted to welcome you to the chair. I haven't had the pleasure of being in the House when you've been there.

To part of the question: we canvassed it extensively yesterday, and I don't believe that I should take the time of the House to deal with it again.

But on the specific question of whether boards have the option to institute early retirement packages on their own, some boards have done that, and it's my understanding that yes, they may do that.

G. Wilson: I have a particular concern with respect to the funding of special-needs children. I'd like to turn my attention to the whole question of mainstreaming and the commitment that this government is prepared to make to the process of mainstreaming young British Columbians into the classroom. Could the minister elaborate, first and foremost, on the philosophy of this ministry with respect to the mainstreaming of young children who have both physical and mental handicaps and who are mentally and physically challenged?

Whatever the commitment may be, to what extent is that going to translate into funds that will make it possible for teachers to have adequately trained and properly placed teacher assistants?

Hon. A. Hagen: A good question. The philosophy and direction of government is: the least restrictive environment for a suitable education for children. This is an approach that encourages them to be a part of the community school in which their family or guardians reside. We had some considerable discussion yesterday about the financial resources available to school districts, in the broad sense, from our budget.

[3:00]

The point that the member makes about training is a valid and important point, because we are moving now to some new ways of having these children be a part of their community schools. I've had discussions with teachers and with learning assistants around those needs.

I know it's a part of districts' professional development and in-service work, a part of our concerns, and it's something I believe too -- we talked yesterday about working with other ministries -- that we would want to work on, both from a school district perspective and from a ministry perspective, in cooperation with the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training. In many ways there are new initiatives we need to take around the use of technology and around the scope of learning -- the infinite capacity for children to learn -- as we learn better how to help them learn.

It's my view too that as we learn more about the education of children with special needs, we actually learn more about the education of all children and that the learning here is applicable in a very broad sense to the classroom environment and to the teaching methodology. The training issue is an ongoing one, and we are working on that on a whole variety of fronts with school districts and with the advanced education movement.

I note too that there is a lot of work that is done in the field by collaborative effort. The Focus '92 conference that's being held in Victoria this week has 700 or 800 attendees, many of them from British Columbia. The Independence '92 conference which starts in about two weeks in Vancouver is very much around the ways in which people with disabilities are incorporated, integrated and welcomed into all aspects of our society, including our schools.

One of the excellent aspects of these programs is the working relationships between parents, advocacy groups, training groups, school boards and the ministry. That's part of the enrichment that we often talk about as we accept the challenge of all children having the opportunity for an education that will take them to the furthest point that they can possibly achieve, even if they come with major challenges to their learning, as many of these youngsters do.

G. Wilson: Certainly those in the Liberal opposition welcome the focus on children with special challenges, those that are physically and mentally challenged, and that we would support an integration of those children into the system.

From our point of view we recognize that there are three component parts to this issue within the educational framework.

Training is clearly one -- training with respect not only to the teachers but also to those that are learning-assistant trained as well as those that are providing assistance and support within the school system. I refer to librarians, to people that are involved in counselling and counselling services and those kinds of areas, where there is going to have to be a broadening of the training available where integration takes place.

The second, however, is one that is specifically and directly related to funding. I wonder, on that matter, if I might come back in just a moment to asking the minister what kind of comparative ratio there may be with respect to the cost per student for those classes where there is limited or no integration and the cost where integration does occur. Perhaps I can just serve notice that I would like to come back to that, and if there is some information available it might give some time to find those figures.

The third part, and I think a very important part, is not only the integration within the education system but integration in society generally, and how the school interacts with community and how community interacts with the school. That means more than just the question of the parent and the family. It also means other support services -- other societies and organizations in the community -- being integrated into the education process, therefore becoming a component part of the overall approach to the integration of children with special needs.

[ Page 745 ]

Having said that then, on the matter of training I think that we can take the minister's word that there is going to be a greater degree of commitment, effort and attention, particularly with respect to the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training, to look after those concerns. We welcome that, and we'd be anxious to find out what kind of dollar commitment is there, particularly with respect to teachers already in service and to what extent special leaves may be available to teachers who wish to upgrade or expand their services through increased training. I would like to come back to that.

There is a matter with respect to duplication of funds, funds that are currently available in other line ministries, namely Social Services, particularly in those areas where there are families that require assistance and have children that have special needs, and therefore there is an added burden because of the financial requirements of that family, to the extent that the Education ministry and the Ministry of Social Services may have discussed, prior to the establishment of this budget, matters that would eliminate duplication of costs and would start to bring together a more coordinated approach in terms of the delivery of services to those families.

Quite clearly the needs of the child in the school don't end at 3 o'clock when the child goes home; the need of that child is carried right throughout the evening to the next morning.

Those are the areas where we would like to focus our attention. I outlined them so that you have some understanding of where I'm going in my line of questioning. So let me come back to the question of training, which is the first point that I put forward. To what extent is the government committed to making funds available to people currently employed in the system who may wish to have funds made available for upgrading so that they can deal with children already integrated into the service? To what extent is money available to expand the training facility for teachers facing special-needs challenges in their classrooms?

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I can deal with a number of the matters that the Leader of the Opposition raised. The issue of support for children in the system depends on where the child is -- what district. It's the same funding, but if there isn't a deaf child in a district, there obviously isn't funding for a deaf child in that district. We do look especially at the needs of the highly challenged youngsters. The cost of educating some of these youngsters can be as high as $40,000 a year, depending on the extent of the challenge or the disability. We start with the per-pupil amount, and we recognize those costs.

So it will vary from district to district, and certainly that's a factor in block funding.

In respect to the question of training, it's almost like "Let me count the ways." There are so many different approaches to training. Much training comes from professionals training other professionals. A tremendous amount of work goes on in that regard, and we and school districts provide funds to support that kind of interactive work among professionals.

In respect to the Ministry of Advanced Education, particularly at the college and institute level, we've seen the introduction of new courses that provide basic training for people who plan to be teaching assistants working with challenged students. I might note again that advocacy groups like the Association for Community Living, the Learning Disabilities Association or the gifted and challenged community do conferences that assist teachers in training. So there is a whole range of ways in which training actually does take place throughout the districts. You were away yesterday, I expect.

And we noted too that there are ways in which technology is made available through the special education technology centre. So there are an infinite variety of ways in which we deal with these matters.

I think there may have been one other question, which flashed into my mind and then went out again, that you raised in the discussion. It hasn't come back to me, but perhaps you can remind me and I'll respond.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to see that this commitment is there. I think what I'm searching for is a bit more of a definitive response with respect to the provision of funds that are actually available to teachers in the system who wish to upgrade and to retrain -- in particular how that retraining might be available with respect to a variety of demands that they may have.

Quite obviously if there isn't a person with a hearing disability in a school district, then there are not going to be funds. I think we'd all accept that. However, there may be various levels of mental challenge before young people. I think one of the first things we would have to accept is that there is going to have to be some training for teachers to be able to identify the challenges that young people face; second, the extent to which those challenges could be overcome through different models, different directions and different kinds of programs put forward in the class.

More importantly, where there are severe disabilities -- both physical and mental -- there is an additional challenge to the teacher who has to deal with a classroom full of young people wishing to progress at a particular rate, when integrated into that class is an individual who is mentally challenged. There is going to have to be some provision for ongoing training to be able to accommodate that kind of individual. What I'm really searching for here is the extent to which there is a greater and additional commitment by this government to get money than we have seen over the last decade for those teachers who are in service.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just advise the member that funds for training are recognized in the funding formula, and there are a number of training needs. They're recognized both for teachers and for teaching aides. There are also some targeted grants to support teachers attending conferences or various focused training opportunities. I think that is particularly useful to people who live outside the lower mainland, where they can come into Vancouver or Victoria to take advantage of training opportunities.

I'm not sure that I can provide the member with all of the facts that he is looking for, because in fact each school district sets its implementation plan for the integration of students, based on the children in that school district. The block of funds has dollars in it that

[ Page 746 ]

provide for training, but they make those decisions and teachers make those decisions as well. We provide funds, including some travel funds, in the global budget that each school district has.

It might be useful for the member just to note that the cost of educating such students can range from the block amount -- which is the average amount for all students of $5,661 -- to just under $40,000, which provides for the range of services and supports which a very specially challenged child might need.

In addition, because we are in the process of change in education, there are grants, training sessions and resource materials available through the ministry's budget. I noted yesterday that there's a quantum amount of money. We're finding that very small amounts often go a very long way, because we're tapping into the expertise and commitment of teachers who are prepared to share their knowledge and special skills with other teachers.

Let me just give you an example that I recall from attending the teachers' annual general meeting a few weeks ago. A teacher came up and talked to me in quite an animated and very committed way about the work he was doing with youngsters with behavioural problems; about the difficulty that those youngsters often provide to a classroom teacher, out of proportion to their numbers; and about the skills he has developed as a teacher and is interested in sharing.

Through proposals to this ministry, there are ways in which the skills and commitment of that teacher can be translated into training other teachers to learn more about what he has learned, about good ways of working effectively with children with behaviour problems. He happened to be working in the early adolescent area.

That kind of initiative goes on in literally dozens and hundreds of places around the province with funding that comes through the ministry for relatively small initiatives, in terms of dollars, very much maximized because of the initiative, innovation and commitment of teachers.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: Is the minister able to advise us what this quantum amount is within the ministry, what kind of dollar figure are we talking about?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'll repeat the information that I've given two or three times. It's $30 million out of the ministry's budget in the year ahead, for a whole range of change activities.

G. Wilson: I should have been more specific to the minister. I am aware of the $30 million figure. But how much within that figure is dedicated to mainstreaming children and to upgrading or retraining teachers in the system who are coping and dealing with young people who have mental and physical disabilities?

Hon. A. Hagen: The philosophy that the member is talking about is a philosophy of separating out; our philosophy is integrating in. For instance, when we're looking at the primary program, which is the program that we have implemented most extensively around change, whatever we're doing with the teachers in those programs, whatever training is involved, assumes an integrated classroom. It's a part of the broader agenda.

I can provide the member with some specific activities under our change agenda that relate to special education. We are preparing a directory of provincial resource programs and networking ideas for special education programs. That comes back to my earlier comment about how much the training is the result of practical initiatives that many good teachers have taken and are prepared and able to share with their fellow teachers.

There is ongoing research, and there are strategies for integrating and assessing special-needs students. There is also the development of a special education review process, which I understand is being piloted in Surrey. I'm not able to give you a lot of information about that, hon. member. Again, that's looking at one district, but the review process there will be informative for other school districts.

It's important for us to remember that we're talking here about children being part of the community school. We're not talking about programs that separate out but about programs that look at the education of all children in those classrooms, including special-needs children.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that we're trying to be inclusive. That philosophy is consistent with the philosophy on this side of the House: that we are trying to integrate and to make sure that these young people are very much equal members of society.

What I'm trying to determine there, and perhaps I need to find a way to reword my question so that it can be more specific.... We recognize, however, that there are additional costs specific to the education and training of teachers who are having to deal with specific kinds of disabilities. For example, if a teacher has to get involved in Bliss symbol learning because it is required in order to advance a program for a specific child, or if there is a teacher who is dealing with autism, there has to be some specific training.

If teachers are dealing with various other levels of physical and mental disability -- particularly with those who have a combination of mental and physical handicaps -- there are various requirements for those teachers to have specific training.

I'm not talking about the generic approach to allowing teachers to broaden their base of knowledge on these subjects. The question I'm asking is: what kind of money is being specifically earmarked for and tailored to those cases where there are children in the school system who require people in the classroom with specific training with respect to the needs of those children?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm having some difficulty with the member's examples, because he's asking how much money there is to train this, that or the other person. There is money in budgets of school districts to assist teachers to get the training they need and teaching assistance. For example, the majority of people who are attending the Focus '92 conference will have the

[ Page 747 ]

support of their school districts to attend that conference. The work that they do at that conference may cover an enormous range of issues in which those teachers are gaining training: working with autism, the deaf and the physically disabled.

The point I'm trying to get across to the member is that this is a complex matrix of training opportunities that occurs informally, formally, within the schools, at conferences and at post-secondary institutions. There are a variety of ways in which that is resourced, as I say, in human and in financial terms.

There's also support to teachers in terms of instruction within their classrooms. If I can provide the member with more information outside the context of this House that would give him the kind of detail that he's looking for, I'd be happy to try to do that. But I'm having difficulty saying that there is some quantum somewhere that would in any way give an appropriate recognition of the kind of work that goes on in and across our school districts and at a provincial and partnership working level to provide the scope and depth of training that the member and I agree is important to have available to teachers and teaching assistants.

G. Wilson: Perhaps I can focus on an example of my concern. In the two school districts that I am most familiar with, for example.... The hon. minister suggests that there is money in the school districts to deal with these issues. However, in School District 46, at Sechelt, they're talking about there being an $800,000 shortfall this year. In Powell River they're talking about a $400,000 shortfall this year. These are school districts that do not have surplus money. Both of these school districts have a number of students who have been mainstreamed and who require special assistance in the classroom.

f there is not money dedicated to these programs that cannot be transferred into other program delivery, and because there is a relative minority of students under special needs, I am concerned that programs and training for teachers that otherwise would be available will not be available as school districts who are squeezed and in a desperate situation will seek to put those moneys into the area they perceive will do the most good. So what I'm trying to establish is whether this ministry has earmarked and dedicated specific moneys for the mainstreaming program of young children with mental and physical handicaps into the school. I'm hearing that there isn't that kind of dedicated fund.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me try again with two pieces of information for the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, in the block that goes to every school district there's a recognition that the teacher is the primary person involved with learning, and the block contains money for that person's salary and, recognizing that this person may be away on study leave or professional development leave, money for travel and money for training. That's included in our calculations of the block. The same thing applies around support services for youngsters who have special needs, because there are teaching assistants and other people who assist those youngsters to be in school.

In terms of the incremental funding over and above the block of funds that are available for any youngster, there is $351 million distributed to school districts with the recognition that those school districts enrol a wide variety of children with special challenges. This is to support the staff and the training of that staff to provide for those children.

G. Wilson: I hear what the minister is saying. I think the answer is that the money is there for the broad base of school entrance, and out of that the school districts are supposed to be providing for integrated students. It would be the preference of this side of the House that there would be dedicated funds, and that they would be over and above the block.

However, let's move to the second question with respect to the mainstreaming of children with handicaps into the classroom. Could the minister outline the philosophy of this government with respect to the delivery of education to those classrooms, especially those classrooms where there are young people integrated between grade 4 and grade 8? Is there is some kind of provision for reduction of class size? Is there is some kind of formula that they are entertaining to be able to look at class size and the number of teacher aides or learning assistants?

Is there is some kind of additional provision for the mainstreaming of children with mental and physical disabilities who are going through the bridge period in the latter part of their elementary school education and are commencing into high school?

Hon. A. Hagen: As I noted earlier, the direction of the ministry is that children will be mainstreamed wherever possible into a regular classroom. The range of support for students can be as high as $40,000, recognizing that there needs to be support in those classrooms and that the school districts work on those support services.

I hear the member saying he would prefer that we specify targeted funds for special-needs students. As we get into our funding and financial review, he may wish to bring forward his perspectives in respect of some future changes that we will be considering as we look over the whole system of funding that's now in place.

G. Wilson: With specific reference to class size, I recognize the independence of the collective bargaining process and the relative autonomy of school districts in this matter. I wonder if the minister could state the general philosophical approach of this government with respect to class size, where the integration of one or more children with special needs may be found. Is it the feeling of this minister that in those cases where there is an integration of children with special needs, class size should be adjusted as a factor of program delivery with any formula that school districts may look at?

Hon. A. Hagen: With respect to teachers and support staff who need to be there, staffing is

recog-

[ Page 748 ]

nized in the funding formula that we use in setting the funding for each district.

G. Wilson: Once again I find that I should have perhaps been more specific in my question. Is the minister satisfied then that the funding formula which is in place -- the dollars, the provision for class size and the delivery of money going into the classroom where special-needs or mainstream children are a part of the day-to-day delivery of education -- takes into account adequate resources into those areas?

[3:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: I might offer the member some information about the resources available, because I think he's interested in knowing something about what is available. I'll make that information available to him.

G. Wilson: I would appreciate that information. I am most interested in looking at that particular aspect of education.

I wonder if I might then move to the third part of this discussion with respect to mainstreaming, which has to do with collaboration within the community. I noted that the minister did talk about the Association for Community Living, various community service organizations, the gifted and challenged programs and so on. Within the budget and its preparation and the manner in which dollars are being committed, I wonder to what extent funds are being integrated between line ministries that may overlap in the delivery of these kinds of programs. That's something which certainly the Liberals on this side of the House are most interested in.

Hon. A. Hagen: That's the other question you asked earlier, and I couldn't recall it to mind. I knew there was a further very specific question that the Leader of the Opposition had inquired about. There are agreements in place between my ministry, the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Health. There are dollars in their budgets for the delivery of services in health and in support of families.

Back to your earlier comment around how we are blending those dollars, there is also money within our budget and the budgets of school districts in support of parent advisory councils in schools, which I hope would have the same kind of philosophy as the school itself, in that parents of challenged children would be a part of those groups. I know that the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils recently had its annual general meeting and spring conference; they were looking at multicultural children within the province. It was both a learning session and a planning session around ways in which the outreach to a broader community of parents might be achieved.

At various times we do cooperative work, under the aegis of the ministry, with community organizations. That is a grant process where proposals come to us, and where, if we are able to assist in matters that are going to have an impact on the programs that we offer in the schools, we do so. Again, once those are announced we'd be pleased to provide you with that information.

G. Wilson: That sounds like good news, and we're very keen to see those various community groups integrated much more directly in the provision of service for young people that we normally look at in a regular school day, recognizing that their day doesn't end at 3 o'clock, and that we have to make provisions for these young people beyond that, especially in cases where there may be particular needs.

I wonder then if I could just add one further question on the involvement of community organizations in the provision of education. What kind of dollars is the minister prepared to put into the provision of community-based services and organizations around education for parents of children that have special needs? I mean specifically in relation to some of the recommendations coming out of the Year 2000 program that started to talk about a cooperative movement between the sort of integrated parent and the degree to which the parent becomes much more a functional part of the day-to-day educational process.

My question -- I'm trying to be specific with it, although it's fairly broad in its scope -- is: to what extent is the minister prepared to put some dollars toward those recommendations within the Year 2000 program, particularly with relation to parent involvement in schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: In three or four ways. First of all, I would note that you may want to explore this with the Social Services minister as well, because there are a number of programs in support of families that come under her ministry that are not a part of our protocols either. Our protocols are to support the youngster in the classroom, largely; although it's hard to define those in absolute nine-to-three terms. But there are other programs that I know and you may want to ask.

We have parent-teacher interaction grants -- working relationships that are a part of the change process. We provide funds to assist the parent advisory councils; we provide funds to assist the federation of parents. There's work going on within the ministry through the immigration services funding that comes under the immigration ministry where we are working with parents around a variety of issues.

There's a range of ways. Again, I can't quantify those for you. Some of them are not decided yet, because they are in the change dollars that I've spoken of for the ministry where those grants have not been made. I agree with you, though, on the importance of parents -- children's first teachers and ongoing teachers -- having good working relationships and understandings in the school and contributing to the education of their children. That is an important part of our contemporary view of how we have the best education we can.

There's a whole range of ways in which the schools themselves provide in cultural ways, the school meal program, through outreach activities, newsletters, communication in different languages and to different target populations -- they contribute to bringing parents into a closer involvement with the schools. I like to really think of this as "let me count the ways," and there are no limits. Our job is to try to provide some of the resources that act as catalysts and support for school

[ Page 749 ]

districts and schools that are doing such an excellent job in that domain.

G. Wilson: That indeed is an enlightening answer. What we'd very much like to do is look at those change dollars. I hope that we have an opportunity to have some input and discussion with respect to the programs that will be developed. I think as a general philosophy in education, in the commitment of dollars, we recognize that we all in the province of British Columbia face limits to what we can afford to spend on education. That's the reality of it. We have to try to remove or eliminate, wherever possible, duplication that may exist as a result of line ministries not communicating as effectively as possible.

We would like to pursue this, and we're anxious to see what the government comes forward with regarding integrating programs at a community level that do accomplish some of the items the minister has outlined as being important. We're certainly going to be most interested to see what programs come forward in that respect. We will demonstrate considerable support for any integrated and adequately funded programs at a community level that will allow people to recognize that the school day doesn't end at 3 o'clock for children, but that learning is a 24-hour process.

Having said that, I wonder if I might then move to some specific questions for the minister. It has to do with the Year 2000; it has to do with the commitment that this government has made with respect to adequate funding to make sure the Year 2000 indeed becomes a reality. At the termination of the last government, we had some considerable waffling on whether the Year 2000 program was on or off. Clearly, the delegations that I have received from members of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation, from various school districts and from the BCSTA show some concern, hon. minister, that the Year 2000 program still is in some jeopardy, and that it is not going to receive the adequate funding that it requires, given that the curriculum proposed with the Year 2000 needs some substantial lift in dollars if it's to be accomplished effectively.

I wonder if the minister might want to comment on the Year 2000 program with respect to this government's commitment to it, and also the government's commitment to providing the dollars needed to make sure that we do more than simply teacher-train, but that we actually have dollars there to make sure that the teachers can adequately deliver the recommended program.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition has learned, in his short tenure in his office, of the support that is in the community for the philosophy of the Year 2000 and of the work of the royal commission, A Legacy for Learners. One of the most encouraging experiences I've had coming out of the uncertainty and instability of the last couple of years in respect to education and education change is that in spite of that instability, the heart of the program has beaten strongly in the minds of teachers and parents.

People are very interested in getting on with an education system that serves each child as well as we possibly can, and with programs that enable those children to participate fully in our society and in our economy and in the enrichment of their personal lives.

I want to assure the member that the work is ongoing in respect to the Royal Commission on Education and what's usually coded as the Year 2000. It's pretty well fully implemented now within the primary program, where it had its best beginning. There has been strong support coming out of a philosophy of learning among primary teachers that was reflected in the philosophy of the Year 2000 program. They have done an excellent job in introducing the facets of a more learner-focused education program, the recognition of children developing at their own pace and setting high standards of excellence for those youngsters.

I have noted several times in the House that there has been some pause.... On the part of the former administration, there was a real backing away from a commitment to the royal commission and its sense of direction for the future and the future needs of our children. The ministry has worked out of that stop or pause that was placed there, to prepare work that will let us go ahead with the Year 2000, not just in a linear way -- next into the intermediate grades and into the graduation program -- but across the whole school system.

I have learned of the tremendous amount of work that has been going on in the intermediate and secondary schools of the province, as they have looked at ways in which they can implement change. The resources for that change exist within school districts, because we are talking about change that is organic. The member shakes his head, but I want us to recognize that it is going on in districts; change is going on right now and has been going on.

It will be supported by clearly defined dollars and programs to assist teachers and the community to look at the next drafts of the intermediate and graduation program and to continue with the work of developing the prototypes of the program within the school districts.

There is a lot of work to do. We have all talked about the fact that our resources are limited, and we are -- we'll make clear -- prepared to stage the pace of change consistent with the resources that will be available. We want to be very open about that. The last government was closed and worked from the top down; we want to open up the process. The member has indicated his and his colleagues' interest in that process. It is something that I believe needs to be supported, understood and developed with the knowledge, the sensitivity and the support of the people of British Columbia. There's no more important task.

I've often said that we need to place education in the same kind of priority that we place health. That means we need to understand what we are working on, and we need to value the work in individual communities and to provide the resources for it. I look forward to opportunities to discuss this with the member and his caucus in the future.

[3:45]

G. Wilson: I have a final question to the minister. I would hope that the minister would take my remarks

[ Page 750 ]

with the greatest respect. I recognize that this government and all British Columbians are facing a difficult financial task. I recognize that there is not a large pool of available dollars that we can easily put into education without having to take from elsewhere. I recognize also that the last year of the last administration was an extremely difficult one for all of us to deal with.

Nevertheless, I think the minister is incorrect when she suggests that there are resources currently existing in the school districts to provide for the integration and development of the Year 2000 program.

Notwithstanding the comment that the minister is glad that I have discovered the Year 2000 in my short tenure as Leader of the Opposition, I would point out that I've been actively working and pursuing matters in politics in British Columbia as leader of the Liberal Party since 1987. I've actively worked with and made contributions and submissions to the royal commission, and I've actively worked with professionals in the field for some years. My knowledge of the difficulty is fairly extensive.

What we are facing here is a situation where we have developed an excellent model for the most part. I have some difficulty with some of it, particularly with respect to grading in senior years, but nevertheless I have general support for it.

It's an excellent model that is going to require not just additional dollars in the initial phase for introduction, but it's going to require a fundamental change in the way we are funding education: a move off a block funding formula basis -- we discussed it at length yesterday, and I don't want to get back into it today -- that is based on a 1990 set of figures and is already 14 percent underfunded just at status quo. It is underfunded in terms of the potential for development of dollars even now in the integration of the Year 2000 program.

I say with respect, hon. minister, that I think your words are going to be a great disappointment to a great number of people involved in the delivery of education and a great number of students and parents who really wanted to see -- and expected to see -- a fundamental change in the way we deliver educational dollars and a greater commitment to integrating curriculum development and financing of education.

There can be a blending of those two processes, so that one is not done in isolation from the other, and so we don't advance a program that's an excellent program for the most part and then find ourselves totally unprepared or -- to give benefit where benefit is due -- unable to adequately finance this new curriculum.

So my final question to the minister is: what provision is the minister undertaking now to put in place a comprehensive review of the way we finance education, so that the Year 2000 program can receive the dollars it requires to become a functioning part of British Columbia before the children who are in grade 1 now are in grade 12 and graduating? To suggest we're going to integrate it as funds become available, if we're not prepared to change the formula by which we develop funding for education....

My suspicion is that the Year 2000 will never become a functioning reality in its entirety, and that the best we'll get are little pieces of it where they don't have a financial impact. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. A. Hagen: I note that the member opposite is unwilling to give the kind of respect and credit to teachers that I give to them. I just want to note, in spite of what that member has suggested, the amount of work and effort going on in the classrooms of British Columbia at this time to support change. It is not something that has stopped. It is not something to which teachers are not giving a great deal of time and energy for innovative work, and it is not something that we are failing to fund. I've already indicated to the member that there's $30 million in the ministry budget alone to support change in the year ahead.

Let me just go through some of the initiatives that are occurring. I'll take an area that he has said he is interested in seeing us move into: the intermediate program. Over 4,000 teachers in the province are engaged this year in the developmental sites in work that is related to the implementation of the intermediate Year 2000 program. What I learned is that those teachers do what they call brokering; they learn from each other, trade and move their knowledge, their understanding and their experience around from developmental site to developmental site.

We need to respect and to recognize that teachers are themselves the agents of change, that they are instituting, implementing and creating change, and that they are providing leadership in the change within the school system.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to support them, but what the teachers asked for was respect for the work they do and commitment on the part of all of us to assist them in that work. That commitment involves financial support, which our government is committed to providing. It also requires us to recognize and acknowledge the tremendous day-to-day work that individual teachers in the primary, intermediate and graduation areas of our school system are providing in the direction of change.

I want very strongly to speak to that and to have all of us acknowledge, respect and celebrate it, because it is going on. It has gone on in spite of the vicissitudes of the last couple of years. What we need to do now is to respect it, celebrate it and support it in all the ways we can.

G. Wilson: The former was my last question. This is supplementary to my last question, because it would appear that the minister was suggesting that I was somehow disrespectful of teachers. There was nothing in my comments at any time anywhere -- certainly not today -- that would demonstrate a disrespect for teachers. With due respect, the problem is that teachers, in their work and discussion with us on the question of the Year 2000, suggest that much of what they are hearing is rhetoric, rhetoric which says: "Yes, you're doing a fine job. You're out there putting Year 2000 together.

We like the work you're doing. It's great that you're working together, it's great that you're being innovative and it's wonderful that you're coming forward with these programs. However, if you ask me if I will adequately fund it, so that you can actually implement the programs to any degree of success, the answer is no."

[ Page 751 ]

Unfortunately, that is what teachers are so thoroughly disappointed in, in the budget that they have now. Clearly the 200-plus-or-minus teachers that have just been released from Vancouver aren't going to be there to put in place Year 2000, no matter how good a job they did last year working to integrate it. That can be said for many of the school districts that are currently finding that they do not have adequate money to simply deliver the programs that they delivered last year.

So I don't understand -- and perhaps the minister can explain briefly -- how it's possible that teachers can feel that respect is being given to the work they're doing in the integration and delivery of the new curriculum, if this government is not committed to a fundamental reform of the way we finance education, and to a greater number of dollars that actually go to the delivery of service in the classroom. I think that's a question that teachers want an answer to.

Hon. A. Hagen: I have reviewed extensively with the oppostion members the increase in our funding to school districts in this most difficult of years. We have accorded education highest priority. I was speaking a moment ago about the day-to-day work of classroom teachers, which is related to change in the day-to-day, and which has produced many effective new strategies and new approaches in our classroom. I have a great deal of respect for this. The teachers will continue to work in that way, and we will be supporting them with ongoing grants to take advantage of the innovation and the energy that they bring to their work, which they tell me they are very committed to continuing.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister some questions about School District 23, Central Okanagan. As the minister alluded, this is one of the fastest-growing districts in the province. This district has all kinds of questions that they'd like me to ask on their behalf with regard to funding and the funding formula and allocation of funds.

If I could start with the special purpose grant for 1992-93 in the estimates, I'd just mention that there has been no special purpose grant given to School District 23, despite the fact that there were some assurances from the ministry that adjustments would be made for the faster-growing districts. I'd just like to ask for some kind of clarification on that.

Hon. A. Hagen: I welcome the member to the debate. She is representing one of the fastest-growing districts in British Columbia. Some funds that relate to the growth of the district have been targeted there, as to other fast-growing districts. In terms of a special purpose grant, your district has not requested such a grant, although I think it would be fair to say that at this stage of the game we have a budget for such grants, nor is it my intent to give one.

I have met with your school district, and I believe my ministry officials have met in the past month with the officials of your school district and with other rapidly growing school districts. We had an opportunity to examine in some considerable depth the challenges that your district faces and the ways in which some of the changes that we've made this year may be of assistance to them.

I could canvass them again, but they're fundamentally the same answers that I've given in the House regarding Surrey and other rapidly growing districts. If you like, I'd be happy to speak to you about them more specifically, but I think they are fundamentally targeted funds to rapidly growing districts to deal with new schools, costs of technology and enrolment growth, including enrolment growth through the year. Kelowna has been taken into account as one of the districts that is experiencing that growth.

J. Tyabji: I have a submission from the school district from March 20. They say that they were further encouraged when the minister announced a 2.4 percent economic adjustment in the average per-student block in the January 31 news release. The minister specifically noted that assistance would be forthcoming for rapid-growth districts -- $4.5 million in special purpose grants for those districts which experienced significant enrolment growth.

It was on that basis that they were actually expecting some kind of special purpose grant, because there had been some difficulties in this area with regard to the funding formula. It goes back to 1989 when the percentages for each district were set -- at least that's my understanding.

At that time there was a surplus in the budget for School District 23. They had very tight purse strings and very responsible fiscal management. I believe that surplus was going to be set aside for some expenditures that they were anticipating. However, the funding formula for that district was then locked in. They have actually been receiving less than 100 percent, as far as the block funding formula goes, despite the fact that they're growing so quickly and the fact that the allocation of funds doesn't take into account students who arrive after a certain date.

From my understanding, if they arrive in October, November, December or January, they're not allowed for them until the following year.

They've had a lot of problems with that, in terms of a juggling act. They would like to have more explanation with regard to the special-purpose grant. For example, if it's not there because they didn't ask for it -- although it's my understanding that they did, or at least they were expecting it -- is it a matter of them making another submission to ask for a retroactive special-purpose grant?

[4:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I can assist the member. The block contains some funds for the anticipated increase in enrolment in your district. Most rapidly growing school districts will have a further recalculation of their grant later on, after the September 30 enrolments are there. As I've noted to other members of your caucus, that is worked out with the ministry.

Your district is trying to predict as accurately as it can what its growth pattern is going to be. This year it's about half of what it was last year, in terms of the prediction. There may be a bit of caution in terms of that predicting. There are two stages for grants to come

[ Page 752 ]

to your school district if enrolment is above what they are predicting: that is, after September 30 and then a later grant that could come early in the new year. I guess it's a bit of a juggling act for boards to try to predict accurately. They may hold back a little about being overly optimistic about whether their predictions are going to actually turn into youngsters who arrive in the schools.

As I noted, in 1991 your district had a 16 percent increase, which was perhaps the largest, or very close to the largest, in the province. Last year it was 14.5 percent. The estimate is 7.3 percent, which, as I say, comes from your district estimates, working with the ministry. That's a very significant change. Perhaps there may be a temporary down, waiting to see what's happening.

Just to give you some idea of the difference in funding over three years, in 1989-90 your district received $68.5 million, and this year its block is $97,742,000. So there has been an increase in funding of pretty close to 43 percent over the last three years. In that period of time your enrolment has gone up just under 25 percent. Those are the figures that we have.

J. Tyabji: I appreciate that we have had a lot of growth. It is anticipated to slow to some extent. When you talk about the increase in budget, in School District 23 we've had a problem in that with the former administration there were not enough funds provided. We're already dealing with a discrepancy that has existed for some years. I know that in this budget the minister, no doubt, has tried to be fair to all school districts. But we were starting out from such a disadvantage that it would have taken extra funding just to bring us onto a level-playing field with other districts, given the amount of growth.

If I could also remind the minister, we do have a lot of capital costs involved with the growth, in addition to just block funding for students for their education. We have to start off with an initial infusion just for the purposes of dealing with the capital costs that go with the growth, which might be a one-time infusion. The biggest difficulty goes back to the fact that in 1989 they were locked in to the amount that they had, which wasn't adequate to deal with what they've had for the last couple of years prior to this budget.

I know you're trying to be fair to all the districts, but we're starting from so far below so many of the other districts that there should be some method of bringing them up to speed and then from there going to a level playing-field.

I'm sure the minister has seen the submission from School District 23 with regard to the expenditure plan from the school board, in which there were three principles. I have to really compliment the school board for being so thorough. The first of the three principles that they followed in their expenditure plan was that they would have a balanced budget, which is very important where I come from. If you don't have a balanced budget, out you go. The second was that the mission statement of the district must be a focus, which is for the existence of the school system to provide quality education.

And the third was a commendable principle: to not have any layoff of staff. They really wanted to make sure that they wouldn't have to terminate anyone; that has involved moving a number of people around.

We're having about 1,100 new students next year, so if you can imagine this school district having to absorb 1,100 new students and not hiring any new teachers, what we have is a problem where class size is out the window. It's up for grabs. They feel that it's more important to keep a balanced budget -- and I'd have to agree with that -- than perhaps to go with the guidelines on class size.

I pose this question to the minister: to what extent do the provincial guidelines for class size affect the budget for the individual school districts, in this case School District 23? Where class size gets too large, is there not some formula for making allowance, given the responsible expenditure plan of School District 23?

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, if I may correct some figures. Every once in a while I get into the wrong column. I realized as I was making these comments that it wasn't adding up, but I didn't have an opportunity to figure out why until I sat down. This is on the percentage increases with population. Let me just correct those, because they shouldn't stand incorrect in Hansard . In 1990-91, 9.5; last year, 7.4; and projected this year, 5.7. I was giving you the funding increases over those three years.

So if you want to go back, you'll know that those figures of 16, 14 and 7.5 were the funding increases over each of those years. I just wanted to be sure that we haven't left a totally incorrect record.

Just to comment about the capital budget, we have acknowledged what I think was a real lack in recognizing the start-up cost to districts like Kelowna, so there is money in the block this year for staffing of new schools and to assist with some of their start-up costs. Your district will be hearing the announcements very soon about capital budget. They're being worked on now in order to be finalized.

On the class size issue, there is no provincial guideline. In fact, it is set by district. Sometimes there are negotiations with teachers which establish class sizes, which translates into the pupil-teacher ratio. But it ranges from a low of 9 or 10 -- usually a figure that we'll find in a very small northern district -- to a high of just under 18. The cluster, I suppose, is in the 15.5 to 17.5 range, if one looks at a number of districts. That may give you some perspective on the actual. But there are no guidelines from the province.

J. Tyabji: I'd also like to ask the minister if she has any concerns with regard to the situation we have in School District 23. I have to say that I think they've come up with a very responsible expenditure plan, given the constraints we all face in these economic times.

One of the things coming up that I think is of great concern is with regard to Bill 15, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991, where they would like to reduce special-education allotments, contrary to the bill. This would mean that a lot of the

[ Page 753 ]

services that they would then be providing for special-needs students -- from my understanding of it -- would have to be compromised. I have a lot of concerns about this, because I don't know that it's very effective. In some cases, you see going against a bill like this -- with this particular request -- is going to degrade the education of many people, not just the individual students who are affected. I wonder if the minister has some comments as to what the ministry has in mind for counteracting the effects of this, or is there some kind of independent funding that is hidden somewhere else in the ministry that would then take care of these special-needs students?

Hon. A. Hagen: Madam Chair, I understand that the district, which has been working very diligently on its budget, has submitted a request to the ministry in respect to that particular legislation. I just wanted to let you know we will consider that very carefully in light of the information that your district has provided.

J. Tyabji: I'm not that experienced with Bill 15, per se. I understand there are eight other districts which last year received approval -- I believe from the former administration -- to set up their budgets contrary to Bill 15. I'm wondering if there is a directional philosophy from the ministry with regard to Bill 15. If so, is there some kind of backup plan in the event these eight districts and let's say School District 23 waive Bill 15? My concern is in the event the needs were so great that it would bring about a bill to take care of the needs.

If we waive these needs in enough districts, then no doubt we compromise the education of the students that the bill was set up for, and also the students who may not be receiving as much time or as much attention as they might otherwise, given the fact that there are students within the classroom that have special needs.

Hon. A. Hagen: The School Act requires that boards provide educational programs for children. That's their guideline, and it's the guideline of the ministry. We also have had an extensive discussion with the Leader of the Opposition around the mainstreaming and integration of children within the system. There is a process for us to work with the school district when they make a request around them meeting those challenges. As I noted, we will be discussing that matter with your school district very carefully as we look at what they are proposing. We will also be discussing the needs of the children within your district.

J. Tyabji: There's a very, very excellent program that has been operating in Kelowna, in the Central Okanagan, for a number of years that really met some of the needs of society. I had hoped that it would perhaps be expanded, or at least encouraged in other districts: that is, the AP and the IB programs -- the programs for the gifted children, and those who had perhaps slightly more inclinations in certain educational areas than the other students. Those needs for the greater inclinations and perhaps for some of their strengths in terms of educational strengths were being met by this program.

It was extremely successful, and I think a lot of the parents were happy for it. We have to recognize that just as there are special needs for those who don't fit within the guidelines of our regular education system, perhaps because of learning disabilities, there are also those who have many questions and many curiosities that need to be fulfilled through the education system.

These enrichment programs that were offered are now going to have to be eliminated, which is quite unfortunate, given the success of the program and also given the fact that we should recognize as a society that the common denominator approach to education is not always effective for every student.

I'm wondering, first of all, if the minister has any plans or any provisions for a long-term, perhaps provincewide enrichment program of this nature, or if the minister would understand the need to perhaps continue this program in Kelowna and therefore provide some supplementary funds for a pilot project or something of this nature. As I say, it has been operating very successfully, and I think it's something that should be encouraged in terms of doing away with a lot of the frustrations of these students.

[4:15]

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you for the information about the program in your district. I know that many districts have developed programs. Our funding does recognize that there are additional costs for offering such programs, and they are reflected in the funding that goes out to school districts. I'm confident that school districts are planning and looking to ways in which they can provide for such special programs for children as they develop their budgets. Just to repeat, there is a recognition of those costs in our funding processes, and additional funds are provided when there are identified programs for gifted children.

J. Tyabji: At this time, given the current expenditure plan of School District 23, the school board expects a shortfall of just over $7 million. If I can emphasize, this is definitely a school district where fiscal responsibility is a catch phrase, and they are extremely good at getting value for their dollar. Certainly they should be commended for their record in the past. I find it somewhat disturbing, given that kind of approach, that we are then facing over a $7 million shortfall.

I guess my question to the minister is: what message can we give the school board with regard to the $7.1 million shortfall, given that according to the figures that I have here, we've got a 5.7 percent increase in student enrolment and only about a 2.93 percent increase in funding for this district -- given that there's so much growth? It's extremely frustrating for them, I understand. They've been locked into this position from the two previous years. They're now faced with this shortfall, given this level playing-field, I would say, with the other districts.

There wasn't enough allowance made for the growth that they were experiencing in previous years, and now they're facing such a dramatic shortfall. If there is any recourse with regard to.... Particularly I'm looking at the special purpose grant and -- seeing that there was nothing allocated for this district for the special purpose grant -- some way of redressing this concern.

[ Page 754 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: I do understand that the budget of the member for Okanagan East has been submitted, and it is balanced, but there has been a request around special education, which I spoke of.

Remember that I said earlier on, too, that there may be additional funding for enrolment growth after September and then throughout the year, and so those are dollar resources that will come to the district. They will be able to figure that out as soon as those students are there within the district. They will know that they have those additional dollars to support those youngsters when they arrive in September.

J. Tyabji: The money that may be available in September.... My understanding is that there would be 64 new teachers needed to address the needs of the over 1,000 students expected. In the event that there are these 64 new teachers needed to meet their needs -- who aren't being hired under this school district's budget -- would there be some allowance when the moneys are made available in September? That's, I would assume, based on the figures for students being above the 1,011 students.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me have the member understand that the budget already reflects the anticipated enrolment growth of 5.7 percent: looking at the figures, that is 1,100 students. The budget that has gone to Kelowna -- to central Okanagan -- is taking into account that projection on the part of your school district. If there are more students beyond that, then there will be additional funding to accommodate those students, and however that translates into the way classes are organized and whether there are more teachers needed will evolve come September.

J. Tyabji: I guess a question I'd like to ask the minister then is: is there going to be some kind of change to the funding formula at some point so that the 1989 discrepancies that were locked in for School District 23 will somehow be redressed later on?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just repeat again: we plan to review the funding and financing formula, and that process, which we've been working on and developing in consultation with school districts, as I've had an opportunity to review the circumstances and the issues that they bring forward.... We will be further consulting with those school districts as that review takes place, and I'm sure that your district, which has worked already with a number of districts around bringing forward concerns, will be very active in that review. I anticipate it will be one where we'll have an opportunity to look at all of the issues that you've raised today.

L. Fox: I'd just like to clarify -- as I've sat here this afternoon -- for my own mind some of the questions that were asked by members of the official opposition. One in particular is whether or not there were any studies or an examination of your capital projects done, either those that were planned in previous years but have not yet gone through to the tender stage, or those that are presently being planned. What, if any, impact will the fair wage issue have on the cost of those programs? Have you done that within your ministry?

Hon. A. Hagen: I have noted earlier that this is a policy of government, and the issue is therefore not appropriate for discussion in these estimates. The policy will be implemented by my ministry, and I will repeat the comment I made earlier that school districts and the ministry will work diligently in using the resources from our capital envelope to the benefit of our youngsters.

L. Fox: I recognized what the minister was saying. It's my concern that in one school district we've had two projects approved in the last budget year of this government. They were approved for a certain amount of dollars. The tune between the two of them is about $5.2 million; one was to the tune of $3 million and the other to the tune of $2.2 million. Both were to increase school space within School District 56.

My concern -- and why I asked the question to the minister -- was whether or not those numbers would be jeopardized by this policy and would necessitate the school district coming back with a further approval in order to see these projects through to completion.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me advise the member that there are many aspects between getting a project planned and getting it on the ground. The approvals are in place for the Nechako School District, and you can be confident that those projects will go ahead.

L. Fox: With respect to another issue, I was extremely pleased to hear of your government's continued commitment toward the disadvantaged and the disabled. Let me put it into the perspective of the Prince George School District and ask a specific question with respect to that. The mainstreaming is something that I'm sure each member of this House could give a long dissertation on the value of, and I don't intend to do that. I'm extremely concerned about the impact on Prince George School District 57.

As the minister will recall, she has had a written request for improvements in the College Heights area for school additions, and the position of the ministry and yourself has been that there's vacant space elsewhere in the district that these students could be bused to.

I was extremely appreciative of your comments that the value in mainstreaming being part of the community was a very important part of mainstreaming. Two points: given the fact that it is going to be necessary to bus some special-needs children from this rural-type school setting into a larger school, would there be transportation assistance available to that school district in order to provide that special-needs busing?

I'm told that this shift of students would necessitate three additional bus routes within the district at a cost of approximately $40,000 per bus route. Is the minister prepared to provide that school district, given the fact that she's not going to commit additional space, the additional dollars in order to bus those children from one area of the district to the other?

[ Page 755 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, the busing needs of those children will be recognized. I believe they may already be...not so, but if there are changes, those needs are recognized.

L. Fox: So let me just clarify. The special-needs busing will be looked after. What about the extra routes required in order to bus children from that College Heights region into the Prince George Secondary School? I'm told -- and I'll repeat it -- that there will be three extra bus routes required at a cost of $40,000 apiece. Is that cost also going to be recognized by the ministry?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's my understanding that busing is evaluated each year, and what I'd encourage the member to do would be to discuss this with my ministry people so that we're clear about what is in place and what's new. It's sometimes difficult to do that across the floor of the House, but it may be one of those matters where it would be helpful for us to work with you and be sure that we're understanding the issue that you're raising -- what is in place and what you believe is needed. I'd like to offer that opportunity to the member.

L. Fox: Thank you, and I'll certainly take you up on that. I know that given the constraints of the present budgeting system, $120,000 for three additional bus routes is not easily found.

Earlier, hon. minister, you made reference to the $30 million that represented, among other things, some training dollars with respect to these special-needs children. I have two questions with respect to the $30 million. I have difficulty here, because the school-year budget does not comply with ours, but how many dollars of that $30 million were in the 1991-92 school year, and how many in the 1992-93 school year? And what does that represent in terms of an increase over the expenditures in that same category for the 1991 fiscal year?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not sure that all of us are going to have our fiscal years quite straight, but let me tell you what the difference is between this administration and the administration that you weren't a part of but that was of your party. In previous years we haven't really been able to identify the dollars that were available for educational change, and we need to know what is available.

There is within this fiscal year of my ministry's budget $30 million that will be allocated to a whole variety of activities to assist us with educational change. It is a fiscal year, but most of these activities don't start on April 1 and end on March 31; the school system doesn't work like that, nor does funding. So I'm not sure that it's a very useful question. It's useful to know that we have targeted funds, and we're going to be honest about reporting on those funds. This has not always been the case, I'm sad to say.

L. Fox: The point of the question was to decide how much of the $30 million was pre-spent in the last school year. So you're telling me that's all for the 1992-1993 school year. Okay. So that's different from other parts of the budget, which indeed cover the last part of the 1991-92 school year. Am I not right in that?

Hon. A. Hagen: We can dance on the head of a pin around fiscal years, calendar years, school years and government fiscal years, but when we're talking about my estimates for the Ministry of Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights, we're talking about spending for the fiscal year starting April 1 to the end of March 1993. The point I want to make to the member, however, is that that's the allocation. The activities often sort of flow over. We're talking about real activities that go on. But the commitments are made within the fiscal year; they'll be reported in Public Accounts for this ministry for this fiscal year.

I quite honestly don't know.... If I knew where you were leading, in terms of the usefulness of this, I would respond perhaps in a more useful way. But since we're simply talking about fiscal years, I really do feel we're dancing a little bit on the head of a pin around anything that's useful to our understanding of the task, which is to get on with providing resources to our teachers and to our schools to implement education change, Mr. Member.

L. Fox: I assure the minister that I'm not trying to dance on the head of a pin. The block funding as a whole, as I understand it, covers the school district's commitment from April through to the end of June, or wherever you want to slice the pie. So some of that is committed and budgeted in the last school year's budget. That's the point that I'm trying to get to, and that was the reason for this question. If I'm wrong in that, perhaps the minister will tell me that this budget that she has given in her estimates is only for the school year '92 to '93.

Hon. A. Hagen: The member is correct. The block of funds going to school districts includes part of the current school year -- April, May, June -- and nine months of the next school year. The $30 million I'm talking about is in my ministry's budget. It's new money, it hasn't been spent, and it is planned for education change. We've identified that in respect of the total ministry budget: what goes to school districts as dollars that will be directed to education change. I hope that helps.

L. Fox: Thank you. I'm glad I understood it correctly, because the whole thrust of the rest of my question was based on that premise.

Let me ask one further question with respect to the transfer of students within School District 57 that is being suggested by the minister. I had the privilege of serving on a school board and being chairman of one for two years, so I have some basic understanding -- and I won't call it any more than that -- of the square-footage-based formula that was used in order to achieve the appropriate size of school.

[ Page 756 ]

I'm somewhat concerned that perhaps the minister has gotten the wrong advice from her administrative team with respect to Prince George Secondary School. I don't want to fault anyone in that, because I know that quite often we look down upon these age-old plants and say that, yes, there are 5,000, 20,000 or 30,000 square feet, and that should accommodate X number of children.

The concern I have is that the library of such a facility, given an influx of 200 students -- I think it was in that vicinity, and I stand to be corrected on that -- cannot even accommodate the present student body that's already in that school. I know that the minister has had at least three invitations to come to Prince George and look at that facility, but unfortunately because of her

schedule has been unable to do that. I would urge the minister to have a first-hand view of that school at the earliest opportunity so that you could understand the board's concern.

While the square-footage formula appears to accommodate more students, the physical size of such amenities -- such as the library, a very key component in a high school, other things such as the IA facilities, and the other needs, especially those of the special-needs children -- are going to be extremely stressed in continuing to meet the enrolment projected from its catchment area, never mind trying to accommodate these other students from the College Heights area. Would the minister just like to comment a little on the formula used, and whether she feels satisfied that it's going to be in the best interests of those students to be moved into that situation.

Hon. A. Hagen: The member asks about the means by which we make these determinations; as in all areas, we really do work hard to be fair and consistent. There is an advisory committee that uses people from the field, as we say; this means people from school districts who assist us in those kinds of decisions. But I hear what the member is saying and the concerns of your district. They're common concerns as we try to meet growth and moving populations, and we recognize also the importance of the support facilities within the schools.

So I have had some information from your district, and I do look forward actually very much to coming up there. I didn't dare go up in the winter, because the first time I flew into Prince George in the winter, we circled it a couple of times, flew into Fort St. John, landed, circled Prince George a couple of times and came back to Vancouver. Next day we went to Quesnel and drove to Prince George.

So I wanted to be sure that the weather was reasonably cooperative before I put it into my schedule, and I am looking forward to having an opportunity to visit your district if at all possible before the end of the school year, legislative responsibilities permitting. I appreciate the perspective that you've brought; it is good to see those situations on the ground, I agree.

L. Fox: I will pass the word on to the school district to pass on another invitation and see if you haven't got the time perhaps to comply. I've been asked by both school districts to pose one question to the minister. Given that you identify a 9.1 percent increase in your budget, could you explain to me, so that I could pass on to those school districts, why, if there's a 9.1 percent increase, the block funding that they received only was 2.4 percent respectively?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just give you a little picture of Prince George. It is a district that is not growing, and some of the funding that has gone block-over-block to school districts is funding for growth. There also have been a few changes in the makeup of your district.

Overall, I can provide you with information about the increase over the past three years and the increase in enrolment. There has been an 18.5 percent increase over the past three years. Enrolment has grown about 5 percent. Yours is a pretty stable district in respect to enrolment. So what has gone to Prince George is fundamentally the economic adjustment without those other factors affecting it, as they have with districts like Surrey, Kelowna or Courtenay that are growing very rapidly. Your growth this year is virtually flat. It appears that there might be another 30 or 40 youngsters anticipated.

That has been reflected, in fact. So you're an average school district in terms of the funding that has come to your district this year.

L. Fox: I understand that. While I'm not necessarily a proponent of "more money means better education," I realize that no matter what government was in place today, they would have horrendous challenges before them in order to meet the needs of education and balance that with the economic climate that unfortunately is before us.

But let me just ask a specific question with respect to the lunch program. It's my understanding that there were 68 elementary schools and 17 secondary school