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 21, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 7

[ Page 817 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce to the House Dr. Bernard Bressler, the associate dean of the faculty of medicine for research at UBC. He is one of my many former bosses and is with us today in the House. Would the members please make him welcome.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce some visitors to the House today. Mr. Dave Abbott is here, and he has two people: the former premier of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev, and Marilyn Monroe, the actress. They're outside the House, and they're here to publicize the Movie Magic on May 1, 2 and 3. Dave Abbott is a former media person, and I'm introducing them today on behalf of the Minister of Tourism and Culture, since she isn't here. If any of the members of the House would like to have a photograph of this historic visit and a memento for themselves, they are available outside the House. Mr. Abbott is in the gallery. Would you please make him feel welcome.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a distinguished and noted federal MP for British Columbia. He served this country in the constitutional debate over the last number of years and has taken a courageous stand on many issues. I'd like to ask the House to welcome the MP for Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ian Waddell.

E. Conroy: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to introduce to this House Toby Ward, who is here from my constituency. He is a young and coming journalist, and he happens to be sitting up in the press gallery. We all wish him well, and I'd like to welcome him to Victoria and to the House.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House today Jerome Roth, who is the executive assistant to the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen, Jack Whittaker. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my son Andrew Chisholm, who is visiting us from SFU. Would you make him most welcome.

D. Streifel: I have visitors observing from the gallery today: Aimey Antle and Erin Antle with their mother, Juli Rees, from Winnipeg. They are also accompanied by a former colleague of mine, Frank Pozzobon. Would the House help make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's a rare occasion. A second introduction I'd like to make is from the senior high school in my riding, Terry Fox Senior Secondary School. In the gallery today we have a group of over 200 students, of which there are 50 accompanied by one of the teachers, Mr. Bruce Kiloh, who was recently nominated for the Mining Association of B.C. person of the year. I would ask the House to welcome these students, who are here as part of their social studies course -- and the teachers with them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like the House to make welcome a nephew, Rob Ferrier from Prince George, who is studying here in this wonderful city at Camosun College.

Oral Questions

B.C. CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, an easy question to the Premier today, the first back after a weekend. A one-word answer is all that's required. Could the Premier tell the people of British Columbia: in what month of this year will the people have a opportunity to vote on a made-in-B.C. question on constitutional reform for Canada?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I think the question is one that.... I would very much like to say the month and the day when that vote can take place, but I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware that the constitutional ministers of this country have been meeting over the last couple of weeks, are going to be meeting this week, and hopefully are moving closer to a constitutional package of reform that will allow this great country of ours to move forward. I think that when the constitutional affairs ministers complete their discussions and negotiations in the next few weeks, I will be able to answer that question much more definitively.

G. Wilson: I note that on February 21 on a local talk show the Premier said: "I don't care about anybody else's timetable; I'm sticking to B.C.'s timetable." Will the Premier tell this House by what process the B.C. question will be formulated, what the date will be when it is put before the people, and how much time will elapse before the people have an opportunity to vote on that question?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, the process is by referendum. That process will take place on the timetable of the people of British Columbia. As I explained in my first answer, we are into a very sensitive and I think positive set of discussions and negotiations that are taking place across Canada so that this can be a Canada round, not just one province. We're proud to be part of Canada, but I want to make it clear that we will have a referendum. I think what we should do, though, is complete those discussions across Canada so that we can have a constitutional reform package that will succeed this time.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

G. Wilson: I think all members of this Legislature want to see the constitutional reform succeed this time.

[ Page 818 ]

To that end, will the Premier today commit to this House that he will set aside full time for every member of this Legislature who wishes to debate on the formulation of the B.C. question and the timing of such a question? And would the Premier commit today to making sure that such a debate will take place in this House prior to any question being put to the Canadian people by the Mulroney government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, that is a matter of future policy, but I have made it clear that it's the people of British Columbia who will have the final say in the changes to the Canadian constitution. That will take place.

POACHING

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of Environment. At the annual convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the minister launched a new program, the undercover envirocop program. Will the minister confirm that the objective of this program is to reduce wildlife theft by the apprehension and prosecution of all poachers?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the intention of the program is to reduce poaching, yes.

C. Serwa: My question was with respect to the apprehension and prosecution of all poachers.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, there is an array of measures available to the ministry to do everything it can to eliminate poaching and illegal acts, and every effort will be made to make use of that array of resources.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

C. Serwa: I note, hon. Speaker, that the NDP government in Ontario, for example, interprets aboriginal hunting and fishing rights as allowing hunting in class A parks. Does that situation now exist in British Columbia?

[2:15]

The final thing is: what special provisions do the aboriginal people now enjoy with respect to your government in relation to poaching in this province?

The Speaker: Hon. minister, there are actually two questions there, but the minister may choose to answer one of them.

Hon. J. Cashore: Officials in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are in close consultation with aboriginal peoples throughout the province. We are seeking to address these issues on a partnership basis, and to this end we are working closely with the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We look to that process as the one that's going to work best for all people -- aboriginal people and the citizens of the province.

TEACHER LAYOFFS

W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. We on this side of the House wonder if the Premier has any message for the more than 1,000 teachers and support staff who will receive layoff notices from their local school boards.

Hon. A. Hagen: All boards at this time are finalizing their budgets for the coming year, as we are debating our budgets in this House. In the course of those plans, they are looking to the programs that they will be able to fund next year. We are in a planning process with boards, and I suggest the member should speak to the individual boards about their particular plans for their districts in the year ahead.

W. Hurd: A supplementary to the Premier. In his party's election treatise, "A Better Way," we note the following: "Educators will get the respect they deserve and will be drawn back into educational planning. Elected school boards and college boards will have their mandates restored." Was this government's idea of a mandate a pink slip, and do you get involved in education planning without any job?

Hon. A. Hagen: Every board in this province is committed to the education of its children, and every board in this province is working, as we are, within the budgets that have been provided for us. I have great confidence in the boards of the province to maintain services for children and to maintain the jobs of the teachers and support staff that are working in those districts. They are in a planning phase at this time, and they are letting us know of some of the difficulties that they have in that planning. But at this point it is very premature for the member to make such provocative comments about the future of jobs for teachers and support staff.

W. Hurd: Another gem from "A Better Way": "Funding will be geared to local needs rather than to artificial provincial averages." What's the difference between the federal government downloading on this province and his government downloading on school boards and councils in this province?

[ Page 819 ]

HIGHWAY TOLLS

D. Symons: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The opposition notes with interest that the minister is flirting with the concept of tolls for highway construction. Is this now NDP government policy, or is this just the minister's personal trial balloon?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: This is in the best tradition of open discussion. I would point out to the member opposite that, as he is quoted in the Sun this morning, he is not opposed to tolls in certain conditions.

D. Symons: There were some qualifying words around that, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

D. Symons: I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the NDP government is going to earn additional tax revenue from increased fuel tax, licensing fees and ICBC rates. They collect far more from these sources than they intend to spend on highways. How can this minister justify a further tax on the personal and commercial motorists of this province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the member opposite is going down the wrong road. The point is that there are many serious transportation problems throughout the province. If we want to put some of these off for ten or 15 years before we address them, that's one possibility. I would raise the possibility of funding these projects through borrowing and then creating a sinking fund, using tolls, to partially pay off those debts.

D. Symons: A supplemental to the Premier. Considering the vital importance of tourism to the provincial economy and our already high gas taxes, how does the Premier, who is fond saying the province is open for business, think tourists will respond to this new NDP toll tax?

The Speaker: I would recognize the member for Okanagan West.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL FEES

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Premier has confirmed that some $36,000 in caucus global funds were used to defray legal costs incurred by yourself in connection with the Firestone civil suit. Can the minister advise the House who paid his settlement costs, estimated last week to be in the range of $25,000 to $30,000?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that the question is out of order. Notwithstanding that, let me assure the hon. member that no taxpayer expenditures were made in that regard.

C. Serwa: Can the minister tell us why he would continue to use caucus global funding to pay for his legal costs, even after he knew that cabinet ministers are precluded by government policy from having their personal legal costs paid by the taxpayer?

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, the question is out of order. If the member continues to ask questions out of order, I guess that's his prerogative, but let me say this. With respect to that situation, I think it's fair to say that the right thing to do -- the correct thing to do, under the circumstances -- was to release the information before this House. That information made it clear that the former Attorney General of the province, Mr. Smith, was tampering with the administration of justice. I'm pleased to say that my caucus made a conscious decision to stand in support of that action on the part of this member, and so it should have. We make no apologies for having done so.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

C. Serwa: Can the Minister of Labour confirm that no organized labour group ever contributed either to defray his legal costs in the Firestone suit or to pay, in whole or in part, for the settlement costs? That's with respect to the $25,000 to $35,000.

Hon. M. Sihota: Not only is that question out of order, but quite frankly it is insulting. Let me say again to answer: I can confirm the fact that there was no assistance provided directly or indirectly by labour with respect to that matter in any way whatsoever. Having said that, I want to make it abundantly clear that the hon. member is breaching the privileges of this House by asking that kind of question. Quite frankly, I find it offensive and insulting that he would make that kind of accusation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration for 1990-91.

Hon. T. Perry: I wish to table the report entitled A Closer Look: A Profile of People With Disabilities in British Columbia. Then I will make a brief ministerial statement.

The Speaker: Does the minister have leave to table the report?

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

DISABLED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Hon. T. Perry: This report, A Closer Look , based on the health and activity limitations survey conducted as part of the 1986 federal census, provides a comprehensive look at British Columbians with disabilities. Hon. Speaker,

[ Page 820 ]

A Closer Look is at once both disturbing and compelling. It is disturbing in that it clearly identifies barriers to independence faced on a daily basis by British Columbians with disabilities, barriers associated with employment, income and education. It is compelling because it also contains personal accounts of British Columbians with disabilities who, through courage and determination, were and are able to overcome barriers to independence and lead fulfilling and productive lives, and they continue to do so.

Many of them will be present to meet members of this House at a reception I will host on behalf of the government this Thursday evening in Vancouver, to which all hon. members have been invited.

The tabling of this document is timely and significant, as this is the week of Independence '92, an historic international congress in Vancouver dedicated to people with disabilities and their quest for equality with all other citizens. I urge the key participants attending Independence '92 to read this report with consuming interest. They will find it invaluable in providing a perspective from which to develop and deliver new products and services to increase the independence of people with disabilities.

In conclusion, I want to commend those who were responsible for the publication of this report,

A Closer Look . Collaborators include my ministry, the ministries of Education, Social Services and Finance, and the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities.

[2:30]

D. Mitchell: I'd like to thank the minister for tabling this report in the House today. This is an important report dealing with the profiles of British Columbians with disabilities. I'd like to echo his words. It is extremely timely that this report be tabled in the House during this week, the week that Independence '92 is being hosted in Vancouver.

Independence '92 is a major international congress on people with disabilities. Our only hope as members of this assembly would be that the various ministries of government, including Advanced Education, Education, Social Services, and other agencies of government, including the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, live up to the hope and promise that has been made in the past. We hope that the commitment to provide services and benefits to British Columbians with disabilities of various kinds is still there.

H. De Jong: I also wish to thank the Minister of Advanced Education for bringing this report before us. A couple of years ago, when the previous government was undertaking some initiatives to help those who had disabilities, I spoke about this matter. I made reference to a gardener taking care of his garden. So this Legislature is taking care of the people who are hit by the storms of life. I'm very pleased that this work is continuing and that the Minister of Advanced Education has seen fit to bring this important booklet to this assembly. Undoubtedly we'll be discussing these matters further in the estimates to come.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, pursuant to the standing orders, I would advise members that the House will sit tomorrow afternoon.

Secondly, I call Committee of Supply:

section A in the Douglas Fir Room;

section B in the chamber. The Douglas Fir Room will consider votes 18 through 21 of the Ministry of Attorney General, and the committee in the House will consider Education, the minister's office vote.

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).

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, my questions this afternoon have to do specifically with the provision of funding for aboriginal people through the Ministry of Education as part of joint shared programs with the federal Department of Indian Affairs, and also through any special provision of funding that may be available for language training or cultural programs that relate to aboriginal people.

On the first instance, my question specifically is with respect to the formula provided in funds made available to aboriginal people. What is the position of this ministry with respect to the provision of those dollars directly to Indian bands for administration, as opposed to the current formula that is at work now where school districts become involved in the maintenance and distribution of those dollars? Could the minister outline what kinds of costs may be affected with the provision of dollars that might be available for aboriginal people, on a per capita basis, through this current system?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe a number of those issues have already been canvassed. Let me just respond briefly. There are a variety of working arrangements with local school boards and native bands and tribal councils around the delivery of education across the province. In addition, there are funds available for native language and resource development, sometimes in collaboration with local boards, tribal councils or other groups. It's a very diverse picture in terms of how services are provided for the aboriginal people of British Columbia and their children.

G. Wilson: If I am going over ground that has been covered, I trust the minister will have patience with me. I don't believe these questions have been asked. They are more specific to the availability of dollars for aboriginal people. There are two groups that I have some concern about -- those that are not reserve-based and may be a part of an urban environment and those that are reserve-based -- to make sure that there is adequate and proper provision of moneys for aboriginal children that can be administered directly from the

[ Page 821 ]

federal share. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on the advisability of the provision of those dollars in a direct transfer -- federal to tribal council -- as opposed to involving school districts, and on how that might facilitate dollars earmarked for native education that currently aren't finding their way there, especially for those native children who are not reserve-based.

Hon. A. Hagen: There is funding in the block for native children who are not reserve-based. As I noted, there are many arrangements between local school districts and bands and tribal councils around the delivery-of-education system. As in all areas, these are subject to negotiation on an ongoing basis. We're always working with native populations around the delivery of education services to their children.

G. Wilson: Certainly the information we are receiving in my own critic portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs from a number of aboriginal groups around the province is that there does not seem to be a satisfactory system of guaranteeing that the dollars available for native education go into native education, and that they are being used for other purposes. This is difficult to determine with any certainty because of the manner in which educational funds are reported and the manner available for us to assess in these estimates as to how that money can be earmarked or tied.

I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that, to see if there is a better way to get to the actual dollars available and the dollars actually being applied to aboriginal people.

Hon. A. Hagen: I again repeat that there are a variety of means by which dollars flow to native children in the school districts. Some of them come via the federal government on an average basis per pupil. There are additional resources that we make available on a program basis, and those will be as variable as the school districts.

I would certainly agree with the member that there need to be ongoing efforts, as we are engaged in at this time, to ensure that aboriginal people have a very strong voice in the education of their children -- as all parents wish to have a voice in the education of their children -- and that arrangements are made with their local school districts to accommodate those aspirations and those needs. It's impossible for me to give you all the variety of ways in which school districts are working with their bands and tribal councils.

Those negotiations are important and ongoing, and we are committed to them being productive.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for that answer.

A question related to this matter of funding for aboriginal programs has specifically to do with involvement in alternate programs, alternate schools and schools being established outside mainstream educational facilities where there are programs being established outside name-based white communities and where aboriginal people and young people are accessing education. To what extent is the Ministry of Education tied to the funding of those schools, and to what extent is that strictly driven by the Department of Indian Affairs? I wonder if there is some provision to work out exactly what kinds of dollars are coming in to the province with respect to those special facilities.

Hon. A. Hagen: Again, there are a variety of models. There are schools within the public school system, federally operated schools and independent schools that receive funding under the Independent School Act. We have a number of working arrangements established between the native people and the various jurisdictions with whom they work -- local school districts, the provincial government and the federal government.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for trying to answer my question. I don't know if my question is not easy to answer, or if I'm not asking it in enough detail. I'm attempting to isolate, in terms of some numbers, the dollars available on a per capita basis so that we can know with some certainty that those moneys allocated on that basis are going to that end.

I wonder how we can find those figures with some degree of certainty so that this year we know that if there are "x" number of dollars dedicated to "y" school district for aboriginal schools, or young children going into the schools, then in fact those dollars are being committed to those programs. I'm aware there are a variety of programs, and I am aware that there are joint jurisdictions, but I'm trying to get a handle on the figures, the numbers, that are actually being applied.

Hon. A. Hagen: I repeat, hon. Chair, that there are funds for the education of aboriginal children that come from the federal government based on the average cost. There are additional funds that are provided by the province. In most instances those funds are, like all funds, distributed to school districts based on their aboriginal populations. There are a variety of arrangements that the aboriginal peoples make with their local school boards through local agreements for how their children are educated.

I really think it's quite difficult for me to give you the kind of figures that would be useful. We have, again, diversity in our native population, in the school districts of the province and in the service delivery. If we can provide you with some additional information that might be helpful to you, we'd be very happy to oblige, but it's very difficult for me to provide you with what I think you're looking for in terms of this going into that, because of the diversity of educational systems that are in place.

I've been surprised myself, as minister, at the diversity. I think the goal, again, is that the native people have a strong say and voice in the education of their children. We're committed to working with the native people toward that end.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the difficulty the minister is finding. Perhaps my question might be better put in a written question which the minister and the minister's staff might be able to respond to. I'd be happy to do that and would welcome a response.

[ Page 822 ]

With respect to the direction that these questions are headed in, it would seem that because of the diversity the minister talks about, and because of the joint jurisdiction between federal and provincial governments, there is an unnecessary complication with the provincial government's involvement in the maintenance, administration and provision of transfer funds. I wonder what the minister's view is -- and I'm sensitive about not walking into future policy areas -- with respect to making a provision where band councils rather than school boards can directly administer those moneys.

[2:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: The member has described something that does in fact happen, where funds flow from the federal government to the band, and to the school board for agreed-upon services under a local education agreement. It's one of the diverse ways in which the aboriginal people are involved with setting up their own expectations around the delivery of education for their children.

G. Wilson: I'm aware that some councils, although I understand very few, actually work in that way. I wonder if the minister does have an idea in terms of the percentage increase of dollars that are going into local educational programs, what as a percentage of dollars there might be in terms of programs servicing aboriginal people. I don't know if you've broken it down by region in the province, but I wonder if you could give me a percentage increase with respect to reserve-based programs or programs for reserve-based people, and a percentage increase for those that are in urban schools where they are non-reserve-based? Are those figures available?

Hon. A. Hagen: That's a far too detailed question for us to be able to answer through the estimate process. I think it would be better if the member took us up on our offer to help him understand something about the range of ways in which native programs and schools and children are funded. I think that if that's what he's seeking, we can serve his purpose better in another forum.

G. Wilson: I will indeed take you up on your offer, and I would much appreciate getting that information. It's difficult as a critic in aboriginal affairs, because much of my questioning has to be in education, social services and in health care rather than in aboriginal affairs.

Is there any attempt in terms of the funding to start to move toward direct language training in the mainline school services provided in British Columbia with respect to aboriginal languages?

Hon. A. Hagen: We did answer that question earlier, and the answer is yes.

J. Dalton: I have several things that I want to canvass this afternoon, but I thought I should open with some general remarks on the fact that we've spent an extended period of time on these estimates, and importantly so. In fact, if I recall the words of the minister as we initiated our estimates almost two weeks ago, she said: "There will be ample time for full debate." I think that all members can appreciate that we've had a very extended and full debate. I make those introductory comments, because the timing of today's estimates is significant.

Yesterday was April 20. That was the day, according to the School Act, the final budget for each district had to be filed and handed down. I do have some particular comments that I wish to make about several of those districts, which without question have faced some very significant economic shortfalls.

The first thing I would like to say is that the Surrey School District -- and it's unfortunate that we have this example -- has filed its budget a day late, and it has also filed with a $3 million deficit included in its budget. Clearly that is contrary to the provisions of the School Act. The Surrey School Board was quoted as saying that they felt that they were compelled to file this deficit budget given the very serious economic shortfalls in their district.

I would like the minister to comment on the process that Surrey has had to go through: first, whether there may be any ministerial action taken against the Surrey School District as a result of this late filing and a deficit budget; secondly, whether this is not a predictable example of what we have commented on many times, and other people as well, that the school districts would be facing very serious economic conditions and are therefore compelled to have to go contrary to their own wishes and file such a deficit budget.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let's just note that yesterday was a holiday, and I take no issue with Surrey having filed its budget with our ministry today.

Let me just make a couple of comments about the information that Surrey has provided. I appreciate the information they have provided. They are aware, as the member has noted, that there is a compliance requirement for them to design a budget that is in line with the amount of money that has been provided for them. I think that was $232 million. My ministry will be working with the Surrey board, as it has over the past number of weeks, concerning the challenges that that district faces with such a rapidly growing school district. It is a very large district. It has many new students each year and is working to maintain a good working and learning environment for its children.

Let me also note that in our increased funding to every school district, including the Surrey School District, we have taken initiatives to increase stability and predictability. Surrey has some additional funding in its block for its rapid growth. It also has some additional funding that will be coming to it in the course of the next few months.

Surrey is operating a school meal program, which is funded on a targeted basis. Surrey is experiencing a fairly significant growth in the number of ESL students, and I'm quite sure it will have additional funds to help with the assessment and placement of those students. That school district will also anticipate funding for an

[ Page 823 ]

increased enrolment in September. One of the ways we have acted to improve predictability this year is to enable boards to know very early in the school year what the increases in funding will be as a result of new students.

In addition to the added funding that Surrey has received, additional funding will be coming to that school district in the course of the next few months.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that response. I must say that I am not convinced -- and I suspect the Surrey School District is not fully convinced -- of the hoped-for further funding. In one statement attributed to one of the school officials in Surrey, they felt compelled to file a $3 million deficit budget given that they had no expectation of being able to hire the additional staff that a growth district such as Surrey would be expected to. Perhaps we can come back to that particular example later. I did want to make comments on that.

It's unfortunate that a very large and growing school district such as Surrey felt compelled to go in contravention of the law and file a deficit budget. Perhaps it's a very indefinite hope, but Surrey is hoping for some special-aid grant or emergency funding that perhaps would be forthcoming after having been compelled to file a deficit budget.

As I said in my opening comments, the timing of our discussion today is of interest. I appreciate that yesterday was a holiday, as the minister pointed out. I don't know that it was a holiday for all, but certainly it was for us, and therefore school districts would not be in contravention for failing to file as of April 20. Today would be the deadline to do so.

I would like to take us back to January 31, and we'll work forward from that date. January 31 is a significant date because, as the minister of course will certainly recall, that was the day that she and the Minister of Finance announced the block funding increase for '92-'93. It was our reaction in the opposition right on that day -- in fact, we commented at the time -- that the increased funding would not be sufficient to take care of some of the anticipated and real costs of school districts. I think every evidence would indicate that our reaction at that time was correct and was accurate.

In particular, on January 31 the minister made the following comment -- and this is taken from the news release of January 31 that came from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights.

The minister is quoted in this release as saying: "The next year will not be easy, but under these difficult circumstances this is the best decision for education." The hon. minister is referring, of course, to the block funding increase which, as we discussed previously in these estimates, was a 2.4 percent economic adjustment, and then other increases for increased enrolment and some of the discrepancies in the school year's accounting as opposed to the government's fiscal year.

The minister has certainly several times in these estimates reminded the committee that the overall lift to her ministry is $300 million. We recognize that. It's a 9.1 percent lift in the ministry budget itself. However, I come back first to the statement the minister made on January 31 that next year will be a difficult year, or as she actually said: "The next year will not be easy...." I think there is every evidence that the next year for many school districts will be anything but easy. We take ourselves from the significant date of January 31, an increase of in effect 2.4 percent for the school districts.

It was quite predictable, and now the evidence is in, that many districts would be in significant economic shortfall for '92-'93.

If I may refer to some examples, I'm probably going to detail some more significantly than others, but every school district in some sense is feeling the pinch. That's not to say that we should just instantly find more money and correct all of their problems. School districts, of course, have to defend their budgets. They have to demonstrate, if they are in an economic shortfall, where the particular areas are in which they are feeling the difficulties.

Some of the evidence has now come forward as of yesterday, the date for the budgets to be set. We are informed by one

article in a Vancouver newspaper that -- and these are only approximate figures -- 1,000 jobs in the education system will be cut as a result of the economic shortfall. Now these are teaching, administrative, support staff and other related, such as custodial positions. I think it's a reasonably accurate estimate, Mr. Chairman, that 1,000 jobs overall are going to be lost in the B.C. school system -- teaching and non-teaching related functions -- as a result of the budget that we are now debating. That's unfortunate.

[3:00]

I believe, if I can recall, the minister made a public statement recently suggesting that the districts having to lay off and give notice to teachers will perhaps at least have some satisfaction or -- maybe that's not the right term -- some limited pleasure in knowing that the growth districts will be in a position to hire these laid-off teachers, the ones about to be dismissed. I think probably the example of Surrey would point out that that is not a likelihood. We commented previously on that. Every district is facing economic shortfall.

Growth districts such as Surrey, even though they might like to hire the laid-off teaching staff from other districts, are not going to be in a position to do so, as the evidence indicates.

If I can just make some other particular references while we're on the topic of layoffs within the school system. Some of the districts that have already announced or are going through the process now of layoffs are: Vancouver, 220 teaching and non-teaching support staff plus administrative positions; Victoria -- as was well documented, quite a while ago -- 263 part-time and full-time teaching positions from the Greater Victoria School District. Some other examples that are referred to -- just to show that we're not talking about lower mainland or Vancouver Island only -- Prince George is facing 52 cuts in its school district; Cowichan, 35; the Shuswap district is also referred to in this

article from the Vancouver Sun of yesterday, 23 teaching positions being lost.

I'm just citing those, Mr. Chairman, to reinforce the position that we have been advancing in these estimates that the block funding is inadequate.... We could also

[ Page 824 ]

address -- but we're not going to deal with that here specifically -- the obvious need for a very serious re-examination of the block funding formula itself. But these examples do point out that there's a very significant economic difficulty that many, many school districts are going through for '92-'93. If we do not address the overall question of funding -- and, as I say, that will be a future policy discussion -- then things are not going to improve over the years.

I'm inviting the minister to comment as to the very serious disruption to these and other school districts that is being caused by the layoff notices and by other cuts that I'm going to refer to in a moment -- and whether the promise that this government has indicated, at least to the school system, that things would improve was perhaps a misleading reference. Perhaps the school districts had an expectation for the upcoming year that has been anything but realized.

Is the minister prepared to give very serious consideration to the requests of school districts that some form of emergency funding, special aid grant, special purpose grant -- whatever we wish to call it...? Would it not be a strong possibility? Because quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the school officials that I've talked to over the last few days and weeks do not see the real expectation of improvement, certainly not in the next year and even beyond that.

It is very difficult for these school officials to do serious and effective planning when there's so much discontent within the school districts and so much upset caused to the teachers, parents, students and everyone who's involved in the system.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, one of the challenges in debating the Education estimates is that we have a cogoverned system. There are 75 school districts in the province, who are responsible for setting their budgets, their school programs, within a framework which is established by the Ministry of Education, and much of our discussion is related to school district budgets.

I am responsible in this House and to the people of British Columbia, on behalf of my government, for the budget of the Ministry of Education, and I do believe that to some extent we are going over ground that we have been going over now for almost two weeks in respect to these estimates.

Let me repeat that every school district in British Columbia received an increase in funding this year. Every school district is fully funded for increases in enrolment for the coming school year, including an additional phase where funds will be provided for latecomers into the school system. In addition, there have been funds allocated for some of the identified areas of need as we move toward the goal of a more stable and predictable system, which the member mentioned.

On January 31, I announced a funding and finance review which would take place in this coming year preparatory to next year. A great deal of work has gone on in respect to preparing for that review with, I might note, cooperative consultation from school districts of the province, who have provided us with a great deal of useful and helpful information, because we are jointly responsible.

I can speak to our goals, which were to make education our highest priority; to increase funding for every school district to the tune of $300 million -- $232 million directly to the programs that the member is talking about; funding for debt-servicing of new schools; renewed schools; and health and safety improvements in those schools. Those are the targets for our funding. We have improved funding, and we have introduced some programs.

It is a difficult year. It is a year, as I said, that will not be easy. We are facing, in the province, a massive deficit that could eat up tens of millions of the dollars which the member would like to have going into school programs; so would I; so would every member on this side of the Legislature. We have provided for education in the province for next year, and I am satisfied and proud that we have given that priority to education, as we said we would when we were elected.

The issue, then, of looking at school districts district by district is something that cannot be fully canvassed in this Legislature because we are dealing with the budgets of another level of government for which I have the greatest respect and with which I believe I have excellent working relationships.

The Chair: Before the member continues, I would just concur with the frustration over the matter of the two different jurisdictions; however, they are intertwined, as the minister has pointed out. Could the member continue, keeping in mind that there are limitations on the ability of the committee to address matters which are being dealt with at the school board level in all respects.

J. Dalton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks and I certainly appreciate the remarks the minister has just made. I do feel, however, that it is very important that we in opposition stand up and speak strongly on behalf of school districts. That is certainly part of our function, and I think it's a very important function. I don't think the minister would quarrel with that. I do appreciate that once the funding is set for local school districts, then, of course, they have their own jurisdiction and authority as to how they spend that money.

There is a recurring theme here, and it's one that I don't want to have to restate many times. Covering old ground, as I believe the minister said, is not necessarily going to be profitable. But I would point out again that this is a significant day, because now the final budgets are in. Those final budgets, of course, are dictated by what the ministry provides to each school district. Therefore we cannot escape the real fact that because of the underfunding of the system, these districts are now indicating to us that their final budgets.... Very unpleasant and unfortunate news is coming forth.

I don't wish to be guilty of restating something that we have said, certainly in a general sense, many times before in these estimates. But I can certainly point out to the committee some specific examples of school districts that are now facing very significant disruptions in their program offerings because of underfunding. I've already referred to the layoffs of teaching and

non-

[ Page 825 ]

teaching staff, so we don't need to examine that in any further detail. That certainly is an obvious indication of disruption in the system. Again, the overall problem of underfunding is causing many difficulties.

I would like to point out to the committee some examples of underfunding that are causing disruptions from district to district. One very significant example: in 1992-93 the West Vancouver School District is facing a budget reduction of $2.142 million. That, among other things, is resulting in 25 full-time-equivalent teachers being laid off in the West Vancouver district. That's just another example of the difficulties many districts are facing. Burnaby is another example. It's facing a $1.8 million cutback for 1992-93.

If I can paraphrase what the minister commented on recently, it is correct that every district has received an increase in its budget for 1992-93, as opposed to the previous year. But when the increase is inadequate to provide for even the obvious fixed costs of a district, not even taking into account possible salary increases and all the other things that are going to impact on a district, I'm going to suggest that this very serious problem of underfunding has to be specifically addressed. It would be nice if we could all come up with a solution that would be reasonably desirable for all concerned.

Reality dictates that that is not going to happen, but we do have to come back and reinforce these very unpleasant times that school districts are going through.

If I may, I will also refer to one other example, because I think this is probably the most dramatic example in this province. I may be perhaps overstating it, but I think not. It's very unfortunate to me personally because my three children attend the North Vancouver School District, and they are going to suffer as much as anyone within the district. I had the unpleasant task of attending the North Vancouver School District meeting when the final budget was set on April 14. I have the document in front of me, and I can tell you that there was a litany of program cuts and reductions.

Just to point out some examples, there were 14 programs in North Vancouver that were eliminated completely. They are gone because of the underfunding of the system -- including some very significant what I call "flagship programs" that the North Vancouver district has built up over the years, and now unfortunately has to go and eliminate entirely from their offerings, such as the outdoor school program. That outdoor school program -- certainly well-known throughout British Columbia -- has to be mothballed for '92-93 because of underfunding.

The band and strings program for elementary students is gone -- again, a flagship program well-known throughout British Columbia. It is entirely regrettable to me personally, and as the official opposition Education critic, to have to cite these examples. But there is reality. We're not talking about hypothetical situations -- maybe a few people being disrupted or having to shop around and find jobs elsewhere. We in North Vancouver are losing very important and significant programs, and it is because of a $10.2 million shortfall for '92-93.

[3:15]

The minister correctly.... As in our previous discussions, I acknowledge the special grant of $2.8 million that her ministry extended to North Vancouver, but even taking into account a special grant for one school district -- and I believe that was 14 percent of the entire special grants given to the districts -- obviously that is not taking care of the problem, not in any way shape or form.

So, coming back to this North Vancouver example, 14 programs were eliminated entirely, including some very significant and well-recognized programs of long standing. Another 17 programs in North Vancouver have to be curtailed. There are significant reductions in 17 other programs, including library acquisitions. So that means that the libraries in that district -- among other school districts -- are going to be suffering.

It's a very sad commentary to have to state that because this ministry has not been able to provide the adequate funding to school districts, we are facing such significant cutbacks.

I would also point out to the committee that in North Vancouver 96 full-time-equivalent teaching staff will have to be let go because of these reductions, as will 17 administrators, plus non-support staff. I cite that example because, as I said earlier, I believe that's probably the most dramatic example in this province. Perhaps some will accuse me of being a bit self-serving, because it also happens to affect my children. However, I don't think there's any question that North Vancouver is a very significant example. It's one that certainly brings to reality the economic shortfall that many, many districts are facing.

I would restate to the minister: is there not some means of addressing these economic shortfalls by providing some emergency funding, more special grants? School districts like North Vancouver are going through pure agony as to how they plan for the next year. I would also point out that it is not just the next year. What about the year after? Will they be able to reinstate these programs? Do they have any expectation from the ministry that, even if they have to live without for a year, they can start their planning for the '93-94 school year?

It would be far preferable to all concerned if some form of emergency funding -- for want of a better term -- were made available to these districts that can demonstrate real need and are not just suggesting to the minister: "Well, by the way, we're having a few economic difficulties. Please bail us out." So I invite the minister, if she can, to perhaps give these school districts some glimmer of hope, some light at the end of this very dark tunnel that has been created by underfunding the system.

Hon. A. Hagen: Again the member is asking me to comment on the decisions of the North Vancouver School Board. I could look at a whole range of issues in relation to school districts. As I've noted, school districts are responsible for setting their own budgets. I respect the very challenging and difficult task that that is for every school district, every year.

I must repeat that North Vancouver received an increase of 3 percent this year over last year. It has received increases each year, as have other districts of the province, in line with a consistent approach to the

[ Page 826 ]

basic education program funded by our service. North Vancouver offers a rich array of programs. The member is well aware of that, and so am I. North Vancouver has been treated fairly and consistently, as have the other districts of the province, in the nearly $240 million that have gone to each and every school district for school programs across British Columbia.

L. Fox: When I addressed a question to you with respect to the effects of the fair wage policy on the capital program last week, you deferred that to the Minister of Labour, and I more or less accepted that. But on further review, I find in the order-in-council listings that order M37, which the minister herself signed, was a direction to the school boards and to the province as to how the fair wage policy would apply with respect to capital projects.

So I have to ask you again, hon. minister, if there's been any consideration given as to how this fair wage policy would apply to the more remote segments of this province. In many cases individuals in the trades are well-recognized in various ways, certainly in terms of their work ethic and expertise, but they're not ticketed. It is of extreme concern in my area that this so-called fair wage policy would not allow the people and the companies that historically built our schools, did a very good and economical job and through that supported their respective communities....

I'm extremely concerned that this policy may limit their opportunities to continue to provide those services.

Hon. A. Hagen: As I noted in our discussion previously, concerns relating to implementation of that will go to the Minister of Labour. I note the concerns that this member has raised, and I'm sure they will be made known to the minister.

L. Fox: I look forward to that direction being given to the minister, hopefully emphatically, from your perspective.

Another clarification that I'd like to get with respect to a question I asked last week is specifically to do with the $30 million designated for educational change and implementation in '92-93. Has the minister decided on what basis those dollars are going to be allotted -- whether it's going to be done on a per-capita or per-student basis, whether it's going to be done based on needs tests -- or what process is going to be used in order to distribute those funds through the system?

Hon. A. Hagen: The amount of money that the member refers to is in the Ministry of Education budget to support education change. There is a wide diversity of initiatives being proposed to assist teachers, parents and school districts in achieving change. Once our estimates are finished, we will be in a position to begin to consult with our partners in education on the ways in which those dollars will be used in the school districts. The important thing for me to note is that approximately one-third of the ministry's direct budget will be going to assist the process of change in the school districts of the province.

H. De Jong: I just have a couple of questions. The first one deals with the possible inequity in block funding. When block funding was initiated by the previous Minister of Education, there were some school districts that received considerably more and others less, as it applies to a student ratio and the funding per student.

I'm sure that the minister is quite well aware of the problems District 34 ran into. They operated a very frugal budget for years prior to the block funding coming into place, because they were very concerned about the funding cost to the taxpayer. At the same time, they got caught in this block funding, which really hampered the operations of School District 34. I guess one of the reasons that it's difficult is that many school districts, through the bargaining process, have established by contract with the teachers a class size or a student-teacher ratio.

My question to the minister would be: is that a fair way of running a school district? In fact, these pupil-teacher ratios are a part of the bargaining process, thereby making it very difficult for school boards to operate and provide the necessary funding for the programs that the people of the community expect the school board to deliver.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would note that the method of bargaining is the method of bargaining introduced by that member's government, but we are again into the jurisdiction of local school boards, who are responsible for collective agreements with their teachers and other members of their staff. Those are entirely within the jurisdiction of local boards.

H. De Jong: Again, I'm not sure whether the minister understands my question correctly. Does the ministry feel that the negotiations between a school district and the teachers' association of that particular school district should be allowed to have the teacher ratio as a part of the bargaining process?

Hon. A. Hagen: I note that the scope of bargaining is a matter between the local school district and its employee groups.

The Chair: The point's well taken. Continue, hon. member.

H. De Jong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll get down to something else then.

As I said earlier about the block funding and the inequity in the administration of the block funding as it initially came about, where school boards had all kinds of staff and equipment and, on top of that.... Some districts, like District 34, are coping with very fast growth which really wasn't recognized in the block funding. Has the minister or the ministry done anything since last year to accommodate that inequity, which was very apparent between District 34 and other school districts within the province?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I will repeat that Abbotsford is a growing district and has therefore

[ Page 827 ]

[3:30]

H. De Jong: I thank the minister for those answers. I appreciate those moves.

One final question in relation to the independent schools. We have quite a number of independent schools within our constituency. They're well-run schools. They've enjoyed a substantial amount of support from the previous government, and, of course, the previous government had seen fit to increase the funding for independent schools from 30 percent to 50 percent of the cost that is being provided for each student within that particular school district. Is the minister continuing to provide the same level of funding within this budget to independent schools as was done last year?

Hon. A. Hagen: Before I respond, I should have noted this before: there are some, I believe, secondary school students in the gallery. I'm not sure whether they have been welcomed or not.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Hagen: May I just welcome you from wherever you are -- I'm not sure where you are. I'm delighted that you're here for part of the Education estimates today.

Let me turn, then, to the member's question and note that independent schools continue to be funded according to the School Act. In your particular school district, because there is an increase in funding, that increase flows through in a percentage way to the independent schools.

C. Serwa: It's a real pleasure to stand up on this side of the House and speak on the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I don't intend to take a lot of time. I think the debate has been fairly well canvassed with the broad spectrum. There are a few areas, though, that I have specific concern with. Unless the Chair rules me out of order, I intend to pursue them or structure my questions so that the questions are in fact in order. I'm a little bit concerned, too, with the restriction on latitude in some of the questions in sensitive areas; they're the areas that I particularly want to probe.

I'm very pleased that the former government had two individuals acting as Ministers of Education who had a great deal of commitment towards education. Certainly Tony Brummet was an outstanding gentleman whose total career was devoted to education and to young people. I was very pleased to know the former minister as a friend and as a dedicated individual who stood for the best interests of the learner and a standard of excellence in education.

The last Minister of Education certainly earned a tremendous degree of respect in British Columbia for his commitment to advanced education and the opportunities that would allow a much higher number of our students graduating from grade 12 to go on through to college and university degrees because of the expanded opportunity throughout the entire province.

Fundamentally I think that we're all well aware that lower than national averages in that transition from senior secondary to university were because of the difficulty of access to the three major universities, two of them on the lower mainland and one on Vancouver Island. I think that we made good progress.

The minister has indicated that education is fundamentally everyone's business. I agree wholeheartedly with that. My concern is that some single interest and special interest groups are trying to make education only their business, and perhaps I'll be asking some questions with respect to that.

Over the past five years -- this is the sixth year -- how would your global budget for the Ministry of Education stand in comparison to previous increases? Does it rank as the largest increase with your proposed commitment to education? Because I've heard you repeatedly talk about underfunding from the former administration, and at the present time you are talking of your deep-seated commitment to education, and you continue to refer to it. How does the increase in this budget over last year rank with the increases over the past five or six years?

Hon. A. Hagen: I think the member knows that he should be commenting about my actions as the Minister of Education in these estimates. I have no comment about previous administrations.

C. Serwa: I thought you would defer this question and a lot of my subsequent questions, but for the record I might as well tell the people of British Columbia and the BCTF, and whoever is interested in the matter, that this year's increase is the smallest in the Ministry of Education in six years. It is the smallest in the global budget. It's the smallest in the block increase. Undoubtedly the minister is very proud of that. It's also the lowest percentage of the total budget of the Ministry of Education over the past six years. The commitment of that particular minister to education is questionable.

Those are the figures that I have, Mr. Chairman. I'll sit down if the minister would like to answer my statement, but as I have it, all of those statements that I've made are absolutely correct, and it shows no commitment on the part of this minister or on the part of this government towards education defined as education for the learner.

Hon. A. Hagen: That member was part of a government that left the people of British Columbia with a $2.5 billion deficit when it brought in a budget where it said it had a $495 million deficit, so we should not necessarily probe too deeply into records.

Let me repeat that the Ministry of Education is enriched this year by $300 million, by a $582 million

[ Page 828 ]

capital funding budget and by an increase overall of 9.1 percent in a time when we are dealing with that member's government's deficit of $2.5 billion in the last year of their administration. I don't wish, though, to make any further comments about that sorry record. I really would prefer that we look at the commitment we have made in this year toward education.

C. Serwa: Certainly I can see why the minister would not want to look back at the underfunding statements of that commitment. I read her questions on the estimates last year, and I know that the Peat Marwick Thorne manifesto that they're utilizing this year as a basis for their whole political initiative is the basis of that ministry's statements with respect to funding.

The interesting thing with respect to the minister's statement.... Really, global funding is the issue, and we're talking about this year. It's a well-established fact, not disputed, that the performance of British Columbia under the former government was outstanding -- without peer and the lead in Canada itself.

While the minister talks about water under the bridge and the expanded deficit, which is playing very fast and loose with reality -- but the minister likes to do that -- the reality is that we're talking about this year. Deficits, real or imaginary, of past administrations have nothing to do with it. We're talking about revenue where British Columbia has been poised to take advantage of the opportunities in a strong economy. This government is doing everything it can to cool off the economy.

The minister knows full well that what we're talking about is a commitment on this year's funding, and this year's funding has taken the smallest percentage of the provincial budget for education. How do you justify that with your purported commitment?

Hon. A. Hagen: We have examined extensively the commitment of this government to education and education performance through increases in funding to school districts and to capital funds. It would be repetitious for me to repeat that information now.

The Chair: The member would please note the concern with repetition. However, the member may proceed.

C. Serwa: I think that the points were well made by me, and I don't have to really reinforce it, but the commitment has been very small indeed. One of the difficulties that we have right now is the recognition of the repeal of some of the regulations with Bill 82, which put a number of school districts in a particularly difficult bind. The accommodation has not been made by the ministry to relieve those pressures. Those pressures have reared their heads, certainly in School District No. 23, which is the school district that I am privileged to represent part of.

Initially they came in with a $7.1 million deficit budget. All the professionals, the teachers, obviously the members of the school board, the superintendent, the employees, recognized that they could make a difference if they accepted greater obligations and worked harder.

I think the reality is that we can be very proud of what has been achieved in education in this province. Not too long ago the minister sent a news release to my office on the highlights of an international competition. I believe there were 20 countries involved, and British Columbia not only placed above the national average in Canada but placed exceedingly well with the age group of 13-year-olds in science and mathematics. So I think that our professionals, the teachers, are certainly doing a good job, the administrators are doing a good job, the trustees of school districts are doing a good job.

I think that the system is filled with competent, dedicated people striving for a standard of excellence.

The challenge in that standard of excellence is the upper echelons of the BCTF. They have their own problems, and I lament the situation that we have right now, where it's apparent that there is a very close intertwined relationship between the party in power and the upper echelons of the BCTF, and every time, I know that the....

Mr. Chairman appears to keep correcting me.

The Chair: Hon. member, I appreciate the comments you made a little while ago about possibly being out of order. I think you are at this stage delving into matters which do not fall within the purview of the minister's office, and I would ask you to be guided by the specific responsibilities that fall within that ministry.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much. I appreciate and respect what you've said, Mr. Chairman, but without a shred of doubt the minister is not immune either directly or indirectly to the influence of the BCTF.

I regret that the questions that I'm putting forward are in fact very much part of the policy of the administration of the Ministry of Education. I will leave that topic, mindful of your concern, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to make it clear for the public record, and I want the public of British Columbia to recognize very well that there will be a theft from society at large, and that that theft will be orchestrated and organized by a government very sympathetic to the upper echelons of the BCTF, and it won't be for the advantage of the learners in society.

The Chair: Hon. member, I think I noted an unparliamentary expression. Did you make reference to theft in any way? If you did, I think you should consider that under our standing orders comments that impute an ulterior or disrespectful motive would be out of order. So if you did make such a comment, would you consider the significance of it and withdraw it.

[3:45]

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I didn't allude to any individual with respect to that comment. I will say that in my view, clearly, that will tend to occur. Whether I can lighten it up a little or perhaps choose some other less offensive word.... You may suggest a word. I'm concerned....

[ Page 829 ]

The Chair: In deference to the House and the standing orders, just as a matter of principle, if there's any question, I would hope that the hon. member would withdraw.

C. Serwa: In respect for the Chair, I will withdraw the remark.

The Chair: Thank you very much, hon. member.

C. Serwa: The minister had indicated that there was a substantial increase in the block, an increase of 6.5 percent. Reading through the debate on the estimates, rather than the 2.4 percent or 2.5 percent with respect to inflation, a figure of 6.5 percent came out in the later estimates. The minister has also been talking consistently about block-to-block. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me as to where the 6.5 percent came in, in the block.

Hon. A. Hagen: There are a lot of figures that we have been working with in respect to this. A number of factors go into the increase in funding that goes to education programs. There are increases for enrolment and for what we usually call the economic adjustment. There are increases that reflect improvements in funding for rapidly growing school districts, such as that member's school district. There are increases in capital funding. There is whole range of ways in which there are improvements that total that 6.5 percent block-to-block. All of them are targeted to school districts.

In addition, there is the school meal program and additional funding for enrolment that comes later on. All of those come into that total.

C. Serwa: It's my information that the increase in the block was achieved, yes, by factoring in for inflation but also by factoring in a number of elements that were previously grants to school districts for specific purposes. Certainly one of those was the acquisition of computer technology, which is now in the block. Other aspects were with respect to planning for capital facilities and -- I've forgotten the other term -- with respect to reopening facilities. There are a number of elements that you've now included in the block that were formerly not included in the block. So when you talk about a direct block-to-block comparison, it's not a fair comparison, is it?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just deal with one element that I neglected to answer last time. There is an inclusion of computer funding in the block this year. Last year $1 million was targeted in computer funding; this year there's $10 million in the block. It will be there every year and will be increased by the economic adjustment and by changes in enrolment. It will be a committed amount of money, not an amount of money that can be played around with, as was the case in the former administration.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, minister, for the comment. Does the minister recognize what the ratio of students per computer is in British Columbia compared with other jurisdictions in Canada? This is as a result of former administrations playing around. Would the minister give us that figure?

Hon. A. Hagen: In a technological age we always have the challenge of educating our youngsters with the equipment, technology and training that is going to prepare them for their personal and work lives and for their further education. That's the goal of our government in providing resources for technology.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for that non-answer, minister. The figure is that we're number one in Canada. The arbitrary funding that you alluded to is not true. There was a major, significant contribution with respect to computers, and we're fully aware of the necessity and importance of that.

In spite of our position here, we're genuinely united in the concept of achieving a standard of excellence for the education of our young people that will really make us second to none. We may have differences in how to get there, though. During the last restraint period, when everyone in the education system had to roll up their sleeves and work together, there was a strong improvement in the display of knowledge gained by the students during that period. So money isn't the cure for everything. I'm not saying that we should throw more money at the system.

While you're purporting to say that we're throwing a great deal of money and all of a sudden Valhalla is here, it is not. The harsh reality of being government is your responsibility at the present time, and you're well aware of it.

Most of the continuing responsibilities of your ministry are a result of the previous ministers of the former administration. I won't belabour the estimates here at this point. It would be most appropriate that you have the opportunity to influence the ministry on the tack that you take. I suspect that you will strive to get away with as much as you possibly can for the best interests of the BCTF, and I'm afraid of that. On the other side, I know your deep-seated commitment to education. I hope the minister has the strength to persevere for the best interests of the learners in the system.

After all, that is who the system is for. We will be watching the activities of the Ministry of Education with respect to legislation and your departure from established commitments -- for example, the College of Teachers and your plans in that area.

I will end my comments. Once again, you've got a long way to go to justify what you said and where your commitment is. I wish you the best of luck in your future.

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for his comments. I would just like to note that the most fundamental principle of my working relationships with everyone in education is respect for everyone who works in education.

V. Anderson: I've been listening, and I appreciate the interest, desire and hard work that the minister has put through both before and during this.

[ Page 830 ]

One of the questions I would bring at this point, which has come out of the discussion, is the question of how, as the minister and a member of the Legislature.... We're all members here together, equally responsible to our constituents. At the moment I'm not thinking about the school boards or the teachers or the education, but about the families and the people within the community.

In my constituency office today I received 82 letters of concern about education, and those letters need to be responded to by a member of the Legislature. I would like to be able to respond to them as fairly, cooperatively and positively as possible -- not in a negative way but in a positive way. So I'm looking for some help at this point as to how the minister might give guidance to me and others -- because I'm sure others are receiving similar letters -- on how to respond at this moment.

Hon. A. Hagen: I do think the member asks more of the minister than might usually be expected. I have great faith that this member will listen to his constituents, be advised by them and advocate for them in this assembly and directly to the minister and ministry. That's your job, hon. member, and I respect the fact that you will do it well. I have every confidence in you.

V. Anderson: I'm not so concerned that they have confidence in me, but I am concerned that they have confidence in what we're about in the Legislative Assembly working together. And it's on that basis that I asked the question. I am concerned, as many have stated in this Legislature from all sides of the House, that there has been a feeling in the community at large that the politicians can't be trusted, to put it in the negative term. We've all said together that we wanted to change that image. There are probably few places where that touches people more than it does in Health, Education or Social Services.

So I'm very sincerely asking how we can cooperatively -- out of all the discussion -- take a message back that says: "Yes, we have problems, but we are collectively working to solve those problems." Education is a key one for many of the people in the community.

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe that the estimates have provided members with a considerable amount of information. If there's specific information in respect to your own school district that would be helpful for you to have, we're more than happy to make that available to you. I thank the member for his approach to using the resources of the assembly. It's consistent with my own approach around collaborative and cooperative efforts. I believe there are ways in which we can work together, once we finish with some of the work that takes us into this forum -- a useful forum for all of us.

But I anticipate that this new Legislature will find some of those ways and that you, as a member, will contribute to that process.

L. Reid: I have two questions, so I'm going to keep my remarks very brief. Why are Richmond taxpayers taxed at the fifth-highest rate in the province, but their students funded at the third-lowest rate? How can such a discrepancy be explained or justified?

Hon. A. Hagen: The matter of taxation is a complex one that involves the Minister of Finance. In respect to the specific funding for Richmond, it is based on the same funding formula that applies to all districts. In the case of Richmond, there have been increases in funding for the current year, because Richmond is a growing district. Some of the changes made in the funding formula were clearly targeted to Richmond. I'm sure the member is aware of those, both decisions I took last year and decisions this year. So there have been moves toward improved stability for districts like Richmond.

I'd like also to note again, just to repeat, that I really appreciated the input of boards, who have provided information about their districts, their programs and their needs, because that is helping to inform our funding and financial review. We've done a lot of the spadework on that, and boards like yours have significantly contributed to our understanding -- my understanding -- of those issues.

L. Reid: In the metro school zone, Richmond's per-pupil proportion of the block fund is almost $600 less than in the highest-funded metro district. Why is there such a wide range in the portion of the block allocated to metro districts which have essentially the same or similar needs? Why would such an obvious growth district such as Richmond be funded at the lowest per-pupil rate in the metro area?

Hon. A. Hagen: The method of funding for each district is based on quite a complex range of factors. The number of students is the fundamental one; but there is also the demographics, the mix of students, and that varies from district to district. The remuneration for staff also varies from district to district. Those factors fundamentally produce some of the variables that we find.

[4:00]

Richmond has a 4 percent increase this year over last year. Its enrolment growth appears perhaps to be settling down a little bit; there's an interesting pattern with some of the rapidly growing districts. But over the years, the funding has exceeded the rate of growth and inflation costs. If you're interested in knowing some of the factors over time, the ministry would be happy to help you know some of those variables. As we've noted, we want to review, through our funding and financial review, whether all of those systems are providing us with the best way of distributing.

Because that's really what we're talking about: there's a block of funds, and we're talking about distributing them fairly and consistently to all boards in order for them to be able to provide the core services mandated by the provincial government.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments, hon. minister. To be more specific, we've been in discussions for many, many years in terms of how similar Richmond is to the school district of Burnaby, yet there still seems to be an

[ Page 831 ]

incredible discrepancy there. I'd be most interested in how Burnaby is funded in relation to Richmond, and what we can do to hopefully resolve some of those issues. I appreciate the offer that you and I could sit down and work through some of these things; I'd be very interested in doing that. For now, I'm just interested in terms of how the decisions that affected Burnaby more positively than Richmond were reached.

Hon. A. Hagen: Both boards, Richmond and Burnaby, are in a similar situation in the history from which they've come. But it's not possible for me to really give you what I consider to be a properly informed answer on district-to-district comparisons. That's just an impossible approach to take in estimates. There is a variety of factors that play into that, some of them historical, some of them demographic. If you would like to look into that in more detail, I'd be very pleased to do that with you. As I say, I think that some of those discussions help to inform the longer-term move towards stability.

Richmond will have received additional funds for growth, because it does have new schools opening, so it can hire its staff early -- its administrative staff. There will also be some additional resources for its capital funding in order for it to be better able to manage what's a fairly significant capital envelope, because Richmond is still catching up. I've been looking with some interest at the fact, too, that there are some interesting configurations with your school district in secondary school as compared with others. There are quite a number of junior secondary schools, for example, in Richmond, which is a different pattern than exists in other school districts.

L. Reid: One other question in terms of an experience that a lot of hospitals have around the province, i.e., they have capital funds but they don't have operating dollars. Has any thought been given to dollars for education that are designated capital perhaps being used for operating in times where that's going to be essential? Certainly we have new schools in Richmond, but we're not sure we're going to have the dollars to staff them appropriately.

Hon. A. Hagen: Those are separate fundings. There's a B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority, and fundamentally those are flow-throughs. What the school district manages is the debt-servicing. They are entirely different budgets. It's oil and water; they are not mixable.

J. Dalton: I have one question on independent school funding. We appreciate -- and the minister already responded earlier today -- that the block funding for independent schools is the same as it was previously, but the federation has raised a concern about their funding for special-needs students. It's my understanding, from the information provided to me, that their budget for special needs has been cut. Of course, special needs is an important aspect of education, and the Minister has certainly acknowledged that. Would the minister care to comment on the special-needs funding for independent schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I have already responded to that question and noted that within the block there is funding for special needs and the independent schools have been funded according to the Independent School Act.

W. Hurd: I have a quick question pertaining to my own district, Surrey School District 36. If this question has already been asked during the debate on estimates, I apologize to the minister. I've tried my best to follow them, but haven't always been available. It pertains to the matter of referenda funding for additional funds for each school district. During the course of two meetings with members of the school trustees in Surrey, we've been advised that the board had considered referenda funding as an option to make up the shortfall.

My question regarding the estimates is whether or not any instructions have been given to individual boards regarding referenda funding for the current school year and whether or not this particular method is going to continue into the next fiscal year.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, as a matter of information, all boards are informed about referenda information with the budget papers that go to them. To the best of my knowledge, no board has decided to go to a referendum, and it's my understanding that the date by which they must make that decision has passed.

J. Dalton: Mr. Chairman, we've had lengthy and overall fruitful discussions in these estimates. Certainly many members had opportunities to raise local concerns out of their districts; provincial concerns; concerns of a wide-ranging nature dealing with aboriginal education; special needs; independent school funding; and, of course, the most significant question of all, which we've all addressed in one way or another, of global funding and the block funding formula.

We didn't always get the answers that we would have liked, but I think we could all recognize that the minister was certainly forthcoming in her remarks and helpful in the information that she was prepared to provide to this committee.

I also want to make sure, before I make any other comments, that I thank the two officials who have attended patiently through these hours. I know that they've been very helpful to the minister and certainly will be helpful to the process itself as we continue. All of us, obviously, express very real and genuine concerns for education, for the funding and -- as I think I said in one of my initial statements in these estimates -- for the overall investment in education. I know the two officials have been very useful in the information they're providing and will certainly be a very important part of the overall process as we attend to this very important government service that is provided.

As I say, we haven't always received the answers that we would have liked, but that's fine. We can appreciate that there is a certain economic reality, as I believe the minister has stated from time to time. It's unfortunate

[ Page 832 ]

that the economic reality has had a real and difficult impact on school districts. We're not going to go back and canvass old ground; it has been fully documented.

Hopefully in the months and years ahead we can all collectively and individually address the real concerns that school districts are facing this year, and hopefully we can give some assurance to those districts that next year or in future years they will not be facing the same sort of difficult funding situations. It's not an easy thing to provide proper funding for education, because, like many other government services, it does demand a lot of money and doesn't necessarily justify every nickel and dime that could be found for it.

But I think we all recognize in this committee -- and I know the minister does -- the importance of addressing the funding situation for education, the financing for education, the entire philosophy as to where we're going to head with the education funding and the other issues that come up.

On behalf of all members who've made comments and addressed this committee, I wish to thank the minister and her officials for their helpfulness and their patience. Certainly patience is a virtue, and I would say that the hon. minister and her officials have demonstrated that. We do appreciate the cooperation that you've demonstrated. Hopefully the future estimates debates that we will be going through in this committee will be as productive and as meaningful as these have been.

Vote 24 approved.

Hon. A. Hagen: Just before I call the vote on the other parts of the Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights ministry, I would like very much to thank the members -- the fledgling members and the experienced members -- for their questions. I look forward to working with all of you in the cause of education for our children in the months ahead.

Vote 25: ministry operations, $88,656,238 -- approved.

Vote 26: public schools education, $3,403,497,038 -- approved.

Vote 27: independent schools, $96,855,16 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 56: minister's office, $350,718 (continued).

V. Anderson: I would like to thank the minister for the beginning of this debate on the estimates which we had a few days ago, and as we move now, just to give her an idea of how I'm working at it. I work at this by going through the budget as it's printed in the estimates, and dealing with the different areas of concern that are there.

I notice that the increase in the total budget is $451 million this year, out of a total of $2.3 billion. I'm wondering, since the Housing portion was moved from this ministry, if there has been a reduction in staff within the minister's office to accommodate the portion of this ministry that was moved, and if so, what kind of reduction in staff it involved.

[4:15]

Hon. J. Smallwood: While we're waiting for our senior staff team to come over from the Belmont Building, I'll do my best to answer your questions. But I'll take on notice those questions that I'm unable to give specifics for.

As for the budget for the minister's office, I can't compare it to what the previous minister had in his office as far as staff resources are concerned, but I can tell you that ours is possibly one of the smallest of the 18 ministers' offices. I have an administrative assistant, a ministerial assistant and two clerical staff. We are grossly understaffed for the amount of work the office has to deal with.

In particular, in response to quite a phenomenal increase in correspondence, the ministry itself, which provides briefing notes and some of the background on some of the case conferencing that we do, has had to hire an additional person just to help with that caseload. In the future I'll be looking for an additional staff person in my office, but at present we have very few staff for the work we do.

V. Anderson: I notice, by looking back over the records, that the minister's office budget was increased by $6,000 in 1991-92, and this year it was increased an additional $13,000. Despite your comments about the smallness of the staff and the fact that the at-home program and the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program have been moved out, and the Housing, the increase in the office part of the minister's budget was more than double that of the previous year. I'm just trying to understand how that might have taken place within that time-frame.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The component moved out of the ministry has to do with Housing, which was transferred to Municipal Affairs. I think it's fair to say that the bulk of the work is focused around both child protection and GAIN caseloads. That workload has not diminished. As a matter of fact, our feeling, as was reflected by increased staff in the ministry in order to respond to correspondence, is that it has indeed increased. The increase in the minister's office has to do with an executive assistant that was hired.

V. Anderson: I take from that that the executive assistant is a new position within the ministry itself.

Looking at the main part of the budgeting, we come to administration and support services. This particular part of the budget has increased by $9.5 million. What would be the main facets of that $9.5 million increase?

I might say that I'm used to working, as most of us are, with much smaller budgets, and it's taken me a little while to get around these figures. I want to take $9.5 thousand, or $9.5 hundred. But given that these are the figures we have to work with, and given that I'm used to being in community groups where they want to

[ Page 833 ]

know where that $10 or $20 went, to some extent I would like to get some of the finer points out so that they might be understood by all of us as we go through the budgets. We can't go down to the tens and twenties. But on the $9.5 million, I wonder how that might have been proportioned within the administration and support services budget.

Hon. J. Smallwood: A significant portion of the overall budget has to do with the GAIN caseload increases and the predicted amount for the next year. You will recall that in our opening discussion I shared with you the fact that the previous administration purposefully underestimated the GAIN caseload increase for the previous year, and that's why we had to bring in a warrant at the end of the year. The increase for the budget this year has to do with our statutory requirement to meet that increased caseload. The administrative increase has to do with the administration needed for the additional predicted GAIN caseload management.

V. Anderson: In administration and support services -- as against the minister's office, which we were talking about before -- I would gather from what you're saying that there has been an increase in staff and an increase in office space and equipment in a variety of areas. I am wondering if you might share with us some of the areas in which the increase takes place within that budget itself.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have the figures here with me, but we will get you the exact figures as soon as staff arrive.

In addition to an increase in FTEs to manage the caseload, we have also approved a computer system to help manage our child protection services. This gives us the ability to meet some of the requirements that the ombudsman's office recommended when they were talking about child protection, licensing and information control. We are very happy that this year we will be able to put in place a computer system for the delivery of child protection, through our social workers component.

V. Anderson: I realize it's difficult when you don't have the staff support here. I am just wondering how we can best deal with it until they arrive, so that I don't try and put you on the spot unduly.

I understand about the computer system. Have there been extra programs for staff training or communication? Have there been extra offices or buildings included within that item itself?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't believe that there is any increased office space included in that amount.

I would like to take the opportunity to talk about the need for increased FTEs to manage that caseload. We talked earlier about the number of cases that financial assistance workers handle on a regular basis, and we talked about the ability of those financial assistance workers to function in the most supportive way and spend the amount of time that is needed with each of the families or individuals that came for assistance. I believe it was either you or one of the other members on your side who made the point that they felt that there wasn't enough time being spent, or that the workers on the front lines could be more supportive.

One of the things that we're hoping to be able to do with the increased FTEs, full-time-equivalents, is to ensure that our FAWs can spend a little more time to ensure that people qualify for income assistance -- to do the kind of testing once the client walks in the door to ensure that they are getting full benefits, that their families are being supported in the best way possible, and that we can make certain that the applications are processed in the best way possible so that we can in turn be accountable for the taxpayers' money.

While we're talking about the increase in caseloads, what flows from that is a need also to increase the administration capability of the ministry.

V. Anderson: We welcome the staff persons back again. We didn't get them up in the middle of the night this time, but we did run them across the street, so they will be out of wind at the moment.

Just to bring them up to where we are at the moment, we briefly discussed the minister's own office before you came in. Perhaps we can go back over that in a moment and just see if there's anything that needs to be added to that discussion.

[4:30]

I asked about a number of programs that have moved out of the ministry this year that were there the previous year: the at-home program, the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program. I noted that in spite of the moving out of those programs there was a $13,000 increase in the office part of the ministry itself. I was wondering why the office was increasing in cost,

whereas the programs were decreasing, and the minister mentioned in that regard that there had been an executive assistant added to that office, which no doubt accounted for the $13,000 plus a little more.

We then moved on to the administration and support services, and I indicated that I would try and work through the budget in a systematic fashion at this point rather than wandering all over and back and forth, so that we might systematically work at it.

At this point we are just beginning to discuss the administration and support services part of the budget. There is a $9.5 million increase in that budget this year, and so I was asking what accounted for that increase and to what major portions of that administration support services budget this was allocated, to get some comparison of the direction in which the ministry was going. If I understand right, the minister said in part, Mr. Chairman, that part of that increase at least was taken up with getting extra support staff to undertake the support services for the other parts of the programs of the ministry.

Also, she mentioned the computer service that was no doubt included in this part of the budget.

We are wondering if there were any other major items in that part of the budget that we need to take account of to understand the kind of support training. I noticed in the description that there's staff training and

[ Page 834 ]

development. Are there are plans for increasing this part of the program? I asked if there was an increase in office communication services. What parts of the program have increased as a result of the $9.5 million increase?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to try to pick up a couple of little loose ends here. First, when you look at the costs of all ministry offices, our office is actually below average, which is significant considering that this is a direct-service ministry. I would bring the critic's attention to the caseloads that his own constituency office has to deal with. It's reflective of the work this ministry does generally. This is a very case-specific ministry and requires a great deal of commitment and hard work. It speaks very well of the people who are doing the work that we are staffed below average, yet they are able to turn out that kind of support for our clients.

As for the increase in the administrative budget.... This is the ministry budget, separate from the minister's office itself. In addition to the items that I brought to your attention, there is an increase in postal services. With more GAIN cheques there are increased costs for postal services. We have also included some additions in after-hour service. We have a small project that we will be bringing on-line soon: an information terminal to provide our clients with better access to information, which will better enable them to be consumers and understand both their rights and responsibilities.

V. Anderson: I would be concerned whether there is adequate support staff for the field staff. Maybe I ask a question that I might not be expected to ask. Does your budget for administration and support services, as lean as it is, really meet the need for this kind of program, or is it a make-do budget at that point? Would it be logical to expect that it would increase as funds are available?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I appreciate the critic's comments. We are of like mind. It's our responsibility to provide the kind of support, resources and tools necessary to do the job. We are coming from way behind in this ministry. This ministry has not been a priority for previous governments, so we have a lot of catch-up to do in just about every area that you can look at.

The caseloads that we talked about earlier are 270. With additional FTEs, that will bring the caseloads down to 261. The recommended caseload is 225, so we have a considerable way to go yet.

V. Anderson: I think it's important that we understand both the pluses and the minuses so that we get a sense of direction of where one is attempting to go, even if one can't get there at this point. If we know where the government is attempting to go, there may be a point at which we can make suggestions about other directions, or points which we can support. But it's important that we and the public understand where that is at.

Looking at some of the STOBs, particularly within the budget line, STOBs 25 and 68 deal with information systems and operating and asset acquisition, and there has been an increase in this area of $4.5 million. What brought this increase about? What is being done with the increase? What was happening before that made this increase necessary in those assets and information programs? What is happening as a result of that $4.5 million? In other words, why are they in that particular category? What does the category do, and why is it doing better now because of the $4.5 million?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Before we actually get to that question -- and I'll get some more information here -- I want to go back to your questions around the increase in staffing and the effect it would have on caseload management. I strongly believe that our front-line workers are doing just about an impossible job with the expectations that government has put on them, the expectations that communities have put on them and their desire to do a good job in a very supportive fashion to those in our society in most need.

I have two strategies in place. One, we are hoping to be able to affect the caseload, which will take some time because it costs a considerable amount of money. In addition to that, I am hopeful that we will be able to provide and develop an information system for community and clients to empower people to be effective consumers, to be able to ask the questions that need to be asked, to be informed and to be able to make some of the decisions surrounding their reality, acknowledging that they know best about their family needs. Our pilot project will begin to do that, along with our other communications strategies, in the next year to come.

As for STOB 68 -- the systems and equipment acquisition -- we talked about the computer system for social workers. This deals with a database for resources, as well as tracking placements for our clients and matching resources to the needs of clients. This kind of system has not been in place before. Most of that data collection and systems management has been done on a manual basis out of our front-line offices. It makes it very difficult for us to be able to track clients' needs. When we're dealing with such a huge system, it makes it very difficult for us to manage.

With the onset of the freedom of information and the commitment that our government has made both to accessing clients' own files information and to being able to do some more sophisticated data collection and statistical analysis for administrative purposes, this system in and of itself will be a big asset to the field, a tool for them hopefully to diminish the amount of time they spend on paperwork -- streamlining that, making more time available to clients, as well as the other assets the system will provide.

Also included on the STOB 68 are: a disaster recovery plan development; a records management system, which will complement freedom of information; and a contract-management-system development. This again will help us manage and make us better able to account for taxpayers' money. There are a number of other smaller systems -- word-processing upgrading.

[ Page 835 ]

V. Anderson: Just while we're on that one -- the freedom of information, which you mentioned, and the ability of a person seeking assistance to be able to access their files, this came up in another discussion in Education estimates as well. The question was raised: when they access their files, will they be able to actually get copies of those files to take away with them so that they can have them in their own information files to use at home as well as in the office? The question being that what you can read under pressure in an office and look at a file.... When you go home, unless you actually have copies, it will be very difficult for you to remember in order to deal with it properly.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Currently there is some limited access to files. Under the new legislation, access will be increased, and there will be an ability, because the files are computerized, to give screen prints.

V. Anderson: Thank you very much for that. A lot of people out in the community will be delighted to know that. The only difficulty is that they'll all want it yesterday. In fairness to yourselves as well as to the people there, how long do you think it will take to get this process in place -- a month, six months, three months -- so that the anticipation can be relatively accurate?

[4:45]

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, the process that the government is engaged in around the development of this legislation will help us better understand what government needs to be able to provide access -- the timing and all the rest of it. Currently around GAIN files, because that system is computerized, both the offices and therefore the clients can have immediate access. That will not be a problem. Historic files will take longer, and it will be the implementation of the legislation that will dictate how long. And of course it will depend on how old the files are and where they're stored as to how long it will take to access those files.

V. Anderson: Perhaps it has to do with the same area somewhat. I'm not sure. But in STOB 30, the office and business operating expenses, there is an increase of $2.3 million. I'm wondering what has accounted for this increase. Is this a yearly thing that one could expect to happen, or is it a one-time increase because you're setting up new systems at this point? While you're thinking about that, is there an indication that there would also be more community offices that would be more accessible than we have had in the past? Does that account for some of the increases that are being suggested?

Hon. J. Smallwood: At this point we are not predicting increased offices in the province. It's a matter of priorities with a limited budget. My very clear direction is that I want to see the money directed to communities and families. While I readily recognize that we have a responsibility to our employees and front-line workers, when it comes down to opening an additional office or providing a community service, at this point in time I will choose the community service.

V. Anderson: That answered the second part of my double question, and it was an important part to be answered. I would still ask about the increase of $2.3 million under STOB 30. That would give us some indication of the direction of the ministry.

Hon. J. Smallwood: This particular item is reflected by the increased pressure of the caseloads we talked about earlier.

V. Anderson: As mentioned earlier, there are some decreases. One wonders about the significance of areas that decrease in an increasing budget. Under STOB 82 is a $75,000 figure, and this is a decrease of 25 percent, or $25,000, from the previous year. What is reflected by that decrease? It's in contributions. What areas would not be receiving contributions? Of the $75,000 that is there, who would they be to and for what purpose? It's kind of a catch-all phrase, but I'm not sure what it means.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have to confess, with the member asking questions out of the blue book, that our extensive preparations are not in sync with the blue books. We're in the process of trying to translate our information. We could tell you just about anything there is to know about everything. It's just a matter of merging the systems at this point. If you'll go ahead and ask us another question....

V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not asking political questions. We may do that later. At the moment I tend to read books for what they are. That's what I'm used to doing and usually I can get the answers better by looking at the figures themselves that are there.

STOB 95 will lead into the same kind of question -- perhaps difficulty. These are listed as "other expenditures" and amount to $1,168,000. Now any of the books that I am used to dealing with would say "miscellaneous" in that category rather than "other expenditures." Yet a miscellaneous of one million plus is a fairly large miscellaneous, so it would be interesting to know what's covered. What are the items that are covered by that miscellaneous item?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Maybe I can make a suggestion to the member. If you'd like to go on about some other specific issues, we'll get back to the specific items covered under the STOBs when we have that description of the budget here with us.

V. Anderson: I might just indicate that I'll be doing this through the whole process, so that would be something we'll have to deal with as we go along in it.

Let me ask a question which doesn't have to deal strictly with finances at this moment. Under this area comes staff training and development, and I'm wondering what new programs of staff training and development are going to be coming on stream that this budget

[ Page 836 ]

allows for, since we've all agreed it is such a needed factor, both to enable the staff we now have to recover from the pressure they've been under and also for them to take some new client-centred orientations, rather than ministry-driven. I think they have been very much ministry-driven in the past, and I hope we are moving into the client-centred area. That will take a whole restructuring of the training process of the clients.

To me it is somewhat like a person who has learned to play an instrument one way and now they've got to change over so they both have to unlearn and learn, a much more difficult process.

Hon. J. Smallwood: There is ongoing training in a number of different areas. One of the things I'll do is pick out a couple of new programs. One is a mediation project we are doing that will not only use resources in the community but also provide training for child protection workers in the ministry around mediation and support as well as mediation training for our counsel. That is one project that we have identified a real need for in relation to issues of child protection and is commensurate with the review that is underway.

We also, again flowing from the review, have put together a committee of specialists within the ministry. These are current social workers in the ministry from a real diversity of multicultural backgrounds. They are in the process of putting together recommendations for my office as well as for the field and for the review around culturally appropriate services for our ministry. We're looking forward to their recommendations. I'm certain there will be considerable spinoffs from the work they're doing.

There is ongoing social work training. There is a process now underway for contract management training. I think the kind of work you are specifically talking about -- the client base -- will be reflected in the commitment our social workers bring to the job, and in our ability to free them up to do the job they've been trained to do.

V. Anderson: Let me follow up on that training question for a moment, and reorientation, if you like. One of the things I'm very aware of is that every profession has its own lingo, its own language and its own kind of thought processes. The other thing I'm very much aware of is that the -- using the term "clients" or "customers" -- persons using the services inevitably are not aware of any part of those language systems.

I'm wondering what process you have in mind, which was hinted at previously when we discussed customers or clients -- whatever is the best terminology -- being part of the reorientation, the retraining and the re-language system, so that it's responsive to them instead of them having to be responsive to the system. There's a whole shift which you've hinted at, and I'm wondering how far this might be going because, again, if you open the doors in that regard you'll have a flood of applicants to train the specialists.

Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member will recall our earlier discussion around the number of communication tools that are already in place around Punjabi and Cantonese, the development of communication tools, pamphlets, etc., is ongoing. One of the pamphlets in the process of making its way to the public was developed with a community called People First. It is a self-advocacy caucus of people with mental disabilities. The work being done around plain language has been a real asset to the development of that pamphlet; that work, as I said, is ongoing.

The information computer system we are developing is being done in consultation and with the support of client groups. They will tell us the language and the access that is needed.

V. Anderson: One of the concerns I hear very often out there is the multiplicity of people whom the persons who come for assistance have to deal with: the social worker, the financial management worker, the assistance worker, the rehabilitation officer, the family maintenance officers; they seem to go through so many people and fall between the cracks. Is there any way you might be planning to alter the system so that you can deal with one person for whatever your need is, rather than with a multitude of people? It would also cut down the paperwork, or shift the paperwork in some regards.

I've had so many people say to me: "I tell the story here, and then I tell it there. They don't talk to each other and it falls apart in the middle, and I don't get the service and I get a headache and I go home more frustrated than when I came."

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are very different and very specialized areas in the ministry, and each one of the individuals or families seeking services from our ministry have, in themselves, very specialized needs. One of the commitments of our ministry is to professional service and professional support for individuals' needs, whether those needs are to the disabled community, to families and children or, as a number of clients who come to us have, for financial aid.

[5:00]

At this time that professional service is there, hopefully to aid people in the best way possible. At this point I am firmly committed that rather than having a one-stop specialist to provide all services, our best strategy is to empower the community and individuals seeking our support with information. We will be concentrating a fair amount of attention on empowering people to arrive at their own solutions rather than having them rely increasingly on administrative support or a bureaucracy.

V. Anderson: I think this is an important process discussion which has a bearing on how the budget is implemented, as you've indicated, and I would be interested -- perhaps not on this occasion but sometime -- to follow up with the community and yourselves a variety of models.

One model that comes to my mind is the general practitioner, as in the medical model, who is a specialist in dealing with the general items -- so it's a specialty within itself. When there is a particular need beyond that, the specialist enables the person to deal with their

[ Page 837 ]

normal requirements. The only persons referred beyond that specialist are those with extraordinary requirements where a specialist is consulted. So I would agree that it be a combination of how that empowerment of the person is taking place, but I think we need to hear a little more about what that implies.

Hon. J. Smallwood: With all due respect to the member, our clients aren't sick. Our clients come to the Ministry of Social Services for financial assistance, and we provide that. Some of the families in the community come because they need some support and some information in keeping their families together, whether they have a severely disabled child and are looking for professional social work advice and support, or whether they have a troubled teen.

So there are very distinct client groups or individual needs, if you will, coming to our ministry, and the fact that a person does not have enough income to be able to feed their children does not necessarily mean that they need social work assistance.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't mean to imply that they were sick. I was just referring to the model of approach of how you gather information about a concern you had, whether it be engineering, education or whatever else.

I'm not sure if you want to go back at this point to the other questions on the STOB lines. STOB 82, the question of the $75,000 and the 25 -- what is that money used for?

Hon. J. Smallwood: STOB 95 is for banking services, for chargebacks from the Ministry of Finance. STOB 82 is for a university co-op student program and program phasing out, which indicates that it is a one-time program.

V. Anderson: You mentioned the university co-op program and phasing out. Could you explain a little more about what those are?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This particular program was targeted to co-op students who were placed in the north. That program is being phased out, although we do have ongoing co-op social work students coming to the ministry.

V. Anderson: STOB 95, which was the other expenditure, I was wondering about what the $1 million, which had been increased $158,000, covered or included.

Hon. J. Smallwood: As I indicated to the member, this is banking services and the increases reflected in the increase in GAIN caseloads.

V. Anderson: Just for clarification -- STOB 95 is banking services or STOB 82 was the other program. Fine, thank you. I think I have that organized now.

In the focus that you're undertaking now for client-based services and front line workers, is there a shift at this point between the balance of management personnel and line workers? Does this increase, from what you're saying, mean that there will be a higher percentage of line workers and a lower percentage of management personnel at this point in the system?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.

V. Anderson: Thank you. I commend you.

I'd like to move to the direct community services program -- from the administration and support services to the direct community services. I see that this subvote has increased by $6.6 million over last year, of which $3.5 million -- half of this increase -- has gone to an increase in salaries. Could you tell us where the salaries, the increases, have taken place -- what kind of categories there are in which these new persons are to be found? Are they in central locations? Are they spread throughout the province? What is the breakdown of these staff increases under direct community services?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll give a brief

summary. For social workers, and this is throughout all regions of the province, there is an increase of 72. For financial assistance workers there's an increase of 23 -- again throughout all regions of the province. In administrative support, and this is the support to those field workers, there's an increase of 32.

V. Anderson: Given the increase, would