1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 23

[ Page 13435 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: Today I have two lovely groups of Richmond students in the gallery. First is a group of grade 7 students from Garden City Elementary, and they're here with Mrs. Aitchison. The second group is here with Mr. Smith and Mrs. Bryant of Howard De Beck Elementary, and they are grade 6 and grade 7 students representing one of the finest schools in the province. I would ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.

G. Campbell: It's very seldom that the Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to be in a celebratory mood in the House, but I think it's very important . . . . I do think it's important that we work on these things and improve, so today I would like to ask the House to join me in celebrating the birth of the member for Peace River South, who's celebrating a birthday today, and wish him a warm and happy birthday.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With us to celebrate a couple of new initiatives here in the Legislature today are two groups. First of all, Maxine Haley, who's the chair of the Private Forest Landowners Association, and Gordon Baskerville, a former professor of forestry at UBC, are here to witness the introduction of a bill that they were instrumental in helping to develop.

[1410]

Also we have Mayor Paul Jean from Burns Lake and Mayor Jim Togyi of Fort St. James -- two of the recipients of successful applications under the community forest program which we announced today -- and David Haley, who's a professor of forest economics at UBC who chaired the selection committee that developed the legislation, and Kelly Finck from the Ministry of Forests, who was the project leader. Please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, hon. Speaker, I'd like to join in the celebration of fortieth birthday of the member for Peace River South. It's also the Minister of Environment's thirty-ninth birthday, so we're very honoured. And it's all the more appropriate that I get to introduce in the galleries today members of the B.C. Wine Institute: Ian Tostenson, the president, from Cascadia Brands in Vancouver; Gordon Fitzpatrick, the vice-chair from Cedar Creek Estate Winery in Kelowna; and Sandra Hainle, the vice-chair for Hainle Vineyard Estate Winery in beautiful Peachland. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Stephens: In the precincts today are 36 visitors. They are grade 7 students from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley with their teachers, Mr. Knelsen and Mr. Kroeker, and a number of adults. They are here to view how government works and to learn about some of the history of this beautiful building, lovely Victoria and our province. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Reid: It's my honour to introduce a former constituent of mine who is in the House today, who has recently moved to Victoria -- a very enthusiastic citizen of British Columbia, Andy Henyecz. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, we have grade 5 and grade 6 students from Montgomery Elementary School in Coquitlam in the gallery today, along with some of their parents and their teacher, Mr. John Kore. I look forward to meeting them out on the steps of the Legislature later. I know that among this group are probably a future MLA, a future Member of Parliament, a future member of the press gallery and so forth, so would the House please make them welcome.

J. Doyle: In the buildings today, I'm pleased to welcome Jack Heavenor from Revelstoke. Jack is the manager of Downie Street Sawmills in Revelstoke and also the manager of Selkirk Specialty Wood. Jack is also a partner in the Revelstoke Community Forest. Revelstoke's largest employer is what Jack manages in Revelstoke. He's in meetings today with ministry officials in Victoria, so I'd like you to welcome Jack to the parliament buildings today.

R. Thorpe: As a proud member of the Okanagan caucus and a very proud supporter of the world-class British Columbia grape and wine industry, on behalf of our caucus, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to Ian, Gord, Sandra, Don and Lanny and thank them all very much for their hard work in making our industry such a world-class industry. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: Also here representing the wine industry, and in particular representing Vincor, is Josephine Tyabji, who is the administrative manager for Vincor International. Will the House please make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST LAND RESERVE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Land Reserve Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that Bill 56 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1415]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 56 amends the Forest Land Reserve Act to establish environmental standards for forestry operations on private managed forest land. The legislation will allow key environmental values such as fish habitat, water quality, soil conservation, reforestation and critical wildlife habitat to be better protected on those private lands. The bill provides for the Forest Land Commission to administer these standards and encourage responsible forestry operations on private land.

This legislation represents a balanced approach to private forest land management that respects the rights of private land owners while addressing key environmental concerns. The amendments in this bill will provide favourable conditions for investment in private forest land management.

Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 13436 ]

Oral Questions

COST OF CPCS DEPUTY MINISTER'S SECURITY MEASURES

G. Plant: Madam Speaker, you'll recall that way back on February 10, the Vancouver Sun ran a story about a secret government plan to run deficits until the year 2003. Well, we now have some internal Finance ministry documents. According to one of those documents, dated only five days after this story, the ministry has an "urgent security issue" and they need to "restrict daytime access to . . . confidential documents" in the offices of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat. According to the documents, the request to restrict access was made by the deputy minister, Tom Gunton.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. What action did her ministry take to respond to this so-called urgent security issue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry -- I've actually never been to the CPCS offices, so I'll have to take the question on notice.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston -- recognizing that the first question has been taken on notice.

G. Plant: I have some further information that may be of assistance to the minister, because in fact the action taken by the ministry was to . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Plant: . . . construct a virtual bunker on the fourth floor of the Ministry of Finance offices across the street from here. And, like everything else Mr. Gunton touches, the budget for this office quickly ran over budget. First these measures were to cost $5,000.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the question hasn't been put yet.

G. Plant: Then the budget doubled, and then it rose again to something like $12,873, plus or minus 10 percent. My question for the Minister of Finance, who no doubt has now had her recollection refreshed, is: why were the taxpayers forced to cough up $13,000 just to help ease Tom Gunton's paranoia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I did say I'd take it on notice, but I do remind the member that we did complete my estimates just a few days ago. It's too bad he missed the opportunity to explore it when the deputy minister was actually there.

C. Clark: In addition to the $13,000, the Finance ministry has spent $64,000 installing a new security system at Mr. Gunton's request. That brings the grand total of taxpayer money wasted on Mr. Gunton's paranoia to $74,000. Can the Finance minister explain to us why taxpayers should get soaked for $74,000 to indulge the paranoia of the man who masterminded two fudge-it budgets and whose response to anyone who dares to criticize him is a lawsuit?

The Speaker: I think the member should pursue another line of questioning. First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: It looks like British Columbia has its own international man of mystery, from the government who shagged us. The next budget . . .

The Speaker: I beg your pardon, member.

C. Clark: . . . we'll call From Russia with Love .

The Speaker: Member, I'm not sure your verb was entirely appropriate. Would you change it, please.

C. Clark: I apologize. I saw it on the . . . .

The bunker mentality over at Mr. Gunton's shop has gotten so bad . . .

The Speaker: Member . . . .

C. Clark: . . . that they won't even allow the caretakers . . . .

The Speaker: Member, the line of questioning appears to be going in the same direction. I ruled earlier that the line of questioning needed to change.

[1420]

C. Clark: The caretakers who work for the B.C. Buildings Corporation aren't even allowed into the building. Can the Finance minister tell us what it is that her deputy is doing that is so secretive . . .

The Speaker: Member . . . .

C. Clark: . . . that B.C. Buildings Corporation employees aren't even allowed into the building?

The Speaker: Member, no.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've taken the whole issue on notice, and I do regret that we didn't have the opportunity to explore this in estimates. Maybe they forgot. Also, I think the proof of the pudding in access to the information probably rests with the other side as well.

The Speaker: Members, a different line of questioning, or I will rule you out of order.

M. de Jong: Let's talk about the morale within the professional civil service and in particular the Finance ministry. We know the taxpayers have spent over $76,000 constructing an impregnable fortress of an office for Mr. Gunton. He's got new double doors; he's got these card swipes -- maybe he's got retinal scanners, for all I know. They brought in Mr. Wizard, who is now sandblast-tinting all of the windows in these offices. Mr. Wizard, of course, is the company, and he's the guy that says: "You can keep your view and have privacy too." That's the ad for Mr. Wizard.

My question to the Finance minister is: is this an indication of the degree of trust or perhaps, more specifically, the

[ Page 13437 ]

degree of mistrust that exists between the professional civil service and the NDP ideologues like Mr. Gunton, who has ordered an absolute security lockdown within the Finance ministry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have taken that issue on notice, but I would just caution the members opposite that the integrity of the public service is without question here in British Columbia. It does no good . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . for the opposition to threaten their jobs, as the Leader of the Opposition does each and every day. Nor does it do to stand up here and question the integrity of the public service when there is no chance for their own defence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just last week . . . .

The Speaker: I will ask the minister to take her seat for two seconds while we quieten down the House.

Minister, finish up, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we have the opportunity to have these kinds of debates. I didn't actually see the member for Richmond-Steveston . . . .

An Hon. Member: He was there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if he did show up, he certainly didn't bother to ask this question. He had the opportunity to get these answers. But I will guarantee the member that when he shows up next year from the opposition benches, I'll answer his question.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: If the Finance minister was half as welcoming on these issues as she would have us believe, maybe she wouldn't consistently hide behind freedom-of-information legislation in preventing the opposition from getting these documents until the last possible minute.

These are difficult issues, I'm sure, for the Finance minister. Maybe she will confirm . . . . I'll give her some help on this one. Let's get back to the old multiple choice question. Will she confirm that Mr. Gunton is building a bunker at his office and putting it on full security alert because (

a) his taxpayer-funded lawyer is too busy threatening the media to ferret out all the turncoats and spies that undoubtedly exist within the ministry; or (

b) he's too busy preparing the next fudge-it budget and he doesn't want British Columbians to see it before the next election; or (

c) he's got a guy on the roof developing a new turbo booster for the fast ferries that none of us are supposed to know about. Maybe it's one of those. Maybe that'll help the Finance minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The minister will not be recognized until there's silence in the House. When members come to order, we can get on with the program at hand, which is question period.

[1425]

Hon. M. Sihota: There are literally thousands of individuals who work for the public service, and they do their work . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: I certainly have no problem in taking up the time of question period to answer this question. But literally thousands of people work in a very dedicated way on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and one of those individuals is Mr. Gunton. None of those individuals . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Members, comments and interjections from your seats are not appropriate and are not shortening question period and are not giving others a chance to ask more questions.

Hon. M. Sihota: None of those individuals have the opportunity to stand up in this chamber and defend themselves. It is entirely inappropriate for the opposition to stand up here and launch personal smear campaigns against those people . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . who serve the people of British Columbia in their professional capacity, day in and day out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Come to order -- all members.

Hon. M. Sihota: And I would caution the members opposite . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Time is a'wasting.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll wait for the House opposite to settle down and take my time, because I'm sure all members would like to hear the answer to this question.

[ Page 13438 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: In this House there will be order to allow a member to either ask a question or answer a question. I encourage the minister to complete his reply.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is indeed despicable for the members opposite to stand up in this House, day in and day out, and attack those people who work on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It is fair game to stand up in this chamber and indeed ask questions of ministers concerning public policy and to account for political decisions that we make on this side of the chamber. But there are individuals, like Mr. Gunton -- deputies in this government . . . .

The Leader of the Opposition has gone out and said that he is compiling a list . . . . It's unacceptable, hon. Speaker, in our society in 1999, to have the Leader of the Opposition stand and publicly say that he is going to fire people because of their political allegiance. You know, hon. Speaker, if there is one thing that concerns people in British Columbia, it is the shameful McCarthyism of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: What is despicable is a . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

M. de Jong: . . . government that has so little regard for the professional civil servants in this province that they would be installing security devices, creating a bunker, putting in tinted glass -- all because Mr. Gunton seems to have something to hide from the people of British Columbia. That's what's despicable.

I defy any one of those ministers -- and if the Minister of Finance won't do it, maybe the Public Service minister has to do it, or maybe the Premier will do it -- to stand here and explain that kind of conduct by a government that produces documents in secrecy and mismanages the economy of this province. Then the minister stands up in this House and somehow says, with crocodile tears flowing: "How dare you attack us!" Let this or any other minister explain to the people of British Columbia why they shouldn't know what's going on with their money. That's what this is about: managing the people's money.

Let them explain that.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The member for Peace River North will come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite have nothing to complain about except their own behaviour. This week . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . the opposition put in an FOI request . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . asking what date . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Richmond East, come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . every communications director in government was hired. Now, why do they want to do that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for North Vancouver-Seymour, come to order. The minister is finishing his statement. Member for Okanagan-Penticton, come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: There is a belief on the part of the members opposite, led by the Leader of the Opposition who believes that even communications directors who -- let's be very clear about this -- are hired in government on the basis of merit . . . . It is the view of the Leader of the Opposition that these people . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove . . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . are hired solely because of their political background. And there is a frightening desire on the part . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: What frightens people within the civil sector is the desire on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to cleanse the bureaucracy, to get rid of people who are affiliated with a political party. There is no other reason for his party to make that request to the freedom-of-information officer, and I would challenge him right here, right now, to withdraw . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, finish your answer, please. Finish now.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . that application and to cease chilling the bureaucracy and frightening it in the way that he has with his daily attacks on them.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, where the members will have the opportunity to debate the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families

[ Page 13439 ]

and then the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply, where the members will have the opportunity to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

[1435]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 22: ministry operations, $4,348,722,000 (continued).

S. Hawkins: I've got a couple of issues to bring forward to the minister's attention this afternoon. I know he's well aware of both of them. One seems to be one that has become kind of a habit -- I raise it in the House every year -- and that is the issue of Kelowna Secondary School, KSS. I think it was last year, actually, that I stood here on the minister's birthday, and he promised I wouldn't have to stand on his birthday again. He's right. I know his birthday is in July, so I won't be raising it in July. I've moved it up a few weeks.

You know, it's interesting that the last class to graduate before the millennium just graduated from KSS. It's interesting that on June 6 the Kelowna Daily Courier ran an article, and the headline is: "One of the Scariest Buildings in City." The valedictorian of the class, actually, William Schneider, did say . . . . You know, they entered the school in grade 8. It was, he says, "probably one of the scariest moments we've encountered." He goes on to say: "And what would be better than to spend the next five years in one of the scariest buildings in Kelowna?"

I know the minister understands that, and we have been through this, year after year. This is the fourth session I have raised the safety concerns of Kelowna Secondary in this House. I know the minister knows it's a scary place, and I'm wondering if the minister can tell me -- I do believe he did tell me it was a high priority -- what the status is of KSS. Maybe I'll just let him address that first, and it might give rise to more questions.

[1440]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Last year, on my birthday, we discussed the fact that some of the hard work we had done to try to find a solution to getting a rebuild done for Kelowna Senior Secondary seemed to be falling apart. This year I think we have, and we have announced, much better news for the rebuild of KSS. Indeed, government has now formally approved the money to do the rebuild of KSS for a 1,600-student-capacity school. The cost will be in the neighbourhood of $20-23 million. It's a very large project, and I want to congratulate the people in Kelowna who worked so hard to bring this about.

It required the cooperation, as the member knows, not only of the school district and the many parents and school trustees who, over the years, have been concerned about finding a replacement for this building that is near the end of its useful life, but also of the University College, which I think worked very hard with the school district, with my ministry, with the Ministry of Advanced Education and with the Ministry of Finance to find a solution and a partnership that will work.

As the member knows, the site for the school will be on land currently owned by the university college, the KLO campus, and will require relocation of university college facilities to the north campus. It will require disposition of a number of assets by the school board, including the current Kelowna Senior Secondary site.

We can move forward now. My understanding is that the school district and the Ministry of Finance are on track to bring this project to construction stage in the current calendar year. And though I must say I'm not quite as optimistic as some, the school board is convinced that they can get this new facility opened in time for the fall of the year 2000. I wish them well in that goal. I think that they may be pushing it just a little tightly, but I would expect that it will open sometime in the fall of 2000.

S. Hawkins: Yes, I agree with the minister that there are a lot of people to thank: the parents, who have pushed this issue; the school board, who have been absolutely diligent and pushing the ministry; the college, which has been very cooperative. The leadership around all of those groups has been exemplary. I want to make sure that we're not moving kids from one unsafe decrepit building onto a site that is not safe either. I want to know what environmental tests the ministry has conducted and if there have been results that are back.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There have been some concerns raised about whether contaminated-sites legislation should apply to the site. Frankly, those issues arise whether or not KSS goes ahead on the site. Even if it didn't, it would still be an issue for Okanagan University College. So the Ministry of Finance will be asking -- if it hasn't already -- both the school district and the college to hire an environmental assessment team so that we can identify all remediation measures that are required and put them into place.

The last thing we need, of course, is any sort of long-term health effect for the kids that are going to receive education from, I think, very good teachers and a brand-new facility in a year and a half in Kelowna.

[1445]

S. Hawkins: The minister's answered my question in a general way. I understand that there is some soil testing that's been done. I would ask the minister to confirm that for me. Okay, I see some heads nodding over there -- or nodding no. But I understand that there has been some testing done. There have been some concerns raised from the test results that have been obtained, and I wonder if the minister can address that. What are the time lines within which testing will take place?

The minister just said a few minutes ago that the school board had a very aggressive agenda, trying to get this school built by next fall. If there are environmental concerns, what time line are we looking at? Is there an alternate plan? If we're not going to build on that site, is the ministry looking at any other plans?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for her question. There has been some testing done on the site, but that was really as a result of normal site examination as you prepare to go ahead and do a design for a brand-new Kelowna senior secondary on the property. That led to concerns -- frankly, I don't have the results of that in front of me -- and that's why we will be asking the school district and the university college to do a thorough environmental assessment. Staff advise that that will take four to six weeks, and then we'll know what mitigation will be required.

[ Page 13440 ]

I want to point out to the member that regardless of whether the site remained . . . . Let me put it this way. Had no decision been made to build Kelowna Senior Secondary on that site, remediation would still be required, even if it remained in the hands of Okanagan University College. So it's almost like a separate issue that simply needs to get dealt with. We should know the results of the environmental assessment and be able to quantify what remediation is required in four to six weeks.

S. Hawkins: Can I get a commitment from the minister that he will keep this member informed, since I get lots of concerns from parents and others that are interested in the kids' safety in the community? If I can get a commitment from the minister to let this member know what the environmental assessment shows and what the planning is if it does show that there are serious concerns and there's going to be a delay in planning for KSS . . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Certainly. I will ask staff to, as they inform me, make sure the member's informed. Actually, as we are discussing those who've brought this project about, I should have mentioned the member herself, who has been a strong advocate for this project and has actually encouraged this government to spend $20 million of debt cost in order to get a new school for kids in Kelowna.

S. Hawkins: I should remind the minister that this member will always fight for priorities for government spending, and children's safety is one of the number one priorities of this member on this side of the House. I'm very happy to push a project like that forward when it concerns kids' safety.

I have a second issue of kids' safety. This minister is well aware of this issue too. I'm sure he's probably getting letters, calls and concerns from parents, administrators and school trustees on the busing issue in district 23. I understand there have been accounting errors in the last several years, and for some reason the district, I believe -- this is the information this member has -- has been overpaid for transportation costs. There has been a huge concern around busing services not being provided in the next year for kids that have been using those services.

[1450]

I just want to bring to the minister's attention that we are talking about an urban-rural area. We're talking about a rural area that is being subjected to the ministry's current walk limits, which maybe 20 years ago might have been reasonable. Today, I don't know if they are. We've got a lot of traffic. We've got a lot of rural roads. We've got roads without sidewalks. We've got highways zooming through close to schools, a lot of big trucks, railroads, all kinds of stuff. Parents are very concerned. I understand that the minister, for whatever reasons, has refused to meet with the school board about this issue.

He has stated that he will do the walk limit review. He won't do it until 2001. I do know that a letter was sent to this minister from our school board asking the minister to consider continuation of the present status until a walk review is done. This is definitely a crisis in our community. There are a lot of parents that are upset, a lot of kids that are upset.

I invite the minister to come with me and walk some of those roads, walk some of those areas where the kids are expected to walk. I think for K-to-3 the school walk limit is four kilometres and for grades 4 to 12 it's 4.8 kilometres. The minister knows as well as I do that in the wintertime kids are walking to school and it's dark. You know, they start school fairly early, so it is a concern. I know that the school board came up with an option of pay-as-you-go. Unfortunately, the response to the survey . . . . There were 800-plus parents that did respond to the survey, but it didn't generate the kind of revenue that they needed. I believe they needed over $400,000.

So I want the minister to comment on that. I know he has a letter from the school board, and if he can tell me how he's going to respond to the school board and if he is going to review the walk limits and if safety is going to be considered as an issue when those walk limits are reviewed . . . . I wonder if he can comment on that for me.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is indeed an unfortunate situation that has arisen in district 23. Actually, as I think the member knows, this came to light because of an audit that the school district did itself. I must say, I commend the district for promptly identifying that it was billing the ministry for transportation costs that were not permitted within the terms of ministry guidelines. We expect all school districts, of course, to live within the same guidelines for providing transportation that the ministry pays for.

Regrettably, over the last several years in the Kelowna district, district 23, for whatever reason, obviously things got quite out of hand. Among the findings of that audit were that approximately 200 students who didn't even attend public school in Kelowna -- didn't even attend public school; were enrolled in independent schools -- were receiving bus transportation provided by school district 23. So, clearly, things had gotten quite, I think loose would be an understatement, in the area.

We wanted to do a couple of things. First . . . . Well, we wanted to applaud the district for doing their own work around this and identifying the issue. I know that the board and administration of district 23 want to be treated no differently than other districts in the province as far as funding allocations. They want to take every advantage of the formula where it benefits them, and that's absolutely right, but they surely don't want to abuse it. They identified this abuse themselves, and I commend them for it.

In conversations with the board -- and for the member's information, I actually had a conversation with the board chair and the superintendent on a number of issues, including this one, this morning -- we've tried to figure out how to deal with it. I think the board has done the appropriate thing in saying: "Look, we don't want to reduce this service. If people are willing to chip in a little bit, we can continue it for students who don't meet the ministry requirements." For the ministry's part we've said that we have no intention of auditing back ten years and finding out what funds were allocated inappropriately to the district and clawing those back. We have no intention of doing that.

[1455]

Furthermore, we have no intention of asking the district to -- this is the harder one -- return the buses that they got under pretences of having kids that don't actually require transportation under ministry guidelines. So they can keep the capital facilities as well. We've tried to be part of the solution for what we know is a difficult situation in Kelowna, but at present it does lie with the Kelowna district to make whatever arrangement it wishes to for transportation beyond what is funded for kids that meet ministry criteria.

[ Page 13441 ]

The member asked about reviews of the entire policy on walk limits. I have no review planned for the walk-limit issue. I have asked ministry staff to undertake and see if there are other parts of transportation planning that we ought to undertake. The issue for me, quite frankly, is this: if we change walk limits simply just across the province and say, "It's no longer four kilometres, it's two kilometres," we could easily spend another $10 million or $15 million on transportation.

If I was fortunate enough to get Treasury Board and this Legislature to allocate another $10 million or $15 million for me, I'm not sure that increased transportation would be the top of my priority list for additional investments in education.

I know this is difficult. I hope that the parents in Kelowna can work with their board and find some solutions there that will work for them, as other communities in other districts have done.

S. Hawkins: I got a little more information from what the minister has outlined today.

I understand that the minister has spoken to the board chair and the superintendent this morning, and I know a letter was sent. Is the minister saying, then . . . ? Apparently the letter that was sent is asking for an extension so that they have time to sort this out. Is the minister saying that that is not an option, that the board is going to have to do without the extra resources and basically put the children out on the street, and they will have to walk? The bus service will not be available the way it has been in the last several years.

I'm asking the minister how he is going to respond to the letter that was sent to the minister this morning that was asking . . . . Apparently there was a letter sent to the minister from the board asking for continuation of the present status until the board sorts this out with the parents.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I haven't seen that letter, and staff haven't. In my conversation with the chair this morning he didn't mention that he'd faxed a letter to me on this issue, although we did have a good discussion of the busing issue.

Look, I really appreciate the role that MLAs play in advocating for priority for their district, but I think we should be careful how far that goes. Asking for priority to be given to a particular capital facility is one thing; asking for an exemption from a transportation policy that has been applied uniformly across the province in all school districts is another.

Frankly, I don't know what I would say to the other 58 districts, if I were to say to Kelowna: "Fine, we know you've been violating the guidelines that every district has been applying for; we know that you've received $440,000 of money that you weren't actually entitled to; we know that you've been providing rides for kids well within these walk limits, including 200 kids that don't even attend public school in the Kelowna area. Keep doing it." I don't think so.

I think that the district will have to work with parents to find other solutions. Some of the other ones that other districts have used with parents and school groups in other districts -- the member is probably aware of some of them -- include coordination of school district transportation services with B.C. Transit services. There are clearly some opportunities in a centre such as Kelowna to use those services as well, working with the city and with ICBC around safety issues on routes. In some communities, actually, ICBC has identified safety concerns -- or municipalities have -- and helped fund improvements where they're clearly needed.

[1500]

In other areas, particularly in urban areas, we have had parents who were well within walk limits -- in some cases only eight or nine blocks from a school -- organize what they call "walking school buses." A group of children, big kids and little kids, do a regular route, pick up kids along the route and then return the same way at the end of school as a sort of formalized and ritualized thing.

The other option, of course, is for the district itself to decide that it wishes to devote some portion of its funds to continue busing at a higher level than is funded by the province. If it chose to include everything that it now does, at a cost of $440,000 more than we provide them for transportation, that would be a $440,000 adjustment to a budget of $121 million -- about 0.3 percent of the budget, if they decided that that was a priority they wished to pursue. Or they could look at -- as they have, apparently -- asking for parental contributions towards the cost of transportation.

All these are options that the school district can pursue. I'm as concerned as anyone with making sure that kids get to school safely and get home safely. I think there are options that the district can pursue to make that happen.

S. Hawkins: I'm not asking for more funding. I'm asking this minister to keep the school board's budget where it is. It is not a fat-cat school board. If the minister looks at per-capita student funding, he'll find that our school district is near the bottom of the ladder. What the board asked for is to keep the existing funding until it works with parents and Transit to work out some kind of safe policy for these children to get to school. So when this minister says that I'm asking for more funding for this school board, I'm not.

The minister himself mentioned that this school board, doing its own audit, honestly reported what was happening. I'm glad that the minister isn't talking about clawing back the last ten years or whatever, because, frankly, this school board can't afford it. It would mean terrible cuts to programs and student services. So I'm happy that the minister isn't thinking of clawing back. When the minister gets the school board's letter, which I understand is probably with staff or on his desk . . . . They're asking for this extension until they work it out with the families, the parents, the kids and Transit, and look at all the other options.

It's not new funding. It was the budget they were living within.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Well, it was the budget they were living within. Again, in comparison to other school boards, this is not a fat-cat school board. They've been trimming back and trimming back. Frankly, the parents are asking this minister to do a review of the walk limits. I'm not saying: reduce the walk limits. I'm saying: does safety become a consideration with these walk limits?

If the minister wants to come and walk some of the rural roads and highways with me and see what the kids are going through -- transit isn't really an option for some of these areas -- I would be happy for him to come and do that. If he would like to do that in the area where I live, because it is an urban-rural split . . . . In the wintertime, school starts awfully early, and in the dark. There aren't buses that go there. Some par-

[ Page 13442 ]

ents, unbeknownst to the minister perhaps, don't have cars, or one parent takes off early and does a shift. The kids don't have cars. Car-pooling and those kinds of things take a while to prepare for.

I'm just asking, on behalf of the school board, the minister to consider the request that's being made by letter to him today and to let this member know what the result of that is. I'm also asking on behalf of the parents, because they have asked me to do so: to ask this minister to consider the walk limits, using safety as a consideration. They would be happy to make presentations to this minister and his staff on what some of their concerns are regarding safety factors.

[1505]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I know that this issue has been an active one in Kelowna for about the last two months, as people consider what alternate arrangements should be made. There's another three months before school begins next fall. I think there's time to do planning on how this gets arranged in Kelowna.

I would ask the member . . . . The Kelowna school district, district 23 -- the Central Okanagan school district -- claimed $440,000 of funds that under ministry guidelines and funding formulae it was not entitled to. It identified this issue itself and acknowledged that it would have to make adjustments in its transportation policies. The ministry tried to do its part by saying: "We appreciate your work. We're not going to look retrospectively and, by the by, we're not going to" -- as policy would actually say -- "take away by ministry policy the buses that are not needed and that were obtained with provincial funds." So we try to do our

part in keeping this together.

The member says that if the district decided to fund buses in excess of that provided by ministry policy, it would create a severe hardship for district 23. I would only read to the member the budget surpluses posted by this district over the last four years: 1995 -- $3 million; 1996 -- $1,713,000; 1997 -- $2,045,000; 1998 -- $1,712,000. This district has managed its money well. I think it can meet this challenge, and I assume that it will do so, either with assistance from parents or by making adjustments to its transportation policies.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me if he will consider the parents' request to do a review of the walk limits and listen to their concerns about safety factors?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said in my earlier comments, I do not plan at this time to do a broad review of walk limits. That is a straight dollar figure, and I think there are other areas I'd rather put money into in education. I have asked the ministry to look at whether we should be reviewing other elements of transportation, including the issue of safety. So we'll see if something comes out of that that we can announce in the next little while. I recognize the importance of this issue.

Just in closing, I . . . . This issue always looks different depending on where you live and what circumstances your own children have to face. My kids in Prince George had the pleasure of walking to an elementary school. It was about three and a half kilometres away, I think, the first two kilometres of which were through the woods, which was an interesting challenge in spring and fall bear season. But the big kids taught the little kids how to be cautious on the trail. It was part of rural life, and it worked well for them. We crossed our fingers at times.

An Hon. Member: No traffic.

Hon. P. Ramsey: No traffic. The members opposite say: "No traffic" -- just bears.

A. Sanders: Actually, we have more bears in Kelowna than they probably do in Prince George these days -- nicely fed on apples, I might say.

I want to canvass a few areas that were left undone from last year and require follow-up. The first one has to do with air quality in schools, whether we're talking about bioaerosols, whether we're talking about things like aspergillosis or stachybotrys -- some of the things that will infect the air quality of our buildings when we do not have ventilation, when we have wetness and when we have unclean conditions.

The minister and I have canvassed this area for two or three years in a row, I believe, and some of the areas we talked about that were kind of precedent-setting were a school, I think in the minister's area -- the Nukko Lake school, which had a really high aspergillosis count -- and the Hjorth Road school in Surrey, which had both fungi and microbial studies done that showed that this school was well outside of the limits for proper air quality for kids to go to school.

[1510]

I have a number of schools in the riding of Okanagan-Vernon that are in the same situation. My understanding was, when we canvassed this in 1998, that the Ministry of Education was using a decade-old book of standards on air quality and that the air quality

section itself was very poor, and there had been no impetus to update that for new guidelines. I think I'll start by asking the minister: where is the ministry at right now with respect to air quality in schools?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is an issue, as the member knows, that arises in a variety of different districts in a variety of different schools, it seems, every year.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Moulds, yeah. Fungus spreads.

What I'm less clear about, though, is the member's reference to a ten-year-old manual. The ministry staff advise me that there was such a manual of standards, but the ministry hasn't used it in a number of years. The regulatory agency that actually sets standards for air quality and other issues is, of course, the WCB. They're the actual standard-setting body that then advises school districts, us and others on what they are and on violations to those standards.

What we've done first is try to make sure that districts are aware of the issue and are doing appropriate testing where this issue arises. I don't think there's any lack of sensitivity to this issue among board personnel. This is an issue with parents. As the member knows, there seems to be a rising number of children with asthma and respiratory difficulties that are very adversely affected by air quality. So I think most district personnel are well aware of the issue and sensitive to it.

We've also asked districts to make sure that where those issues arise, those projects are pushed up the capital list, so we can deal with them and fund them as quickly as possible, either by remediation or by construction of new facilities. We've done a number this year; we'll probably be doing a number next year as well.

[ Page 13443 ]

The other thing that we've asked is to work between this ministry and the Ministry of Health -- probably public health officers -- to work out some protocols for reacting to urgent issues that can arise and that can't wait for the next construction cycle. So it's not an issue that's being ignored. We're aware of it and seek to work with the school districts to remedy problems where they're identified.

A. Sanders: Does that answer mean, in a very concise way, that the Ministry of Education enforces the air quality guidelines set out by WCB?

[1515]

Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as the WCB standard, what it means, of course, is that any new facility meets those standards. Portable facilities meet those standards. I think the portable industry has upgraded some of their work to meet those standards as well. Mechanical upgrades are routinely provided to school boards so that they can bring older schools up to those standards. Obviously we can't do it everywhere all at once, so we ask school districts to prioritize which schools are in need of it so that we can deal with them as quickly as possible.

A. Sanders: What are the penalties for not complying with WCB regulations on air quality within the individual school district?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The school district identifies a school as having air quality that doesn't meet WCB standards. We seek to deal with it as an emergent issue and provide appropriate remediation on a priority basis.

A. Sanders: I want to go over a typical situation that you have with poor air quality in our schools. Within my own district there are at least six -- and, depending on what standards you use, a dozen at the other end -- that do not comply with air quality standards in WCB manuals. The CO2 numbers that most environmental assessors will use is the figure of 600 to 700 parts per million. One school, Coldstream Elementary, is an older school which the district did request replacement for in 1994. It would require $559,000 to correct the air quality standards in an old school.

These requests have all been denied, and now we have children going to the school who have adverse affects from the air quality.

One parent brought her child to me in the MLA office. She is a parent who represents several hundred other parents who all have concerns about the particular school. What we have with this child is a child who in 1997 was in kindergarten and who started to have headaches. These cleared up after spring break in March. Then again the next year, in 1998, the same pattern occurred. That year the symptoms were much more severe and much more frequent. She saw the family doctor many times over three years. She went to an ophthalmologist for an eye examination. Blood tests were done.

She saw a pediatrician for a full neurological examination. No results of any pathology on the part of the child were found. There was no diagnosis of migraine or stress-related headache, and there were no food allergy-type triggers suggested. When school was out, her condition would improve.

[1520]

This family spent quite a bit of time going back and forth to have tests done, which included a CT scan, etc. -- in a child who is in grade 1. In 1999 the parent advisory council of this school was informed of the air quality testing done in Coldstream Elementary. If you use a number of around 600 as the acceptable level for carbon dioxide in a classroom, there isn't a single room in this entire school that would pass. In fact, at some of the times when the child's symptoms were the worst, the symptoms correlated with a CO2 reading of 1,900 -- so double and a bit what we would anticipate to be healthy for a young person to learn, let alone not be sick, in the classroom environment.

There are a number of parents who have two or three children in this school, all of whom have manifested similar symptoms. These families are presently preparing a petition that I will bring to the House on their behalf, and they have a considerable number of people who have signed. It is due to the heating systems. The heating systems are often non-compliant. There's poor ventilation and circulation. The capital expenditure is around $600,000 to fix it. It's about $20,000 per classroom to have air exchange units put on the rooftop.

And I guess my question to the minister is: when we are in a situation where we can build new classrooms and make decisions on how we're going to spend our money -- sometimes for political expediency -- where do we take into consideration things like air quality? We talked last year about seismic problems, and we know that those haven't been dealt with. And there isn't any money for seismic problems when we can build new schools for other reasons. What is the minister's plan to develop compliance for schools in school districts and to make sure that our kids are going to school in a healthy environment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm always pleased to have members of the chamber bring forward concerns about quality of schools and advocate on behalf of children in schools and their communities. Let me again outline some of this material I did earlier.

School districts, like other facilities, must abide by WCB regulations. They're required by the new WCB regulations that where there is a problem identified, they bring forward remediation plans. Obviously, many of those remediation plans will include capital expenditures to bring schools into compliance. This ministry provides school districts with around $120 million a year for work to upgrade schools, to repair schools, to deal with issues such as air quality and the like. Around 25 percent of that budget last year was used for heating and ventilation projects, many of them related to air quality issues.

So, far from seeking to ignore the issue, we're seeking to build in identification and remediation of air quality problems as part of the normal way this ministry does business with school boards to ensure that air quality meets standards in the facilities where children learn.

The last thing I'd mention, or remention, is our work with the Ministry of Health to establish some protocols so that we can get health professionals into a school where problems appear to be emerging, so that a prompt and professional assessment can be done and the school district and the ministry can respond to it as quickly as possible.

A. Sanders: Does the minister feel, hon. Chair, that parents have the right to have their children educated in schools that are good for their health?

[1525]

[ Page 13444 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want all children to learn in an atmosphere, both physical and emotional, that's supportive and healthy.

A. Sanders: Well, then, I'll look forward to the minister's solving the problem of air quality in the schools that have contacted me with great concern about this particular problem on their youngest children.

There are a couple of things we discussed last year. Now that we're on WCB, perhaps I will start with that issue. How much money have the new WCB guidelines, brought in last summer, sucked out of the operating budgets that would normally have gone to children?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have no evidence that these new regulations have sucked money out of educational services at all. What the WCB has been doing is asking school districts to develop plans for workplace safety and establish health and safety committees. As schools, like other work sites, become safer, WCB rates will potentially decline, and there will be a cost saving.

A. Sanders: It's a moot point when you've got kids sick in schools because of air quality. You're adding more regulations when we can't even enforce the ones we have. Is there a budget item going to be done on the line budgets for school districts to ascertain if there are additional operating funds that are now not available because of the new, significantly enlarged standards that have been put on, treating and in some ways comparing schools to job sites with much more danger and potential for accident?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is one of many issues that I surely try to ask the ministry to monitor in conjunction with school boards. I must say that I haven't heard evidence yet that would suggest this is a huge and growing cost pressure, and I'm not sure we can have it both ways. Either we want regulations that keep our schools safe places for those who work and study there or we don't. I do, and I think the WCB regulations are part of making that happen.

A. Sanders: There is nothing more important than safety, no matter where you work or go to school. However, if we don't enforce what we already have -- and we don't have the money to fix the problem . . . . Why are we bringing in additional red tape when schools can't even cope with the stuff they have already with respect to upgrading the old schools and making them safe and healthy places for kids to go to school?

Some very short questions. Last year the Premier made the claim that we will have 50 percent fewer portables in five years. Last year we had 3,091 portables, like mushrooms on the lawns of schools in the lower mainland and around the province. What is the number of portables this year?

[1530]

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is indeed the goal we have set for ourselves in portables reduction. Given the announcements and the capital and the construction that is underway, we believe that we will meet it. There were around 3,158 portables on site in the fall of '98. It went up slightly over the summer due to two reasons. First, we reduced class size and needed some additional class space to do that quickly. You can't build a new school in three months.

Second, because we had a large number of construction projects underway, a number of schools actually had to buy portables to put kids in while the renovation or the new work was going on. We expect that the number of portables on site this fall, one year into the program, will be in the area of 2,600 portables, down around 500 or 600 from where we were a year ago. We expect progress to be at roughly that magnitude for the next several years.

A. Sanders: Were those portables funded or unfunded?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's all of them.

A. Sanders: Well, it's not a surprise that the number of portables has gone up by 100 and something. I'll look forward next year to probably hearing the same answer, and maybe it will be 100 more. I look forward to seeing a realization of what the minister has claimed we'll have. One year later, it has not materialized at all.

The second claim made with a lot of fanfare last summer was that there will be 1,200 new teachers hired. How many new teachers were actually hired?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, I'll ask the staff to gather the information on teachers. But I've got to say that I look forward to attending events in the member's community as we remove portables from school sites. I look forward to her helping me celebrate the removal of hundreds of portables. I look forward to her perhaps accompanying me to Richmond, maybe tomorrow, as we celebrate the fact that in a short three-year period, Richmond will go from something like 260 portables, which it had last year, to under 100. I look forward to her helping us celebrate the reduction of portables in the province.

Now, let's see if I can get the exact number of teachers hired for the member.

A. Sanders: Well, isn't that nice, hon. Chair? And you know, if the minister ever told me when he was in my riding instead of sneaking in and sneaking out, then we might have the opportunity for a celebration of some kind. I certainly haven't ever had the experience where the minister phoned me ahead of time to tell me he was coming into my riding. It's been exactly, diametrically the opposite.

Are we in the ballpark when we talk about perhaps 500 new teachers, as opposed to 1,200?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The figure 1,200 was the total number of teachers we expected to be hiring over the life of the provincial collective agreement. In the first year, approximately 500 were hired. The other part of it, though -- as I think the adjusted financial statements and others show -- is that we had anticipated hiring a significant number of teachers last year to take account of growing enrolment across British Columbia. In fact, we had a slight decline in enrolment from 1997-98 to 1998-99.

We had budgeted for a significant increase in enrolment, as we've had in previous years, and had budgeted for hiring teachers to take care of those classrooms with more kids. The kids didn't arrive, so obviously you don't hire teachers to teach in empty classrooms.

[1535]

So the number of teachers hired to meet the requirements of the provincial collective agreement was in the neighbour-

[ Page 13445 ]

hood of 500, and I think the rest of it was pretty much a wash. We had some districts that actually lost teaching staff, because they lost students. Others -- Surrey, Coquitlam and the like -- continued to hire teachers because they had growing school-age enrolment.

A. Sanders: It is amazing that people don't come to British Columbia if they can't work here because there are no jobs -- and hence we don't get the kids, and we don't need the teachers. It's a vicious circle, isn't it?

Another one of the claims last year was that there would be 1,000 new classrooms. Could the minister bring us up to date on how many new classrooms there are?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Indeed, the member references the other part of what we needed to do to bring class sizes down. One is to hire teachers, and the first year's results are in. We've hired 500 teachers across the province to meet the requirements of the collective agreement.

We also announced that we would need, over five years, to add 1,000 classrooms to the stock in the province. As soon as we had the agreement in place, we started planning to do that. Over the last 12 months, we've had several announcements dealing with this initiative. We now have 900 of those classrooms either in planning or under construction. They will be coming on line over the next several years. Obviously it takes time. You're not going to announce the addition to a new school in June and open it in September. We embarked on this initiative last summer.

As I say, since that time -- working very hard with school districts -- we've now identified, authorized and begun the work to build 900 of those classrooms.

A. Sanders: Of the 500 new teachers hired, how many would have been hired due to increased enrolment, if that is in fact the case?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is none. I thought I made it clear that this is the number we hired to meet our requirements under the provincial collective agreement. Overall in British Columbia's public schools, enrolment declined by around a thousand students last year. So therefore it went down 0.1 percent -- not a large amount, but it did decline. Therefore there wasn't a necessity to hire additional teachers provincewide to take care of additional students in the public school system.

Some districts continued to hire significant numbers of teachers, because they had significant numbers of additional kids. I think Surrey had something like 800 more students this year than last year.

A. Sanders: Declining enrolment does not differentiate into elementary and secondary, so it's important to find out whether those teachers are there because of the change in the agreement-in-committee or whether there's actually declining enrolment in the elementary area.

In the K-to-3 initiative that was under the agreement that this minister brought in here by legislation -- not by collective bargaining -- $5 million was to be put into the implementation last September. How much in fact was put in last September?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We may get back into our vigorous exchange on the merits of smaller class sizes from last year. But let me say this: I continue to think that the work we're doing to get class sizes down is one of the most important changes we can make in our public schools. Last year, the first year of the provincial collective agreement, we allocated $20 million to hiring non-enrolling teachers, and $5 million was allocated to the K-to-3 class size reduction initiative. We actually sought to jump-start that process by front-end-loading it and allocated $10.5 million to the class size reduction initiative in year 1.

[1540]

A. Sanders: It could be viewed as front-end-loading or as a drastic underestimation of what was going to happen, requiring 100 percent more funding. Now that the minister has put more funding -- front-end-loaded, so to speak -- on the K-to-3 initiative, is he now going to have less money in September '99 and the year following for the K-to-3 initiative?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. This year we intend to allocate $25 million for class size reduction.

A. Sanders: Probably this year we'll find that it will again require more than what the minister has estimated. So we've got portables that were going to be reduced and went up. We've got teachers that were going to be hired that weren't. We've got classrooms that aren't built and are in a five-year planning stage. We've got twice the budget for the K-to-3 initiative that the minister thought it would require, and who knows what we get this September? It'll be a very interesting circumstance.

Let's look at the class size issue. Let's look at it in terms of the francophone community. I have a letter from the Canadian Parents for French. They have some very serious concerns. For those of us who have children in French immersion, it is not uncommon for there to be attrition from kindergarten up to grade 7 and beyond. It's very vital for those early years to have a bulk of students who can participate and that the program be funded within the school district. The president of the Canadian Parents for French wrote me the following letter:

"As discussed, Canadian Parents for French-B.C. Branch is concerned about the impact the new kindergarten enrolment cap of 18 students per class will have on French immersion programs throughout the province.

"Reducing the number of children allowed in kindergarten classes will seriously affect the future of French immersion in B.C. Presently, many school districts have only one or two kindergarten classes, with a minimum of 22 [and a] maximum of 24 students in each class. Any fewer students will result in class-size challenges down the road. History has taught us that the program needs good, solid numbers in the beginning to survive attrition losses through to secondary. Compounding the issue is the reluctance of some districts to implement kindergarten-grade 1 blended classes if the French immersion kindergarten enrolment is less than 18 or exceeds 18 without reaching 36.

" . . . the Ministry of Education appears powerless to change the course of this policy. We cannot stand by and let French immersion in B.C. dwindle away due to an unfounded decision to enrol fewer children in kindergarten."

Could the minister please comment?

[1545]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Frankly, I'm not quite sure I understand the concern of the parents of children enrolled in French immersion. Whether the cap on class size is 18, which we intend to move it to, or 24 -- which I think is far too high for a

[ Page 13446 ]

kindergarten class -- if more kids show up than the class can hold, school districts have to make changes, usually by doing kindergarten-grade 1 splits. I think the same sort of challenge exists with lower class sizes as exists with higher class sizes. I would urge the parents of French immersion students to, I hope, look at the overall benefits. We'll have better starts in school for their children, as for other children in smaller classes around our public schools.

A. Sanders: Has the minister been made aware of this issue before now?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Not with respect to the parents of students enrolled in French immersion courses. There were a number of such letters last year expressing similar concerns, actually, around the overall effect of smaller class sizes. By and large, the implementation of the first year of smaller class sizes, I'd say, went very smoothly around the province.

A. Sanders: It did, hon. Chair, because the minister front-end-loaded the cost of it, so that people would be quiet in the first year of his legislated endeavours to tinker with the education system. I'd like the minister's commitment to look into this problem with Barb Paullos, who is the president of Canadian Parents for French, so that she can explain to him or his delegate what actually is the concern here. It is a serious concern, and if the minister has not had this addressed before, will he make that commitment to listen to what they have to say?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll assure the member I'll get senior staff to meet with your correspondent. Indeed, I'll ask my deputy minister to do so. Actually, I should introduce him to the chamber: Dr. Charles Ungerleider, Deputy Minister of Education.

A. Sanders: One more request. For the record, I'd like the minister to commit to writing to Karen Romei, a parent and PAC member from Coldstream Elementary School, who has a daughter who's been very sick because of air quality. I'd like his commitment that he will address her issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be pleased to do so.

M. de Jong: A little bit of unfinished business from yesterday. The minister and I were discussing success rates, participation rates and graduation rates with respect to first nations students. I won't get into the discussion that the minister had with the official opposition critic about targets, except to say that I think my colleague from Surrey-White Rock had some valid submissions to make to the minister. But I think the information we were looking for was some specific detailed information about those districts where participation and, more particularly, graduation rates have fallen off in the past couple of years.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay. Actually, the information comparing . . . . What the ministry did was compare graduation rates in the last three years we got reports from -- '95, '96 and '97 -- with the previous three years -- '92, '93 and '94 -- to see what the trend lines were. Over that period, there were only four districts that had declines in aboriginal graduation rates: district 48, Howe Sound; district 20, Kootenay-Columbia; district 70, Alberni; and district 52, Prince Rupert. All others went up, some as much as 200 percent.

So, overall, the average improvement over that period, just to put it on the record here . . . . The average improvement over those two blocks, if you just take the provincial average, was an increase in aboriginal graduation rates of 55 percent.

[1550]

Now, that's the good news. The less good news is that, even with that 55 percent increase, the provincial average is still just slightly over 30 percent. Part of this difficulty, as I was saying to the critic from Surrey-White Rock last night, is that as far as setting the target for the next little while, if we can make that sort of progress over six years -- 55 per cent improvement -- I'm not sure how much of a challenge we should put out there, and I'm not quite sure what the target is.

At times, as I said, we were talking about a 4 percent target, but frankly that might be too modest, given the progress we have made. I know that those districts that have seen declines are concerned. I would point out that, in some cases, what we may have here is, frankly, statistical anomalies. For example, in Howe Sound the total number of aboriginal students that graduated in 1997 was only 12. You get a district with that small a number of aboriginal children enrolled, and small fluctuations in graduates can have big percentage outcomes.

M. de Jong: I think that's helpful. Where those numbers are small, admittedly the data can easily be skewed one way or another -- Kootenay, Alberni, Prince Rupert.

I guess, in fairness, the question one should ask and provide the minister briefly with an opportunity to expound upon relates to those districts where there has been significant improvement -- again, where there are sufficient numbers of students to justify coming to that finding in a meaningful way -- and what in the ministry's mind those districts have been doing in a very purposeful way to elicit those favourable results.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member rightly points out that if you've got districts that are having success in it, we need to learn from them. I think that is one of the principal goals of the work we're undertaking. There have been, actually, provincewide conferences on aboriginal education the last several years bringing together districts to address precisely these issues.

My own feeling -- and I think it's borne out by . . . . This is probably more of a political elbow and anecdote than something you can statistically evaluate, but my own feeling is that the most important thing that a district can do to improve success for aboriginal kids is work very closely with the aboriginal community that those children come from and to listen and hear what the community is saying about what their kids need to succeed. I think that's true, frankly, of any and all students, but it seems to be particularly important to establish a very positive relationship with the leaders, with the elders, with the culture that the children are coming from into the school.

[1555]

The other thing I'd say is that districts seem to be moving well in improving aboriginal success rates set out very directly to identify the precise issues that they need to be dealing with. Sometimes it may be relatively simple. For example, Kamloops, working very closely with the Shuswap nation, has identified and focused on the simple matter of school attendance.

[ Page 13447 ]

Again, this is an issue that the school board and the community have to work together on; it's not going to work just by the school district doing it. So the two halves of this equation have identified that and monitor monthly -- I believe it is -- attendance records for all aboriginal kids coming into the school system so that both the community and the school know how they're doing. In another district it might be another issue entirely, but it's that sort of local identification and communication that I think has to be encouraged and enhanced around the province -- not easy in some circumstances but I think essential.

M. de Jong: I think the minister indicated yesterday that the document he's referring to is available to this side of the House, and that would be helpful. I don't propose to go through this in excruciating detail.

I have a series of questions, though, that I'll ask right now. Let's put this in real numbers. How many students are we talking about? How many aboriginal students are we talking about being enrolled in the public school system in the province? Then I would like the minister to take a district like Prince Rupert, where I believe there is a significant aboriginal student population. I'm not aware of what the decreased graduation rate figure is for that district. But the minister, I'm sure, will alert us to that and also alert us to what he believes accounts for that disturbing trend in that district, although I don't know how disturbing it is until he tells me what the figure is.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I'm not so sure how disturbed I want to be about Prince Rupert either. Here are the figures over the last seven years in terms of the number of graduates: 43, 19, 49, 47, 37, 29, 41. When you do the percentage thing, you've got a decline of 7 percent from the first three years to the last three years. How much of that is statistics and anomalies from year to year? How much of it is real change and what's going on or a social condition that's affecting school attendance or completion? Hard to tell.

I'm not sure that even the professional staff with me know enough of the details of how aboriginal education is going on in the Prince Rupert district to enlighten us in this chamber.

As far as the number of aboriginal students in the public school system, the number for the current school year, '98-99, is 39,931 -- a 5 percent increase over the previous year. The interesting thing to me is that the aboriginal enrolment in public schools is growing rapidly. Just taking the last five years, it grew 8.8 percent, 7.8 percent, 8.2 percent, 6.5 percent, 5.1 percent. They now constitute 7.5 percent of total enrolment in the public school system. So this is a significant proportion of kids in the public school system. In the last decade it more than doubled, just in terms of numbers. It grew by about 117 percent.

M. de Jong: I guess the point that bears making -- and I'm not sure there's a great deal of dispute on either side of the House . . . . If you take that figure, which is now approaching 40,000, the disturbing arithmetic that one is obliged to do relates to the fact that upwards of 20,000 of those or more . . . . I think the figure we're at now is 38 percent. If that's the case, perhaps more than 20,000 of those students will not graduate. The minister has identified some districts where it's going in the wrong direction, and we do have to be careful with the figures.

[1600]

Even in the case of Prince Rupert, we're talking about 40 students and 50 students. Again, if you do the math, that means we're talking about over 150 students, potentially, who at one time were there with their colleagues and are not graduating. Even that is not a particularly insignificant number. It's troublesome, and I guess the encouragement the minister gets from this side of the House is that he has articulated his view on the ability to set provincewide standards or objectives and goals. To some extent, he submits that's problematic and difficult.

But I guess part of what the Ministry of Education in Victoria does is prod and encourage local school boards and perhaps set objectives and, to some extent, hold those local school boards accountable vis-à-vis their relationship with the ministry.

I'll get the figures. We don't need to dissect them in detail here, except for the minister to hear the opposition's suggestion that, as always, there is perhaps greater work to be done in terms of encouraging all of those involved at the local level to capitalize on the successes that have been enjoyed in some places in the province and to correct some places in the province and to correct some of the problems that apparently exist elsewhere.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate your comments on it. I think we share a common goal here and are probably grappling, as anybody would, with what the right tools are to continue to improve aboriginal success in our public school system. I have the document right here, which outlines the entire thing. I'll simply ask people to provide it to you in the corridor.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask a few questions with regard to school district 44 in North Vancouver. I'm not asking for or soliciting money or anything like that -- well, maybe a few dollars.

I have been contacted by the parent advisory council out in the far end of my riding in the Seymour area and the Deep Cove area. There's a concern at the present time with regard to Seycove Secondary School, and you have no doubt had a few letters sent to you with regard to it. It was originally built for 425 students. Its current enrolment is 240 more, so that's 625. They're expecting an increased enrolment from their feeder schools of Cove Cliff and Dorothy Lynas and Sherwood Park to about another 165 in the next couple of years.

That will put them almost 100 percent over what it is now. Of their 11 instructional classrooms, six are portables -- over 50 percent. There are another two or three portables coming on stream evidently, because of the situation there, and that will put them something like . . . . Of 14 instructional classrooms, they will have nine portables. They have a double-wide portable for a cafeteria. That cafeteria is located away from the school and can only be open for about two hours a day because of its location on the grounds. It's locked because it's remote from the main building. So there are general problems in that area.

My question is that the minister . . . . The trustees of school district 44 sent in a priority capital list, and Seycove Scondary was on the top of the priority list. Yet when the dust settled, there was no funding available. I wonder if the minister could respond as to how that came about.

[1605]

[ Page 13448 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's always good when a member of the Liberal opposition stands up and advocates for spending more money in capital. It's good to see you advocating for this capital project in your riding. I share your concern about the crowded conditions at Seycove. You may know, actually, that I toured the school this spring to have a look at it firsthand. Like you, I've got lots of cards and letters from parents and staff concerned about overcrowding in the school. I can't announce anything, obviously.

I've pretty much allocated money for the current fiscal year, but this is clearly a project that is badly needed. I think it is safe to say it is one that I expect will receive attention in the not too distant future, and that's really all I can say right now.

The member asks about priorities. This is always a difficulty. When we did the ranking of space projects submitted by all school districts, Argyle came in ninth; Seycove came in fortieth. So in our assessment of the overcrowding situation, the situation at Argyle was actually considerably worse than Seycove. Argyle Secondary was originally built . . . . Well, its capacity was 925 students; its current enrolment is 1,327. So it was actually considerably over capacity -- more than Seycove was -- when we looked at these projects last fall.

It did make the list and got announced. I'm moving forward with it. I am hopeful that we will have positive news for the parents and students at Seycove in the near future.

D. Jarvis: Well, minister, I really wasn't asking for a lot of capital spending. I was talking about priority spending. That is the problem with what's going on in this province right now: that priority spending is way out of line with regards to fast ferries. The government's basic budget itself is out of line, I think, in the sense that they are not looking for the proper revenue to come in. You're spending money on advertising -- a million dollars a month on advertising; you're spending $60,000 to advertise Nanoose Bay; your SkyTrain budget is about $1.5 billion; your ferries are now $250 million out of line -- each one. So it's a matter of priorities.

At the same time, that's what I was standing up to inquire about -- the fact that I wanted to ascertain how you ascertain what the priorities are for capital spending. You would think that a local school board would see the picture better than the minister over here would. Why? When they submit their lists and they put a school up at the top, why do you just completely ignore it and throw it away and fund four other schools which were below the priority of what school district 44 recommended? Why is the minister . . . ?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I will.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's just talk about priorities. I've had the great privilege in the last 13 months of announcing $923 million worth of school construction -- new schools, expansions to schools and replacement schools -- across the province. Over 250 different projects -- it's the largest capital expenditure plan in the history of public education in the province.

Now, if the member is saying that that doesn't indicate a priority on education spending, I would ask him: so how many billions more would you like? Stand up; be proud. If you think that we should spend more capital in school construction, I'd appreciate your saying so, because frankly, all we hear from the opposition is that all this is bad spending, that it's debt, that somehow this is a burden on the taxpayers. I consider it an investment in the future of our children, in the future of our province. So we are going to continue to spend on education.

[1610]

We've announced some very ambitious targets for ourselves, and we're going to follow through and meet those targets: a thousand new classrooms, just to accommodate smaller classes in kindergarten to grade 3; getting rid of half the portables in the province; and continuing to try to meet the needs for renovation and replacement for schools that are nearing the end of their useful life.

As far as priorities -- look, this is always a challenge, to work with districts and to make sure we've got it right. Sometimes districts, frankly, don't feel we do. In my own district, there's this project that I know the school district would love to see funded. You know, they had it around third or fourth place; we knocked off the top three and it rose to the top. And then, through the ministry and some of the work we did, we said no, it doesn't cut it anymore; we have to do projects 2, 3 and 4. And both the parents and the districts were concerned.

Any of this is a juggling act, in the balance of what we want to do. What we seek to do is work with the district to identify, really, almost two streams of projects: what do we need for space, and what do we need for replacement? For the replacement, we do a whole bunch of auditing work to make sure we've got the priorities right. And what may be at the top of the list in one district regrettably will not get funded for replacement for several years, because there may be other schools in other districts that are in far worse shape and need to be replaced first -- once we do that sort of provincial ranking.

We also seek, on the space side, to do the sort of analysis that the ranking I just read to you suggests. Yes, Seycove has around 200 students more right now than it was originally built for. Argyle had well over 400 students more. It was our feeling that that was the greater need. When we rank space projects around the province, what we tend to do is try to look past the actual list that a district submits and rank them universally around the province. Argyle made the cut of the 35 space projects we were able to fund last fall.

Regrettably, Seycove did not quite make it, though as I indicated to the member, I think it is very close and I expect positive news on that project in the near future.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for his answers. If we are to see some capital spending for Seycove itself in the near future, that's great. I have never criticized the minister for overspending. We all agree that education is the number one issue in this government and in this province, and that's how we're going to improve ourselves. What I was talking about in terms of priorities was the fact that this government is spending $7.4 million per day just to service the debt, and that is unfortunate. That's about priorities. We're now going off and spending these massive amounts on fast ferries.

To me, that kind of money is a waste. I've never seen the demand by people wanting to get to Nanaimo 20 minutes earlier, versus the parents that want good education for their children. That's a waste of money.

In any event, I thank you for your answers. That's what I was trying to find out: how the spending authority went.

[ Page 13449 ]

Could the minister please tell me . . . ? I have a couple of small questions in regards to how many portables there are now in district 44. Do you have that information?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff don't actually have the right piece of paper in the chamber. Their recollection is that the North Van district has around 74 portables, and they will see a decline in that number. I'd be quite willing to have staff provide you with what we know of their current inventory of portables.

[1615]

D. Jarvis: Just another quick question -- if he could give me some explanation in regard to spending for learning resources. You know, a lot of the schools haven't had any real new books or new equipment, and the computers they have now -- most of them, I think -- have been paid for by fundraising events by parents and all the rest of it. I noticed that district 44 was given about $773,000 for learning resources for '99-2000. When you divide it by the 18,500 students, that comes out to about $42 a student; that really is not what you'd call very much money for textbooks and computers.

I wonder if he could tell me what the picture on that is and whether we can expect a few more dollars in the near future.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We provide school districts across British Columbia with in the neighbourhood of $22-23 million to acquire learning resources each and every year. We've also provided districts with another $10 million to provide information technology -- computers and software.

Now, I recognize that there is always a desire to have more. I would say, though, that one of the things that did surprise me is . . . . I asked the ministry to do a little bit of work on how much of those funds were actually spent and what districts were retaining. It surprised me to find out that in learning resources trust accounts around the province, if you add up what the districts now have sort of in reserve, they've got $12 million for learning resources right now, as we talk.

And as we start a new budget year, a new school year, another $22 million will be going out this year as well, plus additional resources for technology. As a former teacher, I always recognize that I can find lots of good uses and educationally sound uses for additional dollars. I think we do seek to provide the funds so that our schools do have the learning resources needed for our children.

D. Jarvis: Does the minister have that breakdown available? Could he tell me what district 44 has in their reserve? I'd like to talk to them if they have a large reserve, because I only have one constituent over there, and that's the children in North Vancouver.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I can't tell you for the current school year. I will have to wait until we get their audited statements. Last year, at the end of their school year, June 30, 1998, they had around $40,000 left in their learning resources fund and around $340,000 left in their technology fund.

J. Reid: In my constituency are school district 68, which is Nanaimo, as well as school district 69, which is Parksville-Qualicum. In school district 69 there has been a great effect from the proposed change in plans for funding alternative programs. It's my understanding that alternative programs, where these have existed in separate schools previously -- where the schools had their own timetable, their own staff and their own location -- are now not recognized as separate schools but are only recognized as programs. If the minister would explain the justification in changing these funding formulas . . . .

[1620]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The change we made was an attempt to treat all districts equitably. I don't know how to introduce this other than by saying that where a system is set up, people will find ways to use that system to their advantage. What we found was that a number of districts -- and they shall remain nameless -- had found a way to generate additional revenue by setting up a significant number of alternative schools, very often sharing a facility set up in a wing of a high school, or whatever, and claimed as separate schools for the purposes of administrative allowance.

This was a good way to generate additional revenue. Frankly, I don't think it led in some cases to the best decisions about how you'd actually organize an alternative program within a school.

So what we've said is no, we're not going to do the administrative allowance for any alternative school. We are going to fund square metres and lease space -- square metres for maintenance, lease space for costs that are required there. But we're going to treat it as a program within the public school system. Some districts actually benefited from this. It may surprise the members to learn that Vancouver actually gained around $300,000 from this particular change. Other districts found a negative impact on their budget.

J. Reid: Could the minister tell me how many school districts were affected in a negative way by this change?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the important thing to point out here is that we did not attempt to reduce funding for alternative schools around the province. We actually kept it whole and just reallocated it -- it's around $13-some million -- but tried to set some guidelines so that everybody was getting treated equally. As the member knows, this wasn't really an issue at all.

In the Nanaimo district, I think they lost -- what? -- $9,000 or something, a very small amount of money. Qualicum had a larger issue, around $90,000. Of the districts around the province, around half went up, half went down.

J. Reid: With reference to the school district in Nanaimo, one of their issues has been the funding for special education. Certainly with the demographics of that school district, they felt the funding allotments have caused great hardship. Would the minister like to explain how the minister would like to approach special needs funding with the school district in Nanaimo, school district 68?

[1625]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, Nanaimo had a very slight increase in their funding for special education this year. It remains around $11.5 million out of their budget of $94 million. It's a significant portion of the funding they receive, as is the special education funding in the province. We spend around $408 million on assistance to children with special physical or mental needs. Around 12 percent of the total ministry budget is spent in this area.

[ Page 13450 ]

Over the years of the last decade, as we've moved to an inclusion model and implemented an inclusion model for special education kids, the number of children identified as having special needs by school districts has actually grown something like twice as fast as the overall school population has grown. It's not clear, all the reasons for that -- whether there are that many more children with special needs or they were going unidentified before.

The other thing that we've found is that there are great variations around the province on how school districts structure programs for special education students. Some districts structure programs that live within the targeted funding allocated by the ministry. Others, including Nanaimo, have chosen to spend in excess of that and have taken funds from other areas in order to enhance funding for special education even further. It's because of those variations that I have ordered a review of special education and have asked one of my assistant deputy ministers, Paul Pallan, along with a very respected expert from UBC, to conduct a review of all matters concerned with special education.

The concerns I hear -- and I'll just say a couple of things and sit down, because maybe the member has some further questions -- are several. Are we doing the best we can for every child with special needs? Are there unmet needs? And then, on the other side, I hear: are we spending the money well? Are we structuring the programs for the maximum results? What results are we getting for the 12 percent of the education budget that we're allocating to special education?

So that's what the review is to accomplish. I don't intend for it to be a long one. I've asked for the process to be complete and the results to be available to me by the end of this calendar year, so that they can have an influence on the 2000-2001 budget.

J. Reid: It's my understanding, from the parents involved who have special needs children -- and they have a special education parents association in Nanaimo -- that the funding is not based on the number of students identified; it's based on a formula. In particular in Nanaimo -- whether the minister would agree or not -- there does happen to be a greater than average number of these children, so they feel that there has been a problem with the funding that the ministry has provided for the school district. Perhaps we could use some clarification on that situation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the funding for special education is broken down into a number of categories. In some cases there's absolutely no limit on the amount of funding that can be provided. For a child with very high needs -- with mobility or mental challenges . . . . Funding is provided depending on the number of kids with those needs who enrol in a district: the more children, the more funds. And the funds are substantial: as much as $33,000 per child. For the sort of low-need, high-incidence category . . . . That is where we have indeed said that probably 4 percent is about it.

Frankly, that's almost straight statistical work. I mean, if you say, "What's special?" it's probably 2 percent at each end of the spectrum. You get the bell curve of abilities, or whatever, at which they're "special."

[1630]

It's very difficult to go beyond that. Both my deputy and I met with parents and the committee from Nanaimo to hear their concerns firsthand. I would say that while they would have appreciated an immediate response and more money, they also recognized that the outcome of the review that we have underway might also benefit their children and advance their advocacy for their children.

J. Reid: With the formula applied to the children with needs perhaps not as severe as those of other children, is it taken into account that certain areas and certain demographics really do change those numbers? And, just as we know in health care that demographics changes those numbers . . . . Have any studies perhaps been done to look at numbers according to different demographics and whether there are any exceptions to this rule?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer to the question is no. The current funding formula doesn't take account of that sort of variation in -- I don't know how you'd express it -- socioeconomic class or whatever. It simply doesn't.

What the ministry is going to do is look at that issue as part of the review. I must say that there have been some studies done in the Vancouver metro area, where similar claims are often made. You've probably heard the Vancouver school district claiming that because of its demographics, it has a higher than "average" number of special education children and needs. So far the studies don't seem to bear that out -- that children with special needs are migrating in some way to the Vancouver school district.

But this is an issue that we're going to look at across the province and see if there are some patterns that make sense and that should influence the way we fund districts for special education.

J. Reid: I would appreciate it, if any studies are done on this work of looking at the socioeconomic factors involved with special needs, if the parents, the school district or myself could be advised of those studies. It would certainly help clarify the situation. These people genuinely believe that there are these differences.

Continuing on with some concerns in the constituency, I often deal with parents who feel caught in between school board decisions and ministry directives and who have a hard time understanding where a certain change is coming from. The school board will often say, "The ministry is telling us to do this," and when the parents go to the ministry, the ministry says: "It is the realm of the school board to make this decision." When that situation -- which I must presume is very common across this province -- occurs, is there a way or a particular

section within the ministry that will help parents clarify exactly whose responsibility is what?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will read this into the record. This is sort of a final bit of information for the special education discussion that we had. Actually, in the Nanaimo area, their claim for the number of high-incidence, low-cost children is lower than the provincial average, even though it is higher than the 4 percent. So it's one of many things that we're going to have to look at as we conduct this review.

[1635]

In answer to the member's second question, about how you get information . . . . Let's start with a simple one, and then we'll see where we go from there. We do have a 1-800 number. People call it, and we try to make sure either that the people on the phones have the information to give them or that it's referred to the appropriate department or branch

[ Page 13451 ]

within the ministry so they can respond quickly and try to straighten out any concerns about who does what in the education system. Indeed, particularly from the outside, sometimes it appears like a very complex system.

J. Reid: I'd like to use a specific example to show the confusion and indeed the heartbreak that can result from this, and that is the ministry's desire to reduce class sizes. It sounds innocent enough in its approach, but in certain areas, working out the details of that . . . . We have an example in my constituency where there is a very rural school, a community school, that has had some portables -- a new school having been built in another community down the road.

The school boundaries changed, so that the students, rather than being able to walk to their community school, are now going to be bused to a different school. The parents, upset that their children are no longer going to be allowed to attend their community school, have spent almost a year trying to find out whether this was a directive from the ministry or a board decision.

Still, the board feels that it has a been a ministry directive and yet takes responsibility that indeed, in the final analysis, they of course had to make a decision. When the parents want to protest this -- that there is an inequity here . . . . I presume the minister would be in support of community schools and that there needs to be an opportunity to communicate with the ministry about the problems arising from their directives or their perceived directives. In this year, these parents have not been able to find that channel. If the minister would like to make any suggestions, I would appreciate it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Here, as in many other things in the education realm, there is responsibility at both levels. I mean, the move to smaller class sizes is not incidental or innocent. It is quite deliberate. I've often said in this chamber what I believe the research shows about the advantages of moving towards smaller class sizes for our younger children, and we are quite committed to doing this. I know that the opposition voted against this measure and doesn't feel that it's an appropriate use of educational funds. We do.

The responsibility for implementation of the provincial collective agreement, which implements smaller class sizes, rests with school districts, and therefore matters such as catchment areas, school boundaries and configurations of schools are entirely within the purview of school districts. So it is a shared thing. If the member wants to pass on any correspondence that she has on the issue that I can get the ministry to respond to, I'd be pleased to do so.

J. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the advantages he perceives in the lower class sizes. Coming from these parents, I have a question: does the ministry have any studies to reflect the effects of upheaval when children have been moved from a community school they've gone to for years into another school outside of their neighbourhood -- what effects that has on their learning?

[1640]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We favour kids remaining in community schools whenever possible and encourage school boards to work towards that. Having said that, there are issues of space and portables, and other issues, that school districts are constantly dealing with as they seek to provide good learning environments for kids.

J. Reid: The question remains to the minister that, yes, in seeking to distribute the population within schools, there's going to be an adverse effect if children are moved either against their will or into situations that are difficult for them. So the question is: have there been studies to look at disruption in the life of a child and the effect on learning that occurs? Certainly we've heard that studies are the one way of saying class sizes . . . . But if children are going to be disrupted -- if it's going to cancel out that benefit -- then it certainly is a concern on the part of these parents.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure we're aware of any detailed study on precisely that issue. I'll say only this: children shift schools every year across this province for a huge variety of reasons, the most common one being that their parents have relocated within a community or from one community to another. I don't know about the member's riding. In my riding, between elections -- from one election to the next -- something like 25 percent of the people in the community move either from one location to another or in or out of particular neighbourhoods.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's assuming a constant population -- sorry, I hate to disabuse the member for Okanagan-Vernon -- or, indeed, a growing population. We're a very mobile society. The most common reason for kids to change schools is because their parents have moved. The positive or negative impact of this, I think, has everything to do with how the parents and the school community adjust to it and welcome new children.

J. Reid: I would suggest to the minister that there is a huge difference between when parents move because they've made a decision to move -- and they're moving their children and their family because of that decision -- and when children are moved against the will of the parents and against the will of the children. It would have different consequences. I would be glad to provide the minister with copies of a large amount of correspondence on this issue and on the concerns of parents that have yet to be resolved.

Another issue in the constituency with the school district is an interesting situation concerning boarding-out allowances. If the minister would share with us . . . . First of all, how many children in the province receive a boarding-out allowance?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't have that figure in the chamber. I'm sure that people watching us will seek to provide us with the right statistic very soon.

J. Reid: Would the minister have the budget figure for the boarding-out allowances?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the provincial budget we pay around $1.2 million a year in boarding-out allowances.

J. Reid: Does the ministry have guidelines on who qualifies for this allowance?

[1645]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has exceeded the expertise of the group I have with me in the chamber today.

[ Page 13452 ]

J. Reid: I would like to proceed with this concern, at least on record, and then if information has to be provided at a later date, I would . . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: If you have other issues that you wish to canvass in estimates, may I suggest you move on those and then come back to this one? We may have an opportunity to have staff send in some information to help us engage in an informed debate.

J. Reid: I will leave it to the end of my list and see if we can come up with that information.

The next item is about the Electronic Busing program. I would like to know what the extent of the Electronic Busing program in B.C. is.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the ministry has a different name for it. They call it the distributed electronic learning program. The e-bus is actually the name that one school district -- the Nechako school district -- has given to its program. Around the province, we have 2,119 students who are enrolled in distributed electronic learning programs in the current school year.

J. Reid: Is this program available to all school districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's in 18 school districts that offer some version of distributed electronic learning or electronic delivery of programs across the province. The biggest of those is the program the member referenced -- the e-bus, in the Nechako district. That has, I think, around 800 students, if memory serves.

J. Reid: If the minister could share with us the funds that are allocated to this program.

Hon. P. Ramsey: At $3,500 per student, the provincial funding amounts to $7.418 million.

J. Reid: Who administers the program? Is it the school districts, or is it the ministry?

[1650]

Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts administer the program. We currently are engaging in a review of those programs. They originally got set up, essentially, by request from the ministry. Then, if they met the criteria, they went ahead. They've experienced some very rapid growth in the last few years, and we have now said that we need to take a hard look at what's being done and what the criteria are. We expect that review to be concluded by the end of the summer.

J. Reid: As I know there are waiting lists for students who want to be involved in the program, and there is certainly concern on the part of other people that don't have the assurance that the program is being monitored, could we just have some clarification: how is the success of the program monitored?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises exactly some of the questions that have led to the review. There has been an increasing demand for access to these programs, and yet I'm not confident -- the ministry isn't confident -- that we can assure supervision, quality, provincial curriculum and all those other matters that one would expect. There is a great variation among the sorts of programs that are out there.

These programs were originally set up with about four primary objectives: to provide an alternate learning environment for students who were not succeeding in a traditional classroom setting; to increase student access to elective courses, particularly for students in rural or remote communities; to provide a quality educational alternative to home schooling for parents who didn't want their children in a traditional environment; and to provide alternatives for students who simply couldn't study within the traditional timetable, due to any number of issues.

With the growth of information technology, this sort of education delivery seems to be growing very rapidly both at the kindergarten-to-grade-12 level and at the post-secondary level. Virtually every college and university in the province now offers courses available wholly through the Internet. There's a wide variety of electronic delivery mechanisms. There are enough concerns about how things have been working out with the 18 programs we have now that we took a year's pause, froze the expansion of the programs and are conducting a review.

J. Reid: Without going into details about the review -- because obviously it's underway -- could the minister just give an overview of what aspects are being looked at in the review? What are the major concerns, what are the major pluses of the program, and what would constitute a favourable review? If we see a favourable review, then what would be the implications of that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a fairly comprehensive review of what's been going on. I'm trying to break it down into a number of areas, in no particular priority.

Is the provincial curriculum actually being delivered and mastered through this system? Obviously, if we're going to fund this significantly with public resources, we would expect that we would have the provincial curriculum delivered.

[1655]

Second, what are the outcomes? Are students receiving the equivalent of or better than face-to-face instruction with a trained professional in a classroom setting? And I imagine there are a number of sub-issues under each of those, as far as curriculum and outcomes.

A third issue is: what are the true costs of delivering education in this way, and what

part is borne by the public purse and what

part is borne by the individual? So there are at least those three broad bands of concerns that the review is assessing.

J. Reid: One more question before we go back to the boarding-out allowance. It's actually a question for another constituency that I have formed some links with, and that's with the coastal communities that are particularly hard-hit by the problems with the resource industries. I'm going to use the example of Gold River, where there is a significant expected decrease in enrolment -- whether the ministry has special plans for these school districts that have suffered phenomenally and what those plans might be.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Having a rapid population decline and a school enrolment decline is never fun. Over the past several

[ Page 13453 ]

years we've had a number of districts around the province that have experienced this. Prince Rupert, one in Terrace and obviously, for the coming year, school district 84 -- Vancouver Island West and the community of Gold River -- will all experience a considerable enrolment decline. Last fall, as the member probably knows, I sought to buffer some unanticipated enrolment declines in some 23 school districts by providing some additional funding in the form of a special purpose grant, a one-time grant.

We're going to be doing the same thing, only more so, for Gold River in the coming year. We've said to them that if their enrolment fell by more than 10 percent, we would take any amount below that and fund them through a special purpose grant at 50 percent of what they'd receive per child if the kids actually showed up. Assuming that their projections are accurate and that they lose around 193 students -- a 25 percent reduction, a huge reduction -- that means that they would receive a grant above what they'd normally receive for that number of students -- of some $386,000 -- to help cushion that and make sure that, if they are moving down to a lower level, it's done smoothly.

I must say that I had the opportunity, with the member for North Island, to meet with representatives from Gold River to discuss the problem face to face. We sent one of my senior officials to the community to meet with parents in the school district so that we could make sure we understood fully what was going on. At the end of the day, I think the district is quite supportive of the efforts of the member for North Island and the ministry in helping them cushion this change in enrolment in their district.

[1700]

J. Reid: Back to the boarding-out allowances. The concern that exists in my constituency is about defining who would get the boarding-out allowance and under what circumstances. Certainly it's my understanding that the school board has the authority to make decisions concerning the boarding-out allowance, but the parents want to know that they're being treated as equitably as other regions in the province. Therefore I address this to the minister today, as he would have that information, as opposed to the local school board, who probably would not.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The school board should have the same information that I'm going to put on the record here. Here are the funding guidelines for boarding allowances for all school districts in the province.

Boarding allowance funding is available to school boards, to a maximum of $3,500 per student per school year, where the board and school staff decide a student should be sent to a school in a distant location other than where that student resides. This decision must be based on the fact that the local school is unable to offer an appropriate education program and not on the personal preferences of a student or student's parents for programs offered in a school in a distant location within a district or within another school district.

J. Reid: Thank you for that clarification. Now, the problem with the situation we have with students coming from Lasqueti -- where obviously they do not have a high school -- is that there can be a number of students from the family that have to board out in order to attend high school, and the family is willing to do that. The opportunity has arisen for a parent to be able to accompany the children in these temporary living accommodations. So it's a difficult situation. The question is whether the minister would know if, in other similar situations across the province, there have been any provisions made for this type of difficulty.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The assumption on the boarding allowance is that the child is living away from home and parents. We are unaware of any situation in other districts where parents have sought to actually accompany children and set up, really, a second home in the community.

R. Coleman: I have a large number of issues to canvass with the minister this afternoon relative to my school district. That's the one that I represent -- and the member for Langley, who I believe will also be joining me in these discussions this afternoon.

I did a review of the presentation to the board relative to the 1999-2000 budget for my school district. From this report, I'm left with a number of concerns. The concerns, obviously, point to the fact that . . . . If I'm not mistaken, I've always understood that I have one of the better-run school districts in this province. I've always felt that. I've thought that they do a pretty good job in running their school district, and the teachers and educators in my community do an excellent job.

There were a number of statements that came out of this particular report, as we move forward to look at how it is affecting individual schools, and the one that really sticks out to me is this:

"Over the years, administrators and school partners have managed reductions to their operating budgets in ways that have attempted to minimize impacts. But the cumulative effects of relentless budget reductions have brought us to the point where there is nothing left to trim. There is no question that continuing cuts are affecting our ability to deliver services and programs to students in Langley."

My concern is: have we gone to the point where we've literally frustrated our system of education by whatever formulas we're using? And I understand the AIC has some impact on this, and there are some other agreements that have an impact on this. Have we frustrated our situation to the point where we're losing the focus of the fact that the education of the children in our schools is being impacted in a very negative manner, and to the point that the courses and opportunities for them to be able to compete in the next century are being lost? I'm wondering what the minister's comments would be on that.

[1705]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I find that opening so contrary to the facts of education funding in British Columbia over the last eight years . . . I have a tough time fitting it together with the actual facts. Education in British Columbia is adequately funded -- well funded relative to other jurisdictions in this country and, indeed, other jurisdictions in North America. It's funded better than at any time in the past. We enjoy a standard of education and standards of service which are envied by other Canadians and envied by other jurisdictions around the world.

Every year our province is host to delegations which come here to see what we're doing in education and seek to learn from what we've done.

Far from cutting your district's budget, here are the facts, hon. member, about your district's budgets over the past eight years. Back in 1991-92, for an enrolment of 17,581, district 35

[ Page 13454 ]

-- Langley -- received $88,500,000. This current school year, for a school enrolment of 19,825 -- an increase of around 12 percent over that time -- they received a budget of $110 million -- an increase over that same period of 24 percent.

So when the member reads statements about relentless budget cuts, I have a tough time squaring that with the fact that in the current school year the Langley school board is receiving funding which is $22 million greater than it received at the start of this decade or with the fact that the increase in education funding has grown twice as fast as the level of enrolment in the district. Finally, this district does manage its affairs well. In fact, it had a surplus of something like $625,000 last year.

R. Coleman: I'm sure the minister is aware of where that surplus comes from. A lot of it has to do with revenues coming from the international student program. Those surpluses are now being moved forward to cover additional costs that the school district is facing. The additional costs that they're facing this year -- $1,094,000 -- are from growth, salary increments and other provincially negotiated contractual increases. They also have an effect, obviously, because they have $150,000 in additional positions, and they also have some contractual increases that affect that.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

The concern here, though, is what is happening with the school, and I wanted to walk through that with the minister this afternoon. We can quote all the numbers and statistics that we want to, but there are things that are affecting students in these particular school districts. There are t