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 16, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 4

[ Page 13703 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. Kwan: Today, in the member's gallery, we have some very special guests from the People's Republic of China: Mr. Si Zhiguang is the vice-chair of the Standing Committee of the Guangdong Province People's Congress, and he's leading a delegation of government people from that dynamic province. The group is accompanied by Mr. Jacky Tse, Norman Ho and Laura Ye from the B.C.-Guangdong Business Council. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

I. Chong: I too would like to wish the Guangdong Province People's Congress delegation a very warm welcome on behalf of members on this side of the House. We were fortunate enough to share some lunch with them that you graciously hosted, hon. Speaker. I would just like to say to them: [Chinese spoken.] [Welcome, all of you, to Victoria.] I would ask the House to make them welcome.

C. Clark: We're being visited today by members of the Cowichan-Ladysmith B.C. Liberal constituency association, and I'd like to introduce Tek Manhas, Jennifer Burnett, Gail Stewart and Robin Kenyon. I hope the House will make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have more special guests from outside the country. A special visitor from Turkey, His Excellency Erhan Ogut, the newly appointed Ambassador of Turkey to Canada, is visiting British Columbia today for the first time. I'll be delighted to be meeting with him later on this afternoon, and I would ask the House to join in giving him a very warm welcome.

W. Hartley: Next year's legislative interns are with us in the gallery. They're here to meet with you, hon. Speaker, with the Sergeant-at-Arms and the current group of interns, and to attend question period. So would members please welcome Dr. Paul Tennant, professor of political science at UBC and academic director of the internship program, and the interns: Sean Edwards from SFU, Aaron Gairdner from the University of Victoria, Simrita Johal from UBC, Sean LeRoy from the University of Victoria, Jerry Muir from the University of Victoria, Jennifer Vornbrock from UBC and Jennifer Erickson from UBC. Please welcome next year's interns to the Legislature.

G. Hogg: Joining us in the gallery today is Allyson Copeland, a grade 11 student from Semiahmoo Secondary who's doing a work experience in my constituency office. I hope the House would make her welcome.

L. Reid: In the precincts today are members of the Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind, the Victoria chapter, and some guide dogs in training. The individuals I want to recognize are Joan and Jerry Cafferky, David Gerrior, Robert Nemish, Glenys Hughes, Maureen Meadley, Bill Pyatt and Steve Baird. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is the daughter of a very good friend of mine from Surrey. Courtney Martin is visiting her father here in Victoria. Would the House please join me in welcoming her to the precincts.

Hon. D. Streifel: Today I have two introductions to make. In the precincts today are 25 grades 6 and 7 students, and six adults from Whonnock Elementary, just down the street from where I live. It's an old school, going to be replaced this year with one of the new ones. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Taylor. I bid the House make them welcome. And in the same welcome, would the House please extend a warm welcome to Ms. J. Heron, a teacher from Hatzic Elementary, and her 30 grade 7 students and the adults accompanying the party.

J. Wilson: Today, we have the pleasure of 24 grade 6 and 7 students and their teacher, Mrs. Adams, from Lakeview Elementary in Quesnel. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the precincts today are a group of students from North Ridge Elementary School, which is in Surrey-Newton, along with their teacher, Mr. Gingrich, and some families who have come along. This is a class that's been really active in fine arts in their school. It's also a class that partners with kindergarten students every year to make them comfortable in their new surroundings in the school. So I would ask the House to make them really welcome.

L. Reid: In the gallery today -- in the gallery opposite -- is a lovely man who took wonderful care of us as an employee of these buildings for many, many years, and it's his birthday. I would ask the House to please wish "Red" a very happy birthday.

Hon. C. Evans: Just about everywhere I've ever gone since I got this job, my assistant Pratik Modha has relatives -- four of whom are joining us here today: Esther and Billy Buchan from Scotland, Mrs. Alice Hoens from Vancouver and Dr. Phalgun Joshi from Vancouver. Will the House please make these people welcome.

[1415]

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. H. Lali presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. H. Lali: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 78, Motor Vehicle Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. Bill 78 includes amendments to four statutes: Highway (Industrial) Act, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, Motor Carrier Act and Motor Vehicle Act. It consists of 32 sections, and of those sections, 20 fall

[ Page 13704 ]

within the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and ten sections fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for ICBC. Two housekeeping sections fall within the responsibility of the Attorney General.

The most significant amendments in this bill allow for the economic deregulation of all provincial freight carriers, in conjunction with an enhanced National Safety Code program. A regulatory impact statement has been prepared for these specific amendments, in accordance with the government's regulatory streamlining initiative. I'll provide more information on these amendments during second reading on the bill. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 78 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.

Oral Questions

COST OF PREMIER'S AIR TRAVEL

C. Clark: We all know now that the Premier spent $66,000 of taxpayers' money to charter a Learjet to go out and lure investors to British Columbia. Now, he might have been attracted to the company's pitch that by arriving in a Learjet, he'd avoid all those pesky crowds and those crowded terminals that we all have to deal with when we go to the airport. But maybe he was even more attracted by the company's claim that he would get prestige by arriving by private jet. Suddenly he would demand respect and ensure confidence, showing people that he's obviously in control. I don't know . . .

The Speaker: And the question, member?

C. Clark: . . . if the Premier is intending to arrive at the NDP convention this weekend by Learjet, but I would like to know if the Minster of Finance thinks it's a wise use of taxpayers' money to spend $66,000 so that the Premier can jet around the world in style.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: It is absolute and unmitigated rubbish on the part of the opposition to castigate the Premier for travelling around, trying to drum up business for British Columbians. As a result of just those visits, which have not produced a conclusion with respect to a new aluminum . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: They have not yet produced results with respect to a new aluminum smelter in B.C., but as a result of those visits alone, $1 million-plus has been spent in this province by the private sector on investigating the feasibility. On top of that, this Premier has demonstrated that he is prepared to travel to protect and defend the interests of British Columbians. When Canadian Airlines was in trouble, he chartered down to Dallas, and in fact, we saved 6,000 jobs in Canadian Airlines in this province.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Take your seat.

Hon. D. Miller: Other Premiers in this country -- Frank McKenna, notably -- have been known to fly all over North America to drum up business for their province, and I say that if it's good enough for New Brunswick, it's good enough for British Columbia.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: And I think he should be doing more of this kind of travelling . . .

The Speaker: Time, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . looking for more opportunities for development in British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: I suspect that the Deputy Premier isn't the only New Democrat in British Columbia who wishes the Premier would spend more time out of town. But, you know, the Premier's appetite for prestige has cost us all a lot more than $66,000. With one company alone . . .

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

C. Clark: . . . he's taken 11 trips, which have cost us $143,000 in the last year alone. And this is at a time when British Columbia is in the grip of a dark recession. We've got a Premier who wants to do appearances on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." Will the Deputy Premier please stand up and tell us why taxpayers should get soaked for $143,000 just so the Premier can fulfil his desire for prestige and respect and for arriving in style?

Hon. D. Miller: As I said, that's absolutely spurious nonsense. Any Premier in British Columbia needs to travel. It's certainly with some dismay that we learn that the opposition . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . don't seem to understand that. Any Premier of this province has to travel, both for trade purposes . . . . Our Premier has represented this province well in China, in the Asian marketplaces. He's active in looking for new opportunities in the United States, and he will continue to do that. We do have strategies. We have 1,400 megawatts of downstream power that we're prepared to make available for job creation and economic expansion in this province. The

[ Page 13705 ]

Premier is doing exactly the right thing by flying and meeting with people who might be potential investors, and he's going to keep it up.

COST OF MINISTERIAL AIR TRAVEL

G. Farrell-Collins: The people of British Columbia probably wouldn't begrudge the government the cost of the airfare if the Premier actually delivered one -- not three but one -- aluminum smelter.

In the last year alone the Premier has spent over $140,000 on private jet flights with one company alone -- 11 flights. Can the Deputy Premier -- I don't know if he's speaking for the government today or for himself -- tell us who else in the cabinet has been chartering private jets to fly around British Columbia and North America?

Hon. D. Miller: I think those travel records are available. I don't mind admitting that I have chartered mostly those turboprops -- not too often jets -- to fly around British Columbia, because this is a big province. I've also chartered jets to fly to Edmonton to take care of British Columbia's interests with the Alberta government. By the way, it's interesting to note that the Alberta government has also flown to British Columbia on those same kinds of issues. That is the job of the Premier and ministers: to represent the interests of British Columbia. If you've got to travel to do it, you've got to travel to do it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: The problem is that if you measure the results of this Premier and this government, it wasn't worth one red cent to have them travelling around the country. I have a Ministry of Finance document which shows that last year alone, the government spent at least $6 million on private jet charters. I understand that a significant portion of that was legitimately used for air ambulance. Can the Deputy Premier tell us what portion of that $6 million was used to fly him and his cabinet colleagues around North America?

Hon. D. Miller: The opposition is perhaps aware -- maybe I'll just remind them -- that in the last administration, the NDP government of the day, led by Mr. Harcourt, got rid of the Government Air fleet. I sometimes question that myself, having to fly around northern British Columbia. But he got rid of the Government Air fleet . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . thus necessitating that when cabinet ministers have to travel . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members -- take it easy.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . and when normal commercial flights will not do the trick, then you have to charter. Hon. Speaker, the figures are available; the member knows they're available. I'll make a commitment that I will get those figures for the member, but they're easy to get. Just inquire at the right place; he knows what it is.

PRIORITY OF REGISTERING SEX OFFENDERS

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Attorney General. The minister was quoted over the weekend as saying that B.C. is moving toward a central registry for sex offenders. While this is obviously good news, the question that many people are asking is: what's the holdup? What's taking so long? We obviously can't and shouldn't wait for Ottawa. They are far more interested in registering legal firearms than they are in convicted sex offenders. Can the minister provide for us any concrete information on this rumoured sex offender registry?

[1425]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have been trying, on behalf of British Columbians -- and in fact on behalf of all Canadians -- to persuade the federal government to set up a national sex-and-violent-offender registry. The federal government agreed to consider it and then last year came back and said: "No, we will not do it. We will do some enhancements to the CPIC, which is used by police forces across the country for information." At that point I had discussions with the Ontario ministers, and I understood that they were trying to set up a sex offender registry in Ontario. I said at that time that if Ontario sets one up, we will move as well.

We may not be able to do a full sex offender registry by ourselves, because our database is so small. It's impractical to have a provincial registry that doesn't have a database. Criminals don't know any boundaries. They go across the country, both to victimize people and to avoid facing penalties. What I'm planning to do in British Columbia, as a first step, is enhance the notification provisions of our policy, and we're working with the police at this time. There are issues around liability and other issues that need to be dealt with.

Once those issues have been cleared off, there'll be an announcement coming very shortly about the enhancements that we're making. Hopefully, once we've made all the enhancements, we will eventually be able to establish a fully functioning sex offender registry in British Columbia, hooking up with Ontario.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: I fail to see why we have to wait for Ontario. Washington State has an excellent program. It recognizes the need for privacy for those offenders who make a serious attempt at rehabilitation and who are not, or don't appear to represent, a threat. On the other hand, those people who have been convicted and are on release and who are known to represent a real threat to society . . . . Their whereabouts and their identity are properly publicized. We don't need Ontario. If we're going to work with somebody, let's work with Washington State. But let's get going. Year after year we're waiting for Ottawa; we're waiting for Ontario; we're waiting for somebody else.

The Speaker: Member, your question is?

[ Page 13706 ]

J. Weisgerber: Let's get on with the program. Will the minister tell me whether or not he's examined the Washington State model and, if he has, what shortcomings he's found with that system?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We've looked at the Washington State model. I don't think that will work in British Columbia. That was the conclusion that the ministry arrived at. The best option for us in Canada is to have a national sex offender registry. That's the best option. The next best option is for the provinces to come together -- particularly provinces such as Ontario to come together with provinces like British Columbia -- to do a united sex offender registry so that there is a larger database. Those are the two better options. The third option is that we go it alone. We have a very small database.

We wouldn't be able to have input from other provinces, so it would be of very little value. So what I'm trying to do is have Ontario move.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We will move, and we'll put together a network across at least these two provinces and begin the work towards building a fully functioning sex offender registry at the end of the day.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING

M. de Jong: Yesterday was an extraordinary day here in Victoria. The NDP tried to dismiss years of gaming mismanagement as nothing more than a bad dream. J.R. was never shot, Elvis lives and the NDP were never committed to expanded gambling. Right outside these doors the light of reason shone down upon the Attorney General and the Deputy Premier. The light of reason shone down upon them. They underwent an extraordinary conversion and said: "Expanded gambling is bad, bad, bad."

My question is to the minister responsible. After losing six consecutive court cases, spending millions of dollars on legal and consulting fees and commissioning White Papers and brown papers and red papers and blue papers, can the minister indicate: does his government even have a policy on gaming? And if they do, what is it?

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

An Hon. Member: How's the universe unfolding today?

The Speaker: Members. The longer it takes for the minister to reply, the fewer questions subsequently get asked.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The universe will unfold as it should. Just stay tuned. What I will tell the opposition is that we have gone out and talked to British Columbians. We had a White Paper that was out there for discussion. We have talked to local government. We have talked to charities. We have talked to the public right across . . . . We've received over 150 different submissions. It was a discussion paper, and what we're doing is what I said we would do at the time. We want to move forward with a broad consensus of support on gaming policy, and that is exactly what is going to happen.

The nice thing about that is that we do have a policy. It will be unveiled very shortly, and that will be something for the opposition to see, because that's the difference between them and us. They don't have policies. What are their policies? They won't give us their economic policies.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They won't give us their social policies. They won't give us their environmental policies. They won't give us any policies.

The Speaker: Time, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will.

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui, first supplementary.

M. de Jong: What's patently obvious is that the minister wasn't invited to the revival meeting where this amazing conversion took place. He's been left twisting in the wind like a pair of fuzzy dice. The question isn't that difficult. Do they have a policy? Or has this issue become the exclusive domain of NDP leadership hopefuls, like the Attorney General, whose only interest is to ingratiate themselves to the delegates . . .

The Speaker: Member . . . .

M. de Jong: . . . at the upcoming NDP convention?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Speaking of fuzzy dice, where's your leader?

The Speaker: Minister, that's not appropriate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to policies, there's nothing but fuzziness on that side of the House. Whether it's on the environment, whether it's on the economy, whether it's on forestry or whether it's on social policy, there's nothing but fuzziness from that side of the House.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have several reports to present. I have the honour to present a report in accordance with

section 10.01 of the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act. I am also presenting the report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998. I also have the pleasure of presenting you with the report of the business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act,

Part II, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998.

[1435]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I too have the honour of presenting two reports: the 1997-98 Legal Services Society annual report and "Report on Multiculturalism, 1997-98."

[ Page 13707 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating estimates of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Forests. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

The House in Committee of Supply B: W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

Hon. P. Ramsey: In restarting the debates on estimates of the ministry today, I have some information for the critic. He asked yesterday for some information on where we are in enrolment in fine arts courses. The ministry has been able to gather that data and provide it to him.

G. Hogg: Thank you to the minister for that information.

Last summer the government imposed the collective agreement -- the infamous agreement-in-committee -- on the school boards and on the teachers. As we all know, it was rejected by some 90 percent by the school boards and narrowly accepted by the teachers. One of the stated objectives of the agreement-in-committee, as we have discussed in some of our discussions earlier in this debate, was around the reduction in class size over the next three years and the improvement with respect to student learning in those primary grades, which the minister has discussed.

I wonder, given that we have had some discussion with respect to goals and to outcomes, whether or not it is the minister's intent to put any resources, or whether or not any resources have been allocated by the government, to assess improvement in student learning as a result of these expenditures. I particularly reference the discussion we had in which the minister agreed that simply reducing class size alone would not result in effective change but that in fact there had to be a different approach with respect to the teaching techniques that were applied in the classroom prior to that.

I'm interested in any assessment improvement that we might be able to see and any allocation that has been given to that type of outcome measurement.

[1440]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I certainly remember the agreement-in-committee, now the collective agreement between the school trustees and the teachers of British Columbia. I must say that I'm pleased that the critic has acknowledged his party's opposition to the smaller classes that it contained. They voted against it. They're opposed to this initiative, and I think that should be clear and on the record for people looking at a party's agenda in the field of education now and in the next election. This is an agreement that was overwhelmingly supported by the teachers of the province.

I think it is good for students, as I said before in this chamber, and I think the evidence of that will be clear for all in the coming years.

The member asks what sort of evidence is being gathered and will be gathered. Let me reference several things. First of all, in the area of academic achievement, clearly one good way of doing that is with the provincial learning assessment program, which does enable us, through testing every year, to compare over time student achievement in core subject areas. Second, with the data we have now, we can look at a number of areas where evidence in other jurisdictions would suggest that we should see improvements in British Columbia as well.

I think I'll mention three or four of them. The evidence from studies in other jurisdictions suggests that smaller classes result not only in better academic achievement, but in better socialization of children in a school setting. We should therefore expect to see, over time, fewer children identified as requiring special assistance for behavioural difficulties. We should expect to see -- because of more attention given to children individually in smaller classes -- fewer children identified as special needs. We should expect to see, over time, fewer dropouts.

This is quite consistent with what has happened as a result of smaller classes and better socialization and higher attainments in other jurisdictions. Finally, because of the smaller classes, we should expect to see fewer instances where children are being held back from one grade to another.

Those are things that we currently track. The ministry does do a lot of data collection, so there are a lot of systems in place now that we will continue to use to monitor what we're doing with this provincial collective agreement. There's much more I could say about measures of success here. The experience in other jurisdictions suggests that we can expect a wide range of improvements in the public education system from the smaller-class-size initiative.

As I said earlier to the member, my only regret as chair of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada is that within Canada this jurisdiction is alone in promoting and acting on the benefits of smaller classes within Canada. That's truly not so in other jurisdictions, particularly in state public education systems south of the border.

G. Hogg: I wouldn't want the minister to misconstrue or misread the rationale that was presented by this side of the House in voting against the agreement-in-committee. Certainly there were many, many reasons that were given, not the least of which was the fact that school districts and trustees throughout the province had rejected it by almost 90 percent. To look at, as the minister's so fond of saying, but one factor in a decision-making process is clearly not adequate in terms of looking at a rationale for a decision which eventually comes.

[1445]

If I am hearing the minister's statements correctly, he is saying that based on the testing which is currently done and testing which will be done in the future, there will be some comparisons done, or that those will be implicit within it, over a period of time. Could I ask the minister whether he would be prepared at some point in the future to formally provide some outcomes, or those comparisons, with respect to the impact that this has had, looking specifically at the data which is collected in that, and say: "Here is the measured outcome that we have determined as a result of the changed class size.

That's the only variable we see" -- or that there are other variables -- "and as a result of that, here's what we see to have taken place"?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First let me say, on the specifics of the member's question, that obviously we're now just completing

[ Page 13708 ]

the first year of the class size reduction initiative. As I and the Premier have clearly stated, even this collective agreement -- which covers three years -- doesn't get us fully to our targets. Our targets are class sizes of 18 in kindergarten to grade three, because the research suggests that that's the level that you really start to see some of the improvements kick in. So it's very early days to say: "Here's a bunch of data from 1998-1999, the one year we managed to reduce kindergarten and grade one classes. Here's the marvellous improvements." It's way too early to say that.

Frankly, if I presented evidence that said there's a huge increase in achievement of kindergarten or grade one students, I suspect the member would criticize me for jumping to conclusions based on very inadequate data. This is obviously going to be a long-term process. I think that I can surely commit that the ministry will be looking hard at the results of the class size reduction initiative for years. I think that the benefits will be clear.

I just wanted to add a couple things. There are areas where we expect to be able to see some additional improvements. I mentioned several. There are just a couple others that the research suggests that we should be looking at. One would be higher graduation rates. As the member points out, it will probably be tough for researchers to separate out the effect of lower class sizes from other factors that may be there at the time. Another would be higher grades overall -- higher academic attainments. And finally, this is the surprise; this is the one that Dr.

Achilles, in conversation, really made me aware of to a greater extent than before: better transition to post-secondary education. The work that he and his colleagues did with the STAR study in Tennessee is now covering such a long period -- pushing 20 years -- that they are now seeing a significantly better transition from secondary school to college and university for students who began their education in a smaller class than for those who began their education in a larger class. Frankly, that surprised me. So that's yet another thing we should be looking at.

On the broad issue of the provincial collective agreement, sure, there are a variety of reasons for anybody to oppose something. But I must say that the reading of history that we have here by the opposition critic is quite strange.

I remember the critic of the day vehemently attacking this government initiative for smaller class sizes -- saying very directly that there is no evidence that there are any benefits from it, saying that this was a misdirected use of governments funds, that as a government priority this just simply shouldn't compare and that what we should have done, if we were going to inject additional funds into education, was simply give it to the school boards and let them do with it as they wish.

Well, we rejected that. We said smaller class sizes work. We said that's a priority for this government. The opposition said: "No. It's a wrong priority. It's a wrong place to try to target funds. We oppose it." They stood and voted against it in July of last year. Now you may want to rewrite that history, but that's what Hansard reflects. Those are the facts of the case of where the sides of this House have stood on implementing smaller classes and the benefits they bring to our children.

[1450]

G. Hogg: It's probably not appropriate to redebate something that took place last July, as the minister points out. However, I recall that debate as well. Perhaps history and Hansard don't reflect as accurately in my mind or your mind as we might hope. It's clearly my recollection -- and it was reinforced in our discussions over this matter just a couple of days ago, that the minister even declared, at that point, that it was not class size alone that made a difference. That was but one factor in it. It was the other factors that were a part of it, and I've just made reference to that.

We can go back in Hansard and we can talk about that, but I don't think that's probably very productive at this point in time.

Can the minister respond to those types of concerns as they're being expressed by various jurisdictions in this province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll say this about the implementation of the collective agreement in the first year. Considering that this is a change involving a 600,000-student system with 1,700 schools and tens of thousands of teachers, I would characterize the first year of implementation as amazingly smooth. I should report to the member and to the chamber that right now there are no outstanding grievances -- none -- in the province on implementation of class size provisions. Implementation is going well.

I would further report that on the issue the member raises -- the whole issue of administrative officers' role and how their staffing is calculated in ratios -- that the BCTF and BCPSEA, the bargaining agent for the trustees, have just completed ratification of a mid-contract term set of negotiations on that and a number of issues. Those issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties to the collective agreement. That and a variety of other issues were resolved in these mid-term negotiations.

G. Hogg: The ministry is currently conducting a review of the school accreditation program and process. I'm wondering what the elements of that are. We've been talking about accountability and about goal-setting within the process. I'm wondering what the terms of reference with respect to the accreditation program are and how we, through that process, will ensure that our educational system becomes more effective in the presentation of outcomes on our students, and the accountability that will be contained within that.

[1455]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the member is correct. We are doing a review of the accreditation program -- really to determine if the goals and objectives of accreditation are being met. We're now into, I think, the fourth or fifth year of the accreditation program, and I think it is time to see how we're doing. There have been a number of informal suggestions for improvement or simplification of it. We want to ensure that schools are continually examining, improving and reporting on their performance and that they are using performance

[ Page 13709 ]

information at the school level, generating information that can be provided to the community and welcoming parents and the community in as partners in education -- a real challenge that the member for Parksville-Qualicum flagged the other day. Accreditation is part of identifying problems in that relationship and seeking to rectify them.

I would also report to the member that the number of schools that we expect to go through the accreditation process in the coming year, the one supported by the budget we're debating, is 260 -- 207 elementary schools, 20 middle schools and 33 secondary schools. That's almost identical to the current year. We had 261 this year.

G. Hogg: The teachers' collective agreement, which was established as an interim agreement, I believe, in June '96 . . . . One of the new clauses in that agreement was A.5, which deals with the issue of personal harassment in the workplace. Many of the school boards have talked about the expenditures that they've had to undergo in dealing with this issue since that point in time. I'm wondering if we have any sense of the dollars which have been involved in that. Did the ministry compensate school districts for the actions associated with this -- and the dollars that are generated and the costs that are added to their budgets with respect to this?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The costs of grievances and arbitrations are borne by individual school districts and not by the ministry. I think that's part of what the member asked.

As far as the specific issue of grievances relating to this particular clause, the short answer is no, we don't have any tally of that. I can ask, through the ministry and through BCPSEA, if they have any tally of any grievances or arbitrations that have been centred on that particular clause. I must say that, informally, in my discussions with the partners in this system and then in touring schools and talking to principals, teachers, trustees and superintendents, I have not heard of this as a burning or major issue.

I know that there was some discussion about it at the time that that tentative or transitional collective agreement was signed, back in '96. My impression -- and I'll see if I can get the data for the member to verify it -- is that that was more a concern than an actuality.

G. Hogg: Certainly in discussions I've had with a number of school districts and a number of organizations which represent educators within the administrative level, they have expressed this as a concern. So if it is possible that the ministry has available to them the values associated with that, I would be interested in reviewing them.

[1500]

B. Barisoff: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Barisoff: I'd just like to welcome to the precinct today 50 grade 7 students from Tuc-el-Nuit Elementary School in Oliver, along with their teacher, Mrs. Katie Friesen, and other teachers and parents -- Mr. Tolmann, Mrs. Gallagher, Mrs. Pavao, Mrs. McAdam, Mrs. Peace, Mrs. Harkness, Mr. Leibel and Mrs. Bouchard. Could the House please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: I am going to be bouncing around a little bit in an effort to expedite some of our proceedings, if that's . . . . I'm going to do it, even if it's not convenient, I think, in an effort to get through the priorities which have been placed before me.

I want to move quickly to the special education review that is taking place. I know there's been a great deal of discussion with respect to that -- a great deal of information that's been carried both in the media and in letters and missives which have been received, I'm sure, on both sides of the House. I have received a number of such letters, and I know that the minister has as well.

One that was particularly touching and sensitive to me was one which a number of students at Jessie Lee Elementary School had written. This has to do with a boy who, as part of the inclusion policy and process, has been a part of a grade 5 class. This boy, Eric, has Down's syndrome, and some of his classmates have written things. Tina wrote: "Eric is a good kid. Sometimes I will help him with something when he gets stuck. I like it when Eric is running in the field.

Eric is loved and silly and fun, and sometimes Eric will hug someone like me and Brett and anyone." Jeremy writes: "I have always enjoyed working with Eric, whether it be reading, helping in PE and changing in the change room. He is cooperative and is a good experience for me because I have never worked with someone so cool. And I always enjoy helping him in anything whatsoever. He is the best guy anyone could work with."

I think these are resounding endorsements for the practice and policy of inclusion. I know that the minister has been quoted, correctly or incorrectly, a number of times with respect to his position on inclusion. I have a copy of a letter that I believe was sent to the special education review committee from Roswitha and Donald Shearer, who are the parents of Eric. In one paragraph they say: "It is of great concern to my husband and myself when we hear that school boards in the province are making drastic cuts to special education and 'inclusions have been a waste of time' is a statement supposedly made to a group of parents by the minister, and that is most unsettling."

So I would like the minister to place on the record the official position with respect to inclusion, and the position that his ministry has been taking regarding such matters.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, I want to address the specific concern that the member has heard. There is no intention, through this review, of changing the policy of inclusion in dealing with children who have special needs. There is no intent -- I want to restate it just for the record. The policy of inclusion, I believe, has been a sound one; it has worked for special education kids in our province. This review is not about changing that policy.

[E. Conroy in the chair]

This review has generated a fair bit of interest as we look at how the current policies and resources are being used by school districts, because there seems to be a considerable variation from one district to the next. It's intended to assess the effectiveness of special education programs and see if we can identify differences in effectiveness depending on how different districts have arranged and are delivering special education services.

It's expected that the team will review accountability systems, make recommendations to me and to school districts on how to improve special education services, what barriers there are to improvements, and will identify what can be done to address those issues within the funding that is available for special education.

[ Page 13710 ]

[1505]

I would point out to the member that slightly contrary to what he said, the budget for special education services targeted funds that we're debating now is actually higher than last year. It's at the highest levels it's ever been; some $412 million has been allocated to special education programs and targeted funds in preliminary 1999-2000 budgets for school districts. The review of special education, then, will take place between now and the end of the calendar year. The timelines are this: first, we called for briefs and submissions. So far we've had 77 of them. The cutoff for that is the end of June.

There'll be an analysis and a review of those over the summer. Starting in early fall, the team will go out and actually consult with the people who wrote the briefs, to engage very directly in discussion about what's going right and where we can do better in special education. That will lead to a draft paper, which will be circulated in early November. Then I expect a final report, as I say, by the end of the calendar year, in order to be timely and influence any decisions around the structuring of special education funding that we may be debating in this chamber next year.

G. Hogg: I appreciate the comments of the minister.

I've also been advised, as I've gone around the province, that the majority of, if not all, school districts overexpend the targeted funding that they have for special education. I wonder whether the minister has a sense of the rollup and the total number of dollars which are expended in excess of the amount allocated.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is correct. School districts have been allocating moneys for special education from areas other than targeted funds. In the preliminary budgets that they've submitted for 1999-2000, we expect that they will exceed the targeted amounts by around 12 percent. They're taking from other areas of the budget to top up special education funding, to the tune of 12 percent.

G. Hogg: I need the minister's help to understand utilization of that type of money. I've been told that if a class has one special needs person within that class, they may allocate all of the cost of running that class to a special needs budget. I'm wondering what type of latitude exists for school districts and/or for schools for that type of utilization.

I don't want to pre-empt the work of the special education review committee but I want to be sure that they also look at that issue. I've been told in more than one jurisdiction that in fact when one special needs student comes into the class and the class has 24 students, there are 23 other students who may well have their resources and a number of the services to them charged against special needs. That may be one of the reasons why we see some of the targeted funding being overexpended by the 12 percent that you were talking about. I'd just be interested in the criteria and the issues that exist in that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is that the practice the member described would not be in compliance with the reporting requirements of the ministry. If I got the member accurately, his example would be this: if you had a special needs child in a class, the entire cost of running that class for everybody would somehow be borne by the special education budget. That would not fit the accounting requirements that we have in the manuals for reporting to the ministry on how funds are spent. They can report the incremental costs of providing services to the special needs student, and that would be appropriate.

I'd be pleased to have the ministry staff provide the member with the exact wording in the accounting manual. If a school district is doing what the member describes, they would not be in compliance with the procedures for reporting that the ministry asks school districts to adhere to.

G. Hogg: At this stage, I'm not interested in the specific wording in the manual. However, I would like a little more clarity with respect to the concept. If the concept is simply that a special needs student and the resources applied to that student and perhaps a percentage of the teacher or however that may be . . . . I'm interested in understanding the concept, as that applies.

[1510]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The concept that the manual embodies is the idea that what should be charged to special education budgets is the incremental cost of providing services to that student. That wouldn't include, of course, the normal teacher's salary. The teacher provides services to all students in the class.

It could well mean that special materials that might be required for helping a special needs child would be reported as part of the special needs budget. If a classroom aide was employed to assist the child, that would be an incremental cost. Those would be legitimate charges accounted for under special education expenditures by the school district.

G. Hogg: I heard the minister speak at the BCSTA convention, I believe, and he talked about some of the benefits of inclusion. He made reference to some studies which indicated that the performance level of everyone in the class went up. I wonder if he could highlight those comments again for me. I've struggled to find my notes and to rack my memory with respect to those specifically. But I think that they accurately reflect some of the values of an inclusive system, and I would be interested in placing those on the record to reinforce the position that some parents have said that the ministry is drifting from.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We were just discussing what I might or might not have said to the School Trustees Association. I think I would have said, because I think the evidence does support it, that inclusion is generally good for all students -- both special needs students and kids without special needs -- in a class, in terms of both academic attainment and socialization. There are some broad benefits to the policy.

There are some circumstances where that may not be true, particularly in the case of children with severe behavioral difficulties. But that entire literature of the benefits of special education and how it's structured is indeed part of the review that we're now undertaking. I'd be happy to ask ministry staff to get a bibliography ready for the member, if he wants to delve into it further. I can't point to one

article that I would say encapsulates everything within the bounds of one article.

G. Hogg: The reference which I was looking at came to mind because of there being so much discussion with respect to special education and so many comments and letters com-

[ Page 13711 ]

ing to me and, I'm sure, to the minister as well. It seems to me that the reference was looking at the fact that a lot of people intuitively believed that having special needs children in a class was going to take more time from the learning of their children. Therefore the quality of their educational outcomes would bring the performance of the overall class down. It seems to me, when we look at the general goals we have for our education system in British Columbia, that in fact the opposite occurred. The performance level of the whole class raised, which was counterintuitive to what a lot of people were assuming or believing.

Does that help the minister look at it? Is my recollection of that accurate and appropriate? Are there in fact some references to go to, to look at and find and support that?

[1515]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say again that what people who work in the field advise me -- and I'll frame it that way, because I'm surely not an expert in special education -- is that the inclusion of special education children in a regular class does not harm the academic attainment of the class and is of benefit to special needs children. The inclusion of special needs children in a class is of benefit in terms of socialization and acceptance of diversity, both to special needs children and to the class as a whole.

These are among the matters that we're looking at in this review. We are now, as I said when we set out on this review, ten years into this policy of inclusion. We continue to increase the funding that we allocate to the system. A variety of ways of conforming with special education policies have been put in place in various school districts. It is time now, I believe, to review how the current policies and resources are being used and to assess the effectiveness of these programs. That's a very broad parameter that I've set out. But I probably have received more letters on this aspect of the public education system than on any other I can think of.

G. Hogg: Within the ministry or in any of the school districts, is the minister aware of any plans, any discussions, any issues which may be looking at backing up somewhat on the position of inclusion, to where they may be looking at some segregation with respect to children with disabilities? Has that, to his knowledge, been discussed anywhere, or is there any intent to look at or move in that direction?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're not aware of any school district in the province that has arranged special education services in a way that would violate the policies of the ministry on inclusion. Different school districts have a variety of ways of arranging it. I would say that the policy of inclusion has never meant, necessarily, that every child every day -- for all of every day -- is in one class. That doesn't happen for special education children; it doesn't happen for other children. There are a variety of reasons why children are pulled out of a class.

You know, there are a variety of individual activities and small group activities that go on within a school every day. But let me end where I started. We're not aware of any district that has arranged special education services in a way that violates ministry policies on inclusion.

[1520]

J. Dalton: I have a few items for the minister, not necessarily connected in any way to each other, but I want to get them in at this point.

About a couple of months ago, I had occasion to visit the Sunshine Coast. I met with the superintendent of schools and the chair of the board. They've given me a fairly extensive package, including the original arbitration on a case that is still unresolved after eight years. For the committee's edification, I'll just fill in a bit of the factual background. In 1989 a teacher in a Sechelt high school was advised by the board that his conduct was unsatisfactory with regard to young female students in his grade 8 class. A letter of November 1989 is in this arbitration.

I won't read it all into the record, but it was made quite clear to the teacher at that time, when he was on notice, that his conduct had to be exemplary from that time on. Unfortunately, in 1991 he showed further disposition to act inappropriately. He was dismissed by the superintendent originally. The school board at that time, in 1991, reaffirmed the dismissal. In fact, the teacher was dismissed without pay. I think it was in March of 1991.

Maybe not without surprise, when this dismissal occurred, the Sunshine Coast Teachers Association grieved the dismissal. That's when we got into an arbitration which, rightly or wrongly, ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. They sent it back for further arbitration. I just read in the paper last week that the arbitrator has quit. He left the case, having submitted a further bill of $10,500 on top of what the Sunshine Coast district anticipates is already $400,000 on their behalf alone. And God knows what the local union and presumably the BCTF have shelled out on this cause.

I have a couple of questions that I want to put to the minister. Firstly, I know that Sunshine Coast has asked the ministry and, I think, has continued to ask . . . . Has there been any financial contribution made by the province towards this obviously horrendous bill, which is still unresolved?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry has not supplied to that school district any funds connected to this grievance and arbitration.

J. Dalton: Does the ministry have any policy or position on cases of this nature? It goes without saying that $400,000 out of the Sunshine Coast district budget is a lot of money. It's a lot of money out of anybody's budget. How many portables could we replace with $400,000, if the minister wants to think of it in those terms? Is there any policy? Is there any insurance scheme? Is there any coinsurance or anything of that nature to help out school districts that get into these protracted legal cases?

Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts are autonomous bodies in respect of pursuing arbitrations or court cases. Sometimes I or the ministry may feel that they are doing an appropriate thing; sometimes, as in the case of Surrey, we may think that they are doing an inappropriate thing. But they do have the ability to use tax dollars in the pursuit of or in the defence against such cases on their own authority.

[1525]

The one thing that is available to a school district is that BCPSEA -- the British Columbia Public School Employers Association -- does have the ability to channel funds to a school district on a case that it feels is a matter of broad policy interest. I believe that they have done so in some cases. I don't know whether this particular case has been brought to BCPSEA's attention by the Sechelt district or whether BCPSEA has made any reply.

[ Page 13712 ]

J. Dalton: Well, I do know that the School Trustees Association has been asked to contribute, but they have declined. I don't know whether BCPSEA has been involved as well. That's an interesting point. I'll see if I can find out.

However, the minister reminded me . . . . It raises an interesting question. He was quite quick to intercede in the Surrey textbook case and certainly made some very caustic public comments -- at times, perhaps, unneeded. So I gather that the minister is prepared to introduce his own personal flavour to some of these school district issues.

But obviously in a very important management issue coming out of the Sunshine Coast . . . . You know, I just shudder as a parent and a taxpayer to think that if the Sunshine Coast superintendent, the chair and the trustees -- duly elected -- have warned a teacher, and he's on record, and two years later he's dismissed for valid cause, yet there's stony silence from the people in charge . . . . I think that's disgraceful.

Who is managing the school districts in this province? Maybe that's a question I can put to the hon. minister. As I say, he was quick to jump into the Surrey issue -- but stony silence on the Sunshine Coast issue. Quite frankly, I think Sunshine Coast is a far more important example of management issues than anything to do with textbooks in Surrey.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The matter in Surrey was found by the courts, actually, to be a violation of the School Act. I think we should bear in mind that that's quite a different level of concern for me as Minister of Education, charged with responsibility for administration of the School Act. In the case of the Sunshine Coast grievance and arbitration, this is a matter pursuant to a collective agreement. I do not believe that I have stated any opinion on any matter before any school district that involves a grievance or arbitration relative to a collective agreement. Yet such disputes arise regularly in the operation of the school system.

The member asks: "Who is running the school districts?" The short answer is, according to the School Act, the trustees.

J. Dalton: In fact,

section 15(5) in the School Act is the authority under which Clifford Smith, the superintendent of the board, acted to dismiss this teacher. Hopefully, nobody will quarrel with at least the stated authority in the School Act for the duly elected trustees and the duly appointed administrators of a district to do so.

But certainly it's very disturbing to me, and I'm obviously not alone. I know that the Sunshine Coast people are extremely disturbed by this ongoing and very protracted case. It's still unresolved. As I say, the arbitrator just booked out the other day and has left behind in his trail another $10,500 for the school district and the teachers . . . . You and I know that it's the BCTF that's funding this exercise. That goes without saying. They've got unlimited money to throw at these.

Well, as the Chair may detect, I have a bit of angst. I guess I'm happy to say that I've got one more week as a parent in the public system, and I don't know that I'm all that happy to be leaving it after 15 years.

Maybe I'll just make one other point, as I gather that there is no expectation forthcoming from the minister to bail out the Sunshine Coast on the very important issue of who's running that or any other school district in this province. So the minister is prepared to just stand back and say: "Well, you're on your own, and good luck to you. If you happen to drain your bank account just in order to properly administer a school district and properly discipline a teacher, who was duly warned in 1989 and duly fired in 1991 . . . . " In 1999 -- eight years later -- we're stilling spinning our wheels over the exercise. I think that's an absolute disgrace.

[1530]

Would the minister like to comment? He probably wouldn't. But I'm going to read it into the record. This is out of the mouth of the current president of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association.

He says: " . . . the cozy relationship between the government and the union leadership has usurped the roles and responsibilities of others in the system -- school boards, parents, BCPSEA, not to mention principals and vice-principals." In light of the arbitration case I've just referred to and in light of the Surrey textbook case -- and in light of all sorts of other problems in our public system -- would the minister agree with any of those sentiments expressed by the president, or does he take issue with them?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's just return briefly to the Sunshine Coast. The member may take issue with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to return this for further arbitration, but I think his quarrel is with the courts.

I must say that if the member wants the Ministry of Education to take on the responsibility for funding the costs of grievances and arbitration in the public education system, then surely he would be advocating that the ministry also take on the responsibility for deciding which ones should be pursued. That is a level of centralization of decision-making over those matters which is quite contrary to what's currently in the School Act -- quite contrary, I believe, to the wishes of the trustees of the province and quite contrary to the wishes of the superintendents of the province as well.

I'm far from saying that these are not sometimes difficult for districts; they are. I've advised the member that through BCPSEA there may an opportunity to provide some funding, if BCPSEA considers this an issue of broad significance for the school system of the province.

I'd also point out to the member that, yes, on the surface this does appear to be a substantial legal bill. I would also point out that district 46, Sunshine Coast, ran a surplus of nearly $800,000 last year, $684,000 the year before that and $329,000 the year before that. This is a district that appears to be generally well managed and is operating within its fiscal resources.

As far as the allegations that the member quotes, I will simply say no, I'm not prepared to confirm that.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

J. Dalton: I thought not, but I just thought it might be edifying for some people to recognize that there are players in the public system who certainly don't necessarily share the viewpoint that sometimes I hear coming from the ministry. Does the ministry keep any records of the number of grievances that are launched in school districts on a year-to-year -- or any other -- basis? Do we have any concept of not only the number of grievances but the cost of grievances?

Now, the minister has just sort of cavalierly dismissed $400,000. He said that maybe that's a bit of a hit for that district. I applaud the district. As the minister has correctly

[ Page 13713 ]

pointed out, they are good managers. They're also the bosses. When they duly fire a school teacher, I would like to think that somebody in this province would stand up and say: "Well done. You're doing your job." Certainly the parents of the Sunshine Coast, through their trustees, agree. But needless to say, the Ministry of Education takes a different viewpoint.

Coming back to my question: do we have any record of the number of grievances and the cost that's attributed to those, whether they be a protracted Supreme Court of Canada case or simply stage 1 and it's filed it away for future reference?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, with regard to the merits of the case on the Sunshine Coast that the member's alluding to, it is precisely the issue of whether the dismissal is in accord with the provisions of the law and collective agreements. That is the issue before arbitrators and the courts. The member wishes to assert one reading of the law and agreements, but that is precisely the issue that arbitrators and courts appear to be sorting out. No, I do not have an opinion on that issue.

[1535]

On the issue of whether we have records of the number of grievances and costs, the ministry does not keep that. BCPSEA has that information. I'm sure that if we asked, we could obtain it for the member.

J. Dalton: I think I'll decline that invitation. It'd probably just get my blood boiling even further. I have had enough experience out of North Vancouver, where my kids -- or the last one in the public system -- attend school. I don't need to know any more about that subject. I might ask BCPSEA if they have some records.

I think that, at the same time, I'll ask them if they've entertained any requests from the Sunshine Coast as to whether this very protracted case might not get some financial and, I would like to think, some other kind of attention -- i.e., maybe somebody would like to sit down and resolve the thing.

There's also an irony to this one. The teacher, who has not taught for eight years, lives across the street from the school board in Gibsons. So he's almost there, maybe haunting the school district still to this day. Well, he is haunting the school district to this day. He's certainly haunting the taxpayers of the Sunshine Coast.

However, I will leave that. I'll take a different tack now. Mr. Miller's been sitting there very patiently, probably not participating much in this. But the minister made reference in his opening remarks to the P3 in Abbotsford. Certainly the official opposition applauds the initiative of getting the private and the public sector together to produce capital projects, although we get a little nervous when we think of fast ferries and SkyTrain and other projects that are clearly out of control. It's not because the concept isn't good but because the government seems to be incapable of managing the concept.

However, I want to just ask the minister: is this P3 that is being conducted in Abbotsford an operating lease or a capital lease? I'm just wondering how the government's keeping their books as to how this shows on the records.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I did know the answer to that question when we announced it, because I had been briefed by the accounting staff. But frankly, the distinction has now escaped me. Mr. Miller is seeking to get the documentation for us.

I do know this: the office of the comptroller general, who is very involved in reviewing this project, gave the stamp of approval in saying that this is a legitimate project that is off-book in terms of reporting on this capital expenditure. So it won't be listed as part of the ministry's capital plan.

J. Dalton: Well, I don't need Mr. Miller to be rushing through his books right now. He can get back to me later, after we're done with this. I'm happy to hear that the comptroller general has given his blessing. Has the auditor general's opinion been sought on this venture?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't believe so.

J. Dalton: Just as a follow-up, I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to seek the auditor general's opinion -- I'm not saying his blessing, but certainly his opinion -- as to how the books should be kept. That is, I guess, really the essence of my question on this matter.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, I think -- because he's surely been involved with looking at issues that the auditor general has raised -- typically the government seeks the advice of the office of the comptroller general in advance of embarking on projects. The auditor general's role is far more of a reporter on what's been done. I'll only say that at this point.

[1540]

J. Dalton: Well, again, we'll wait to hear from Keith Miller on the bookkeeping, technical side. I would be at the same disadvantage if I was briefed in something. Five minutes later I would have forgotten all about it too -- so not to worry.

One other item, while I'm on my feet at this time, if I may: it's the special purpose grant for 1999-2000. I have the document in front of me. Can the minister explain how this special purpose grant is made up? What is its basic purpose?

Hon. P. Ramsey: To whom? To what district?

J. Dalton: Well, I've got the full list of districts. I guess I was going to get around to it, but I'll ask anyway. The minister comes from Prince George. I see that Prince George was given a total shift in funding of $402,894. I -- and I'm not alone -- am kind of curious as to how Prince George was blessed with that kind of money.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The special purpose grants this year were intended to assist districts that were adversely affected by changes in the funding formula. As I said earlier in estimates, we seek to distribute the $3.6 billion for public schools, which we're debating today, fairly and equitably to districts. Every year there are a series of proposals that come forward to the ministry and the minister to change that funding formula.

This year we made a number of changes in areas relating to alternative schools, adults, ESL and career programs. Some districts benefited from those changes; some were affected negatively. For those that were affected negatively, we sought to phase in the changes and buffer them against the negative

[ Page 13714 ]

impact. The total grants of the net impact of all four factors were then looked at to a maximum of 0.5 percent of the district's funding level. That's the answer to what the special purpose grants were intended to do. We can get into more detail if the member wishes.

J. Dalton: I won't pursue this too long, but I'm curious. For example, I see that Prince George got a lift of $209,500 in ESL and that Vancouver -- which, of course, we know has been in the news these days -- was decreased $1.8 million in that ESL list. Do I recall that there was some problem of accounting for the number of students in Vancouver? Was that the reason for this decrease in the funding for Vancouver? Also, why is it that Prince George had a lift of $209,500 in that category?

Some districts had a large number of children that were being reported as still ESL students, in some cases even after eight or nine years. Those districts were negatively impacted by this change in funding. In the case of Vancouver, the total impact without a special grant would have been in the neighbourhood of $3.5 million. We sought to cushion this for Vancouver by phasing it in. I can get staff to check, but I believe the increase in Prince George that the member's referring to simply reflects the fact that they're getting more dollars per ESL student, as are all districts, for the first five years.

[1545]

J. Dalton: This is probably the last point on this. Again, we can maybe worry about the details at some other time, perhaps in a different environment. But I notice that the well-managed Sunshine Coast has a decrease of $123,600. I guess they're being penalized for being good managers or trying to be good managers. I don't know. That is of interest.

I'll look forward to receiving some of that information from the officials. At the moment, I think, that will suffice from this desk, and I'm going to turn to my neighbour next door.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, I mean, I appreciate the member's interest in the Sechelt school district. I must advise the member that I surely discuss this district's funding -- the Sunshine Coast funding -- and other matters within the district with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on a regular basis. He's been a good advocate for education in his riding, and I think the member recognizes that. So, far from seeking to penalize the Sunshine Coast, I would simply point out to the member that, even thought their enrolment is projected to increase this year by about 0.7 percent, their funding is actually going up by 2.8 percent.

You know, we do make some changes in the funding formula. Where those have a negative impact, we've sought to cushion the blow by special purpose grants. The purpose of the funding formula is to treat the districts fairly and equitably, and I believe it does so.

J. Reid: I'll take this opportunity to pick up from the question I began with late yesterday evening and to pursue some of the concerns of parents in our local school area. Specifically, the parents who are actually very involved with their schools and involved with the PAC groups with their different schools. The question I had asked yesterday was in regard to the suggestion that parents are partners in education, and that if they were partners in education, then how would that partnership be defined?

The minister answered that he indeed supported the activities of the PAC groups, and he appreciated their strong voice, and he consulted with them on education matters. However, anything to do with teachers or anything to do with curriculum was outside of the realm of what the parents could make decisions upon. So as long as the parents were willing to be consulted and have their voices heard, then that was fine, but they actually couldn't take on any roles within those areas. If we take away anything to do with teachers, and if we take away anything to do with the curriculum, I would like to put the question again to the minister: what role of partnership, then, do parents have?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member is confusing consultation with decision-making authority. What I meant . . . . I think I said it fairly clearly, that parents don't hire teachers. School boards hire teachers. Parents are surely well consulted on curriculum, as are teachers and a whole bunch of other partners. But at the end of the day, it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to set curriculum, set provincial exams and do a variety of other things that ensure that there's a high-quality curriculum right across the province.

Far be it from me to suggest that parents should, in any way, not be involved with teachers in a school. If they have concerns about the teacher or the instruction that their child is getting, they have every right to express those concerns -- initially, I would hope, to the teacher, to work out any difficulties that they may be having, and beyond that, of course, to express concerns to appropriate administrators or to appropriate agencies at the district level. I think most districts really respect that role of parents in issues surrounding teachers and the instruction they provide to their children.

As I said, the Ministry of Education has actually funded a project on advocacy through the British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils to prepare parents for just such activities.

[1550]

In the area of curriculum, I hope that parents are seizing the opportunities. I surely did when my children were in public school. The youngest just graduated a year ago. If my children are having difficulty with curriculum, I consult teachers about what's going on, to talk about what resources are available, to see how things are worked out. Parents sit on the provincial curriculum overview teams. So, far from having "no role," they have a wide role, but they do not have decision-making authority over curriculum. They do not have authority over the hiring and firing of teachers at a district level.

That rests with the board. I hope, if I misspoke myself or was not clear about it, that that clarifies my belief that parents do have a strong role to play in our schools.

J. Reid: I've been talking with parents who have been involved in the PAC groups and am voicing their frustrations with the way the system is working -- with the advocacy that they have. Certainly the parent is involved in the individual life of the child, and certainly their strongest role is in either

[ Page 13715 ]

volunteering with the school or with projects and following up with teachers with problems. I'm talking about a larger role. Again, as I mentioned yesterday, some parents believe that their role is limited to just that -- getting the child to the school in the morning and dealing with the individual matters in that child's life. But on the larger issues, even where parental input has been requested and advice given on the part of the PAC groups, the ministry can pick and choose which advice it would like to listen to and which advice it deems is not appropriate.

As a result, the parents, after much work amongst the PAC groups to come forward with resolutions, don't have any conviction that they actually do have a voice or do have any authoritative voice in the process.

I would like to reiterate that the parents have a deep level of frustration in not seeing that they can make real changes in the school system or have real influence in the broader scheme of things. I would ask that the minister take this into consideration and offer any suggestions that he might have today as to how this could be improved, because whether or not there are changes within our school system and the way we are developing curriculum on a broad base, it's leaving parents feeling very shut out of the process.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll say it again: we take the opinions of parents seriously. They're represented on the provincial education committee, and they don't sit apart from teachers or principals or superintendents; they're part of that group that works with senior ministry people on policy matters and advises me and government on policy matters in the education system. Their voices are heard. They sit on every major committee that the ministry sets up. We do try to listen hard to the views of parents.

[1555]

When BCCPAC, the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils of the province, passes resolutions at their general meeting, I think they typically forward them to me and to the ministry for our consideration. We seek to reply to every resolution, to give our views on whether we can do something, whether it would be an appropriate route for pursuing the issue that the confederation has raised or whether it's something that we can't do. So we do take them seriously and seek to involve them in consultation around education issues.

They're treated no differently than organizations representing principals or superintendents or teachers or secretary-treasurers. They're involved in the same sort of set of committees.

Finally, I think that at the district level I'm increasingly seeing the same sort of pattern that school boards try to have on matters of policy, whether it's around academic attainment, transportation, discipline or any number of policy issues at the district or school level. There may be variation in that around the province. I will say that the role of parent advisory councils in this province, unlike many others, is entrenched in the School Act itself. It's there as a matter of legal right, not as an option for schools.

When I look at all that, I understand that at times parents would like a different or even broader role. But I would ask the member: what particular role or authority is she proposing for parents that is not now there? What authority is she seeking? Maybe we can have focus in the discussion if we have a specific authority that she is hearing parents wish to attain and that she is advocating for.

J. Reid: I believe that the discussion today is for me to ask questions of the minister concerning the estimates debate. I would be very pleased to take that up at another time in a broader discussion of where the role of parents could be expanded in the school system.

The decisions that the ministry makes, and certainly the budget decisions that the ministry makes . . . . For example, there was a discussion earlier about inclusion, and the parents from school district 68 who have special needs children came to me and said: "Yes, we are told that we can submit a brief and that they will consult with us." But so many people in the province have come to believe that in our system of consulting, which has been so inclusive, many groups are now very disillusioned by the whole process. They're saying: "Well, I'm being heard, but my suggestions aren't being acted upon." I think that's a larger issue that we need to deal with.

With this discouragement on the part of parents, I've noticed another trend in our area. It's an increasing lack of interest of people to take on the role of trustee. Increasing frustration, certainly, is what the trustees are expressing, and I'm sure it gets around the community. I go to meetings and hear them say that even though the ministry responds in many ways, they are restricted in their role, and therefore they just have to pass on to the parents: "Sorry, we can't do anything about that.

Sorry, we can't do anything about that." So with the frustration of trustees and, certainly, with elections coming up as per schedule, does the minister have any thoughts on what's eroding the confidence in the position of school trustee or the desire of people to take on the position of school trustee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I'm getting even less sure of what issue the member is actually raising. On the one hand, she's saying that parents are frustrated because their voice is not heard. On the other hand, I think I heard her just say that they're getting consulted too much. Which is it? I need to understand this if I'm to respond in any way that is informative in Hansard .

[1600]

The member's quite right -- there's no requirement on her part to answer questions. But I would have thought that if the member does believe that there should be a different or broader role for parents than that which is currently in place in the public school system, she might wish to at least advance what she sees or what the parents she's talking to see as that expanded role.

Without that, I must say that I think my comments on our efforts to make sure that the partnership of parents on policy issues in the public school system is broad, does include them as a partner with other groups, including teachers, principals, superintendents, school trustees and others . . . . I think that is the appropriate way to involve parents in the decisions around policy.

As far as trustees, I don't have an answer for the member. She says trustees are frustrated. Well, about the only thing that I guess I could say is that I don't see any easy jobs anymore in the area of running broad public institutions, whether it's the broad public education system or the health system, at the school district level or the health council level. These are difficult jobs. There is a high level of demand from the public for increasing improvements and sometimes concerns about whether all those needs can be met. Juggling those is difficult, I think, for people involved in public life, whether at the provincial or the school district level.

J. Reid: Yes, those are difficult jobs people take on -- very difficult. Sometimes the restrictions placed on them make them increasingly difficult.

[ Page 13716 ]

As far as partnering goes -- I'm going to shift a little bit here -- I heard from the minister earlier, when debate initially started, about a partnering event that was taking place with a private interest. It certainly sounded like a very interesting and innovative approach. My question is: are there any other projects underway? That one certainly has been explained, but are there other projects underway at this time?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, back to the issue of frustrated trustees. The member says it's about restrictions. Well, again, which ones? What are the concerns? I mean, I have heard trustees advocate for the removal of targeting of funds. I have heard trustees advocate for the removal of a cap on administration expenses. If the member wishes to advocate for those, I'd be pleased to engage her in debate. Other than that, I'm not really sure which restrictions we're discussing here.

As far as private-public partnerships, yes, we are pursuing a couple of others. To my knowledge, there's a proposal being pursued for a school in the Richmond school district. Frankly, I think that our announcement a couple of weeks ago may well animate the discussion in a number of other districts about whether a private-public partnership is possible. Then, of course, there is the public-public-public-private partnership that's going on in the member's own riding with the administration of the municipality, the school board, the college and a housing development. So really, it's quite an innovative structure of how you put a variety of public interests together for the benefit of all.

[1605]

J. Reid: With these opportunities coming about . . . . Certainly, the minister is correct. I'm very glad to see what's happening in my own riding. Hopefully, there will be cost savings there -- not only cost savings, but increased services to people -- because of it. That kind of cooperation is excellent. With what is being learned by this and the opportunities that might present themselves as we look at having to redo different public structures, or look at other cost-saving measures, are there any guidelines being developed by the ministry? Or is the ministry actively seeking other types of partnerships that might be available?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the case of the sort of capital projects that we see in the Abbotsford situation, you only need to look at the parameters of the deal to understand what some of the guidelines are. It's got to be a facility that's actually needed. It's a priority. It would normally be built and funded by the public purse. So this isn't queue-jumping in any way; this isn't an ability for something to muscle its way into the line. Second, there have to be savings for the taxpayer. That's true of the Abbotsford situation. From the analysis I've seen, it surely will be true of the project in the member's riding.

Third, we've got to make sure that it meets the accounting criteria that your colleague and I were discussing. We hope to get clarified soon whether it's a capital or operating lease that actually makes it fit the criteria of the office of the comptroller general. Maybe we've got an accountant in the chamber who can help us. So we are going to continue to pursue those.

More broadly, though, on the partnership between public education and private interests, this is a difficult one. There are concerns in many quarters that we not turn our public school system over to private interests. I share the view that we ought to guard against that. I recently said a pretty loud no to an organization called the Youth News Network, which was proposing a partnership by which they would provide television monitors in classrooms. In exchange, they would receive the right to broadcast a news show of their making, along with commercials, in classrooms in the province every day.

I said: "Well, I recognize the advantage here: equipment. But no, I don't want to see that sort of activity in our classrooms. I don't think that's a net benefit to the learning of students in the public school system."

We're working now . . . . Let me back up one more step. There are a variety of ways in which private agencies support public education virtually every week in school districts across the province -- everything from donating equipment to providing work placements for students and assisting in and being the venue for field trips. The private sector in British Columbia is wonderfully supportive of public education. That is the sort of assistance that we welcome greatly.

We are working right now on developing a set of guidelines to structure the consideration of the involvement of the private sector in the public school system. We've been working on that through PEC -- the provincial education committee -- involving teachers, trustees, parents and others in how we set some broad guidelines for where this should be encouraged and where we need to say no. We expect those guidelines to be in place for distribution by the fall.

[1610]

J. Reid: My final question is . . . . I had a constituent approach me with an idea that he was formulating concerning a partnership with the school district. It was totally in the incubation stages. Actually, I had no idea of how to guide him on this, so I'm going to rough it out for the minister to see what his suggestion would be. This person, who is involved with the high-tech industries on a small scale himself, could envision being able to supply to the school not only equipment but also training if in return he could have the students working on projects that he then could sell.

I didn't have a clue how to advise him on this and thought I would take this opportunity to put it before the minister. My question is about guidelines. Obviously, as we've been encouraging these kinds of partnership ideas, we're going to see more and more people coming forward with ideas. So I would ask the minister how he might advise this constituent.

R. Coleman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Coleman: Seated in the gallery this afternoon are 53 grades 6 and 7 young adults from Dorothy Peacock Elementary School in my riding, along with their teacher, Ms. Rempel, and some parents. Dorothy Peacock has the unique distinction of being adjacent to the new colossus that was opened in Langley a month or so ago.

I spent about 15 or 20 minutes out front on the steps with these young people. They had some very interesting and worthwhile questions, and I'd like to have the House make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to join in welcoming the students to the House. We happen to be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education today, so it might be of some applicability to what's going on in your school.

[ Page 13717 ]

The proposal you put forward -- I don't have any . . . . I can't really say yes, no, that makes sense or not. I hope that the person you're talking to is taking this to the school district. Most school districts do have some version of guidelines on what private involvement they welcome and where they're drawing lines. What we're seeking to do, by seeking input from all partners in the system, is develop some guidelines that can be applied uniformly across the province.

D. Symons: Of course, the minister's aware that Richmond is greatly interested in public-private partnerships and trying to reduce the amount of expense of the school system through using that method.

But one of the concerns that's been raised regarding school boards -- and particularly my school board; but others, I'm sure, have the same problem -- is the fact that when you go out to bid on a contract, you may get the lowest bid back from a contractor that that particular school board has had trouble with in the past -- either the work has not been up to standard or they've been slow in meeting deadlines and a variety of things. So they would rather not accept the low bid, because they know they aren't going to get proper value for their money out of that particular contractor.

Or maybe a neighbouring school district has had experience with the contractor, and they now know that's not a contractor they wish to get involved with. How can we safeguard the school boards from this business of having to accept the lowest bid, when they know the lowest bidder may not be the best person to do the job?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises an interesting question. First, around private-public partnerships, I am aware that the Richmond district is interested and is pursuing one; I've just referenced that in our discussion earlier. I wish them well with it. I hope we can conclude one for Richmond, around Richmond Secondary.

[1615]

As far as accepting lowest bids, the member is right that if a contractor qualifies with the bid depository system and comes in as the low bidder on a project right now, that bid must be accepted by the guidelines of the province. If a school board has concerns about a contractor's work, I would hope that they're registering those in the strongest possible terms to the bid depository system, because if those sorts of complaints are registered, a contractor may find that he wouldn't be qualified by the bid depository system to actually offer a bid on a project.

Occasionally we do run into this difficulty, particularly when you're building as many projects as we are -- some $923 million of capital construction that we've identified and announced in the last 14 months. There will be a few projects where a district might have difficulties with a contractor. Fortunately, in my experience so far, these are few in number. But when they do occur, it's obviously of great concern and distress to the school board involved and to the staff and students in the school.

D. Symons: There are a variety of ways in which the contractor may not live up to the expectations of the school board. One of them is in the quality of the work; the other I just mentioned is the possible disruption to the education that's going on in the building at the same time, particularly when a school is being renovated or expanded.

So you're basically saying that there is prequalification. From what the minister said, it sounded like prequalification is based primarily on their financial ability and bonding to carry out the process they're doing. Is it also based on consideration of their past performance? From what you were saying, I would assume that if complaints do come in, we can enact something like the Better Business Bureau, in a sense, where there can be a record kept and then eventually this person may not be allowed to bid on school contracts. Is that more or less what the minister was saying?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The prequalification here is not in government. This is run by the industry itself through the bid depository system. My understanding of it -- though this is, as I say, a long way from government -- is that they take their responsibilities seriously and, if there are complaints about performance of a contractor, seek to investigate. If there is found to be a problem there, they can take action, including removal from the list of qualified contractors to bid on a project.

D. Symons: I guess I was just a little confused when . . . . It's called a bid depository system, which I'm not familiar with. The depository made me think financial. I hope there's more to it than just that.

A couple of other questions, and you may find I'm going to go all over the map with the variety of questions I want to ask. The second revolves around the provincial collective agreement that was signed a while back and the consequences which that may have on a school district relating to its ESL programs. Now, if we take Richmond as an example -- just a nice example for me to take -- for the 1998-99 school year that's just about to come to an end, we have had 132 ESL teachers. There have been 9,700 identified ESL students -- that makes more sense -- giving us a ratio, then, of teachers to ESL students of 1 to 74.

If that number of identified students were, in one of the succeeding years, to drop, let's say, to 7,000 . . . . Let's just say it drops a couple of thousand, as our enrolment in ESL has dropped in Richmond in the last year or so, due to less immigration into the area. If that were to drop to 7,000, the ratio would then become 1 to 53, but I'm told that, by the provincial collective agreement, that number of 132 ESL teachers would remain the same, even though the number of students had dropped.

We would then have a ratio of 1 to 53, but then, if in some succeeding year the enrolment were to go up again, we would then be funded on the basis of 1 to 53. You'd then have to hire more ESL teachers to meet that ratio, if the student numbers were to go up.

[1620]

The problem occurs in this way. While the government is encouraging this through the provincial collective agreement, what happens in two years when that provincial collective agreement is gone? The board will then be stuck with a contract saying: "Well, you've got to have this smaller ratio of ESL students, even though you may not get funding for those students in the future." So how's this going to work as it carries out past the end of that provincial collective agreement? What will the school boards that are faced with fluctuating numbers of ESL students be left with?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that the administration of a collective agreement and the funding of it are very important issues for a school board. I must say that Richmond has

[ Page 13718 ]

benefited in the area of ESL -- more than any other board in the province, I think, to the tune, in the first year, of some $2.5 million of additional funding for ESL had that collective agreement not been in place. And that funding continues. So I think that Richmond has done rather well out of this agreement.

On a less happy note, perhaps, I have in front of me the preliminary budget for the Richmond school district, and I would like to report to the member that, in terms of funding that we've provided the district for ESL, the amount is $8.218 million. The amount that Richmond has chosen to allocate and spend on ESL is $5.5 million; $2.7 million is obviously being used for other purposes. Far from being a detriment to districts, the whole purpose of the collective agreement is to focus on providing equitable service to students, and then to provide the districts with the funding to do that.

D. Symons: I'm still not sure, though . . . . You're saying they're using money they receive for ESL for other than ESL. I'd still like to follow through, though, on the premise I was saying there that the provincial collective agreement was not one that, basically, the school boards set up. It was an agreement agreed to outside the school boards and the B.C. School Trustees Association. My concern is that you have certain funding agreements in there for ESL and one of the parts in that agreement was an ESL sort of statement on reduction of classes and things of that sort.

The concern is: what's going to happen to the funding for those ESLs when the program ends? Will there be a guarantee that the level at the end of funding for ESL -- the ratio of teachers to students . . . ? Will that ratio be funded, after the end of two years -- or a better one, or a further agreement -- or are they simply going to be left with it, because when their students increase, they might be at a lower level of the ratio than before? Then they have to fund teachers on that lower ratio and possibly not get the same funding as they were getting prior to the end of that agreement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think early in these estimates I mentioned to the chamber that the BCTF and BCPSEA had reached agreement and had ratified some mid-contract modifications to the provincial collective agreement. Among the things that they agreed on was bridging language, which addressed exactly the issue that the member is talking about. That language provides that the funding provided under the provincial collective agreement for those teachers and that ratio continues past the expiry of the collective agreement until a new collective agreement is in place. I believe that addresses the issue the member is raising.

[1625]

D. Symons: That does address the issue; I thank him for that result.

I'm wondering if I might just discuss a few of the items that were raised at the annual meeting of the B.C. School Trustees Association. They passed a number of resolutions. One of them requested the Minister of Education to report to the school boards and the public on the ministry's internal administrative savings, made in connection with his February 1997 letter stating that a $12 million reduction in administrative costs would be possible. I'm wondering if the minister might tell us whether that internal administrative saving of $12 million has been achieved and if he'd be willing to pass on to the B.C.

School Trustees Association how many savings were achieved and allocated in the short and long term . . . or how those savings were made, rather.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, those savings have been achieved. My staff do not have the actual numbers in the chamber, but I set out very clearly to carry through on my commitment when I looked at amalgamation and savings from consolidation of services -- to make sure the ministry was doing its part, as I was asking them to do theirs.

D. Symons: Another concern the trustees had was with the use of advertising by the ministry. They urged the minister to "desist" -- I'm just reading from the document here -- "from public advertising of government-related education activities; and (

b) to provide the BCSTA with an accounting of the money spent on advertising education initiatives in general and, in particular, on promoting the teachers' agreement." It seems to be that last thing, I think, that might have been concerning them.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The provincial collective agreement and the class size reduction and improved ratios for non-enrolling teachers were a government initiative. I understand that the member opposed it and voted against it in this chamber. I thought that it was an entirely appropriate use of public funds to make the public aware of this government initiative, and we did so last year.

D. Symons: I guess that's where the opposition on this side and the school trustees are at one, and we are differing with the government on that particular issue.

A further one: "The BCSTA urges the Ministry of Education to obtain approval of the local electorate before it dismisses a trustee and/or eliminates a school board or district." I'm wondering if the minister might say . . . . Before you dismiss a school board -- and that came up earlier, I think, in regard to another district I was asking about earlier . . . . Before a school board or a trustee is dismissed, they urge you to obtain the approval of the local electorate. That basically says that the local electorate, not the Minister of Education, has elected that particular board, so they should be the ones who decide whether it should be dismissed or not.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm a little confused by the wording of the resolution. Actually, I'm not sure I have any authority under the School Act to dismiss a particular school trustee for a district. I do have authority under the School Act to dismiss a board and put in a trustee. It's a power which is used only rarely by Ministers of Education. The only one I'm aware of in the recent past was the North Vancouver school district, back in '94, I think, or maybe '95, if memory serves. This is a power that's exercised very rarely by ministers, and I think it ought to be used very rarely and cautiously.

V. Anderson: I was listening earlier this afternoon when the minister was discussing inclusion. I heartily agree with the minister that inclusion is the way that we all wish to go, because that's for the benefit of all the children in the school system, and it means that no one is left out. Following up on that particular discussion, what I want to raise, using that principle, is about including services and facilities for students who are included in special needs and special education.

[1630]

[ Page 13719 ]

In the Vancouver system, as the minister is very much aware, they have a very high proportion, a high incidence, of students with special needs -- about 8 percent. At the present time they are trying to fund at least part of that under their own circumstances with funds used for that purpose, and they are in need of other funds for those children. I know that the minister has been negotiating and working on it, and I'm wondering if the minister could give us an update of where that situation is at the moment. I know that the total cost is about $9 million over and above what was currently allocated in order to meet the needs of those students.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There have indeed been a lot of discussions between the ministry and the Vancouver school board over the most recent budget -- an exchange of correspondence, and quite frankly, the pile of paper on my desk is getting a little high. I'm not sure I'm any the wiser about some of the decisions the Vancouver school board is seeking to make in the coming year, either in the area of reductions in budget for special education or in other areas.

I will only say this: we believe the funding formula does treat Vancouver fairly. I haven't seen evidence from the material brought forward by the board that would suggest otherwise. They do seem to have decided in past years to divert a considerable portion of money from other programs into special education. That is a decision of the board. The amount that we fund the board for special education actually continues to go up. In preliminary budget figures for Vancouver, the amount for targeted special education funds actually increased by $3 million this year.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could help me at least -- and maybe others -- to understand. Is the funding formula for the Vancouver school system for special education the same funding formula that's used for other places throughout the province? Or is there a funding formula that takes into account the particular nature of the needs of Vancouver being a central location -- as has been raised very often -- where it has facilities where people tend to come to Vancouver?

It also has, as well as that, the highest level of people living in poverty, which compounds the problem, along with autism and alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome. All of those things -- as is shown in every other study in dealing with community services -- compound the number of people who come here, which is disproportionate to other locations or school boards within the province. Is there a different funding formula which takes those things into account, or is it an identical funding formula as for a place like Victoria, for instance, or for other cities in the province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just a couple of points. First of all, we have heard exactly the argument the member puts forward from the Vancouver school board. I must say that we're not convinced that the evidentiary base is there to support this claim by the Vancouver school board. When we look at other areas of the lower mainland that do have the same sort of concentration of medical facilities and pockets of poverty and the like, we see no pattern that's significantly different from Vancouver.

[1635]

The other thing that we find is that if we were actually seeing . . . . I think the member is talking about children that do have some sort of really severe difficulty resulting from fetal alcohol syndrome or the like. We would expect the numbers of those to be significantly higher than provincial averages. They do not appear to be so in the Vancouver school district. Moreover, it is that area of special education funding that the board has actually chosen to fund less than the amount we actually provide the board for dependent handicapped.

We continue to discuss this and other issues with the Vancouver board to try to ascertain the actual source of their budget difficulties and to see if there's some real way that I could explain to other school boards that Vancouver is being treated unfairly. As I've said repeatedly in these estimates, the purposes of the funding allocation system is fairness and equity, focusing on students. So far, I haven't seen Vancouver make a case that we're not treating them fairly or equitably. I have had a number of concerns raised by all sorts of people about the decisions the Vancouver board seems to be taking in the light of where it's chosen to announce reductions in service.

V. Anderson: I find it interesting that the Vancouver parents associations, the Vancouver teachers associations, both elementary and secondary, and the specialists within all of those associations who deal with these children on a regular basis, who are the professionals and to whom I presume the minister would be interested in listening to, along with the members of the Vancouver school board, are all consistent in their concern and in their presentation.

I spent a whole evening -- two and a half hours -- listening to the variety of professional associations within the education system in Vancouver express their issues, and they asked for and found the opportunity to go as a combined delegation with the school board and the parents association to come and talk to the minister.

So I'm curious if the minister is saying not only to the school board -- which perhaps is easy to do -- but also to the professionals in the field as well as to the parents in the community that all of them are wrong, all of them are mistaken, and all of them are putting forth false and misleading information to the minister.

I'm concerned, because these groups are working consistently and conscientiously, and all of them have delved into the statistics and the situation, and they're the ones who deal with these students -- the teachers particularly -- on a day-by-day basis, and they are all consistent with one message. It would seem to me that if there was inconsistency, and they were fighting among themselves, then I would have a different point of view. But when they're all consistent and working together . . . . So that's why I'm trying to arrive at . . . .

Is there a misunderstanding as to the system that the minister and the Ministry of Education are using and the people and the professionals within the Vancouver system are using?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, on the entire issue of how special education needs are identified and reported, I would hope that many of the people that the member is talking to will seize the advantage offered by the special education review and put their views forward to the panel that's going to be reviewing issues around funding of special education in the province within this budget.

[1640]

I can't really comment on the individual presentations to the member, but let me read what I know statistically. In the dependent handicapped category, among those with very

[ Page 13720 ]

severe physical disabilities, the incidence in Vancouver is 0.09 percent; the provincial average is 0.13 percent. For the low incidence-high cost categories, which include chronic physical health problems, visual impairment, autism and moderately severe impairment, the provincial average is 1.29 percent of kids; Vancouver is 1.27 percent. Severe behavioral difficulties: just about dead on the provincial average again -- 1.05 percent and 1.00 for Vancouver, just slightly below.

Here's the part that doesn't add up for me. The member talks about fetal alcohol syndrome, talks about the effects of poverty, talks about the effects of the ability of a child to learn. The provincial average for reporting of kids that have those difficulties in school districts is 2.55 percent -- just a little over 2-1/2 percent of all children in the province are reported by districts as having those sorts of difficulties. In Vancouver, it's actually lower -- 2.14 percent.

So in the face of all that, I must say that I continue to work with the board to find answers. I'm not sure I have the definitive one yet. I hope we can keep working on it.

I would say that in Vancouver, one thing is true. There are a substantial number of provincial services tailored to children with particular needs, and the member well knows this -- everything from Sunny Hill Hospital to Peak House, the G. F. Strong school program, the Canuck Place school program and the like. Those are funded outside the envelope of the Vancouver school board. They're funded directly through the program and shouldn't have any impact on the budget one way or another. Clearly Vancouver has a higher concentration of those provincial programs than other districts, and they are recognized and funded separately as provincial programs by the Ministry of Education.

I must say, though, that if you step a pace back and look at what's going on in the Vancouver school district, this is all about choices that the Vancouver school board has made and the way it has handled its budgets over several years. This is at least the third year in a row where we have had the Vancouver school board predicting huge layoffs of staff and dire consequences for education. This has become the pattern of their behaviour in the way they move forward in budget planning. Frankly, I think it's time that they stopped scaring parents. There is excellent education being provided in the schools of Vancouver, and I think that will continue to be the case in Vancouver.

I have every sympathy for some of the parents and particularly some of the staff who find themselves faced with some of the decisions this board is making. As I've said very publicly, I'm not convinced that these are the best decisions, but they are the decisions that this board has the authority to make.

V. Anderson: Following up on the minister's comment, he talked about special education items that are funded outside the envelope. Is he including the 42 alternative school programs that are in Vancouver? Peak House is one of them. How many of these 42, of which Peak House is one on the list, are included in Vancouver, and how many of those are excluded from funding from the special envelope?

[1645]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't see that particular program on the provincial list, which says to me that it is a program that's run by the Vancouver school board. I must say that I found the board's action in the area of alternate schools a bit surprising, since the funding formula adjustments actually benefited Vancouver in that area this year. They actually got $300,000 more for alternative school funding than they got in previous years, and yet the decision that they've made . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Is that the total they got? It's better than I thought. They've benefited from the funding formula adjustments to the tune of $460,000 -- not $300,000 -- and yet this is one area that they seem to be deciding to reduce services in. I hope that answers the member's questions.

V. Anderson: Vancouver currently has four learning centres. Are those within the budget? Is there an allocation for those, or is that again a decision of the board? Jericho is one of those. There have been four special learning centres within Vancouver.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Are these centres for adults, or are these centres that provide education for kindergarten-to-grade-12 children?

V. Anderson: These are services for special needs children. I have letters from parents who have had their children there, and they have found . . . . The Jericho Learning Centre, for instance, is one. There are four of these kinds of centres that children have gone to and have had a significant improvement in their ability to get back into the educational system with new hope and possibility because of the effectiveness of these centres. I've had a number of letters from parents about these centres and the concern that they may not be able to continue those.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, Vancouver has made a number of decisions. I don't know the status of those particular centres. Let me just call to the member's attention that in the area of learning assistance for Vancouver, the ministry provides $8.5 million through targeted funds. The Vancouver school board has chosen to spend $7.7 million in that area. In the area of special health services, we provide the Vancouver school board with $2.3 million. It's chosen to spend $648,000 in that area. On the other hand, in the area of services for gifted children, we provide the Vancouver school board with $400,000.

They've chosen to spend $1.4 million. This is about choices, hon. member. The Vancouver school board is within

[ Page 13721 ]

its mandate and the bounds of the School Act in making some choices. Those choices have caused some concern to parents and professionals in the Vancouver area. I've expressed my concerns as well.

V. Anderson: Could the minister supply me with a list of the targeted areas -- he's listed some of them -- and the amount that is allocated for them and the amount that is spent on those? I understand there are eight targeted areas. Am I correct in that regard? He's missing some of them, but there are eight targeted areas.

[1650]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sure that we can provide the member with some information like that.

V. Anderson: I know the minister had a number of questions to the school board, and they responded. The minister came back with another set of questions as a result. Might I ask the minister where we are? What are the key questions that would be on that second list of concerns?

Hon. P. Ramsey: What we've been attempting to do, through correspondence with the Vancouver school board, is understand, as I say, whether they're being treated fairly and equitably. If there are areas where they're not receiving all that they should from the provincial treasury . . . . As I've said, there are a couple of areas where they've clearly benefited from the funding formula changes this year and others where they've been negatively impacted. We've identified some areas where we may be able to provide a little more assistance.

But frankly, we've also been seeking to ascertain what this district does with other sources of funding. Not to put it in any particular order . . . . From the information we have, they apparently get something like $3 million from international student revenues and spend about a third of that on services for those students. We're not quite sure where the other $2 million goes. There's a whole range of issues, frankly, like that.

We're satisfied that we've provided the level of resources that the Vancouver school board deserves when judged in relation to other districts. We're going to continue to work with them to try to find out if they're not being treated fairly and to identify sources of additional assistance where we can. Through our analysis so far, we've found roughly half a million dollars that they weren't even asking for and that they deserve, and they'll surely be getting that. But we surely have not found that they are in any way shortchanged to the tune of $5 million, which they seem to be requesting.

V. Anderson: Just so that I can understand the process, is this negotiation -- fair enough; that's what I call it -- taking place strictly by mail, or are there people from both sides sitting down and working it out face to face with that kind of involvement here?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is far more than an exchange of correspondence. My staff and the district staff meet and talk on the phone fairly regularly around this and a variety of other issues. I must say, though, that the characterization of this as a negotiation is not one I accept. I'm not in the process of negotiating with the Vancouver school board. I'm engaged in the process of making sure that they're being treated equitably and fairly with the other 58 school boards of the province.

V. Anderson: I wasn't trying to put the minister on the spot by using the word "negotiation." It was the one that came to mind. Might I ask the minister, then: what term would he use to describe the process taking place between the school board and the ministry? It would just be helpful to know the proper language when trying to enter into the conversation. I'm not trying to put anybody on the spot.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said earlier -- and I'll try to highlight it here -- we're seeking a common understanding of the finances of the Vancouver school board between their officials and the ministry's and, as I said before, to identify any areas where the school board has not been treated fairly and equitably compared to other school boards in the province. If we find those areas, we'll rectify it. As I said, so far the only thing we've identified is the Vancouver school board actually not claiming around half a million dollars of money that they're entitled to. We'll keep working with them, but so far we have not identified sources of inequity or unfairness.

[1655]

V. Anderson: I come back to almost my final question. It has to do with the concern I think we all have for the children themselves, so that they don't get caught up in our adult games, if you like. I'm saying that from all sides -- whatever the situation, the kids are the ones that get left out.

In order to emphasize that, I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the wait-list in the Vancouver school system is for children needing assessment to understand what their need for service is. It's my understanding that the wait-list of children who are in need of assessment to find out what their problems are, so that they can be dealt with, has been there for a long time. And it's still there. It goes on for months and months, if not for years, and that's detrimental to the children themselves.

That, to me, should be a top priority for school boards, for the ministry, for anybody involved -- to say: "Okay. Let's get the wait-list. Let's deal with it, and then we'll know exactly . . . . " Until the children are assessed, we aren't in a position to say what their immediate needs are. A month or six months can be very crucial in their lives.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I share the member's concern for the children and also for the parents and teachers who work with them and seek to provide them with a good education, whatever their needs are.

I don't have information on the specific wait times for assessment in the Vancouver school district. I suspect the district would have far more inform