1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12497 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Tiananmen Square anniversary. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 12497

Mr. Barnes

The Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund Act (Bill M204). Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading –– 12498

Oral Questions

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Mr. Sihota –– 12498

Relocation of Toronto companies to B.C. Mr. Peterson –– 12498

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Mr. Sihota –– 12499

CMHC mortgage coverage. Mrs. McCarthy –– 12499

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Ms. Edwards –– 12499

Census appointment. Mr. Reid –– 12500

Mr. Rose

Ministerial Statements

Seniors' Week and Long-Term Care Week. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12500

Ms. A. Hagen

Census Day. Hon. J. Jansen –– 12501

Environment Week. Hon. Mr. Mercier –– 12502

Ms. Cull

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 12502

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Fraser

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. MILLER: I'm pleased to note that a good friend of mine

from Prince Rupert and Port Edward, Charles — better known as "Wakey" —

Clifton, is in the gallery today. Wakey is one of many people who earn

their living as cannery workers in Prince Rupert, and he is the

volunteer fire chief of the village of Port Edward. I would say he's

made a significant contribution in terms of training volunteer fire

departments in the surrounding native Indian villages on the north

coast. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him to Victoria

today.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, later today in our Legislature we

will be recognizing this date as the anniversary of the massacre in

Tiananmen Square in Beijing two years ago today. I'm proud to introduce

to this House Maureen and Raymond Chan, who are in the Legislature

today. Raymond Chan is the chairman of the Vancouver society in support

of the democratic movement. Would the House please welcome them on this

day.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like the House to welcome the chief and

delegation from the Ulkatcho band: Chief Cassidy Sill, Michael Holte

and Ms. Dester. Also, my sister and brother-in-law, Marg and Don

Ferrier, and their daughter Richelle are here from Prince George.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's my pleasure today to introduce to

this Legislature a very successful entrepreneur from Tumbler Ridge, Mr.

Scott La Prairie, and a business associate of his from Prince George,

Jim Feragen. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. CLARK: On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I too

join with the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain in welcoming

Mr. Chan and associates from the democracy movement. They're doing

outstanding work in keeping that issue before the people in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have two friends in the gallery I'd like to

introduce: Paul and Jyoti Gill from South Vancouver. Accompanying them

today are Parvinder and Avtar Samran from Livingston, California. I

would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This week is Seniors' Week in British Columbia,

and to mark the occasion we have a number of senior citizens' counsellors

in the gallery today. I'd like to introduce Mr. Harry Burrow from Crofton,

Mr. Harold Cooper from Youbou, Mrs. Helen Cousineau from Victoria, Mrs. Pernille

Cunningham from Victoria, Mrs. Louise Foulis from Saltspring Island, Mrs. Dorothy

Jenkins from Victoria, Mrs. Irene MacAdams from Duncan, Mrs. Marj McPherson

from Victoria, Mrs. Monty Ramsfield from Victoria, Mrs. Ellen Ratcliffe from

Victoria, Mrs. Dorothy Scoular from Duncan, Mr. Joe Sharples from Victoria,

Mrs. Edith Smith from Sidney, Mr. John P. Travis from Victoria and, finally,

Mr. George Williams from Duncan. They are part of a group of 157 senior citizens'

counsellors in British Columbia who serve thousands of seniors each week helping

them in various ways. I'd like to congratulate and thank those people for

the very good and important work they do for seniors in British Columbia, and

I'd ask you to give them a good round of applause.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the second member for Delta and

myself, I'd like to welcome to the precincts today 50 grades 5 to 7

students who are from Devon Gardens Elementary School, along with their

teacher Mr. George Andres and some adults. Would this House please make

them welcome.

Also, I would ask this House to please welcome Mr. Harry Nyce from

the Nisga'a Tribal Council, who is visiting the precincts today.

MR. COUVELIER: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming 53

grade 5 students from Lochside Elementary School. They are accompanied

by their teacher Mrs. Rheta Steer. They've had a tour of the gallery,

and they are looking forward to question period this afternoon. Would

you please help me welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Government House Leader. Is this by way of an introduction?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. SPEAKER: If we could just get to the next order of

business, then your remarks will be televised, and I think that's the

nature of the game.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The thought hadn't crossed my mind, but I'm glad that you pointed it out.

Ministerial Statement

TIANANMEN SQUARE ANNIVERSARY

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short

statement on behalf of the Premier and my colleagues on the government

side of the House, and I'm sure I speak for most, if not all, British

Columbians.

It was two years ago today that the violent deaths of many hundreds

of pro-democracy students in China shocked the world. Today we look

back on that black day in history as a moment that diminished all of us

who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of

worship. We are privileged in this country of Canada to enjoy all of

these freedoms that are not available to people who live in

totalitarian states.

Today we have before us a replica of the Goddess of Democracy that

was erected by the students in Tiananmen Square two years ago. The

original statue was destroyed by tanks, and many students were killed

in the bloodbath that followed. Such actions can never be justified.

Today we remember those heroic students.

MR. BARNES: It is indeed a pleasure for me to respond on

behalf of the official opposition in support of the remarks made by the

government House Leader.

[ Page 12498 ]

However, I must say that it is not with great pleasure that we have

to reflect upon those tragic events that occurred two years ago in

Tiananmen Square.

[2:15]

Looking back to the early 1970s, I can recall when then Premier Dave

Barrett, myself and a contingent of members visited Peking. I recall

the enthusiasm in that country for a more democratic or more sharing

society that recognized the hopes of those people who were struggling

for their freedoms. However, history has a way of repeating itself, and

sometimes, because of politics, we are afraid to come forward. Finally

we get a statue being honoured today in this House. I am very pleased

about that because it was not very easy finding a home for this statue.

The city of Vancouver, the parks board and some of the Chinese

community had difficulties with it because of our fear of interfering

in other sovereign nations when it comes to their internal affairs. The

issue is not whether there is going to be democracy in China but

whether there is going to be respect for fundamental human rights,

freedoms, justice, equality, equal opportunities. These things should

be worldwide and, I would like to feel, of common concern everywhere in

the world.

It's about time all of us found our way to be concerned about the

atrocities that are affecting human beings everywhere in the world

regardless of race, creed or colour, nationality or language, or

whatever. Unless we find that common ground, that common reason for

caring about one another, then it really is a bit of a charade when we

talk about justice and freedom and democracy.

I'm very pleased that this is happening, and it is with great honour

that I stand here and say that maybe there is some hope if we can look

beyond the politics and concern ourselves with the fundamental rights

of people, no matter where they are in the world.

Introduction of Bills

THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

LEGACY FUND ACT

Mrs. McCarthy presented a bill intituled The Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund Act.

MRS. McCARTHY: The Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund Act

establishes two principles for the citizens of British Columbia for the

twenty-first century. It seeks to keep a commitment to the true legacy

of the 1961 Columbia River Treaty negotiated for this province by a

master builder, a creative genius and true visionary, W.A.C. Bennett.

At the same time as it recognizes the birthright of British Columbians, it

maintains an educational future for the children of tomorrow, an historic legacy

for every child of our province. According to the terms of the Columbia River

Treaty, beginning in 1998 the people of British Columbia, through their government,

are to begin receiving a minimum $250 million in actual returns from the downstream

benefits of our Columbia River dams. This bill creates in the provincial treasury

a special Columbia River Treaty Legacy Fund and mandates the creation of another

separate and special fund entitled the British Columbia Twenty-First Century

Educational Opportunities Fund to support the post-secondary education of children

of British Columbia for the first two generations in the twenty-first century.

This separate fund will provide opportunities for every child born in the term

of the next government, and in every year thereafter for 20 years, an opportunity

to be among the brightest and the best in the competitive world of international

trade, commerce, service and the sciences. It provides for a one-time grant

of $1,000 to the account of every child entering kindergarten for a 20-year

period beginning in the year 1999. With cumulative interest, every child's

account will eventually mature so that on high-school graduation approximately....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Unfortunately, hon. member, the

rest of your explanation will have to proceed when the bill is called

for second reading.

Bill M204 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

HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Environment. On

several occasions when I've asked him questions relating to the

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, he's indicated: "This minister

did not enter into any arrangements." Could he advise the House which

of his predecessors entered into the arrangement with the former

chairman along the lines that I've outlined in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise the House the quantum

of severance payments made to the former CEO of the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I refer the member to my

earlier responses on this subject; they are all recorded in Hansard .

I've already answered all that I can, and I will take on notice further

questions on the subject.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise the House whether or

not the recommendations of Mr. Justice Nemetz with respect to severance

payments were followed with respect to the payments made to the former

chief executive officer of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation?

RELOCATION OF

TORONTO COMPANIES TO B.C.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Finance and Corporation Relations. Today's Financial Post headline

reads on page 1: "NDP 'scaring off jobs, investors'." The report goes

on to state that the

[ Page

12499 ]

Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association believes Ontario

legislation with respect to directors' liability will have a major

negative impact on investment in the province. I'd like to know what

steps the minister has taken to encourage Toronto-based Canadian

companies to relocate to British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's a good question. Given today's economic

climate and the need to be as competitive as possible, industries are

going to seek the best business environment possible to ensure they

remain competitive. We will, through my colleague the Minister of

Development, Trade and Tourism through his Ottawa office, put

significant effort into soliciting business from the Toronto downtown

business community and encourage them to come to British Columbia where

there's good government and a good business environment.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: After Mr. David Poole left the employment of the

provincial government, there was a report and recommendations with

respect to severance payments. My question to the Minister of

Environment is this: with respect to the severance payment made to the

former chief executive officer of the Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation, can the minister advise the House whether or not those

recommendations of Mr. Justice Nemetz were followed in arriving at the

quantum of severance payments paid to that former chief executive

officer?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's

questions, the point I was trying to make earlier was that he can refer

to Hansard for my responses, and I have nothing further to add to

those. Anything further on this I would just take on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister

understands the question. I'm not asking about the former chairman; I'm

asking about the former CEO of the Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation. With that in mind, will the minister advise this

Legislature — and through this Legislature, the taxpayers of the

province — how much was paid out to that individual in severance

payments?

CMHC MORTGAGE COVERAGE

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the minister responsible

for housing. The federal administration is considering increasing

mortgage coverage from 90 percent to 95 percent of the home value

through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Will the minister

communicate to the national government our desire to see an affirmative

answer to these deliberations?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd like to confirm that we are very supportive

of the policy to increase mortgages to 95 percent. We recognize that one of

the great difficulties, particularly for first-time homebuyers, is to get the

down payment together. So this would certainly help in that regard.

A federal meeting on housing will be held very shortly in eastern

Canada. I'll be attending that meeting and certainly advocating that

Canada Mortgage and Housing pursue that course, because it would do

much to address our housing needs.

VANCOUVER ISLAND

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources. The minister has confirmed that the Vancouver

Island pipeline will be 25 percent over budget. That's a $70 million

overrun so far. Will the minister also confirm that Island gas

consumers will be asked to pay for the overrun?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: In a continuance of the estimates debate

of last Friday, I would first like to suggest that the projected

overrun of $70 million is for the project in completion. So you are

incorrect when you say $70 million to date. It's projected at $70

million over the completed project.

As I stated during our debates on estimates, the overrun costs will

be dealt with in three ways. First, an independent person will look at

all the expenditures to make sure they were appropriate for the

project; most of them probably will be considered to be so. It will

then have to be determined whether those approved expenses will be

considered as equity or debt, which affects the formula as it develops

the rates. Ultimately, consumers on Vancouver Island will have to pay

for the cost of the pipeline. It will be managed in a way that will see

the cost of natural gas on the Island capped at 85 percent of the cost

of heating oil or its equivalent. If the expenditure for the pipeline

is larger, then that capped price of 85 percent of fuel prices will

probably be extended for a further period of time than had originally

been anticipated under the formula that was set up. The government

expects to provide a fund to cushion the effect of the rate, but at the

end of the day the consumers will bear all of the associated costs. The

government will not, at the end of the day, put any indirect subsidy

into the program.

MS. EDWARDS: Will the minister confirm that Pacific Coast

Energy, the utility building the pipeline, is able to get the $70

million or whatever — the overrun and the approved amount — from the

government, until such time as it can recoup that amount from consumers?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Obviously you haven't grasped the nature

of what's happening here. The proponents will pay all of the costs for

the pipeline, regardless of what they are. The Utilities Commission and

the way utilities are regulated in this province allow utilities to

recoup their capital expenditures through their rate structure, whether

it be for powerlines or gas pipelines. I'm sure the utility is no

happier than anyone else to see cost overruns. At the end of the day,

they will extend the period of time to

[ Page

12500 ]

recoup their costs at a capped rate of 85 percent of heating oil.

[2:30]

MS. EDWARDS: I have a supplementary. I would like to ask the

minister if he is not willing to declare today that not one penny of

that overrun should be paid by the consumers on Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I don't know if the member is

suggesting that the taxpayers of British Columbia should pay the costs

of the overrun. I think it more appropriate, obviously, that with this

utility as with other utilities, the.... First of all, I should explain to

you again that the Utilities Commission will decide how much of that

overrun is appropriate to be considered in the rate base. So it won't

be this government nor this opposition that decides which of the $70

million is built into the rate base. It will be the Utilities

Commission deciding this issue, as it decides issues of a similar

nature every day.

CENSUS APPOINTMENT

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Finance on this census data collection date. On Friday I raised the

matter of the census appointment of the provincial NDP candidate Bill

Hartley upon recommendation of the federal NDP Member of Parliament Joy

Langan. On Saturday the census supervisor wasn't puzzled about why the

matter had been brought up, and the supervisor fired the NDP candidate.

Will the Finance minister ask Canada to ensure no other....

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member take his seat. There will be a five-minute recess.

The House recessed at 2:31 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:37 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: At the moment of recess the member for

Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale had the floor. Would the member please

conclude his question.

MR. REID: On Saturday the census supervisor wasn't puzzled

about why the matter had been brought up. The supervisor then fired the

NDP candidate. Will the Finance minister ask Canada to ensure that no

other political party candidate is in a similar position, and will he

investigate to determine that no public resources are being used to

subsidize that NDP candidate?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question is timely in two aspects: firstly, today

is census day; and secondly, the concern about privacy of information. The public

is certainly concerned that the information they give on census day should

be kept private. We have seen some of the violations of privacy that have happened

recently, in particular in this House. I find it somewhat astounding that the

NDP candidate for that particular area would take a position as a census-taker

and that the Leader of the Opposition would find it puzzling that the public

would have some concern about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Once again we go back to the same

problem: the scope of the answer must remain within the scope of the

question. The question isn't just a prompt to get the minister going on

a ramble into other areas. There was a specific question. I know you

want to have a nice chat about something else, but I'd just ask you to

answer the question.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for bureaucracy,

and thank goodness for proud civil servants who are able to distinguish

between right and wrong.

I will ask the federal minister to ensure that this type of

procedure does not happen in the future respecting the census-taker

being a candidate for the NDP. I will also take the second question on

notice respecting whether or not government funds were used to

subsidize his salary.

MR. ROSE: I was really shocked when the minister suggested

that anybody who was employed as a census-taker would somehow break his

oath and go into the privacy of the answers given to him.

A supplementary. While the minister is investigating — and I'm not

critical about this — would he also confirm that the part-time

constituency assistant for the Socred member from Dewdney is also

employed as a census canvasser?

HON. J. JANSEN: I think there's a far-sight difference between an NDP candidate....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, members. Time is limited in question period.

HON. J. JANSEN: What I said was that although I did not

accuse the NDP candidate of a violation of privacy, I think the public

found it offensive that an NDP candidate would also be a census-taker.

That was corrected by the census supervisor — not by the Leader of the

Opposition, who didn't see any problem with it, but by the census

supervisor. That's important to note.

I'm surprised at the sensitivity over there. I understand it and am

sure that this House will continue to ensure that right is done.

Ministerial Statements

SENIORS' WEEK AND

LONG-TERM CARE WEEK

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As Minister of Health and as the Minister

Responsible for Seniors, it is my pleasure to bring to the attention of

the House that this week is designated as both Seniors' Week and as

Long-Term Care Week throughout the province.

One of the challenges in our society today is coming to terms with

the aging of our population, particularly our individual and collective

ideas about seniors and

[ Page

12501 ]

the process of aging. Many of our attitudes towards aging may be

outdated and should be reviewed, which is why this year's theme for

Seniors' Week — "Aging: Time for a New Attitude" — is in itself an

important message.

It is true that most seniors lead fulfilling, rewarding lives and in

that respect provide both an example and a challenge to all of us who

follow them. The key point, though, is that the way people approach

aging does indeed determine the state of their physical and emotional

well-being in their senior years.

During Seniors' Week events will be held throughout the province

that will bring people of all ages together and serve to demonstrate

how dynamic, fulfilling and challenging seniors' lives continue to be.

However, it is important for us not to refer to seniors in sweeping

generalizations and to remember that seniors, like you and me, are not

all the same. Their interests and abilities are just as diversified as

those of any age group.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that this is also Long Term Care Week. The

philosophy of our long-term care programs, or what we now call

continuing care, is to promote the well-being, dignity and independence

of clients and their families. To this end, seniors and people with

disabilities require continuing care provided with community based

programs such as adult day care, homemaker services, home nursing care,

Meals on Wheels and occupational therapy as well as physiotherapy.

To help people receive the information they need about these and

other services, the Ministry of Health has just completed an invaluable

resource kit simply and effectively entitled "Continuing Care." This

kit contains two general information booklets — one aimed at people

seeking continuing care services for themselves and another for

families caring for seniors.

There are also seven brochures providing more specific information

on topics such as homemaker and rehab services, residential care, home

nursing care, group homes and choosing a care home. These brochures are

available at continuing care offices and health units throughout our

province.

The two designations made for this week give all of us in British

Columbia an opportunity to re-examine our individual and collective

ideas about continuing care needs and about seniors. In this context,

it gives me great pleasure to announce the proclamation of Seniors'

Week and of Long-Term Care Week.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am pleased to join in the recognition of

these two important occasions in the coming week-Seniors' Week and

Long-Term Care Week — and to wish to people who will be participating

in special events a joyous and happy time in their communities.

I want to take a brief moment to acknowledge the seniors'

counsellors who were recognized by a government minister earlier today.

They represent literally thousands of people who work in our

communities in support of older people in voluntary and community

agencies.

[2:45]

It is self-evident, I believe, that seniors bring to their

communities much in the way of experience, activity and contributions.

Those are very essential ingredients in the lives of all of our

communities. I know that many older people contribute to their own

groups, but they also contribute in many organizations and are

particularly interested in the lives of children — many of them their

grandchildren.

There are a couple of special accolades which I think should go out

at this particular time. I think we should recognize and commend the

staffs who work in long-term-care facilities and home support programs.

Many of these people are women. Many of them are still working for

wages that are less than wages paid to men, and many of them are

working at jobs that take a tremendous amount of emotional and physical

energy and commitment. I want to acknowledge those people who work in

support of our older people.

I want to note also that it is important for governments to provide

dollars and resources in support of independence. I note in this year's

budget that although we have increases in numbers of seniors, we don't

necessarily have increases in some of the programs that support

independence. I hope seniors, through the advisory council and their

own organizations, will make representation around these issues to

government. In our society there are many active and needy people. To

both those groups of people we accord at this time a recognition of

their role in our society, and welcome this week that recognizes that

role.

CENSUS DAY

HON. J. JANSEN: Today is census day in Canada. Census-taking

has a long tradition in this country and other countries. The first

census in British Columbia was taken in 1851 and counted 55,000 people.

The 1991 census is expected to count 3.25 million people. Census

details are important for a number of reasons. They provide information

on employment, income levels, migration and other matters that every

jurisdiction needs to make informed policy decisions as well as to

determine future amounts of money transferred from the federal

government under the established programs financing agreement.

In British Columbia we have a relatively higher number of people,

compared to other provinces, who are missed or do not participate in

that census count. This undercount costs British Columbia tens of

millions of dollars annually in lost transfer payments.

Concerns have been expressed about the quality and confidentiality

of the census information. I want to assure this House that all

personal information collected in the census is guaranteed by law to be

unconditionally confidential, and that census-takers are well trained

and committed to accurate results.

I note in passing that the long form of the census talks about

ethnic origins and outlines a number of different origins — French,

because my colleague the Attorney-General's ancestors date back to 1832

in Canada. Truly he could be called a Canadian. I would ask that this

box be added.

[ Page 12502 ]

In closing, I am sure that the House will join me in urging all

British Columbians to ensure that they are counted in the census, in

order that this province receives its fair share of federal transfer

payments.

ENVIRONMENT WEEK

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this week British Columbians

are joining with their fellow Canadians and with concerned people

around the world in focusing their thoughts and actions on the

environment and in observing World Environment Day on June 5 as

designated by the United Nations. Quite fittingly, the celebration of

Environment Week coincides with the launching of a number of major

initiatives by our government on behalf of the environment.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of announcing the commencement of the

third year of operations for the Environment Youth Corps, which

provides employment and training in worthwhile environmental projects

for young people all over the province. Approximately 700 young people

will be working in that area this summer.

Tomorrow I will be announcing new measures to protect important

wildlife habitat in two key areas of the province: one in the Fraser

River estuary, the other on Vancouver Island.

This week-long celebration provides people, especially young people,

with special opportunities to work together on behalf of our beautiful

province and its environment. It also makes it clear that we share a

strong concern with the rest of the international community for the

future of our planet.

To choose a dramatic example of an issue from which we cannot

isolate ourselves, in the Persian Gulf an environmental disaster is

taking place in the form of oil fires still burning as a result of the

recent war. In light of the enormous amount of effort that was spent on

the war itself, I will suggest to my federal counterpart that we need

an equivalent effort in terms of resources, people and equipment to be

dedicated to fighting those fires and the disastrous air pollution they

are causing.

The plain truth is that we are all citizens of this planet and,

ultimately, what affects one part affects every other part. That is the

main message of Environment Week. I'm sure that every member of the

House endorses this message, and I urge them to take every opportunity

to recognize and encourage the Environment Week activities taking place

in their constituencies.

MS. CULL: I'm pleased to join with the minister in

recognizing Environment Week and particularly to recognize the

contribution of the Environment Youth Corps. I also look forward to

hearing his future announcements on the Fraser River estuary and on

wildlife habitat protection on Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, we need more than a week-long celebration of the environment; we need a year-long commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Page 51 of Parliamentary Practice in British

Columbia comes from New South Wales, as a matter of fact. On responding to ministerial

statements, Mr. Speaker Ellis stated: "The Leader of the Opposition"

— who happened to be the person speaking at the time — "will confine himself

specifically to the points raised by the minister." Unfortunately, that's

the guiding rule we have for all ministerial statements. So you can go as long

as he has, but you have to stay within the scope.

MS. CULL: The minister was announcing a week long celebration, and I just suggested that we needed a little more than a week on this.

The minister talked about the Persian Gulf. I think the

environmental slogan that we need to think about here is: "Think

globally, act locally." We need to act locally. Instead of talking about

the Persian Gulf, what I would have rather heard the minister announce

was the government's commitment to sewage treatment in greater

Victoria. I would have rather heard him say that the government has now

decided to participate....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, all of the things that you

wish to discuss during his estimates, we should discuss during

estimates. Your response to the ministerial statement really has to be

within the scope of the things the minister discussed, not what he

might have wanted to discuss. You may continue.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your advice on this.

In announcing action on the environment, and in announcing

Environment Week, the minister is, I think, in talking about the

Persian Gulf, ignoring British Columbia. I think that is what we want

to hear in terms of Environment Week. There are many issues that need

to be addressed here in this province.

The government prefers to talk about almost any other jurisdiction

than British Columbia and it is now time that we turn our attention not

to the Persian Gulf but to the issues in British Columbia like sewage

treatment, implementing the oil spill task force recommendations and

getting serious with pulp mill polluters.

I'm glad that we have a week to recognize the environment, but it's

going to take more than a week to clean up the environment in British

Columbia. It's going to take a change in government.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

MR. ROSE: I'm really raising this not necessarily just for

the benefit of the minister but for his officials. I mentioned earlier

this morning, both in here and out in the hall, that I was interested

in some of the trend lines going back perhaps five to ten years,

depending on how big the job would be, of what's happening in the

elementary and secondary schools to those options and

[ Page

12503 ]

special subjects such as arts, drama, phys ed, choral band, stage band — all that stuff.

I was in this field for many years and have two daughters who are

both teachers in those same fields. We naturally have a special

interest in them. I don't know how much difficulty there will be for

the officials, but to have the trend lines in various subject areas —

enrolment and what, where and when; that kind of thing — would be very

useful. It's not the kind of question I can ask directly, although I

have reason to believe that over the last ten years there has been, at

least in some areas, a marked decline. I think a lot of people

interested in the arts and culture field would be interested in the

response to this because they may feel the same way. Because they're

vitally interested, they might want to encourage the government to

change its ways on these subjects if the trend lines are down, as I

have reason to believe they are.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to respond to the

opposition House Leader. Before I do specifically, as a point of

interest for him, I had the privilege of being in Penticton last week

at the secretary-treasurers' convention, and the stage band from Pen

High played. I'll tell you, you would have loved to have been there

because it was exceptional. They must have a very good music program in

that school district.

I've been informed by my officials that you will have an answer to your question by tomorrow morning in your office.

MS. A. HAGEN: As we were finishing our first session this

morning on the education estimates, I asked the minister to provide us

with some personal perspectives on a very important aspect of education

— what we usually call special education. This is education for

children who for some reason require some special services and support

from not only the Education ministry but perhaps from other

jurisdictions as well, such as Health and Social Services.

I was a little disappointed when, after asking me if I wanted to

have read some of the protocols and I having said, "No, Mr. Minister, I

would much prefer to have you talk about this from your own experience

and give us concrete word-pictures and information about this field of

work in our schools," he persisted and read us the whole protocol or a

part of it. He having set that model, I may come back to it a little

later on, because there certainly are a lot of words out there about

providing services to youngsters.

[3:00]

What we want to try to get at in the first part of our discussion this afternoon

is how that translates into real, live services and how the teachers, aides

and principals in our schools are managing with what is fundamentally one of

the newest mandates of the education system. That mandate says that students

will be educated within our regular school classes — we call it mainstreaming

or integration — and it means that every child, regardless of physical, mental

or emotional difficulties they may bring to the classroom, will be integrated

with students who do not have handicaps. It's a very challenging and very

significant policy and program initiative. We on this side of the House are

supportive of that initiative. But it is not an activity that can take place

without careful planning, resources and training. We know from talking and listening

to every district in the province that it has been a challenge for students,

teachers, assistants, parents and all people who work in the system.

I know that the advocacy groups who are very interested in children

who fit under that broad rubric of special-education children are very

concerned about the level of commitment of the government to fulfilling

that mandate. We have funding programs in place that say that this

government, taking up the minister's own words, will take

responsibility for the full cost of education through its block funding

program. I want to examine this afternoon some of the initiatives

regarding special-education children and whether the ministry is living

up to that mandate.

Let me ask a series of questions of the minister. Although I will

try to group some of them, I want to have some answers in order to

proceed with the next question, because the next question is dependent

on the answer that the minister provides.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: No, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, from across the

floor there's a little bit of banter going on with the minister, who

hopes that perhaps we're going to ask just one or two questions here.

On Friday, as the hour was getting late and I found that this minister

was not going to tell us anything until his estimates arrived on the

floor of this House, I asked him very few questions. He won't get off

so easily during the next period of time. We intend to examine his

ministry quite exhaustively, as well we should, because it is a

ministry that provides a very important service. He and I would

probably agree that from the point of view of the future of our

province it is the most important ministry in government, and what this

government is doing needs to be called to account.

I want to ask the minister first of all why his government has placed a ceiling on funding for special education.

HON. S. HAGEN: Interesting question again, coming from across

the floor of the House, where one day they're talking about balanced

budgets and fiscal responsibility and all of those other key phrases,

and then the question is why government has placed a ceiling. I don't

know if the member for New Westminster calls a budget a ceiling, or

whether it's the budget for the year.

It should be noted that this year we will be spending something in

the order of $255 million on special-education programs in the

province. It's a very serious commitment by the taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia. This covers, of course, the whole range

of programs.

The question was posed as to the challenge out in the system. Yes,

it's a challenge; I think we all recognize that. But I believe that the

teachers of the province are up to that challenge. In the visits that I

have had around the province, the teachers that I've talked to are

indeed up to that challenge. I have not received a

[ Page 12504 ]

complaint from a teacher with regard to special-needs programs. They

are all very anxious to assist the students they are responsible for in

any way, shape or form. So while there is a budget amount — which has

increased every year, I might add — I wouldn't call that a ceiling.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the minister has just acknowledged that

there is a finite amount of money within the block distributed for

special education to all the districts of the province. It's quite

irrelevant to me that we're talking here about fiscal responsibility I

believe that what we're talking about is the government's commitment to

providing the kinds of resources necessary to meet the needs of

children within the province of British Columbia. So he has not

answered the question of why there is a ceiling or why there is that

finite amount.

Let me ask another question and see if he can provide us with a bit

more information. Does the ministry have, as a matter of the records

available to it, figures on the number of children within the school

system who qualify for some special education funding?

How is that determined? Is that determined by the ministry? Is it

determined by school districts? What are the parameters for determining

that in addition to the resources that are available' to every child

within a school district? There may be some additional resources

required — possibly a teaching aide, somebody who is providing

itinerant support for a visually impaired student or somebody who

provides specific health services.

Does the ministry keep or have any kind of number on children who

require those additional services? How does the minister, using that

number then, arrive at this ceiling or this amount of money available

for special education?

HON. S. HAGEN: The number of students for each district is

determined by the school district. The school districts then submit the

numbers of students to my ministry, and we fund based on those numbers.

MS. A. HAGEN: So let me explore that for a moment. If my

district or the districts of the member for Boundary-Similkameen or the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey submit a number in September of

children requiring special needs, is the block of funding available to

those districts adjusted to reflect the number of students and

presumably some categories in which they might be placed by the school

district? Is more money added then, if the numbers of children are in

excess of what has been predicted or what was originally determined

when the block was established for that district?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'll just run through some examples here of the funding

so that maybe it will help the member understand. The funding varies according

to the needs of the student. Some examples are: a dependent handicapped student

qualifies for $18,200 on average. A severe mental handicap qualifies for an

average of $13,700, and a visually handicapped person qualifies for $13,700.

MS. A. HAGEN: Then I think the minister is saying that if

there is a visually impaired or a severely mentally handicapped child

in a district, dollars track that child, and regardless of the number

of children in that district there will be dollars and additional money

available within the block to provide those dollar resources for the

district. Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, that is the case, except for

three categories: the severe learning disabled, rehabilitation and the

severe behavioural.

MS. A. HAGEN: Would the minister care to indicate how those students are accommodated with resources?

HON. S. HAGEN: Last year those three were funded on the basis

of 3.25 percent of their total district population. We raised that this

year to 3.6 percent.

MS. A. HAGEN: Are those figures consistent with the numbers

school districts are providing, or are they lower than the number that

school districts are indicating are to be found within their community

of students?

HON. S. HAGEN: I understand the districts submit the numbers,

the numbers are analyzed by my ministry and then funded on the basis of

the analysis.

MS. A. HAGEN: Special education is an issue in school

districts, because in many instances school districts are either

finding the dollars allocated are not sufficient for their needs or

there is no recognition, according to the ministry, of the needs of

their students.

Let me just take some instances. A moment ago the minister spoke

about figures of $18,000 and $13,000 being available for particular

students. We all know some of those students require one-on-one aides

to remain within the system — a full-time worker for time the child is

in school, plus training for staff assistants, all of those kinds of

things — and in many instances the figures the minister quoted are not

adequate for the actual services which are provided for children by

caregivers who are essential in order to remain in the school.

If that is the case, could the minister please advise how school

districts provide for those students without trading off dollars? In

order to provide for special needs students, there will be fewer

dollars available for other students within the district, or

alternately, the district is forced to cut back on the extent of

services available for those special-needs students within the system.

Neither of those solutions is satisfactory for school districts,

teachers and aides struggling to find a good working arrangement to

look after this challenging mandate of integrating special-needs

students into classes.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to respond to that question. First of all, let it be clear — and it is under-

[ Page

12505 ]

stood across this country — that British Columbia is the leading

province for dealing with special-needs children in the school system.

In addition to the extra funding we talked about, this year the

provincial block was increased by $28, which, times the number of

students, comes to an extra $14 million that was injected into the

system, because there is a higher proportion of low-incidence high-cost

students.

I'm trying to figure out what the member for New Westminster is

leading up to in her line of questioning. I suspect she may be working

towards the issue in a couple of school districts where boards have

threatened to cut special-education programs because they say that they

don't have enough money. I'm not sure if that's where she's leading,

but I would be curious to know.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to let that minister

across the floor know that I'm not leading anywhere except to try to

get some enlightenment on how special-education funding flows into

school districts. Let me move into a couple of other domains to see if

we can get any guidance from the ministry.

[3:15]

There is a ministerial order, No. 149 of 1989, which does relate a

bit to support services for schools in respect to special-needs

students. It speaks about auditory systems, speech and language

services, medical assessments, specialized health services and,

finally, the relationship with the medical health officer.

Let me just take one of these domains: speech and language services.

"A board of a school district shall provide speech and language therapy

for students of school age who attend a school in the district and

whose education is adversely affected by oral communication

difficulties." Does the ministry have any standard by which it

measures whether that order is in fact being carried out? Is there any

standard whereby the ministry has to say one speech pathologist for 500

students or one speech pathologist for 2,500 students? I just want to

get some idea of how the measure is there, while I'm speaking about

that particular domain. It's a very common need in school districts,

because there are many students who need some help with speech

pathology, not necessarily students who might even fall into the

special-education category, but those who for some reason or other need

some help with speech development. How does the ministry judge what

level of speech pathologist services might be a standard or guideline

for the districts of the province?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm really pleased at this line of

questioning, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about the

first-rate programs that we have in the B.C. school system that we

should all be very proud of.

We have a book called the "red book," and if the member opposite

doesn't have a copy, I'm sure we'd be pleased to provide one. It

contains the special-education guidelines, and it deals with policies,

procedures and guidelines. The programs are defined in that book — and

I'm having a copy brought down. If you want to deal with specific

questions, we can; you're welcome to the book. The criteria are then

set out, and then of course the funding eligibility is set.

MS. A. HAGEN: I gather from the minister's answer that there

are specific guidelines for a number of services. Can the minister

elaborate a bit, or does he want to wait until that book is brought

down so that he has it as a reference point?

In the field of speech pathology, for example, I've seen some

figures. I think they're commonly referred to, and I understand that in

many districts they are providing speech pathologist services if

they're able to find qualified personnel — another challenge, I might

note. If they're able to find qualified personnel, they are providing

services in excess of the guidelines, and in some instances decisions

that have been taken locally by school districts to enhance level of

service are having to be cut back because of funding shortfalls. That

is, of course, a matter of great concern to parents whose children may

be accessing those services. Perhaps the minister can just comment, or

does he want to wait until he has the guidebook? I suspect from his

body language that he wants to wait until he has some concrete figures.

But let me just ask this question. In school districts that have

been providing the very best of services that those school boards have

been able to devise, school boards that have in fact established

through taxation — before taxation was removed as one of their rights

as a school board — a calibre of service in special needs superior to

what is available in other districts.... What accommodation does the

ministry make for those school districts? Is it his intent to bring all

school districts down to the average, to the lowest level of service

that his ministry is prepared to accept? Or is there within the funding

system an accommodation and a recognition that school districts have

made local decisions to provide a better level of service based on

their local decision-making around the needs of children in their

district?

Perhaps the minister could comment on whether it is his government's

philosophy and practice to bring all the funding down to that

fundamental level and therefore create the kinds of situations we have

seen in some districts where boards that have been providing a higher

level of service are seeing that they can no longer do so with the

funding this government has determined they would have — a funding that

has come entirely from decisions of government and that has taken away

the right of local boards to make those decisions about the quality of

education in their districts.

HON. S. HAGEN: It should be made clear that the boards don't

pay anything extra for the services they're providing; the block

funding provides that. Any of the extra programs in place prior to the

implementation of the block were rolled into the block. We still have,

though, the challenge of the ability to pay. If the boards have taken

it upon themselves to make decisions that are affecting their ability

to pay, by making other decisions, they may have to look at other areas

in their budget. I should also make clear that there's a difference

between funding needs and funding wants. My impression of the system is

that boards are capable of dealing with the needs out there. There has

been some politics played by some boards, where they have

[ Page 12506 ]

threatened to cut services. I've noticed in the media today that one

particular board has backed off on that and are now reassessing their

budget. So I guess we are still working through the process where they

come to grips with the final amounts.

The system in place provides funding for a first-class delivery

system in special-needs education. If a board decides in a particular

community that they want to spend extra money on a new program, they of

course do have the ability to go to referendum for that extra funding,

and they have the support of the taxpayers in doing that.

MS. A. HAGEN: We could get into the "rolled into the block,"

and I want to save some of that discussion for later on. But just let

me comment that it's entirely specious to say that what was rolled into

the block stayed in the block, because although what was in the block

was all totalled up.... All the districts' budgets were totalled up to

make that block. Then the ministry proceeded to redistribute it, and

didn't redistribute back to each district what in fact had been in the

original block. It proceeded to redistribute it around that very thesis

that I was talking about-bringing boards into an average.

I want to pursue this issue of special education because I think

it's extremely important, because it is a new program, because it is a

newly mandated program, because the challenge of providing an adequate

education for the children who come under a special umbrella rubric is

one of learning and trying to provide in a classroom setting for very

challenged children.

Let's look at the high-incidence low-cost group that the minister

spoke about a moment ago. This is the group of children who need some

help in schools. I think the minister said that the cap on that group

of children was something in the order of 3 percent. Now I don't know

about the minister, but I know that in many districts of the province

that level of incidence is well below the actual level of incidence of

children who need some special assistance. It may be that they need a

learning assistant; it may be that they need to have some speech

pathology; it may that they are — I think the category is — a

severe-behaviour student who needs to be in a special class for a time

where there's a child-care worker and an aide and where there's the

help of a psychologist in order to help that child learn how to modify

his or her behaviour in a way that allows him or her to work in a

classroom situation.

Those children have to be accommodated. They have to have a program

and services that will enable them to learn. Nothing is more important

than dealing with those issues on a preventive basis. One of the

minister's colleagues, the Minister of Environment, has done some work

on severely learning-disabled children and the desirability of

assessing and servicing those children early on to prevent the sense of

failure and frustration and difficulty that they have if their needs

are not met when they first come into the school system.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that without question there are in many instances

higher levels than the minister has spoken about and a desperate need on the

part of some districts — particularly districts whose block of funding has been

squeezed downward by the policies of this government — to find ways and means

of meeting the needs of those children. No question we're dealing with a

block, but that block gets allocated in a lot of ways within a school district,

and there are services and programs that are more costly than others but are

extremely important to have available, particularly as we identify children

with needs and begin to work with providing them with the support and services

necessary to enable them to learn, to enable them to overcome any of the challenges

that are a part of their physical or mental or social or emotional beings. I

believe that what is happening in our system is that the ministry is failing

to recognize the extent of that and failing to accommodate and provide the flexibility

that boards need to have in order for those services to be delivered.

Let me stress again that if we are going to mandate the integration

of students, and if we're going to look at prevention and providing for

the needs of all students according to their potential, then one of the

most important things for us to do is to ensure that boards have those

resources. Indeed, those should be resources that are a part of the

block. They should not be something that we have to go to referendum

on. Because remember, referenda are for one year. The board has to go

back next year and ask for the same resources to be approved by the

taxpayer and then back the next year to ask again for the same

resources, even if the needs remain the same.

So the minister is fudging. He's suggesting that all of the

resources are there. He's suggesting that he does not acknowledge that

there are difficulties in the system. I would hope that he would

frankly acknowledge that there are some problems with this new funding

system and with providing the level of service that is consistent with

the needs of children, and then make some commitments about how he

would seek to deal with that.

I recognize what he said about demands on government, but there's

nothing more important in the role government fills than meeting the

needs of special education children and those people providing

services. I believe those needs are not being adequately met at this

time.

HON. S. HAGEN: Let me remind the member opposite that this

government has increased funding to education in the K to 12 system

over the last four years by 39.6 percent, while the cost of living in

British Columbia has gone up 17.6. If that isn't a commitment to

funding in education, I don't know what is.

At the same time as we are recognized as a province having one of

the best funding levels for special education in the entire country, we

are one of the few provinces that has learning assistance programs as

well as all other special education categories. The number of specialty

education kids with severe learning disabilities in our province is

very similar to everyone else.

As I stated previously, we have also increased the funding in this

category, on the advice of the superintendents' association and the

secretary-treasurers' as-

[ Page

12507 ]

sociation, from 3.25 percent last year to 3.6 percent this year.

This year boards hired 700 teachers to reduce their pupil-teacher

ratio, which was a choice they made. If you're telling me that the

board should be able to make all the choices they make and disregard

the needs of special-needs students and then the government should come

in afterwards and bail them out, then you are very wrong.

If there is a problem with boards funding special ed or any other

programs, there's only one reason, and that is that the collective

agreements they have arrived at with their trade unions are more than

they can afford. I'm reading some comments made here a couple of months

ago where one of the radio broadcasters in Vancouver asked the

question: "Can you afford to pay teachers 7 percent in a time of

declining revenue?" The answer was: "Well, you can't." The person who

said that was the leader of the official opposition. Apparently he also

agrees the boards can't afford to pay 7 percent.

[3:30]

It wouldn't be bad if we were only talking about 7 percent, but when

you look at all other contractual arrangements made, the cost in one

year to the education budget in British Columbia varies between 9 and

13 percent, depending on which district you're looking at. With a

one-year cost impact on those negotiated settlements of between 9 to 13

percent, while our economy is growing somewhere between minus 1 and

plus 1 percent, depending on which economist you talk to, it doesn't

take a rocket scientist to figure out the system is not sustainable on

that basis.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

While you're sitting there saying that the government isn't putting

enough money into this particular program or that particular program,

what we're saying is that increasing funding over the last four years

to education by almost 40 percent is acceptable to any taxpayer out

there who is looking at his or her tax notice and paying taxes every

year.

Sure, everyone is concerned about education. I'm concerned about

education, and you're concerned about education. But there isn't a

bottomless pit of money. When you look at the results of the education

system, which is what I'm interested in.... I'm not in a spending

contest with other Ministers of Education from across this country. The

trick is not to see who can spend the most money. The challenge is to

see whether or not when the students graduate from grade 12, they're

ready to proceed into the next stage of their life.

We're doing some fine things in education. For instance, there is a

report in the media today about the Euclid Mathematics Contest. I think

that parents and students can be very proud of these results. It stated

that 20 students from British Columbia were among the top 50 out of a

total of 9, 400 who competed. I think that's something to be very proud

of. Not only that, 24 British Columbia schools placed among the top 50.

In the country out of 1,000 schools. I think we've got a lot to be

proud of.

I understand that your job is to be the critic of the Minister of

Education of the province, and I encourage you to go your best lick.

But you can't argue results like this. You can't argue the results that

I've seen as I travel around the province to speak to graduation

classes, to meet graduating students and to talk to students. I'm not

saying the system is perfect; we have some improvements that can be

made. We're working on them, and we'll make those improvements. But you

can't argue success.

MS. CULL: I think it's interesting that the minister points

to the students who are achieving at the top end of the scale.

Certainly we're proud of those students, and we're very pleased to have

such good results in British Columbia. I'm pleased to notice that both

of the top two schools in B.C. are in my riding.

But we're not talking about those students who will go through the

system and who will probably shine in any event; we're talking about

the special-needs students who need assistance just to be able to

participate in the system to even get through to graduate. While we

recognize that all students have needs and those needs have to be

addressed, I think that when we're talking about the students that my

colleague from New Westminster has been talking about, we're talking

about a very special category.

I would like to ask the minister what school districts are expected

to do when their incidence of a particular special education population

exceeds 3.6 percent. What is the expectation of the ministry in that

situation?

HON. S. HAGEN: By the way, I have the "red book" now, so

whenever you're ready to ask me specific questions on the red book,

this gives the answers. It's a manual of policies, procedures and

guidelines. I understand it's very well laid out and has very specific

details and guidelines on a number of programs, which are listed: the

moderately mentally handicapped, severely and profoundly mentally

handicapped, physically handicapped — the whole list of them here. They

have guidelines for each of those. If you want to ask specifically for

the guidelines, please do.

With regard to the question on school districts that had a higher

percentage than 3.6 percent, this is an average, I agree. It's an

average of all the districts. If there are specific boards that have a

higher percentage than that, then they will have to find that money in

their budget.

MS. CULL: That's precisely the problem, Mr. Chair. The

minister says that a district that has a higher incidence than 3.6

percent must take money from somewhere else in its budget, from perhaps

these students that he was talking so proudly about a few minutes ago —

the ones that are excelling in the mathematics competition — and from

average students in the classroom. That creates a very difficult

situation for school districts that do have more than that magical

average number of 3.6 percent — districts like greater Victoria that

have a higher incidence because of the services that are available here

to those families outside the school system. Whether it is specialized

health services or counselling services, the metropolitan areas

[ Page 12508 ]

of the province, particularly the larger cities, do attract families because of their services.

Those school districts have a larger than average percent. The

school districts in which that occurs are faced with a couple of very

difficult choices. I don't think any of them are really acceptable.

They can do what that did in the past in greater Victoria for children

requiring special education in the severe behaviour category: put them

on a waiting-list and tell the family and the child that they can wait

until a space has become available in one of the classes because only

3.6 percent is actually funded. I don't think that's acceptable. They

can go into their budget and cut from other students and reduce the

money that is available through regular programs. I don't think that's

acceptable either. That pits one class of parents against another.

We've seen enough parents being really concerned that the child who

isn't exceptionally bright and doesn't have a disability is somehow

getting lost in the overall system through this way of assigning

funding to districts.

The other choice that used to be available to school districts was

to use the supplementary budget and to make statements and political

decisions about the value of special education and about the value of

providing for the needs of all students adequately in their district,

and then see whether the taxpayers of that community were willing to

support them. That's what my colleague mentioned when she talked about

the supplemental budgets that used to exist. The block funding

recognized all the supplemental budgets. Implicit in that was a

recognition that districts like greater Victoria were providing a level

of service that was needed at that time. It included the regular

funding up to 3.25 percent — or whatever the minister said used to be

in effect — plus additional moneys that people in this community said

they were willing to pay as part of the cost of education. That was

recognized in the block funding.

Now that block funding is being redistributed. The supplementary

budgets are being redistributed in such a way that that money is no

longer available to school districts like Victoria. You're telling

those school districts that because this cap has been set at 3.6

percent, they should look elsewhere in their budget. That's the answer:

go and cut — I don't know; what are we going to cut? — music programs,

physical education programs or maybe.... What unfortunately seems to be

happening — going back to these top students — is cutting the programs

to those special-education students who are at the top end of the scale

and need additional resources or programming to assist them to excel,

because children who are gifted in our school system can also be seen

to have a handicap, in a way.

I don't think it's acceptable, Mr. Minister, to say there's an

average in the province. I would like to know what statistics this ministry

has with respect to the average. What is the range? What kinds of figures are

you keeping on the incidence of these programs throughout British Columbia?

How far do they extend on each side from 3.6? I would like to hear some answers

to those questions.

HON. S. HAGEN: As usual, the members of the opposition take

quantum leaps, move from issue to issue and expand on an issue when it

isn't really the case.

Let me remind the member opposite that out of the over 20 categories

of special-education students, we're talking about three categories

that are capped. In the Victoria school district, for instance, we have

additional funding for those categories. One is the program like the

Victoria hospital program, the Eric Martin program or the Queen

Alexandra Hospital program, which are provincial special-resource

programs.

That is in addition to the funding under the block and the

special-education funding under the block; it's in addition to all of

the special-ed funding that we provide.

So let's not go running off and talking about capping of

special-needs students when you know that the only three that have any

sort of cap on them are the three I talked about previously: the severe

learning-disabled, the severe behavioural and the rehabilitation

program. Those are the only ones that are limited; the rest we fund on

the reported-number basis. You might find these figures interesting

specifically with regard to the Greater Victoria School District.

The special funding that we provide to special programs and learning

assistance.... We funded $3,547,458 for the last fiscal year. The

amount the school board had in their budget was $2,903,905, so the

Victoria school board in fact received half a million dollars more from

the government than they spent on learning assistance programs. In this

fiscal year the money provided by the ministry in special programs for

learning assistance is just under $3.4 million, and the budget the

board has is $2.9 million. So again this year, the board is provided

with half a million dollars more than they have budgeted for learning

assistance.

[3:45]

MS. CULL: Mr. Chairman, one of the most frustrating things in

dealing with this minister is the way he selectively uses statistics to

argue these situations. He talks about the amount of money allocated by

the ministry and the amount that's budgeted, and this minister knows

full well that because of the almost crisis situation that his ministry

has left many districts in, this school district has not yet finalized

its budget. It still has $2.3 million to cut from its budget, and it is

waiting for the decision from Mr. Lien before it makes any further

decisions along that line. But even with the cuts that they have made

to date, they are still funding special education at or beyond all of

the standards that the ministry has established. There are more

children in special education in this district than the ministry funds

them for.

Your own figures are very interesting. Last year, $3.547 million;

this year, somewhat less. Has the number of students decreased? Has the

cost of education decreased? Why is less money being allocated this

year? Certainly it's not because there are fewer students who require

these kinds of services. I find this extremely frustrating.

The minister talks about the fact that we start off talking about a capped program and get into all kinds

[ Page

12509 ]

of other issues. I want to say to the minister that these issues are

linked. They are complicated, and they are tied to one another. The

funding that is received under the capped program affects the funding

that is received and spent on special-education students throughout all

of the programs.

He mentions the funding that's available through the Queen Alexandra

Hospital, the provincial resource program and a number of others. The

cap still applies to the students who are not funded through that

program, and the students who are right there in the district exceed

that 3.6 percent. The minister still hasn't answered where that money

is going to come from, except from other students. The examples that he

gives of what is allocated and what is spent perhaps is an indication

of what a district has to do to keep constantly juggling the figures so

that it can meet the needs of its students.

I still haven't heard any answer from the minister as to what

figures the ministry has on the incidence of special-needs students

within the district. Do you have those figures for any of the

districts? Do you have the range, or do you know what...?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, I'd like to correct the member

in a statement she made. She made the statement that the Victoria

school board has not yet finalized its budget. May I remind her that

they must finalize the budget and have in fact passed a bylaw that

says, by law, they have finalized their budget. They have submitted it

to the ministry according to the act. If they had not done that, they

would have been in violation of the act.

I'd like to just give the member some additional facts that she may

find interesting. This is from the Greater Victoria School District,

School District 61. The moneys provided for special health services by

the government from the taxpayer, $899,544; the amount of money

budgeted by the Greater Victoria School District, $714, 280. The amount

provided by the taxpayer through the government for high-incidence

low-cost students, $7.5 million; the amount budget by the Greater

Victoria School District, $7.2 million. The amount provided by the

taxpayer through the government for low-incidence high-cost students is

$3.1 million. So if you look at those, you can see that the money

provided by the government to the Victoria school board is higher than

what they've actually budgeted, and they're the ones who set the budget

figure for the special-ed expenditures.

MS. CULL: If the minister adds up all of the

special-education programs, instead of just selecting those ones there,

he will find that those figures don't jibe.

HON. S. HAGEN: With all due respect, you talk about being

selective and you picked three programs out of over 20. So don't accuse

me of being selective.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think one of the things that we need to

remember here is that we are looking at a block of funds and we are

looking at boards seeking ways to achieve a quality education in each

of their districts.

I want to ask the minister a couple of global questions. Last year,

from the government's own records, I have a figure of $228.7 million

for special education under the various categories that the minister

has been talking about. I want to ask him if that figure was set at the

time that budgets and the estimates were developed or whether that

figure was changed over the year because of increased incidence. So

last year the amount available, according to the government's records,

for special education was $228.7 million. If, as the minister has

stated, we are dealing with actual incidence of students in school

districts, with certain dollars allocated for each of those students,

it would seem that that figure might in fact be variable. This might be

the figure we started with; it might be the figure we ended with. I

want to have some idea of what that figure represents in terms of the

government's support of special education.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to inform the member that I was

able to go back to Treasury Board and get an extra $14 per student,

which is a $7 million increase to the amount that she spoke of for last

year. This year I got $28 a student, which is an additional $14 to the

block.

MS. A. HAGEN: Was that $14 a student based on the demand for

service? Was it in fact an upgrading of the level of funding based on

there being more students than perhaps had first been estimated by the

ministry when the $228.7 million was established?

HON. S. HAGEN: That amount was established to meet the needs of the districts as they established them under the guidelines.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let's turn to some of the guidelines for a

moment. I note in this year's program that there has been some

adjustment in categories. Although there are no dollars going with the

special-education program, the minister has noted that the total amount

intended to be spent is $255 million.

I am interested to have the minister comment on the omission of the

category "gifted" from the 1991-92 program. Does this mean that there

are no funds in this year's special — education budget for gifted

children? If there are such funds, where might we find them, if they're

not in the list of categories that are to receive funds under this

particular budget item?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to refer the member for New Westminster to the fiscal framework program 1.32, entitled "Gifted."

MS. A. HAGEN: I note that in the document I'm working with

that category is not listed, but the minister is assuring me that there

is still such a category under special education for gifted children.

The document I'm referring to — it's not sourced — is called Fiscal

Framework: Special Education

Summary, and it may, in fact, not be a

document of your ministry. I did want to be reassured that gifted

children are still in the special-education category, and I take it

that the minister has assured us of that.

[ Page 12510 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, this is the fiscal framework and service

levels document, the official one from my ministry. I can only assume

that you got your document from a reliable government source.

MS. A. HAGEN: Regrettably, even ministry documents come

sometimes without the necessary attribution, and I don't know whether

they're coming from the ministry and are reliable or not. I remember

commenting on that earlier in the House, when we would sometimes get

things from ministries with neither date nor attribution. I knew they

came from the ministry, because they came in a ministry envelope and

I'd asked for them. However, we won't belabour that. I did want to

reassure myself that there wasn't an exclusion of that category,

because that would really be upsetting.

There's a new addition that I'd just like to make note of: job

training. The minister might want to comment on whether there is a new

emphasis on job training for special education. It seems to be more and

more an aspect that the ministry is dealing with.

Before I sit down, let me ask another couple of questions. I'm also

perceiving that there's a very extensive increase in testing programs

for special needs categories, and I wonder what the ministry is trying

to get at there. Are there some new initiatives in special education

which may be producing costs for school districts for student testing,

developing district tests and utilization of evaluation and student

assessment data? There is a whole range of categories here that would

suggest an emphasis on testing, and I want the minister to give us some

indication of what's going on in that regard.

HON. S. HAGEN: I really hope the member for New Westminster

stays on this for a while, because it gives us a chance to talk about

the fiscal framework and the extra programs and extra funding. We

talked earlier about funding. This year, for the severely

learning-disabled and the mildly mentally handicapped — severe

behaviour rehabilitation — we are providing extra funding for job

training as an additional part of that. In the low-incidence high-cost

— the moderately mentally handicapped, severely handicapped, physically

handicapped, visually impaired, hearing-impaired and autistic — we are

also providing, under a new category, additional money for job training

in those areas. I happen to think that's a very good and important

move, which I'm sure will be appreciated by young students who fall

into those categories.

[4:00]

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps the minister will comment a bit later on the emphasis on testing.

Still on this whole matter of special education, I want to turn now to a couple

of categories. There are so many that we might speak of, Mr. Chairman, but,

as I'm sure occurs with the minister at various times, we have opportunities

to talk with groups of people who are working towards ensuring that children

with special challenges receive the quality of education that will enable them

to be the best they can be in terms of their educational and life goals.

One of these groups is a group of visually impaired children who

until, I guess, about ten years ago might have been educated at

Jericho. I think it was around 1978 that the program at Jericho ceased

to provide for children with visual impairments. This is a relatively

small group of children in the total number of special education

children, but there are increasing numbers of these children and

increasing challenges in providing for their needs. I know, for

example, that as a result of advances in medical procedures, preemie

babies may very well come out of that very difficult early time in

their lives with visual impairments — some of them with absolute

impairments and some of them with ones that certainly do cause

difficulty.

When we're looking at these children, very often we're also looking

at children who have other handicaps as well, especially if they're

coming out of birth traumas that complicate their early lives. It's my

understanding that there are probably about 50 Braille reading children

in the province and about 450 youngsters who have visual impairments

that may be combined with other handicaps. There are real concerns

about the kind of services available for these children.

We were talking earlier about trying to bring this discussion about

special needs down to the needs of special children. I want to spend a

moment now just describing a special child whose mother spent some time

with me this week and has taken a very strong advocacy role for

visually impaired students on behalf of AVIS, the organization that

works for that group. The child we're speaking of is about nine. She is

a Braille child. She has an itinerant teacher for one hour a day who

teaches her to read and communicate through her Braille skills. Because

of her needs, she has full-time aide available to her for the rest of

the day.

But, Mr. Chairman, that aide is not able to use Braille, although

she has managed to acquire a modest amount of Braille skills. So that

student, during the rest of the day when she's integrated into a

regular classroom, is in many instances not fully integrated and not

able to participate fully in the education program taking place in her

classroom.

In the listing of dollars that follow "child," the minister noted

approximately $13,000 for a visually impaired child, which this young

girl certainly is. That $13,000 has to provide, within her school

district, a 20 percent — one hour out of five — itinerant teacher and a

full-time aide. It also has to provide for the training of her teacher

to assist in providing special services for that girl, and the

training, too, of her special aide. It has to provide for equipment

that this young lady may require: a reading machine, perhaps a

typewriter, perhaps a computer, perhaps a Braille computer, perhaps a

voice synthesizer — a variety of equipment to enable her to fully

participate.

It doesn't take much of an imagination to say that in order for this

youngster to get a good start, she probably needs more dollars. The

interesting thing about this little girl is that once she gets those

skills, once she becomes a proficient Braille reader, once she learns

how to function within her integrated classroom, she should — and will

— grow in independence, with, perhaps, less demand for special

resources. We know that people can eventually manage to work

[ Page

12511 ]

because they have acquired those skills. But the important thing is

that she have the resources available to her during the early days of

her schooling. For this little girl that kind of resource is clearly

not available.

It's really manifest in the outcomes of a lot of the visually

impaired students who are now integrated into our education system.

It's my understanding that approximately 80 percent of blind children

getting their K to 12 education in Jericho Hill School were going on to

university. That says a lot for the calibre of education they received

— education from trained personnel, where there was equipment, where

there were resources available to ensure that those youngsters were

able to achieve at their very highest level.

The figure now — since Jericho is no more and these children are

being educated within the public school system — says that only 20

percent of them are going on to university. That tells us that in many

instances these children are not getting — particularly in their early

days of schooling — the kind of skilled, one-on-one, highly technical

education and supportive education that they need to become more

independent and to be able to achieve to the maximum of their

intellectual and emotional capacity.

There is a real concern on the part of this group of parents — and

it simply mirrors the concern of many parents of special-needs children

— that those fundamental resources are not available at critical times

to provide for their children to move as completely and effectively

through the system as we would all like.

It's really upsetting to hear a parent say that in spite of the work

of teachers, in spite of the commitment of teachers, in spite of the

support of an aide who is doing her best, this youngster is really

marking time for a good deal of her school day — that there's a concern

that she's falling behind, and that once she falls behind it will be

the harder for her to keep up.

This is a challenged little girl, a little girl who has a lot of

strikes against her, a little girl who has a very supportive mother who

has herself learned Braille and can accommodate some of the lack within

the system. But this real-life story of a little girl who has a very

significant learning deficit by virtue of not being able to see tells

us of the kinds of challenges facing school districts. They have to

provide over and above the level of funding you have just acknowledged.

Is the level of funding in the block for a little girl like this? That

is very short-sighted. That is putting school boards in a very

difficult situation. They have to decide how they can provide at least

the basic service knowing it is not meeting the needs of a child like

the one just described. Those are the problems faced by school

districts over and over again as they struggle to meet the needs of

these children.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In terms of training for the people who work with the visually impaired, it's

interesting that much of the training has been stimulated by a parent organization.

The ministry is getting more involved. But they have actually had to fund-raise;

they've actually put on programs and advertised them in order to provide

opportunities for teachers and aides to be more aware of the needs of the visually

impaired child and more able to provide for those needs. Good for them. But

those initiatives have to come from the ministry, in terms of funding to school

districts, so that school districts can put on those programs. They should be

part of a larger budget the ministry has available to provide for that specialized

training on a global basis.

Perhaps the minister, having now had a concrete story — and we've

been talking more in terms of global budgets — would care to comment

about circumstances where boards are not, with the funding being made

available, able to provide the quality and level of service so

essential for a little girl like this nine-year-old who needs the kind

of start that will enable her to go on to university or be well

prepared for a job, whatever she should choose to be when she leaves

school.

HON. S. HAGEN: Again, I'm afraid I have to say that my critic

opposite is incorrect in her assessment of the programs and services we

provide as a government and as a ministry. I too met with the

individuals from AVIS, the Association for Visually Impaired Students,

and found, again, that British Columbia is far ahead of any other

province in the country. For the member for New Westminster to compare

the services available at Jericho with the services that are available

now.... They are totally different. There has been a 1,000 percent — or

maybe a 2,000 percent — improvement.

I want to list the special programs for visually impaired students.

By the way, Jericho, as you know, was primarily for deaf students. A

small group of visually impaired students were shuffled off to the

side, and they certainly did not have the facilities and assets now

provided. There are approximately 450 visually impaired students in the

province. We have the special-service level in the fiscal framework,

which for the visually impaired includes a 0.5 special-teaching unit

plus a 0.5 teaching assistant unit for each of the first four students

in a district; plus for each of the next eight students a 0.25

special-teaching unit plus a 0,5 teacher assistant unit; plus for each

of the remaining students a 0.125 special- teaching unit plus a one

third teaching assistant unit. In addition, we have the Provincial

Resource Centre for the Visually Impaired, where they can obtain

Braille books and special equipment, such as an optigon.

There is also a special capital allowance to districts of $2,000 per

student. We have the SETBC centre, Special Education Technology of

B.C., which is a leader in Canada for special computer adaptation. We

provide additional funds for orientation and mobility training through

the CNIB. We fund that as a province. We also fund the University of

British Columbia course on Braille teaching.

[4:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister makes my point. Many of these

students are single students in a classroom, and I'm not quite sure

what 1.25 of a teaching unit does for that child in a classroom of

another 20 or 25 "normal" students. If we're looking at the needs,

we're looking at full-time people very often being required.

[ Page 12512 ]

As far as the technological amount of $2,000, I gather that's a

one-time amount for a student. If it's an annual amount, then I think

that is probably a figure. But I understand that's not an annual

amount; it's just an amount that goes with the student over his or her

schooling life.

There's no question that the minister is proud of the work that's

going on in the province. We are asking questions because we are

concerned about making certain that if we are integrating students into

the system, they are getting the services they require.

I want to move into one other area. I know that some of my

colleagues are eager to get into a discussion on some issues that are

of importance in their ridings or in their critic areas. I want to look

for just a moment at the very severely disabled person, the person who

I think the ministry calls "low-incidence, high-cost." There are not

that many of these children within our school system. Because their

needs are multiple and very often involve health, there's a very

extensive protocol. We spent a little bit of time talking about that

this morning.

It's rather interesting to look at the service-delivery model that

has been developed in a protocol I received from the ministry on school

support for special-needs students, which is co-signed by the Deputy

Ministers of Education and Health. One of the points I've been making

off and on in this discussion on special-needs is that very often the

classroom teacher, the person who has to try to develop an appropriate

educational program for a student, and the special assistant who works

with that student — very often one-on-one or maybe a little less in

terms of time — are not getting the resources and help that they need.

Nothing could demonstrate that better than this service-delivery

model. I wish we could hold it up so that people could see it. If I

could just have people try to visualize this — I will hold it up —

there are two sectors. One relates to the school: the parent, the

school, the teacher, the teaching assistant and the student.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, to interrupt you, but it's verboten to use....

MS. A. HAGEN: I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate

your advice, but I was being prompted by the Minister of Education.

Both of us were....

At any rate, I can use my hands. One side deals with the school,

another side deals with the health system, and in the middle there is a

school health team. Presumably that school health team is going to make

the liaison between the school district and the kid in the classroom

and the health team that's supporting this youngster.

The kinds of support that we're looking at are pretty extensive, and

I want to name some of them. I think most of us — if we were untrained

assistants or teacher-trained to teach reading, writing, arithmetic,

geography, phys ed and all that sort of thing — would be somewhat

intimidated by the challenge of providing for these health needs.

Here are some of the needs that we're talking about of children in classrooms.

This is something called level 2, and these are the skills that people have

to have in working with these children: assisting with ambulation, transferring

and positioning — these are people in wheelchairs, who may not have the ability

to use their limbs and who may be spastic; exercise programs; application of

splints and braces; oral feeding when precautions are required — such as against

choking; emptying, changing and cleaning urinary drainage bags; chest care;

postural drainage; administration of respiratory aerosols; bladder catheterization,

using clean technique; management of frequent and severe seizures; administration

of medication; monitoring of medication pumps; gastrostomy care, feeding; nasogastric

tube care, feeding; installation of eye drops.

Those are all services that paraprofessionals can be trained to

deliver. Those are the kinds of services that we are now asking

ordinary folk, who are aides in classrooms, to deliver to special-needs

children in classrooms: pretty difficult and challenging training, and

pretty difficult activities. It gives us some idea, just thinking about

those things, of the needs of children who are now in regular

classrooms in Victoria, New Westminster, Comox or Vancouver centre. The

interesting thing about the model that has been devised by bureaucrats

— who like to develop models that tell us how things are going to work

— is that the school health team has a link to the school principal,

but there's nothing to suggest that the school health team has a link

to the teacher assistant or the teacher — the two people who need to

have the support, training and knowledge to provide for those

special-education services.

A few minutes ago the minister was talking about the issue of class

size. But when you have students with these needs in a classroom — and

you might have a couple or even three of them — the demands on a

teacher or an assistant are great. It's really important for us to

recognize that these are changes that have been mandated by government,

and which must be supported with dollars, with support for teachers and

teacher assistants and with genuine integration in the classroom.

I guess my point — and I want to wrap up on this discussion very

soon — is that we still have a long way to go. My point is that

districts are struggling with the training, education and funding needs

that go along with providing for these children. More and more children

— and we're going to talk about them in the course of our estimates —

may not have the label "special-needs" and may not be categorized with

identifiable needs but still have real needs because of their social,

economic or family backgrounds. People who come here as immigrants have

had traumatic experiences. Children in difficult homes come with the

overburden of trying to sort out in their young lives what's going on

at home and how they can learn effectively.

We've been concentrating on the special-education category. The

point that I've been making throughout our discussion over the last

little bit of time is that although much has been accomplished — and we

don't want to fail to give credit for how much has been accomplished —

there are real problems. I'd be much happier if the minister, instead

of being just the booster

[ Page

12513 ]

— and I know that comes naturally to him and that he does quite well

with a smile.... He's actually modelling it across the floor.

I'd be much happier if he were prepared to acknowledge some of those

challenges, so that in this debate we could have some discussion about

those challenges. The districts that don't have a forum here, who are

not part of this discussion, unfortunately, and can't be here to state

their case, which they know very well, would have acknowledged some of

the trials and tribulations which they're experiencing on the ground.

A few moments ago the minister acknowledged the work of teachers —

and I believe implicitly in that — and of aides. He says he has never

heard from a teacher or an aide about the great challenge of providing

an educational program for these students. I'm surprised. I walk down

my street in New Westminster and have discussions with the women who

work as aides in those programs. I meet with teachers, and they talk

about the challenges. I talk to parents who are committed to

integration and mainstreaming, but they talk about this being an idea

in name because we have not really managed to work out a lot of the

challenges that truly go with integration. We ask questions, too, that

we must ask about how to provide the best education for these children.

Is it best to have them in a classroom full-time? Are there other

programs that we should be considering?

I would like to hear a minister of education who, instead of just

saying that there's lots of money there, there are no problems and it's

just a question of districts managing their money, acknowledges that a

program of this magnitude is creating difficulties, that there are

shortfalls, and that districts are experiencing difficulties. Such an

acknowledgement would enhance his stature as a minister, because it

would reflect the reality out there.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of taking the advice

of an opposition member on enhancing my stature, I'd like to make a few

comments. It disturbs me when I hear my opposition critic referring to

only one group of kids as special. We believe — and I believe as the

minister — that all kids in the system are special. Every student out

there — 531,000-odd of them — are special. Every one of them has a

need. Some of them have different needs, but certainly all kids are

special. That's how I look at them, and that's how I expect school

boards to look upon the students they are responsible for in their

districts.

The comments made by the opposition critic were taken from the

protocol agreement under the heading "Health," and questions on that

point should be raised with the Health minister during his estimates.

But I want to make the point that the guidelines in those protocol

agreements are broad. Some of the details that she is talking about are

worked out every day by the professionals, who sit down at the table

with the parents, the teacher, the aide, and say: "Let's discuss this

child's progress. What else can we do to help?" That's the basis on

which the guidelines are developed. We want to give the professionals

the ability to work within those guidelines and not restrict them.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to respond to a question that was

really glossed over by the member for New Westminster. It was about

standards and accountability. This is not something that I, as

minister, want to gloss over, because I take it very seriously. I

believe that the people of British Columbia take this subject very

seriously and that the parents certainly take it very seriously I want

to refer to some of the suggestions that came out of the Sullivan royal

commission report and to some of the steps we are taking as a ministry

to ensure that there are standards and accountability in the system.

We now have provincewide examinations for all grade 12 students. We

have a school accreditation process through which schools must provide

evidence of the performance of their students and publish plans to

improve service delivery. There are new and more frequent report cards,

which describe what the student is capable of doing, in addition to

assigning letter grades.

[4:30]

The Ministry of Education's annual report, which has been

complimented by many jurisdictions as being the best educational report

they have ever seen, provides clear evidence of student and system

performance. Each school board is required to prepare an annual report

outlining the quality of education programs being offered in the

district, generally using the ministry's guidelines as a model.

There is the development, through the ministry, of indicators of

quality for B.C. students. We participate in a national assessment

program, the national school achievement indicators project and

literacy and numeracy testing program — which I know my colleague the

former Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology wants to

talk about. But I want the people of British Columbia to understand

that every province in Canada except Ontario is participating in this

program. Far be it from me to be political during these discussions —

and I apologize to people who might see it as a political statement —

but it's interesting to me that prior to the NDP being elected in

Ontario, Ontario was part of this national program to test literacy and

numeracy skills for students across the country. The program will allow

us to start looking at national standards, something that people across

the country are asking for. Ontario withdrew from the process. But I

know my colleague will want to speak shortly about participating in and

reporting results of international assessments.

I just talked about the very successful results of our young people

in the province with regard to the Euclid math tests, which we can all

be proud of. Parents should be very proud; taxpayers should be proud;

we can all be proud of that.

For the first time, the School Act provides for the parent advisory

councils, which guarantee the ability of parents to participate in

determining their children's education programs. The School Act also

provides for an appeal process for parents and students to appeal

decisions of school board employees. We also have the establishment of

a policy standards and communications department within the ministry,

which has as a major objective the setting of program and operating

[ Page 12514 ]

standards towards which many students, the ministry and the system

must strive. So yes, standards and accountability are key. They're

very, very important.

I wonder now if possibly my colleague who served in the role of

Advanced Education minister might want to make a few additional

comments on the school achievement indicators program that this

province is participating in, takes very seriously and is contributing

towards.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I do appreciate the entrée afforded to me

by the Minister of Education, and as the minister indicated earlier in

his comments, I do want to talk about this, having sat on the Council

of Ministers of Education as the Minister of Advanced Education. My

colleague is now the chair of the council, and I guess our colleague

from the Central Fraser Valley is now the vice-chair of the

post-secondary side, because I think it goes by provinces.

A lot of credit has to go to the development of the school

achievement indicators program as formulated by a group of hard-working

ministers and hard-working staff of the Council of Ministers of

Education (Canada). The work began some years ago. As a matter of fact,

our colleague from North Peace River was involved in that in a very

large way, along with one of the outstanding Education ministers of our

time in Canada, Claude Ryan, from the province of Quebec.

What this school achievement indicators program was designed to do

was to test numeracy and literacy skills for 13-year-olds and

15-year-olds across Canada — a pan-Canadian snapshot of all

13-year-olds so we could, as provincial jurisdictions, understand how

our students were doing. The wisdom of not saying grade 8 or grade 7

but in fact all 13-year-olds was to test them at that age of maturity,

recognizing that there would be many differences in their level of

numeracy and literacy skills, but nevertheless to get a good snapshot

of that age group and how the various provinces and jurisdictions were

doing in terms of the learning outcomes in literacy and numeracy.

A very dedicated group of individuals — ministers and staff — worked

on this for some time. The province of Quebec was putting together the

French-language literacy program that would apply, of course, in the

French-speaking schools in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia as well as

Newfoundland — all the French-speaking school districts and school

boards and schools. The province of Alberta had taken on the

very diligently on this.

It's interesting in terms of Confederation and our quest for national unity

that the Quebec participation in this school achievement indicators program

is currently the only program the province of Quebec is involved in on a Canadian

basis. They felt it was that important that they had made the obligation to

their development of the French language program, and they felt it was that

important to their students, the country and to the understanding of French

language education that they continued on as leaders in the French language

side on the literacy exams. Presumably, they're putting together the numeracy

exams in the French language as well.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Everything went very well until last fall when, regrettably and

tragically, the people of Ontario elected a government that really

didn't have the best interests of students at heart. This is a tragic

story, and you can read about it in the Globe and Mail every

day. It really is sad that the NDP was elected in Ontario. Totally

jerked around by the teachers' federation — that became obvious to my

colleague and me and also to the member for North Peace.

When we first met with the Ontario Minister of Education, we could

see.... As a matter of fact, I sat next to her and watched her read a

script — obviously prepared by the teachers' federation — in presenting

her argument, when she said that Ontario would not participate in the

school achievement indicators program. Those of us at the table who had

worked so hard on this, and the ministers who had worked before us,

were shocked to hear of Ontario's position on this, because it really

was a total sellout of the education system in Ontario to the teachers'

federation, to big labour and to the big vested interested in

education. There was absolutely no regard whatsoever for the students

of Ontario or for the hard and diligent work that had been put into

this school achievement indicators program.

That's what I wanted to share with this committee today. It would be

interesting to hear the members opposite attempt to defend that. It

would also be interesting to hear what they would do if they were

government. Would they be led around by the BCTF? What is their policy?

Would they withdraw from a first-class substantial Canadian program?

Would they sell out the students of British Columbia the way the

Ontario government has sold out the students of Ontario, and literally

doom them to a second-class education? They are committed to a

second-class education in Ontario.

You can shake, smile and grin and try to duck, weave and dance away

from that one, but, in fact, they have committed their students to a

certifiably, verifiably second-class education in Ontario. You can

smile all you want, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, but it's true. Big

labour dominated in Ontario at the expense of the Ontario students.

It's clear....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. As my colleague said, it'll go with their second-class economy.

It's going to be interesting to hear the New Democrats opposite try

to defend the despicable move by the NDP government and the way they

have sold out their schoolchildren and their education system. It's

going to be interesting to see if they have the courage to say they

endorse the NDP policy in Ontario or if they would stay with the rest

of Canada in terms of the school achievement indicators program.

[ Page

12515 ]

It's going to be interesting, as well, to understand if this Ontario

position came from the B.C. transition team which visited the province

in the fall of 1990. Some of the members say it didn't happen, yet the

Leader of the Opposition says it did happen. I think we'll accept the

word of the Leader of the Opposition. He seems like a reasonably

truthful fellow most of the time — all of the time, Mr. Chairman. We

have to presume that the New Democrats in British Columbia did send

their transition team to Ontario to, among other things, help them ruin

the economy, but more importantly for this debate, to shoot down this

excellent school achievement indicators program and really commit

Ontario's schoolchildren to a second-class education. It's a profound

change in policy and really a despicable and very poor move. With that

said, I'll take my place and expect the members opposite to talk about

that indicators program and advise us whether or not they would

continue that NDP Ontario policy

MS. A. HAGEN: It's interesting that the government is now

talking about a policy that we're hearing about for the first time.

There has been no information about this program in any of the

minister's publications or statements. The public doesn't know anything

about this program, and now at this stage of the game, the two

ministers are taking an opportunity to talk about another jurisdiction.

I think the people of British Columbia would welcome an opportunity

to know about this program and to have the details out there so they

could make some judgment about it. Since this is not something this

government has brought to the fore as a public policy debate at this

stage of the game, I think that the government has its own act to look

after. Let's recognize that the government has failed once again, in a

matter of important public policy, to bring this out into the public

domain. There has been no mention of it in this House until this

moment. Bring it out into the public domain; let us have the

documentation.

I would note, Mr. Chairman, that in the last two or three days I

have made a request to get some of this material. It hasn't come from

this government to me as the opposition critic; I've had to request it.

They've been holding this under a barrel and not allowing it to see the

light of day or to have a public debate so we, as the public, can make

a decision.

At some point, if they want to provide us with all of the background

for this, it would be useful to have a debate. This government has

failed once again, on a matter of important public policy, to inform

the public about its intentions or its ideas. Now it stands up and

tries once again to be the government of another jurisdiction. I'm much

more interested in them being the government of this jurisdiction. I

know that my colleague from Vancouver East, who has a lot of issues

related to his riding and to the very special children in his riding,

has some comments and contributions to make in this debate at this time.

[4:45]

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, I can see we hit another nerve. You can always

tell when we hit a nerve, because all of a sudden the members opposite wake

up, and there are lots of catcalls. I think the critic from New Westminster

— my old hometown, great spot; they just don't vote right yet, but they're

going to change this next election, I understand — mentioned that we haven't

made the school achievement indicators program part of our debate. There's

no debate; we support this program as a government. The people of British Columbia

want to know what you feel about it. The NDP in Ontario withdrew from the program,

as my colleague said, under pressure by the Ontario Teachers' Federation

and the Ontario Federation of Labour.

This is a very important and significant program. The member for New

Westminster said there's no information out there. Mr. Chairman, you

and the members of this House should be aware that every school

district in the province has received the school achievement indicators

kit from the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada, of which I'm

the Chair.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to send you one.

What I want to know is, and what the people of British Columbia have

a right to know, is: where does the NDP stand on this issue in British

Columbia? Do they disagree or agree with the position of the NDP in

Ontario on withdrawing from this program?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get some clarification

on whether or not the minister received a piece of correspondence about

two or three weeks ago dealing with the Studies Centre in my

constituency. I am very concerned about the future of that facility. As

the minister knows, it's a special-needs program addressing the

concerns of youngsters who have, for one reason or another, been unable

to complete their studies in the conventional sense and in the

conventional school system. This is not an unusual or irregular type of

program. It's something that is happening more and more: the need for

facilities of an outreach nature that address youngsters who have had a

pretty hard time growing up in this society.

I won't attempt to describe all the types of problems, but they run

the gamut from youngsters who have been neglected, to those who are

from broken homes or single-parent families, where they've been

sexually abused in some instances or exploited by adults in one way or

another. There are large numbers of them on the streets. They make up

part of the dropout rate of three out of ten youngsters across this

country who are dropping out of the school system. It's a very serious

problem, and I would like to get right to the point with respect to

what the government's going to do.

Maybe what I should do is give you an opportunity to respond to the specific problem at the studies centre in Vancouver Centre.

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciated the letter I got from the member

for Vancouver Centre. I also had a meeting with the Vancouver School

Board, and they raised the issue with me. I assured them at the meeting

— and you will be getting confirmation of this as an answer to your

letter — that the program is being reinstituted

[ Page 12516 ]

under the provincial resource program, so your program is secure.

MR. BARNES: Maybe you could elaborate on what that means in

terms of the tenure of the program. It's been in operation about ten

years. Apparently it was reclassified, which meant that the

Solicitor-General's ministry and the Ministry of Education did not see

it as falling under their purview. I'm not sure in what category.... How

is it being situated in terms of the budgeting in the future? Will

there be...?

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure the member opposite that as long

as there are kids in the program, the program will be funded. They have

been notified of this. All they have to do is file an application with

the Ministry of Education.

MR. BARNES: This having been one of the things that was on my

mind, I'm quite satisfied. I don't intend to be in the debate too long

at this point, but I would just like to suggest to the minister that we

have heard quite a bit about the government's awareness of the problems

of young people on the streets who are falling out of the system and

who lack a means by which they can fit into the system of developing

themselves and becoming productive young adults.

The ombudsman's report talked about some of the faults in the

interministerial network of services to young people. I know that your

government has suggested, at least in response to these difficulties,

that it would have a child and youth secretariat of some sort. That

sounds great, but judging from some of the comments made just yesterday

by the Premier, it may be more philosophic than it is happening.

Certainly there is a need — in fact, quite a critical need — to begin

to address the situation of young people who are not really effectively

being serviced and are having to fend for themselves in one way or

another, which most of them are not doing very well. What I'm concerned

about is a comprehensive strategy that deals with the fundamental needs

of young people at risk in the system and that is under the purview of

a central authority, at least to the extent that we can monitor and

effectively gauge where the problems are, so that there isn't this

bureaucratic problem of where we go next, how we refer, how we assess

and how we achieve our objective of meeting the needs of the resource

people in the community — street workers, youth workers, social workers

— who need to have resources in place to address these serious concerns.

Of course, the main problem is trying to be proactive in dealing with these

concerns. I guess this is really the main thing I want to suggest. We can't

be operating in a crisis situation. This is what's missing. The government

certainly responded. Finally, after years of prodding.... I know the former

Minister of Social Services and Housing next to you, Mr. Minister, will recall

this side of the House trying to raise the issue, for instance, of young children

hungry in the schools. We know that these young people, through no fault of

their own, are unable to learn, to comprehend and to function effectively in

classes, if they're hungry The debate in those days a few years ago was

whose responsibility it was, and we were attempting to lay the blame someplace,

perhaps on errant parents. I think this is where we failed: we were getting

into dealing with the problem or trying to suggest where the problem was or

who was at fault, instead of dealing with the fact that these young people are

paying a heavy price if they'