1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 2

[ Page 5283 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to note that we have with us today in the public galleries Prof. Don Balmer and 20 political science students from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. They have been visiting our parliament for a number of years, ever since 1957, to talk with elected members about the differences and similarities between our system and theirs. I am looking forward to meeting with them this afternoon. Would all members wish them welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: A few weeks back, a young man and his friend thought quickly and did a brave act. When there was a driver with a fatal heart attack on the Pat Bay Highway, they positioned their car to bring the other car to a safe stop. I would like the House to recognize and welcome the driver, Randy Douglas, and his friend, Chris McKenzie. I believe the father of Randy, Glen Douglas, is also in the House. I'd like to honour them with our thanks.

C. Serwa: Joining us this afternoon are a number of guests in the galleries: Mr. Chuck Wall, chief of police of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and a board director with International Crimestoppers; Capt. Dave Brown, a pilot with United Airlines who flies 747 series 400s out of Seattle to the Orient; his wife, Mrs. Delores Brown; and my inspiration, my staunchest supporter, my best friend, my wife Lois.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure for me to introduce 45 students from Hastings Junior Secondary School in my constituency, who are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wright. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Hanson: In the gallery today we have a couple of old friends of mine -- and I say old for more years than I care to remember. Mona and Ed Dede resided at one time in Vernon and now reside in Oliver. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Krog: In the gallery today is one of my constituents and good workers, known to several members of the government caucus. I'd like the House to please make welcome Steve Boggis.

G. Wilson: In the gallery today from Burnaby-Willingdon, a riding that the hon. Speaker has some familiarity with, is a longtime active Liberal who is becoming more active. Would the House please welcome Mr. Vian Andrews.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REDUCE THE EXPENDITURES OF GOVERNMENT

D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled

An Act to Reduce the Expenditures of Government.

D. Mitchell: This bill provides for a maximum of three years during which the provincial government would be required to reduce expenditures in order to achieve a balanced budget. The

schedule attached to the bill provides for specific reductions in program spending, which would ensure the achievement of a balanced budget no later than the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

The bill requires the government to reduce spending, not increase taxation, in order to meet the goals of the expenditure reduction period. Provision is made to allow spending of an emergency nature if required. However, the overall goals of the expenditure reduction period must be met within the three-year mandate of the bill. In addition, the bill charges all members of this assembly with the responsibility of offering specific advice to the Minister of Finance on program expenditure reductions without calling into question the traditional lack of confidence in the minister dictated by parliamentary practice.

This bill recognizes that given the size of the current massive structural deficit, the provincial budget cannot be balanced overnight. By providing for a maximum period of three years to achieve a balanced budget, it will enable the government to reduce spending in a controlled fashion without causing severe disruptions in the delivery of important government services.

The people of British Columbia want to see a plan for dealing with the fiscal crisis in government.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I think all members are well aware that only the purpose of the bill may be stated at this time. The bill may not be debated. Will the member please complete his remarks and move the appropriate motion.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will conclude my remarks by saying that only through the force and discipline of law can we ensure that the current operating deficit of the provincial government is reduced and eliminated. I am pleased to commend this bill to members of this House.

Bill M212 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.

AN ACT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled

An Act to Balance the Budget.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, this bill,

An Act to Balance the Budget, will come into force once a balanced budget is achieved pursuant to

An Act to Reduce the Expenditures of Government. It requires the government to balance the provincial budget each and every year thereafter. A balanced budget means that total government revenues are matched to total government expenditures. Following the coming into force of this act, the provincial government will no longer have the authority to finance the day-to-day operations of government by deficit spending.

[ Page 5284 ]

Section 2 of this bill causes the Minister of Finance to give priority to reducing government spending instead of raising taxes or introducing new taxes to provide for a balanced budget.

Section 3 provides for any annual operating surpluses to be dedicated specifically to retirement of the province's accumulated deficit.

Municipal governments in our province are required by law to balance their budgets annually. The time has now come in our province for fiscal responsibility enforced by laws of this kind. It's time for balanced-budget legislation as a first step to regaining control of our financial affairs. Once this bill comes into force we will then be able to take the next important step in the direction of addressing our massive accumulated provincial debt. I am very pleased to commend this bill to members of this House.

Bill M213 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.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, and as a reminder to all hon. members, the Speaker made a comment earlier in terms of matters not extending into debate when bills are introduced. I believe that in the last example we clearly saw a little bit of that. Perhaps hon. members could be reminded for the future that the purpose of the introduction is to state the purposes of the legislation, not to debate the legislation as the previous member just did.

The Speaker: On the point of order, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

D. Mitchell: I think the Government House Leader knows that members are given two minutes to make a brief statement when introducing a member's bill, outlining only the purpose of the bill. That is what I've done. The debate on this bill will take place in second reading, and I know the Government House Leader looks forward to that.

The Speaker: I thank both hon. members on the point of order. Just for the information of all members in the House, perhaps the brief two sentences in the practice recommendation would be helpful: "Permit a statement not to exceed two minutes by the member in charge of introduction of a bill to explain its purpose. No further debate shall be permitted at this stage." I think it is a good reminder for all members who are introducing bills to review the practice of the House for that two-minute statement.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS PRACTICES OF CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the minister responsible for consumer affairs. Given today's revelations that the Minister of Consumer Services was intimately and directly involved in unsavoury business practices by recruiting victims....

[2:15]

The Speaker: Order, please.

I'm going to ask the hon. member, before he even proceeds with his question, to withdraw any words that might impugn the motives of another hon. member, and to choose his words as carefully in his

preamble as he does in his question. So would you please withdraw those words that could impugn, and rephrase your

preamble.

G. Farrell-Collins: I certainly withdraw them. However, they are words that were used by the minister himself in the description. But I do withdraw them, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member has withdrawn the words in this House.

Would you please state your question.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's become quite clear that the minister was personally and intimately involved in recruiting people to participate in business practices with his father. Given that and other transgressions by this minister, how does this minister imagine that the people of this province can have any continued confidence in his ability to discharge his responsibilities as Minister of Consumer Services? Will he resign immediately?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I think it was about two years ago that John Reynolds raised issues in this House wherein he endeavoured to tie matters relating to my deceased father to me. At that point, several columnists in British Columbia commented on that attack and described it as one of the lowest points in the history of this Legislature. I'm sorry to see that the hon. member has now taken Mr. Reynolds's spot.

The Speaker: Before I allow the supplemental.... That kind of answer also gives the Chair some difficulty in guiding the supplemental. I would ask ministers, when answering questions, to avoid personal comments that are beyond their administrative responsibility, so that the Chair can be evenhanded to both sides of the House in terms of that requirement for questions. Given that comment, I call on the hon. member for a supplemental.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's quite clear that there has been a litany of poor judgments by this minister in the strict jurisdiction of his portfolio as minister responsible for consumer affairs, and today we have yet another revelation. Hon. Speaker, how bad does it have to get? How many scams or shady business practices are we going to have to see before his resignation is asked for?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'm going to call on another questioner. If the hon. member would like to rethink the wording of his questions, I will certainly

[ Page 5285 ]

recognize him later on in question period. The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services as well. It concerns the fact that the minister undermines his credibility whenever he interferes with the judicial process. He has been twice warned by the judiciary on commenting on cases before the courts. Since the minister used to castigate the former government for interference before the courts and call for ministers to be independent and impartial, why does he disregard his own advice and thereby jeopardize his effectiveness as a minister?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: Perhaps again to the same minister. When in opposition, the minister indignantly charged that the former government only found conflict when they had been caught. Given the revelation that the minister has been caught in conflict and wrongdoing in his personal affairs, does he still maintain the same moral indignation?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I think the members can appreciate the Chair's difficulty here. Questions to ministers must be within their administrative responsibility. Order, please. As in all debate in the House, we must at all times avoid directing any personal attacks or inflammatory remarks at other members of the House. I'm going to ask the hon. member to frame his question within the guidelines of question period.

A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister: if he found problems with the former government when it comes to conflict, does he still maintain the same moral indignation? Will he take the honourable course and resign?

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER

A. Cowie: My question, again, is to the Minister of Consumer Services. The minister has repeatedly pushed to the edge the issue of public trust -- for example, using caucus funds to cover legal fees and fudging his driving record.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the member please sit down.

Perhaps the most useful thing that the members could do today, if they wish to pursue a line of questioning which may be perfectly in order, is dispense with

preambles that get the member into difficulty before the question can be asked. I urge the member to ask his question of the minister.

A. Cowie: I'll avoid all

preambles. Will the minister resign? Will the Deputy Premier ask the minister to resign from his position, as he has lost all signs of credibility?

The Speaker: To whom was the question directed, hon. member?

A. Cowie: To the Deputy Premier.

Hon. A. Hagen: The members of the executive council and this caucus give their full support to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, without reservation.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be very cautious in my comments, because we seem to be very tight with them today.

Clearly there has been a long litany of problems with the judgment of this minister. Will the Deputy Premier, in the absence of the Premier, call for his immediate resignation today, so the people will have some confidence in the Consumer Services portfolio in this province?

Hon. A. Hagen: The answer is, hon. Speaker, no.

C. Serwa: My question is to the Deputy Premier as well. It seems to me that if the government had any respect for parliamentary tradition the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services would have been asked to step down in this particular case. If the Deputy Premier won't fulfil her moral duty to ask for the minister's resignation, can she tell us what specific steps the Premier has taken to address this matter?

Hon. A. Hagen: I repeat the comments I made a moment ago to another member on the opposition benches. This executive council and the members of this caucus have confidence in the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services being able to carry out his responsibilities as a minister of this government.

C. Serwa: I'm very pleased to hear about the party's solidarity. But the question of confidence is on behalf of the people of British Columbia, whom the government is here to represent. Does the Deputy Premier not feel any obligation to the faith, trust and confidence in government, which is placed in jeopardy by the reluctance to make a decision in this case?

Hon. A. Hagen: A government stands judged by the confidence it places in its members, in the job they are doing for the people of British Columbia. On behalf of my colleagues in the executive council and this caucus, I have firmly stated our support for our Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and our faith in his judgment and ability to carry out his responsibilities on behalf of the people of the province.

C. Tanner: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The track record of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services clearly shows his lack of judgment.

[ Page 5286 ]

He has misled the House and the people of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

C. Tanner: The minister indicated to this House in March that his father's business dealings were to blame for the default on the mortgage.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Would members take their seats.

If the member is rising on a point of order, the practice of the House is that we usually take points of order after question period. I would like to do that.

The member has risen on a point of order.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I delayed rising in the hope that you might bring the member to order for his use of the term "misled the House."

Interjections.

The Speaker: The House will come to order.

Regarding the use of that word in the chamber, it has not been the practice of this House to regard it, in that context and used alone, as disorderly. Would the member continue with his question.

C. Tanner: In March the minister indicated that his father's business dealings were to blame for the default on the mortgage payments. Today we find that the minister was intimately involved in some of those financial transactions. Will the Deputy Premier accept the minister's account of these events, and if not, will the Deputy Premier remove this minister from his Consumer Affairs portfolio?

Hon. A. Hagen: The answer is no.

PRIVATE ADOPTIONS

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. To correct the growing misunderstandings and fears of the citizens of the province regarding the statements most recently made in public by the minister about adoption, will the minister confirm that private adoptions will continue to be a choice, with adequate and improved regulations and supervision?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This government and this ministry will continue to act in the interests of all potential adoptive parents, all birth mothers and all of those infants, who very clearly need to have an advocate on their behalf to ensure the best placements and the best protection of those infants. As far as the member's concern about pending or potential legislation, the member will have to wait until that legislation is introduced in the House.

V. Anderson: I undertook that to be a no on the part of the minister.

For economic reasons, the current trend for many couples is to wait until they are in their thirties before they have children -- and therefore the need to adopt. With the new regulations that she plans, will the minister undertake to shorten the waiting periods rather than lengthen the six- and seven-year time periods that now exist for those who are seeking adoptions through the ministry?

Hon. J. Smallwood: For the information of the member and the House, the only thing that governs the number of adoptions in this province is the availability of infants for adoption. The fact of the matter is that there is a decreasing number of infants domestically available for adoption and a rapidly increasing number of families looking to adopt those infants.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: Yes, there is a decreasing number of infants, partly because people are not willing to go through the inadequate services in the ministry as they see them at the moment. Citizens have contacted us from across the province, after hearing the minister's comments that she is bringing in new regulations in order to cut out private adoptions. Would the minister please tell us which community groups have asked that private adoptions cease, and give us a copy of their documents?

[2:30]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to reiterate for the member that there are absolutely no bureaucratic encumbrances to adoption in this province. The only thing that restricts the number of adoptions is the availability of infants to the adoption process.

This ministry has the legal and constitutional responsibility to protect children, and we will live up to that responsibility. Any consideration that we are dealing with which will change and regulate private adoption is driven by our legal and moral obligation to those most vulnerable citizens in our province: the infants. I can assure you that any changes will address the needs for sensitivity, choice and flexibility that we have heard loud and clear from adoptive families, birth mothers and community groups around this province in the last year.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

Before we go on to further business and given the situation that arose in question period, the Chair would like to assist the members with a quote from Beauchesne which the Chair resorted to today. It is: "A question may not reflect on the character or conduct of the Speaker or other occupants of the chair, members of either House of Parliament and members of the judiciary."

On the matter of the use of the term "misled," it may assist members of the House that the Chair has made a distinction between the use of the words "misled" or

[ Page 5287 ]

"misleading" and "deliberately misled" or "deliberately misleading." That is the distinction the Chair has made today, for the information of members.

On a point of order, the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, if I may, briefly, the Chair has advised members on many occasions that it is out of order to impugn the motives or intentions of members in this Legislature. The term that a statement is misleading is entirely in order. But the suggestion that a member misled the House suggests that the member lied to the House. That reflects on the member, and that is not in order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

On this point of order, the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Speaker has clearly ruled on this matter. I don't think it's incumbent upon the Attorney General, no matter how sensitive he is, to stand up and argue with the Speaker in this chamber. That's very clear.

The Speaker: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I think that the Attorney General is being a little sensitive and unrealistic in this particular case. I agree with you, because one may mislead with erroneous information. Surely that is an accurate term that does not imply "deliberately."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I thank all hon. members for their contributions, and I take those comments. However, the Chair has ruled on this point of order. In view of the comments I have heard, however, the Chair will review the Blues and the use of that word in the practice of this House.

Ministerial Statement

B.C. TREATY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the House is aware that last Thursday this government, together with the First Nations Summit and the federal government, announced the five appointees to the B.C. Treaty Commission. This announcement marks an important step in our government's commitment to formally launch the long-awaited treaty-making process in British Columbia. I'd like to take a few moments this afternoon to acknowledge these appointments and speak to their significance for British Columbians.

When our government came to office 18 months ago, we pledged to recognize that aboriginal peoples have certain inherent rights with respect to land and resources and with respect to self-government. We pledged to give legal definition to those rights through the negotiation of modern-day treaties. We took the first step toward this commitment one month after taking office. In December 1991 we accepted the 19 recommendations of the B.C. Claims Task Force on how to most effectively undertake treaty negotiations. The key recommendation of that task force, to formally establish the B.C.

Treaty Commission, came to fruition last September. That's when the province of British Columbia, the First Nations Summit and the federal government signed a historic agreement to create an independent treaty commission. I'm proud to say that our government will be taking another historic step later this spring when we introduce the Treaty Commission Act in this House.

The B.C. Treaty Commission will play a central role in treaty negotiations. The commission won't be involved in actual negotiations but will serve as the keeper of the process. The commission will receive statements of intent from first nations to begin treaty negotiations. Commissioners will then determine the readiness of each of the parties to undertake negotiations, coordinate the start of individual negotiations and monitor their progress when talks begin. Over time it's likely that the commission will handle as many as 20 or even 30 negotiations.

As an independent body, the Treaty Commission has a mandate to work for the best interests of all parties. The commission will report annually on the progress of negotiations to first nations, to the Parliament of Canada and to this House.

Five people have been appointed to the B.C. Treaty Commission. The province's appointee is Ms. Barbara Lesley Fisher. For the past two and one-half years Ms. Fisher has served as director and general counsel for the office of the ombudsman in Vancouver. She has a strong background in resolving complex, sensitive, difficult issues, and this experience will certainly stand her in good stead in her task as member of the new treaty commission.

Joining Ms. Fisher are first nations appointees Carol Corcoran, a Dene lawyer from Fort Nelson, and Douglas Kelly, manager of operations for the Sto:lo Tribal Council. The federal appointee is Dr. Lorne Greenaway, a private consultant with the federal treaty negotiation office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The chief commissioner, agreed to by all parties, is Chuck Connaghan, an industrial relations specialist who has worked extensively with public and private organizations across Canada. Mr. Connaghan was appointed jointly by the First Nations Summit and the federal and provincial governments.

I'm very proud of the team that has been assembled to facilitate the treaty negotiation process in this province. All British Columbians will benefit from the settlements that will be reached as a result of the independent commission established to organize and monitor those negotiations. Such negotiations will enable first nations to move forward toward greater self-determination and self-reliance, and will enable the province as a whole to benefit from greater economic and social stability.

I know we are all eager to have the process of treaty-making begin and that we look forward to the

[ Page 5288 ]

just and honourable settlements that the treaty commission will help us to create.

V. Anderson: It is a privilege to respond to the ministerial statement on the appointments to the B.C. Treaty Commission. It is certainly past time for this to have been undertaken. We wish the new appointees goodwill in their effective negotiations on behalf of the people of this province as they monitor and support those who will be doing the actual negotiation.

We want to affirm, though, that the aboriginal peoples have always had self-determination and self-reliance. They have had it over many generations; it is not something yet to come. What is needed is to remove the barriers and fetters that have been imposed upon them by the non-aboriginal inhabitants who have attempted, probably unconsciously on the part of many, to dominate the desires and values of the aboriginal peoples. However, I am pleased to note that in spite of the obstacles, the inherent values of the aboriginal peoples have continued and their spiritual strength has enabled them to prevail.

Only of late have we, the non-aboriginal peoples -- the second, third and fourth generations or nations, so to speak -- come to understand and appreciate the validity of the people with whom we live. As we look at the 19 agreements that were made and the points of that agreement for the task force, I would say that the key agreement is not the task force itself but the first one of the 19 recommendations: "The first nations, Canada and British Columbia establish a new relationship based on mutual trust, respect and understanding, through political negotiations." This is a fundamental opportunity for us as we live together in this fine community in British Columbia.

We have been eager for this process to begin. It is estimated that $1 billion in investment is lost each year due to the uncertainty which surrounds us and will surround us until this process is complete -- not to mention the healing and growth processes which have been postponed within the aboriginal communities. We congratulate the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for his diligence and persistence with regard to establishing the commission. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to bring it about, but we are glad that, at last, it is in place.

In the minister's future endeavours, consistent with the intent of the memorandum of understanding which he has signed with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, I hope that he will strive to keep all British Columbians informed of the process and the progress of this issue. As the minister well knows, there is much confusion surrounding the issue of land claims and inherent rights and all that goes with that as we work together within this province. There is a great need to overcome the misinformation and the confusion that still exists. I wish him and the commission well, and I offer our assistance so that this may proceed as quickly and effectively as possible.

C. Serwa: First, from the Social Credit caucus, I would like to express thanks to the minister for making his ministerial statement available to us prior to the House sitting this afternoon.

We're pleased to see that the government is following through on the treaty initiative process that we started a little over two years ago. We all have tremendous respect for the commissioner, Mr. Chuck Connaghan, and a great deal of faith in his abilities as a negotiator. I'm certain that the other members of the Treaty Commission will serve the government, the public and native interests with equality, and that's all we're asking.

The settlement of land claims has been long overdue. There is a great deal of uncertainty in all areas of the province, whether it's in the resource sector or with regard to the concerns of aboriginal people -- and certainly with the public at large -- so we're pleased that this process is moving ahead.

I'm also pleased to recognize that in this specific area the previous administration had made more in the way of progress and advances than had been made in British Columbia in the past 100 years. So we're pleased to remember that and to see that this current government is carrying forward.

[2:45]

We do have some concerns in that the commission's hands may be tied slightly by the government's advocacy position in the matter of land claims. But on balance we applaud the new commission and the members charged with this new responsibility, and we thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to this statement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; D. Streifel in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

On vote 25: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).

L. Fox: Hon. minister, I sat in on the debate this morning, and there are certainly some issues there that I would like to touch on. But prior to doing that, although I wasn't here when the minister spoke late Friday morning, in reading the Blues I noted with some interest a particular statement. Just to refresh the minister's memory, I will read it back to her, because I would really like her to expand upon the intent of that statement. It was:

"I want to highlight today some other initiatives we are taking around the planning of school construction in cooperation with municipalities. We will be introducing legislation this spring to encourage school boards and municipalities to work together to improve planning for our schools and for the communities in which they are located.

"The second part of this initiative is that my ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be consulting with stakeholders early this summer on how to best put

[ Page 5289 ]

aside land for schools in new developments. Government then hopes to introduce legislation in the spring of 1994 to implement changes as a result of these consultations. Finally, our government is working to develop guidelines to ensure that off-site development costs charged to school boards for municipal facilities, such as roads and sewers, are appropriate."

There are four areas there that I would like the minister to expand on.

Hon. A. Hagen: I recognize the member's particular interest in this issue, because I know he was involved as a councillor and served, I understand, on the board of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I appreciate that he brings a perspective and an interest.

He has characterized the three initiatives very well. They are indeed designed to have us deal with the acquisition of school sites and cooperative work with municipalities around the location of those sites, because these buildings become community assets. I think the hon. member would agree. In many instances the opportunity for joint planning between the school district and the municipality is a way for us to make good use of our dollars and of the planning that may go on at the municipal levels for these sites.

The first stage is for us to deal with a process that formally encourages joint planning between municipalities and school districts. We intend to introduce a bill into the Legislature this spring that will deal with that. It's long overdue that the cooperation in evidence in some municipalities should be a practice in all of them. As our school populations increase, or as we look to refurbished and better facilities, that joint planning process is an important one.

This legislation is designed to help school boards get involved in the process earlier and to improve coordination and communication between those levels of government. We from the school side are particularly interested that we can identify early on when a school is needed and where it could best go. That is something that is shared by everyone involved with the development of our communities. We want to make better use of the land that's available and to use our financial resources in a coordinated way.

In a couple of schools I've opened recently, for instance, there has been a school and some kind of a recreational facility -- a park -- associated with the school. I've visited schools of that nature, too.

The second phase will be over the next few months, and it involves discussions with municipalities and people concerned about land development on how to best acquire land for schools. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, the School Trustees Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Canadian Home Builders' Association and officials from school districts and municipalities will be involved. Out of that broad-ranging process, they will look at how we may best go about planning sites.

The third issue is around developmental costs, which are a part of municipalities' planning for the developments of new areas in their region. We will be reviewing municipal sites and servicing charges for things like roads and sewers, which are currently levied by some municipalities on school site development. In this regard, we want to work to develop guidelines that ensure that the application of site development charges are fair in relation to the school site part of the area, and we hope to have those changes in place next year.

I might note that we are working very closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. There have been informal discussions with the elected bodies, and, as I noted in the second initiative around the planning process, they will be very much involved with the work as it develops over the coming months.

L. Fox: The minister is quite correct that I was very involved in municipal politics, but I was also five years on the school board, so I well recognize the need for planning. In fact, in our district it was done.

I'm rather surprised that the word "legislation" is in here to encourage school boards and municipalities to work together. I do recognize that there is a need for some formal mechanism, but I question whether legislation is something that has to be forced upon locally elected individuals, rather than having some form of policy statement and policy initiatives. However, I appreciate the need to acquire land prior to any rezoning, because I do know -- and the minister knows it as well -- that every time a property is rezoned, up goes the value of land. I know of instances where we've had to pay very highly for land that was rezoned, therefore upping the cost of a particular school.

But this second initiative really concerns me. I read in here a piece of legislation very similar to what is now in the Municipal Act, where the municipality can acquire, in every subdivision beyond three lots, 5 percent of the geographical land base or, in lieu of the land, can require the dollar value. I'm extremely concerned that the same type of initiative is in this second recommendation. I'm sure the minister is well aware that it is not the developer who pays for that type of initiative. What that type of initiative will do is drive up the land values.

Given that our assessments are already causing great turmoil within the taxation area, this particular action in a community to take land beyond the 5 percent that can already be taken by the municipality will add to the cost of those lots. The comparative value throughout the community will then be driven up, and we will compound our already very difficult situation with respect to assessments.

I guess I have a couple of questions. First, is the minister looking at a dedication of land, or a cash payment in lieu of that land, similar to what is allowed under the Municipal Act?

F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Surrey-Green Timbers.

Leave granted.

F. Garden: In the precincts today are 52 students from the Invergarry Learning Centre in Surrey and their instructor, Mr. Shamash. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 5290 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: Forgive me, hon. member, for not acknowledging your other experience. It's good to have people in the House who bring that local experience.

The question that you ask is indeed a fair one, but there are many ways in which we can look ahead to plan. You are dealing with one process: a dedication of land. I want to assure you that we are looking at the issue of the need to plan for our schools. In many ways we're planning a number of years ahead, as we know where the populations are going to be.

The purpose of signaling this discussion is to make very clear that all those who have an interest in how we plan for our schools will have an opportunity to discuss with our ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the school trustees, UBCM and the people who are involved in the development industry ways in which we can do that. I have no presumption of a particular method or approach that would be the best one. We need to talk about those issues. As you've noted, in many instances the price or the location of sites has been compromised by not doing that planning and preparation.

That's the reason that we have announced a due process to look at this important issue.

L. Fox: I recognize there is a very narrow line between discussing this as a budget item and getting into future policy, and I'll try to stay on the right side of the line. As I understand it, all options are wide open at this point. Let me try to pinpoint that. It's my understanding that the BCSTA has made presentations to the ministry to look at a formula similar to what the municipality presently has available to it, and that is a percentage of land designed at subdivision time from that proposed development. Can the minister confirm that that is the case and is under consideration -- with a whole host of other initiatives?

Hon. A. Hagen: Although that is not a position that is a part of any current resolution since I've been minister, I understand that that is the position. But I want to emphasize that we are not presuming a position as government. We recognize that there are many views that hold in respect to this issue; that's the reason we need to discuss them. You are quite cognizant that we are talking about future policy. What you and I are discussing today is the fact that government has set in motion a process for those discussions to take place.

I'm sure that members who are interested in this issue will be kept advised about that consultation process as we prepare for any recommendations that we anticipate will come forward next year and be put in the form of legislation.

L. Fox: I would guess that part of your consideration would be the change in the growth of a community which reflects a regular density up to a high density and how you're going to plan for that kind of change within the structure. Am I correct in assuming that?

[3:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: If the intent of your question is to ask if we might be looking at some new ideas about how we build schools, I think that's an excellent suggestion. I remember your colleague the former Minister of Education having some discussions around where schools might be in high-density areas and really pushing us to consider joint use of buildings, where a school might be in some part of a building. I think all of those issues are ones that could be entertained.

Fundamentally we're looking at ways in which we can make the best use of the dollars that we need to invest in our facilities. We want to do that in cooperation with the people who also have similar concerns about the the town, city or municipality, the school boards of the regions or communities and the people who are involved with the development of new communities. It's a complex issue, you're quite right, and one where we have to look very carefully at balancing issues. We believe that it's in the public interest. It's a public concern that we make the very best use of our resources in the building of necessary facilities for our students.

L. Fox: I'm satisfied that you're going to involve the UBCM and the BCSTA in the process. Given that you're looking at different initiatives, I wonder if it would be possible to get some indication as to whether part of the consideration in those discussions -- particularly with the BCSTA and perhaps to a degree with the UBCM -- might be an alternative method of financing our educational system, other than based on the assessment of homes.

Given that you're looking at land use and combined planning and that some of the impact of these initiatives may be to drive assessments up, will that include discussions on alternative methods of collecting school taxes that reflect ability to pay rather than value of the home?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, the member noted that he has been delving into future policy, and we fundamentally explored some of those issues. If he has some specific ideas around this policy development, I invite him to let us have them or to engage in some discussion. The question he just asked is related to tax policy, and that is clearly outside the prerogative of my ministry.

L. Fox: When I asked the question I was well aware of where I was going. One can always hope for a bit of a response that gives us some indication of where the government is going. I might be so bold, hon. Chairman, to suggest that an appropriate place for some of this policy process to take place may be in the standing committee structure of the Legislature, where there is all-party input into initiatives that are crucial to every British Columbian, such as some of the directions in this particular statement.

I want to go on to the site development and development cost charge aspects of your statement. By being involved in setting those up within a municipality, I understand, from my experience, that the cost charge bylaw and the costs around that are not picked out of the sky. In fact, they reflect the cost of delivering service to that specific land site, whether it be for educational, business or residential purposes. I have to

[ Page 5291 ]

wonder what's behind the statement and why the necessity to make such a statement. Where are the problems with respect to roads, sewers and costs serving the schools? What has caused this to come forward?

Hon. A. Hagen: Our concern in raising this issue is to make sure that the costs are appropriate and are levied consistently. Let me be hypothetical. If there's a school at the end of the road and nothing else there, then development site costs are related to the fact that there's a school at the end of the road. If there's a school and a number of houses at the end of the road, then obviously a number of properties are affected. That's a simple way to put it.

Fundamentally we want to be sure that there is a consistent approach to levying development charges, and that they are fair in relation to the building they are serving. It's a very straightforward process, and we want to review with the municipalities an approach that we believe will be useful across the province.

L. Fox: There are very specific guidelines in the Municipal Act on how development charges can be structured. With all due respect, Madam Minister, they are not much different than trying to formulate an educational budget process that will reflect total fairness and the variances in all 75 districts. It's almost impossible to come up with a formula that looks after every specific situation.

My understanding right now is that the development cost charge bylaws have to reflect and follow in line with the Municipal Act, so they are very consistent. But they do reflect different costs in different communities. I have some difficulty understanding where you're going, given that that system is there. I will get around to asking the Municipal Affairs minister that when we get to his estimates, but I'm having some difficulty trying to rationalize this particular statement and the need for it.

Hon. A. Hagen: I think that the direction the member is taking is inappropriate. We're talking about guidelines. He may want to pursue this line of questioning further with the Minister of Municipal Affairs during his estimates, because it is a cooperative process. I acknowledge his understanding of these issues from his experience. We are looking at guidelines that are fair, consistent and appropriate, and the process will be one that I think will assist us in ensuring that that's the case.

L. Fox: As I suggested to the minister, I will certainly explore those with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. However, given that she made the statement that there was a need for this, the minister could at least tell me and this House why, and where the problems are. Give us some idea as to the significance of the problems that led to the minister making such a statement and pointing out such a need.

Hon. A. Hagen: We're responding to concerns from our school districts about all of these issues, and we decided that the best way to deal with those concerns was to discuss them with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to put those concerns on the table, to look at the issues openly and in consultation with the affected parties and, as deemed appropriate coming out of that work, to make whatever changes or recommendations might be deemed necessary.

So it is a response to concerns that are there, and it is an opening up of the discussion so that there can be a good and thorough examination of those issues of fairness, consistency and appropriateness, taking into account -- as I recognize, hon. member -- the many divergencies and differences that exist across the province.

It is a big nest, and it has many nests in many different forms. We both acknowledge that it takes a Solomon-like -- I don't know who the feminine representative of wisdom is -- and very wise process to ensure that we are making good decisions. But we want to work on that, and I recognize your interest and encourage you to participate or discuss with us in any way that might be helpful to you contributing to that development. I understand that the questions are asked in the interests of good policy and good legislation.

L. Fox: I certainly want to inform myself as to where the problems are. So would the minister be so kind -- if she can't tell me today -- as to advance me the information on which school districts are having problems with this, so that I and other people in the House might research with those districts to fully inform ourselves as to what the problems are before we come forward and start to suggest what the appropriate actions might be.

As I understand the comments of the minister of a few moments ago, she is responding to school districts asking for help in these particular areas, and it would help to inform all members of the Legislature if the minister could make available the names of those districts that are having problems. We could then better understand the problem before designing a fix.

Hon. A. Hagen: The member may want to have some further discussions with the BCSTA in this regard. We can certainly provide him with some of the general issues that need to be addressed. I gave him a very simple example of some of the kinds of questions that may arise. It may be helpful, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs is much more familiar than I with the specific guidelines as they apply to municipalities.

I'm very satisfied that the process we've set in place is one that deals with some matters of concern. Where we are looking for fairness and appropriateness in terms of those charges, my responsibility as Minister of Education is to ensure that our capital dollars are spent in a way that is fair and appropriate across the province. We have a year of work with regard to any changes that would affect legislation, so there is good opportunity for you to inform yourself further. If we can provide specific information that gives you some idea of the issues more broadly, then we'd be happy to do that.

L. Fox: I think we've canvassed that particular area. I want to get into one of my specific school districts and talk about some specifics, firstly in School District 56.

[ Page 5292 ]

As I pointed out earlier, I recognize the difficulties of a formula addressing all the issues in every district, and I was reassured that dollars weren't going to be taken from the districts I represent and sent to Surrey. I understand the needs of the Surrey district, and I hope there's some way of addressing those rather than taking away from other districts in order to do that.

When I look at the specifics around Nechako School District 56, we have had a negative impact in student population by 2.6 percent. The funding reflects that. I certainly appreciate the need for that and I'm not going to argue that. I have some concerns, though, when we see that the transportation aspect, which is a very important aspect of education in Nechako, has dropped by $110,000. The rationale the ministry provided to the district was that the kilometre cost was rolled back to 1989. The kilometre cost last year was $1.43, and this year is $1.31.

I'm having real difficulty understanding how we can use buses in 1993 at a cost of about 12 cents a kilometre less than we did in 1989. I would like to understand the rationale behind that particular

section of the allotment.

[3:15]

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just help the member regarding where we start with respect to our costs. We start in the 1989-90 year, which is sort of the base year for the funding, so there hasn't been a rollback. The transportation costs are based on the approved mileage and the costs reported by the district. And yes, there has been a reduction. I'm not sure that we can explore that further. I'm giving you the principles on which the funding is based. It is based on an approved mileage and on the costs that your district reports.

As I often do in these estimates, if there are issues that we're not able to resolve because we don't necessarily have as much detail to hand in the Legislature, we can certainly explore that further with you. But that's the framework for the funding for transportation for the Nechako district, as for all districts.

L. Fox: Is the minister suggesting to me that the formula for paying transportation costs in the 1993-94 budget is exactly the same as in 1992-93?

Hon. A. Hagen: We start at a base year, which is 1990. Each year there are added inflationary costs, and the actual costs to the district are then factored in. Every year we look at miles travelled and the costs of travelling those miles, and those are altered in relation to that basic cost.

I know there's been a reduction, hon. member. I know there's a basis for boards to be funded fairly for those costs from that starting point. But I don't know the details of whether fewer kilometres are being travelled this year in Nechako or what the costs of that mileage are. So in order to satisfy you in representing that constituency, I'd suggest we look for some further information, and we'll try to get it to you before the end of estimates.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

L. Fox: In fact the kilometres are exactly the same. The only thing I can figure from the hon. minister's words is that perhaps if some efficiencies have developed within the system, the school district is being penalized for them. If that's the case, Madam Minister, I would suggest the formula is wrong, because initiatives such as that would encourage misspending rather than efficiencies. If a school district that is more efficient with its transportation can possibly lose funding in subsequent years, I'm suggesting we should be looking at that policy, because that does not encourage or reward school districts for being efficient.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: Those are in fact the kinds of policy changes we have been making as we look at efficiencies or at cost pressures that school districts incur. Transportation is a very major cost to school districts, particularly in our dispersed regions of the province. I appreciate your comments, hon. member, about incentives for boards to gain efficiencies. We should indeed be looking at those policy issues around the management of schools or transportation in other areas. So I welcome your suggestion. As we review funding processes for the coming year, I want to assure you that those questions will indeed be addressed from a policy perspective. It's a wise point of view that you bring.

L. Fox: I thank the minister for her words.

I still have difficulty going back to my school district without really being able to answer these areas of concern. Can the minister assure me that she will provide me with this information prior to the conclusion of her estimates, so that I will be able to come back? Fine. Thank you.

V. Anderson: First of all, one of my concerns is fair and appropriate monitoring by the minister and various school boards of activities that are presently going on. One of the difficulties I see at present is that where schools are not in formal strikes, what is tending to happen is that without a formal strike or lockout, employees of the school -- particularly the teachers -- are not doing their allotted activities. They are not doing report cards, monitoring and activities that take place in the school which are generally considered to be a part of teachers' activities.

When the minister is talking to school boards about guidelines, I'm wondering where she stands with regard to employees collecting full salaries but not undertaking work outside the classroom, which is fundamental to schools functioning.

Hon. A. Hagen: As the member has noted, there has been some action taken by teachers in some school districts not to do certain things that are normally part of their day or workweek. I have been monitoring that very closely over this past period of time. As a result of the work of the Korbin commission, we are going to be reviewing bargaining issues, as you well know, hon. member. As a result of measuring services that are not

[ Page 5293 ]

provided, some school districts have taken action to reduce the pay teachers receive. If that is the case, the ministry does recover the dollars, through the consolidated revenue fund of the province, that are not paid to teachers as a result of a decision of the board. That's the way the legislation is structured at this time if there's a reduction in the cost to the district as a result of a job action: a lockout, a strike or whatever.

I want to assure you that I have been paying very close attention to the events in the last bargaining round regarding the issue you have raised. The fundamental principle in terms of our legislation is that no one should benefit from a job action. It's in the monetary area where we have the tools, if you like. I hope that gives you some sense of the emerging issue and of some of the options that are open to boards, which, under the legislation, are responsible for administering collective agreements signed between them and their workers.

V. Anderson: I would reflect that it's not only teachers; other employees in the schools are in the same situation. I'm wondering on the one hand what kinds of guidelines are worked out for boards by the ministry, from the point of view of the board's actions, and on the other hand, what kinds of guidelines are given to unions when they undertake commitments by signing contracts but don't fulfil those contracts. It seems to me it's a question of both, not either/or. Both the boards and unions that operate throughout the province have a responsibility to the ministry and are accountable to it. I'm sure it's not happening in only one district; it's happening in many districts.

Hon. A. Hagen: I don't think any of us are encouraging these kinds of actions, hon. member. I'm sure you're not, and I am certainly not. I have stated strongly and unequivocally what I and this government believe about responsibilities for the integrity of the collective bargaining process.

I want to emphasize two points. I take your point about the concern about services not being delivered. Employers don't normally pay for those services, and some school boards have taken action to not pay for those services. Those decisions lie with the boards.

According to the School Act, the authority I have, in

section 133 where there are conditions around grant payments, the operating expenses of a board have been reduced during a strike or lockout as defined by the Labour Relations Code. On that kind of occasion we have the authority to recover those costs. I want to assure you that I'm monitoring this issue very carefully, and we are going to be reviewing matters relating to collective agreements. It is a matter of concern, and the points you've made are very well taken.

V. Anderson: I understand cost recoveries during a strike or lockout. I'm asking about work not being undertaken when there is no strike or lockout. According to union directions, employees are directed -- school secretaries, for instance -- to not count or deal with any money that flows through the school from school projects. The direction comes from the union, which is not in a strike or lockout position, that employees should not go to meetings, should not be working around the school or putting out report cards. Yet neither a strike nor a lockout is going on. The union has dictated and has become, in effect, the manager of the school program.

When someone other than the proper educational authorities, whoever they may be, is managing the school program, it becomes a very great concern. If the caretakers and maintenance workers begin to direct what happens in the police department, we would be concerned. People have their responsibilities, and if someone completely outside the school who is not normally part of the decision-making process is making decisions, then I think there is a concern.

Fairness and justice to employees is one thing, but when employees or a union outside the school begin to set policy for the functioning of a school that disrupts the whole system, it's not just something to monitor. The damage has already been done, and the attitudes and concerns have already been demonstrated to the children, which will not easily be overcome.

[3:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me define for the member what a strike is under the Labour Relations Code. It can be a partial withdrawal of services as well as a full withdrawal of services. We can define a variety of actions taken by an employee group as a strike under the Labour Relations Code. The employer must deem that action a strike and withdraw pay from those workers. In fact, in some school districts, as we know, that has been done. We then have the authority, under the School Act, to recover payments for that portion of workers: teachers or support workers.

But the agreement is between the school district and the teachers' association, CUPE, or whoever it happens to be, and it is the employer who must take action in deeming that there is a strike and make the decision around payments to their workers with respect to that. That's the situation we face at this stage. In two or three instances employers have taken such action: they have withdrawn some percentage of teachers' pay. We have recovered the dollars that are associated with that. The point I make, hon. member, is around this broader issue

[ Page 5294 ]

of what is sometimes a grey area in employee-employer relations: work-to-rule, and how that is deemed. It an area that doesn't have absolutely neat and tidy

definitions, such as the full withdrawal of services through a strike or the locking out of employees. This particular situation is unique to this year. I agree that it has affected the ability of school districts to provide a full range of services for the children.

V. Anderson: It seems to me that the kind of union or government employed in the negotiations that we've been talking about, and the financial implications that go with it, work one way if we're in a manufacturing plant and the employer and employees are manufacturing widgets and selling them, which is a fairly neutral kind of item, but that an educational process, like a hospital, is an entirely different situation. This kind of industrial arrangement is a prime concern, particularly when there is no adjustment for the kind of situation where the lives, education, values and attitudes....

Children are very influenced by what adults do around them. There needs to be a process in place -- and I don't hear the minister raising this yet -- which acknowledges that the educational system, which has responsibility for the values and the character-building of children, is the prime consideration, and that all of the other negotiations must be secondary. I don't hear that coming across; instead I hear that there are the ordinary industrial relations programs, as if we were dealing with widgets in a factory.

We're not dealing with widgets; we're dealing with young people at a very crucial stage in their lives. It seems to me that there must be a whole different process in place -- an understanding, a working agreement and a complementary relationship -- so that if one district fails to take the action that's needed to protect their children and to make sure they're having full educational value each and every day they come to school, someone steps in.

And not after the process has gone on for a week, two weeks, three weeks or a month -- that's like saying if somebody's breaking into your house, the police will only interfere after they've broken into every house in the community: "It just happened today, so we'll wait and see if it happens next week." That kind of laissez-faire response is not the way one should be going. One should be stepping in and discussing with those school boards and unions on both sides -- not one side or the other, but the whole situation -- and saying that this cannot go on because it is not fair to the children.

It seems to me that it's irresponsible if that's not being done.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would encourage the member to hear clearly that I have stated in this House, during question period and on many occasions, my commitment to children receiving an education in all of the schools in the province. Again, because I want our discussion to be balanced, we need to note that the majority of school districts have arrived at agreements or continue to go through the collective bargaining process at the table. The students have enjoyed the full scope of the services of everybody who is involved in their education in the schools.

Secondly, it is important to note that the employers, who are the school boards, are a player and an important party to this discussion. They have rights and responsibilities under the Labour Relations Code. The employer-employee relationship is between the district and, in this case, the teachers.

Thirdly, where teachers take some stand and withdraw services, classroom services are in place and students are attending school. There are a number of instances where, I understand, the actions of teachers don't affect the day-to-day delivery of education services. Over the long term they will have an effect, but the day-to-day services for children are there. Where I would be most concerned is around the need for children and parents to receive progress reports, which is a very important part of the system. I understand that if parents ask, the reports are given. That's not good enough, but it's one of the ways in which this whole thing has been played out.

To my knowledge, we have not seen this kind of approach in labour negotiations between teachers and boards before this year. It may have existed, but certainly not in such a protracted way. When I talk about watching it carefully, it is because, as the member knows, we are in the process of a major review of our methods of bargaining and our policies governing labour relations. It's when a problem occurs, in fact, that legislators and policy-makers need to look at how we might deal with those issues. Some employers have dealt with them very directly.

Services are not being delivered, and as employers, they have the right not to pay for those services. Not all employers have made that decision. I can't judge why they may or may not have made that particular decision in relation to the situation they face. They are the people who are administering their agreements and contracts. As you noted, contracts are in place.

The board is responsible for making those judgments and taking those decisions, and we will look at the overall policy when we review the collective bargaining processes as they affect education in light of the Korbin review and the broader review of policy.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, if one of the roles of the Ministry of Education is to have an overview of the educational processes within the province, and primarily to have an overview of and a concern for the children, it seems to me that there must be an ongoing relationship -- a communication relationship, a consultation relationship -- between the ministry and every school board and respective union in the province. I put them both in there. When a situation arises, that consultative process should automatically go into higher gear than normal.

You don't ask after the fact whether it could have been done differently. As soon as the situation arises, there must be contact and discussion and an exchange of views to see if it cannot be solved right now, not tomorrow or next week, because it's this day that the children are at school.

I would like to affirm, from my experience in many different communities, that whenever there is this kind of disruption and uncertainty among any of the staff in

[ Page 5295 ]

a school situation, full classroom work does not go on and normal teaching does not take place. A lot of the education that takes place in the school is done in the noon hour and the recess. It's done when the children go outside of the classroom to talk to the teacher. If the teacher is only working bell to bell, that in itself puts forth a very negative message. I hear the minister saying that as long as they are doing the technical requirements, then there doesn't seem to be a concern. It seems to me that we must go far beyond that into day-to-day consultation, so that as soon as this situation arises, it is monitored and there is some supervision and consultation.

I gather the minister does not want to follow that one any further. I would raise questions that I hear from people within the community. Up to this point, we've been talking about the formal relationships of school boards and trustees, and their responsibility regarding the educational program. The major concerns that I hear are from parents within the community who feel they are cut out of the community process. The kind of home-and-school association that used to be prevalent in many communities has changed to a community adult educational advisory committee.

The relationships in most of the schools that I'm aware of are not ones of close interaction. The parents have a strong feeling that they are not part of the school process and are off on the sidelines. They feel that instead of the school being a complement to the family and being aware of family traditions, styles and concerns, at best the family is now maybe a complement to the school. That change in relationships between the school and the families and the parents in the community has been very drastic, and it needs to be thought about and responded to in a very effective way.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd like to take the member back to the comments I made when I opened the estimates about the parents being the children's first, and ongoing, teachers. That's something that I personally hold to very strongly, and it certainly has been reflected in the involvement of parents in our schools. I was, probably like you, hon. member, involved with parent organizations. I go back a long time as a parent active in my school community.

In fact, the organizations were few and far between where parents had a voice other than coming in as an individual parent to talk to the teachers -- which they always can do. Now, with the methods by which we encourage parents to be involved in knowing about their children's progress, they do more and more. But I have attended regional and provincial meetings of parents where the view I hear from them is quite different from yours. I'm not suggesting that every parent still feels at home and welcomed in our schools.

We are opening the doors to parents, and it's new compared to what existed when my children were in school ten or 12 years ago. Virtually every school in the province has a parent advisory committee. We assist districts in having some resources to help with the establishment of those working groups. The range of their activity in working on policy, education change and curriculum committees is very wide. Parents are very active advisers at a number of our provincial bodies, whether it's our Educational Advisory Council, our change committee or, now, our financial advisory committee.

[3:45]

But I know that you're talking about the parents in the community school, the school that's next door to them. The existence of both local parent advisory groups.... They grow out of some of the models that Dante Lupini established when he was superintendent in Vancouver. Those parent advisory committees are extremely active in many schools, including secondary schools for the first time. I hear from those groups of parents. They prepare superb representations around curriculum issues and the development of school policies. They are a group of well-informed, active advocates for children in their schools, and I have been exceedingly impressed by the level of their deliberations and work.

In terms of teacher-training, we need to continue to develop that perspective whereby parents are welcome in schools. But as I go into schools, the line I hear very often from parents themselves is that they are taking some responsibility for making other parents welcome in the school. They have learned processes by which parents who may be new to the school can be made to feel comfortable and become involved. So it's a joint process by the principals, teachers, support staff and parents themselves.

I believe nothing could be more important than for parents to be very much at home in their schools and able to talk to teachers and work with the school around school-based decisions. We're seeing some pretty exciting things happen in many districts as parents take a larger and larger role.

In exploring this important issue, I'd also like to note that in addition to a parent group, in some districts a community education council brings other community people into the schools. I attended a very exciting conference in Qualicum recently where, in addition to the parent groups and very active student groups -- because we need to see those develop as well -- there was a local education advisory council that involved the business community, seniors and people interested in education.

That community was visioning what is ahead for its schools, with the help of parents, students, seniors, professionals, support staff and administration. It's a very powerful activity where everybody learns about the kinds of changes we need to look to making in our schools and where the community is involved in the school.

I sometimes think we're going back to the very days that you say we are losing: when the school was the centre of the community, everybody felt that it was their school, and they had not only a role but a responsibility to help that school be a good place for kids. It's a vision that I've begun to think about a little bit: the old community school that a lot of us remember in our small and perhaps more rural communities. I think there's potential for some of that to develop, but it takes work and nurturing. It's a job both for the official workers -- the teachers and education community in the school -- and for the parent community as well.

I think the other part we need to keep in mind is that we now have a much more diverse community, a

[ Page 5296 ]

multicultural community, that doesn't know schooling from a Canadian perspective but from the perspective of whatever country they came from. So learning, welcoming and outreach to that community is a particular challenge in our lower mainland communities, I would say, more than it is elsewhere. It's good to see that kind of outreach in some of our schools. As I've visited schools, I've seen parents who are very much a part of the school's volunteer and support system. They are welcomed in to be part of their children's learning and part of the community support for the school.

V. Anderson: Thank you very much to the minister. I recognize that what you are saying is much easier to accomplish in the smaller communities. One of the awarenesses that I have from working in the church within the community and meeting with a networking group of employees that meet together in the community -- professional people from a variety of agencies, including the schools -- is that very few of the professionals, and indeed very few of the teachers, live in the community where they teach.

They're not part of the community, so they're not met by the community people at the community events and activities. In fact, in many cases they're not really aware of most of the things that are happening in the community itself.

As the minister was speaking, she kept referring to bringing people into the school and to parents coming into the program and being invited in. The awareness I have is that what education needs to do through our schools is go out into the community. It needs to be a two-way process -- not just bringing people in but going out into the community, so that the whole community becomes an educational community, so that education is done not only in the schools. That is a major factor which, particularly in the urban areas, is not taking place to any large extent at the present moment. The values on the one hand and the crime on the other hand happen not in the school but in the community.

Another part of this is the professionalization of teachers, which has happened in other areas as well, and which has almost conveyed a message that parents who have not had the opportunity for that kind of professional training are not able to even confront the teacher on different values or questions. There are a couple of areas here of reaching out into the community, of participating within the community as an educational system, so that the whole community becomes an educational learning experience for all of them.

One final point I would make, too, is that as our community becomes older the seniors of the community, who have a lot to contribute to children, are being excluded from the educational process -- not consciously but unconsciously. That has a diminishing effect on the community and on the educational process.

Hon. A. Hagen: As always, hon. member, we can look at ways that we can improve. I think we should also look at ways in which schools are doing the very things that you're calling for, and we should celebrate that. For example, our career programs have doubled in participation. That is, young people out in the community and the community are working with the schools. We can all think of examples. The wonderful thing about this is that it's happening in Vancouver schools and in Masset schools and in Williams Lake schools. It doesn't make any difference where we are -- that's happening.

Secondly, the inner-city school programs are an outreach program. Before people can go out into the community, the community has to have some reaching out from the school, and a lot of excellent work has happened there. The community schools movement, which is very well established in your community, has a number of excellent examples of that involvement.

I want to say, too, that I know lots of teachers who may not live in the community but who don't get home until seven or eight at night because they are involved in extracurricular work on behalf of their students. We should be thankful for that voluntary work that they do.

We are developing joint facilities. The new Thomas Haney-Douglas College facility in Maple Ridge, for example, puts together the secondary school and a community college. There are other models being developed in Mission-Kent and in North Island, where the marriage of those facilities is there. We have just recently, with the help of lower mainland school districts, prepared documents that are introductions to B.C. schools.

Written in nine languages, they provide an opportunity for the many families that come from our diverse ethnic and national populations to know more about our schools and to be welcomed there, and to know how they may have that kind of access. There always will be more that we can do, but I want to acknowledge very strongly the work of administrators, teachers and school staff in support of the schools being community facilities. Certainly it's an approach that we're taking as we plan those facilities and work with municipalities, as we were talking about earlier.

Let's look at where we've come from. Let's acknowledge that our society is changing and that we have to do things in different ways, but let's build on the significant improvements that have taken place over a number of years so that parents and teachers continue to have whatever role they feel is appropriate for them in support of children's education. I always hope that their personal circumstances will allow them to stay involved, recognizing that many of them are working families, raising their children as well as supporting the education endeavours.

J. Tyabji: I would like to preface my comments by saying that I have a lot of respect for the minister's ability to handle the structural aspect of her ministry. She brings to her ministry a sincere commitment to education. Having said that, I think there are some very serious problems that have to be addressed as soon as possible.

I would like to go back to the discussion that we had in the House this morning when the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was talking about the labour unrest in Powell River. The minister talked, I believe

[ Page 5297 ]

very appropriately, about the responsibility of the teachers and the school board. With the previous speaker, the member for Vancouver-Langara, the minister talked about the responsibility of the parents. I would like some comment on the minister's specific responsibility to take a proactive role to prevent what is happening not only in places like Powell River but in the north. There are examples in Chetwynd, Fort St. John, Quesnel and my own riding of Kelowna of the privatization of our educational system.

I'm not de facto against the privatization of education. In fact, I myself went through a Catholic high school. However, I am extremely concerned when we have a very large public school system, and whether it be labour unrest, quality of programs or -- and this is where I think a lot of it comes into play -- a lack of uniformity in the implementation of the Year 2000.... The fact is that district by district we have different examples of how the Year 2000 is being brought in.

Just a few minutes ago the minister spent some time talking about how we have to focus on the good things that are happening. I'd rather focus on illiteracy rates, lack of funding and the waste of money on capital projects. For example, in Westbank we have a new high school going in at a cost of $8 million, I believe. They're spending over $300 on light fixtures when there are $80 fixtures on the market. I've spoken at some length with some of the contractors for that high school, who are saying that they can't come forward publicly because they would lose their contracts, but as individuals and as taxpayers they're horrified by the excesses of the people responsible for the capital project.

[4:00]

So I'd like to focus on the minister's responsibility, and I'll start off by saying that I believe some very good things are happening in education. For the purposes of this debate, I think we should focus on some of the very serious negatives. Yes, we have career programs coming on board in some school districts, but there's no uniformity. To a large extent I see the proactive approach coming from individual school districts. I think the minister has been, to some extent, overwhelmed internally with the structural problems from the Social Credit administration.

I'm the first to say that there were a lot of structural problems; the minister inherited a nightmare in formula funding. Having said that, they are a year and a half into their mandate now, and I'd really like to know where there will be some proactive approach in terms of capital cost and in terms of stalling or at least assessing the move toward privatization, which includes home-based tutoring, private schools and, to a large extent, home schooling without tutoring.

I know there is some monitoring of that move toward privatization in terms of testing the students, but I'm not sure to what extent the ministry can handle the level of privatization that may occur if we continue to have labour unrest such as we see in Powell River. I'd like to start on that basis and then move back to some specifics.

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for her comments. To some extent I think they're more of a statement, and I'm trying to respond to a question or a specific issue. I'd invite the member to deal with the issues as specifically as she may like to.

She is drawing some conclusions around parents choosing to send their children to private schools rather than to public schools. As I noted this morning, the increase in the number of children attending private schools is pretty consistent with the overall increase in our school population. It has remained pretty constant as a percentage of our total school population for many years. There are many kinds of private schools, and some of them are funded under our programs and some are not. Some of them are private schools for students from outside the country.

All the independent schools are regulated, and I'll talk about the systems side of that. I'm not sure that there's a relationship between the labour issues that she's referring to and enrolment in private schools. If she has further comments to make about that, I invite her to do so.

With respect to the capital costs of government, I've noted -- and I appreciate her comment -- that we're picking up from years of not planning ahead for capital funding. We are in a catch-up situation where very often the kids are there three years before the schools are there. We very much want to get on top of that, so that we don't have to put kids in portables when they should be in the school that's going to be the community school for some time. If she is raising some issues around capital costs, there are very clear and tight guidelines around those costs.

They are constantly reviewed by qualified people in the construction industry and are delivered through architects who design those schools. We have very strict guidelines around the amount of money that's available for building a school, and the school districts are the bodies that actually tender. I presume -- my ADM can assist me with this -- that the whole process of how the school is built to the specifications within the allowable costs is something that the school board along with the building experts is responsible for.

If there are issues around that, it's difficult for me to respond in a general way, except to say that we need to continue to build our schools. We're building them to last, and we're building them to be good places to learn and to be community centres. We are looking at ways in which those schools can be used, as I noted to the hon. critic this morning, not just for 9-to-3 education but for after-school community activities, for adult learners and for the community to use in ways that support the community and support learning.

I for one, having been in a lot of the boxes that were built in the 1960s and are not very desirable places in terms of anything we might associate with learning, am really encouraged by the way we are managing our capital dollars, building buildings that will stand for a minimum of 50 years and may well stand for a longer period of time. We're building those facilities to last and to serve us well. But if there are issues, I'd invite the member to bring them forward.

She may want to discuss those with her local school board, because that's where the actual tendering and supervision of construction takes place, once people are working within the guidelines the ministry has established.

[ Page 5298 ]

J. Tyabji: I'll start with the capital costs and move backwards. First of all, I understand that the ministry has strict guidelines that school boards operate under. But I would encourage the minister to look at some of the structures that are going up and the costs involved, because it's not just my school district. The minister listed a number of things that they're building their schools to be, and I wonder if shopping malls is one of them. One school comes to mind that has actually been designed to look like a shopping mall. I don't know that that should be a priority for the kinds of structures we need to educate children in.

In addition to that, the minister might want to take a look at an extension on an existing school in Gibsons. It's my understanding that it has come in at about $4 million. The extension just looks like a large shed that has been slapped on to the side of the school. Perhaps that's not being fair to the people who are in the process of putting that together. I would encourage the minister to take a tour of the province.

For the minister's information, the reason I find this particularly frustrating is that I personally have been going on a tour of high schools to speak to the students, and I have had a number of people approach me and tell me about the cost of those schools. That is an educational process, and it is extremely worthwhile. In this day and age, I'm sure that the minister would like to cut costs as much as possible.

If it turns out that school boards around the province -- and I'm not sure if this is the case, but I believe that it is, based on what I've seen -- are not being adequate gatekeepers of the money they're getting for capital spending, then I would imagine that the minister would be very concerned about that and that she would be in a position to do something about it. I would really encourage her to do that, because I think that's somewhere where we can cut.

I agree with the minister in terms of the approach to capital. In Winfield, for example, where they want to build a community centre around the high school, that's an excellent idea, because it cuts down on the overall cost to government. That makes sense, and I congratulate her on that kind of innovative thinking. But at the same time, the problem that all of us have as elected officials is that we lose our credibility if the public sees these types of shopping-mall structures, with $300 light fixtures, going up at a time when our taxes are going through the roof.

Whether or not that ends up being somebody else's department, because it falls within the Ministry of Education, the minister knows that she's going to end up being responsible for it because that's the public perception of things.

I would encourage her to take a look at the capital costs. If it turns out that the contracts have to be monitored better.... I'm not saying put together another committee or another commission to travel the province. I think the minister or a senior member of her staff should look at them directly. It doesn't take a lot to realize that there's something wrong when a very small structure goes up at a cost of $4 million.

With regard to the schooling problem and the move toward privatization, this is a very important issue. One reason I know this is a growing trend is that I have had discussions over the last several years with regard to an increase in home-based schooling -- not just enrolment in private schools -- which may or may not be accompanied by the services of a private tutor. As the minister I'm sure is aware, I acted as private tutor for a number of years, and in fact I managed a tutoring company. So I know firsthand what's going on in terms of the level of demand.

Without exception, not only through the clients one would meet through the tutoring process but also through letters to the editor and discussions at public meetings.... At a tax rally we had in Kelowna last week, we had a man from the floor saying: "For goodness' sake, teach my son how to read and write and how to do his math, and I'll teach him how to row and curl." He felt that his son was getting access to programs when really, as a parent, he didn't care if his son knew how to do these recreational things, even though if his son had his way, he'd probably like more recreational activities.

Where I have a real concern is not just in the privatization of education, but in what's happening in the public education system to cause that trend. In my own experience, we have students in grade 5 who don't know the days of the week or the months of the year, and they cannot read a clock that has hands on it because they've grown up with digitals. They know anything you can ask them about television, they're bright students, but they have not been given the very basics of how to organize time or schedules. They don't know their multiplication tables, because they can use a calculator.

It may seem trivial to bring it up in debate in the House, but if we have the Year 2000, which is asking for student-driven programs -- and I think this is an interesting idea -- and we don't have uniformity in the implementation of that, and school districts around the province are interpreting the Year 2000, then we're definitely going to have students falling through the cracks. I know that in the last general election -- and the minister may be able to update me -- we had about a 30 percent functional illiteracy rate.

We have Project Literacy, and we have groups around the province coming up at a grass-roots level to promote reading abilities. We know that in the age of technology we all too often have television, computers and square electronic screens that can distract us from the basics. I very

[ Page 5299 ]

passionately feel that students should be exposed to literature, but even if they're not I would hope that they have the tools to explore that in the future. I'm really concerned that they don't.

That's where the question is: where is the proactive approach? What I'm finding is a move to privatization, to home-based schooling and to opting out of the public system that happens repeatedly. The way it's linked to labour unrest is that where there have been lengthy labour disruptions of the public education system, that's been an opportunity for the parents to say: "I'll bring in home tutors." I believe it was in Quesnel that we had basement classes being set up, with parents pooling their resources to hire tutors to come in. What they were finding was that grade point averages were going up.

This is something that I got from one of the superintendents I just happened to run into, and we had a detailed discussion about what's going on in education. But whether it is superintendents, parents or teachers, there seems to be a concern. So the question is: in what way is there a proactive approach to getting the fundamentals in the public education system so that when there is labour unrest we don't have a further privatization of that system?

Hon. A. Hagen: The member makes some very sweeping statements that are simply not borne out within our education system.

First of all, let me just respond to the issue of home schooling. I don't have the total figures, but I will have them shortly. I'll come back to numbers. There are children who are being home-schooled. One needs to recognize that some of those children live in remote areas. I'm acknowledging or recognizing that there are parents who are choosing to educate their children at home, and that has been the case for many years. The number of children is very small -- something in the order of 2,000 or 3,000 of the nearly 600,000 children who are in public and independent schools in British Columbia.

So her view that there is a large number of people who are choosing to educate their children at home is certainly not borne out by the numbers. We do now provide for some resources if they are being educated at home. Many of those children actually do spend some time in schools and take some of their courses there.

[4:15]

The member expresses a concern about the core curriculum and what is being taught in our schools. There is no change in the core basics that are being taught in our schools. Every child is learning those basics: to read, to count, to write, to communicate, and to know and deal with science and social studies. As we look at international assessments, national assessments and our regular learning assessments, we find that our students are learning well. University people tell me that the quality of students graduating and coming to university is improving. Looking at what's happening at the primary level, we see that children are learning to read better than they have before.

We are very closely monitoring some of the changes that are occurring in children's lives, and one of the things that we do with all of our tests is ask about television viewing. We ask the children to indicate how many hours a day they watch television, because usually young people can get some pretty good estimate of their watching time. You'll see in our annual reports that there is a very clear correlation between the amount of time that children watch television and their progress in school. Again we're talking about the school-parent relationship, because it's the parents who deal with the home part of children's lives.

There are clearly articulated standards in all of our goals of education and in the delivery of education. The primary program -- which has been built on primary practice that for years grew out of the same kind of schooling that my children had in the seventies as the best of their schooling -- is still being modelled in the primary grades of British Columbia.

We are continuing to work to ensure that every child learns and acquires those basic reading, writing and math skills. They are the basic skills on which all children's learning is predicated, and it does require a rigour, a discipline and a structure. The methods we're using are designed to ensure that every child continues to be encouraged to learn those fundamental skills. With an inclusive system we will always have a challenge for every student to proceed at a pace that is common for those students.

Let me just tell you an anecdote about a grade 4 teacher with whom I recently spent an evening, along with another group of teachers. She's a strong advocate of the methods that are being used today. A little boy came to her who had been struggling with learning to read, who hadn't got it together, and who wasn't reading at a level that was typical for his age. She told us about the events of the past two or three weeks when all of a sudden that child had had a breakthrough.

She spoke about her knowledge about developmental age, about the different ways in which children learn, about her experience -- because she had taught from primary through to grade 4 in this particular case -- and about her commitment to continue to work with each of those children around them developing their reading and learning skills.

I'd like to read to you, if I may, one of the hundreds of letters that I get in the course of a month, one that really caught my attention. This is from a teacher who is working in the primary program. She said:

"Teachers have worked very hard to learn about the philosophy of the Year 2000 and have implemented it with a mandate given to us by government. Most of us realize that the research substantiates that we need to focus on the learner, rather than have just a teacher-directed program. Proof is there."

This is what I want to emphasize:

"Over the last four years I have made considerable efforts to change my teaching style and to implement strategies and approaches as outlined in the Year 2000 documents. I am most impressed by the changes I have seen in children's attitudes toward learning and the actual learning that takes place. Children are enthusiastic, work cooperatively and are far more on-task. I find I have fewer behaviour problems and fewer children off-task. I never want to go back to the traditional teaching of ability groups, workbooks and teacher-directed activities. The thinking and learning I see taking place in my multi-age classroom makes me

embar-

[ Page 5300 ]

rassed to think about how I used to teach children. We still teach skills, we still follow the curriculum and we still worry about spelling and writing. But all of this is carried out within the theme we are studying. Learning is meaningful because it connects for the children. I truly hope the government will listen to all interested parties and make changes to fine-tune and improve the program but continue with what we have started. The money invested in this program is money very well-spent. We owe it to all our taxpayers to continue, because my experience is that this works, and I've had many years as a teacher."

I just wanted to share that with you, because it's indicative of the letters I get from teachers working in the field with children from many different backgrounds and family situations. They are a very challenged group of people, but I believe their commitment is there. I believe also that the methods they are using will ensure that we continue to have an education system in which our children learn and learn well, and where we maintain standards that everyone wants to ensure are available for all our children.

J. Tyabji: I think the minister has misunderstood where I'm coming from with regard to the Year 2000. In terms of the philosophy, anybody who's studied Plato or the Montessori school system will understand that this is by far the best philosophy for directing education. There's no question.

As for my comments about my concerns about what children were picking up on, she's right; I agree that there has been no change in the program from before the Year 2000 to after. My concern is that the existing program, before the Year 2000, was lacking some of the fundamentals in terms of the focus being given to the students. The Year 2000 has not been uniformly implemented across the province, so some school districts are bringing it in in a different way. That's where I have a concern.

It's a difference of philosophy and implementation. There are, just as in any school, certain philosophies that result in better educational standards. I am concerned that the Year 2000 is not properly understood, because it's a fairly sophisticated concept and there's a fine line between student-driven learning and an absolute free-for-all on the part of the students. That's where I have a concern.

The problems with illiteracy rates existed before the Year 2000 was brought in, and they exist today. I think the career programs are a good way to go for students who wouldn't make it through the regular curriculum. But I'm concerned that the existing curriculum is focusing slightly too much on things like calculators and computers, which are important in the later years. But they're being brought in at such a level that some students.... The basics of the core curriculum, whether it is the Year 2000 or not, are still not coming through. That was what I was getting at.

That doesn't require a response, but it's something that definitely has to be expressed. Just as we've seen in the United States where they have moved toward privatization, we could end up in British Columbia with school districts almost like little fiefdoms, with autonomy in their budgeting and contract entitlement for capital costs, and a separate implementation of that philosophy. That's a concern.

I'd like to get on to the specifics for School District 23, the school district that I represent. I know that the minister is aware of the problems with the funding formula she inherited from the previous administration, and I know that last year we talked a bit about the problems with the existing formula for capital cost allotment because of the problems with the previous year's budget and the number of students who come in after the deadline for determination of the capital budget. Could the minister let us know if there are any significant changes with regard to School District 23?

Secondly, to what extent will B.C. 21 or Build B.C. be kicking in with regard to School District 23? What exactly is planned?

Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for her questions about her district. As I did with the member for Surrey-Cloverdale today, let me advise you of the increases that your district has received over the last four years. The enrolment has increased by 29.6 percent -- a very large increase. The funding has increased by 52.3 percent. This year your district received an increase of 6 percent, one of the highest increases in the province. I believe we have provided for some of the growth after September 30. That was an issue with your district.

Close to $87,000 was added to the district in the final calculations, based on the increase in the number of children after September 30. And we are continuing, unlike many provinces, to fully fund enrolment. So if your district continues to grow at the rate at which it has been, then those additional resources will be there. Your district received the third-largest increase in dollars this year -- second only to Surrey, which was first, and Vancouver, which was second.

With your second question, I noted this morning that the $561 million capital envelope that I announced on Friday will be announced very shortly with regard to specific districts. As the Ministry of Education, we are responsible for the planning and the allocations, and I think you know, hon. member, that we work very closely with the school districts. There's a five-year plan. We sort out their priorities with the districts and try to work very collaboratively with them.

We are working with the B.C. 21 concept, because regional development is an important aspect of dealing with economic issues where the resource industries and other industries are producing unemployment. As much as we possibly can, we have planned our capital work in order to provide opportunities for employment in those regions; but we've done it in the broader context of our planning for those districts. As soon as we have some final fine-tuning, you'll know just exactly what's coming to central Okanagan in capital funding -- something that I know 75 people in this Legislature are waiting for with a good deal of eagerness.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to repeat what I said earlier. I do recognize that the minister has a commitment both to education and to fairness in funding.

I think the numbers that were read out a little bit earlier are slightly misleading. Although School District

[ Page 5301 ]

23 has received significant increases, part of that is because they've been significantly disadvantaged in the funding formula. It's nice to see that there's some compensation for that this year, and that there's some attempt to bring it to a level playing field.

[4:30]

Is the amortization of the projects for the Ministry of Education that come through B.C. 21 debated in the Education estimates, the Finance estimates or the Transportation estimates?

Hon. A. Hagen: We are dealing with the capital envelope within the Education ministry. There is an education financing authority which we use to finance our capital envelope. Debt servicing is a part of our budget this year. I might note that our debt-servicing amounts are down because we have been managing our capital envelope with a great deal of care. So there are some reduced costs there which I'm glad to see, because we are continuing to build schools as we need to in districts such as yours, hon. member.

But to be clear, the $561 million capital envelope which I announced on Friday will be managed by the Education ministry, as it always has been, and amortized through the education financing authority -- the financing authority that government has used yea these many years for the amortization of the costs of its capital work in school districts.

J. Tyabji: So the $561 million, as the minister says, in the capital envelope for the Ministry of Education has in effect, because it's through B.C. 21, been given from B.C. 21?

Hon. A. Hagen: Every ministry such as this one has a capital envelope each year. Last year, you'll remember, it was $582 million; this year it's $561 million. The initiatives for regional and economic development in B.C. 21 are not in any way related to the financing of this envelope. The point I was trying to convey, if I can make it more clear, is that as we look at areas where we need to see economic development, we're aware that this envelope's projects provide jobs; they provide opportunities for training for people in the construction industries.

They are very significant economic drivers, and because every school district -- or nearly every school district -- has some capital funding, these dollars are very significant.

Because our capital envelope includes some minor projects as well as the big schools that have to be built in places like Kelowna or Surrey, very often there's an opportunity for the small contractor in a community to bid on those jobs when we're upgrading schools. That helps with the overall thrust of B.C. 21 as we look at ways to ensure that the economic development of our province is taking place in all regions.

J. Tyabji: I'm having a hard time understanding this, because as I understand it, part of the mandate of B.C. 21 is to put together interministerial capital initiatives, which would include Education, Health and Transportation. Could the minister clarify if B.C. 21 will be involved with capital projects such as schools?

The Chair: Before recognizing the hon. minister, I would caution the committee that B.C. 21 under Bill 3 is before the House, as all members know, and would not be a matter for canvassing during committee. There will be ample opportunity, however, to canvass that particular piece of legislation when it's called before the House.

Hon. A. Hagen: Staying with my responsibilities, hon. Chair, and those of the Education ministry, the debt service grants are in our Education budget. They are $281 million for the coming year. That's down from last year, when they were $284 million. We will manage the $561 million capital envelope that I announced on Friday through our facilities branch, and hon. members will hear about their particular districts soon.

J. Tyabji: To the Chair, the only reason I'm asking these questions is that by the time we get to committee stage debate on Bill 3, the Education estimates will have passed. So I can't ask the minister about capital projects in her ministry that may fall under.... I'm trying to understand how this works here, because obviously Bill 3 is a major initiative that affects this ministry as well. It's sort of putting the cart before the horse, and I know it is against the orders, but this debate will be finished by the time we get to that.

The minister has said that $281 million within her ministry's budget is debt-servicing grants. Are those for amortizations of previous capital projects?

Hon. A. Hagen: Because we are obviously administering capital envelopes on a continuing basis, the debt-servicing costs for this year will be for projects undertaken this year or ongoing projects from last year's envelope. The total debt-servicing cost in our 1993-94 budget is $281 million, and our capital envelope will be administered by our ministry, the same as it was last year. So I hope I'm making that clear: it's being administered by our ministry, just as it was last year.

J. Tyabji: My head is starting to hurt. I'm trying to figure this out. Is $200 million the debt servicing for ongoing capital projects and capital projects to be initiated this year that will be amortized? Okay. So the $561 million is for capital projects that will not be amortized? Okay. So if we add the $561 million and the $281 million, will we have the cost to the Ministry of Education. Or is the $281 million a portion of the $561 million?

Hon. A. Hagen: If you can imagine you're paying a mortgage on your house, you pay it on the basis of the mortgage you hold. So the mortgage that we will hold on schools at the end of the year will require us to make payments of $281 million this year. I hope that helps. We are talking about spending that will go over a number of years, depending on when the schools are actually completed. We get a site, plan a building and build it. We may have a portion of the cost of that building in one year's capital envelope for site acquisition, in the next year's capital envelope for planning, and in the third year for the actual building. So we have

[ Page 5302 ]

borrowing authority right now for debt servicing of $281 million. It's just like paying the mortgage on everything that we owe for those capital projects we're responsible for as a ministry. If your head is spinning and you want a further briefing on it, come over to talk to us and maybe we can help. The issue is that we're handling it within the ministry.

Let me just go back, if I may, because you were asking about the number of home-schooling students. I have the total number; I didn't have it before. It's just over 3,800, which is 0.5 percent of the total student body, K to 12, in the province.

J. Tyabji: Actually, I would be more interested in the graphing curve of the increase in home-schooling students from what it was a few years ago. I wasn't talking about the number.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: That gets back to the problem. I wasn't talking about the total number but the percentage increase.

With regard to debt servicing, the reason I'm holding to this is that the mortgage payments have gone down from last year to this year, and yet we know the ministry now has this additional mandate through B.C. 21 for some capital expenditures. So if the $561 million is the capital that would be expended and the $281 million is mortgage payments, how many years are we amortizing? This $281 million, for example, is for debt servicing this year. But if we're going to use the mortgage analogy, how does that break down? How many years will we be paying $281 million.

And how is it that last year the debt-servicing cost was higher? Obviously you must have paid something off. How does that fit in? The only reason I'm really sticking to this point is that I am under the impression, because of both the throne speech and the budget speech, that part of the capital costs of the Ministry of Education are going to be handled through B.C. 21. If that's the case, is that one reason why there has been a decrease in the amortization payments? It's as if it's a case where you've negotiated the contract for the house, but we're all paying for it.

I'm just trying to find out what the contract says. How many years are we indebted for? Of course, this is going to be ruled out in terms of future policy. What is the total cost of the mortgage, and how much can we reasonably expect the payments to go up by next year as a result of B.C. 21?

The Chair: I must repeat for the benefit of the committee that the Chair is bound by the standing orders. I can appreciate the desire of the member for Okanagan East, who is seeking to get information from the minister in her area of responsibility. But unfortunately, B.C. 21 is clearly a matter which is being debated under Bill 3. Unless the Chair has further orders with respect to how to conduct the committee, I must insist that the member refrains from referring to legislation which is before the House.

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just state again, as unequivocally as I can, that the borrowing authority we have from Treasury Board for $561 million, translated into projects for 75 districts, is not part of the B.C. 21 bill. The $281 million in mortgage payments for capital works extends back to work done 20 years ago. It might have been done during the previous NDP administration, because that takes us back 20 years. It certainly extends to the small number of capital project works we had during the 1980s when the Socreds were in office, when they didn't build or repair anything.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm glad you got one. You must have had a pipeline to the right place, and it probably helped to get you here somewhere along the line.

We are managing our mortgage payments very carefully. That's good and prudent financial management. I can't tell you what the costs will be next year, but I can tell you what they were last year. Our interest rates are good, and the cash-flow issue is being managed. We are managing the capital envelope so that our mortgage payments are as low as possible, just like any good homeowner would try to manage their mortgage payments in order to make them as low as possible.

J. Tyabji: The house is too expensive.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd say that maybe her district shouldn't have an expensive house. I don't think that's really what she wants to suggest.

Regarding that expensive item, I want to just note that the standards set for each school district are based on the work of the very best quantity surveyors, who look at those costs on an annual basis. They are reviewed and adjusted. We are also working with the building industry on ways in which we can do the very thing that the member was emphasizing: building most efficiently and wisely.

One of the reasons we're looking at the availability of land is that very often the challenge is to find land where we can build a school at a reasonable cost. We blessedly well need to have the school. I don't think the member and I have any disagreement on that.

K. Jones: It's a pleasure to return to our questioning of the minister. I have a particular interest in the subject that was just covered, because it certainly could have serious ramifications for the province. We are specifically asking the minister to further clarify the total indebtedness that will be part of her ministry's legacy this year. Does that include any borrowing by the committee established under Bill 3? Do you plan to borrow any money for capital projects under the process that is established in Bill 3 for B.C. 21?

[4:45]

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, this is getting tedious and repetitious. We borrow through the school districts financing authority, a long-established authority under the government of British Columbia.

[ Page 5303 ]

K. Jones: The question is not tedious. It's a whole new approach, actually, because this part hasn't been addressed by the minister. The minister is absolutely correct that the money she is talking about will be coming from the education financing authority. We're asking if there is additional capital borrowing going to be utilized by the ministry this year and if that is possibly coming from the process established under Bill 3.

Hon. A. Hagen: Where we are looking at cooperative projects with other ministries there will be some very minor amounts that will be a part of that initiative.

K. Jones: Have you included those funds within your budget?

Hon. A. Hagen: The methodology that we use around debt servicing applies to all of the capital projects that we are associated with in regard to our schools.

K. Jones: If I read that statement correctly, the minister says that the $281 million that's being used for debt servicing is being used to provide the debt servicing of borrowings that would be made through B.C. 21. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: Could the member repeat the question?

The Chair: Before the hon. member proceeds, I don't believe he was in the chamber at the time I was cautioning the committee that Bill 3 is before the House and Build B.C. is a matter which is under Bill 3, so would you be cognizant of that in your questioning.

K. Jones: I'm fully aware of that. The questions are directly related to the budget that the minister is operating with. Maybe I should wait for the minister's attention so that she gets it clear this time. What I'm asking is: out of the $281 million that you've indicated is for debt servicing, you were saying that some of that money is being used to pay back the portion of the debt that would be borrowed through the funding process established under Bill 3.

Hon. A. Hagen: This is a very straightforward matter. The Ministry of Education has been granted the authority to borrow $561 million for capital projects. In order to pay any interest that may accrue around that debt.... Let me put it this way: we've been granted the spending authority for $561 million to begin projects that will cost that amount of money. There is a debt-servicing portio