1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7479 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Loan Privatization Act (Bill 43).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 7479

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act (Bill 42). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 7479

Oral Questions

Sumac Ventures environmental emergency. Mr. Cashore –– 7479

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7480

Low-level military flights. Mr. Guno –– 7481

False credentials. Mr. Rogers –– 7481

Low-level military flights. Mr. Guno –– 7481

Mr. Rose

Sulphur dioxide emissions. Hon. Mr. Dueck replies to question –– 7482

Accreditation of private colleges. Hon. S. Hagen replies to question –– 7482

Tabling Documents –– 7482

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 16: minister's office –– 7483

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Guno

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Sihota

Tabling Documents –– 7507

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID : I take pleasure in introducing today a longtime friend of mine and a very dedicated British Columbian, Mr. Wally Rhead.

MRS. BOONE :

It gives me great pleasure to have two sets of guests in the gallery

today I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Alan and Jan

Timberlake and their lovely little daughter Sara, who is four and a

half months old, and Mrs. Mary Bacon and her guest from England, Miss

Janet Stead. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, from the great little riding of Yale-Lillooet, I have two

friends from that little hub city visiting Victoria — actually

they are working for our constituents. With us in your gallery is the

mayor of the city of Merritt, Bob Baird, who's a former president of

the United Steelworkers local there. We used to be rivals in the past,

but I can assure you we are good friends and allies today. With him is

my second guest, an alderman for the city of Merritt, an entrepreneur

and also a good friend, Bob Brown. I wish the House to give them a very

warm welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In the members'

gallery today are three hard-working members of the Interior Logging

Association: from Barriere, Mr. Derek Starner; from Kelowna, Mr. Bob

Lind; and from Merritt, Mr. Bill Johnston. I'd like the House to bid

them a warm welcome.

MR. ROSE : In the House today

are 60 grade 7 students accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. A.

McDougall, from Ranch Park Elementary School in my riding. While I am

on my feet, I met in the hall — and I assume they are in the gallery —

Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Jackman from Port McNeill and their three children.

Bruce is a former student of mine. I would like both groups to be

welcomed by the House.

HON. L. HANSON : It's my

pleasure today to introduce two gentlemen from my constituency. They

are Mr. Bob Whitehead, who is plant manager of Hiram Walker and Sons

Ltd. in Winfield, and Mr. John Madsen, who is the industrial relations

manager for that same plant. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BRUCE : As you know, I have many friends in

Cowichan-Malahat, but perhaps you don't know that I also have friends

from across this nation — all the way from Newfoundland, actually.

Having had some municipal experience, many of you in this chamber are

aware that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had its annual

general meeting in the beautiful city of Vancouver in British Columbia.

Today with us in the House in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a good

friend of mine, His Worship Paul Hennessey and his wife Liz, all the

way from Grand Falls, Newfoundland. I would ask the House to make them

welcome, please.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA ENTERPRISE

CORPORATION LOAN PRIVATIZATION ACT

HON. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Loan Privatization

Act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, this bill is administrative in nature and is required to

effect the privatization of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation's loan

portfolio. In addition to amending the B.C. Enterprise Corporation

Financial Restructuring Act and the LILA Revolving Fund Act, this bill

also provides a vesting with the purchasers of all lending assets sold.

Bill

43 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.

CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Cemetery and Funeral Services Act.

HON. L. HANSON :

This bill will update about five or six acts dealing with the funeral

and cemeteries industry, some of which date back to the early 1900s.

There is one issue that has been of high priority and a topic of much

discussion lately, and this bill will in fact ban direct solicitation

by telephone or door to door.

Bill 42 introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SUMAC VENTURES

ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Environment. On June 10, the minister, as

a damage control measure, declared an environmental emergency at Sumac

Ventures, a gold tailings heat leaching operation north of Grand Forks.

Can the minister now explain to this House why he ignored warnings of

local residents concerning the danger of spills and permitted this

company to begin operating in 1986?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I can't accept the member's premise that we ignored warnings. The ministry

[ Page 7480 ]

officials were well aware of that concern —

and other mining ventures that deal with toxic chemicals. But as for

when we were aware of that concern, I'll take that part of the question

on notice.

[2:15]

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. The Grand Forks

Watershed Coalition made extensive representations to the regional

waste manager, and in 1986 to the Environmental Appeal Board. The

board ordered that company's spill prevention and emergency response

plans to be circulated to this citizen group and other environmental

agencies. Can the minister confirm that he personally overruled the

Environmental Appeal Board and ordered that these plans not be

circulated or made public?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In the

first place, I took that issue on notice. Secondly, it's highly

unlikely I would have overturned an Environmental Appeal Board hearing

in 1986, because I was not Minister of Environment in 1986.

MR. CASHORE :

To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. An investigation by the ombudsman

failed to locate any written legal opinion to back up the minister's

failure to make these plans public. Can the minister tell this House

why he failed to obtain a written opinion to back up his position?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's the second question in terms of this issue. I'll take it on notice, too.

MR. CASHORE :

New question. Can the minister explain why he considered spill

prevention and emergency response plans, which ought to be fully

available in the event of an emergency, to be private, secret documents?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Plans submitted to the waste management branch or the Ministry of

Environment are kept in confidence if that's the wish of the people

submitting the plans. That way we are able to extract more information

from the company.

MR. CASHORE : A supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. Can the minister explain why he should not take full blame for

the environmental emergency he created when his ministry refused to

listen to a citizen group that three years ago sent photos and warned

his ministry that this cyanide leaching operation was in a floodplain

and that they were concerned there would be cyanide leaching into the

water table? He ignored a citizen group that spent months studying the

issue and making extensive representations to the regional waste

manager and the Environmental Appeal Board, and ignored the decision of

the Environmental Appeal Board.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Has the member got a question?

MR. CASHORE :

Yes. The question is: why should the minister not take full

responsibility when this was his participation in this issue? There

seems to be some kind of a cover-up here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Perhaps at the outset we could ask for a withdrawal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : The member was asked to withdraw the word "cover-up." Would he please withdraw it.

MR. CASHORE : I'll withdraw the word "coverup."

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Again, I've taken the issue the member has presented on notice, and I

will respond to him when I have all the details. However, I really

question his evidence. Normally he's wrong, as he was in the cases of

the museum plaque and the Western Pulp Partnership. We'll examine what

he said and respond at a later date.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Labour. Has he yet had an opportunity to

talk to Mr. Doney with respect to the matter of political interference?

HON. L. HANSON :

For the information of the member, I talk with my staff quite often.

But again, I took that question on notice and will respond in due time.

MR. SIHOTA :

The former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay, has already

indicated that he became aware of the call of political interference

and immediately ordered an investigation; in other words, he understood

that there were some ramifications with respect to influence-peddling.

Could the Minister of Labour advise the House who from his ministry

contacted the Attorney-General and advised him about the political

interference call?

HON. L. HANSON : Again, Mr.

Speaker, that issue has been canvassed many times. I'm not sure who

contacted the Attorney-General; it might have been me. I can take that

on notice.

MR. SIHOTA : It's peculiar that the minister can't remember if he himself talked to the Attorney-General.

want to ask a question of the Premier. Given that the Minister of

Labour has been unable to contact Mr. Doney and provide this House with

an answer, and given that all deputy ministers report to the Premier's

office, will the Premier ask Mr. Rhodes, his assistant, to contact Mr.

Doney so that the Premier can provide this House with an answer as to

the circumstances of that political interference?

[ Page

7481 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied that the

information already available — we're aware that it's not all

available, but much of it is —

has been openly considered in a variety of ways. We've had the

Attorney-General's department, we've had the ombudsman and we've had

the RCMP. If there's further information, then it will soon be

available, and I'm sure that will satisfy all the members.

LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS

MR. GUNO :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. On April 25 of this year the

Premier responded to a question from the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) by saying there would only be

reconnaissance flights in B.C. Today the Minister of National Defence

announced that he has decided to allow low-level strategic bomber

flights over northwestern B.C. Can the Premier explain how he

reconciles his answer of April 25 with the raw facts announced today by

the Minister of Defence?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well,

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statement which was made by the Minister

of Defence, but it sounds, from what I've heard so far, that there's no

inconsistency between what was said today by the Minister of Defence

and what I said. But I'll look at the statement made by the Minister of

Defence. If the member has it available, perhaps it would help if he

gave me a copy of it — that always makes it easier.

MR. GUNO :

A supplementary to the Premier. Given the fact that this announcement

was made prior to any kind of extensive public consultation with the

people affected, given the fact that there has been very little

environmental impact study of these kinds of flights, can the Premier

stand up for the people of B.C. and protest these flights?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, maybe I'm not reading something

into the question that the members of the NDP obviously have read into it. I

didn't understand it quite that way, but it seems from the response I guess

the question is: would we oppose our commitment to NATO and exercise flights,

agreed upon between the two governments — the United States and Canada — and

would I protest? Frankly, I'm not about to protest on behalf of myself or

the government without knowing what it is we're protesting, to protest for

the sake of protesting.

FALSE CREDENTIALS

MR. ROGERS : I have a question for the Premier. Your counterpart in Ontario,

Premier Peterson, has had his share of problems recently, some of which have

been of a high-profile nature, but one of which was of a particularly technical

nature in that a senior official of his government — that is to say, someone

in a very high position — was found to have fibbed somewhat on his credentials

in securing his job, and in fact indicated in applying for his position that

he had academic credentials which in fact he did not have. Have you decided

what action would be taken by your government in the event a similar situation

were to occur in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, no, I have not. I guess the question is somewhat

hypothetical, and I'm not familiar with the situation in Ontario that

is being referred to. I'll certainly look to get further information on

that as well.

LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS

MR. GUNO :

This is a supplementary to my earlier questions to the Premier. I'd

like to inform the Premier that the majority of northern people do not

want these flights to be flown over northwestern B.C. Will the Premier

make a commitment that he will inform himself as to the impact of these

flights as soon as possible and make his concerns known to the Canadian

government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I recently had the

pleasure of welcoming to British Columbia the secretary-general for

NATO. The secretary-general made a speech to the group gathered, and

frankly, I was quite impressed with the statistics he provided,

Obviously the existence of NATO and everyone's participation in it has

brought about a situation today where we find Mr. Gorbachev and Mr.

Bush and others negotiating towards peace. Probably this world is

closer to lasting peace today than it's ever been.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Perhaps the member — and understandably, because that's generally the way the NDP operate —

wishes to reinforce the position of the federal NDP, that they pull out

of NATO and risk that great opportunity which we've seen over the past

while of bringing lasting peace to the world. I say that we on this

side of the House are prepared to work with the federal government

towards all and any measures that might ensure greater peace. While in

the House, we wish to address the problems as they affect British

Columbia.

MR. ROSE : Despite what the Premier says

about trying to turn this into a NATO issue, into a question of whether

we should be in NATO or out of it, that is not the issue here. The

issue here is whether the Premier would approve of strategic NATO

flights over the lower mainland, or whether he is content to have the

war machine just fly over the native communities.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The member for Atlin opened up his first question with the remark that

I had responded to a question from the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). I said

[ Page 7482 ]

then,

in response to the question when it was posed The question,

incidentally, was with respect to flights to Comox on a regular basis.

The indications were that there would be low-flying flights and

landings of these reconnaissance planes in Comox, and he asked if I

would investigate it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I then said that I had no knowledge of it and hadn't heard of it, but that I would...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. members, this House will not work if we don't have free speech.

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

... investigate it further. The following day I called the minister

responsible in Ottawa and spoke to her. She advised me in the return

call, after checking it out further as well, that in fact there was no

such proposal, there were no such plans and certainly that was not the

case.

She did say there were flights from Seattle to the

Northwest Territories and that these did go across British Columbia,

and that one community — and I mentioned this in the House, I believe, in response — they

would come within 20 miles of, or thereabouts, was Vanderhoof. This was

the advice given me and this is what I reported to the House.

Now

the question, as I understand it, is: will we protest these flights?

This, incidentally, I was advised, would be four flights per year. I

believe that was the number; it was a relatively minor number; I'll get

the exact figures.

took it from the question, in the way

it was posed and in the response from the other members of the NDP,

that this was another attempt to come out against our commitment to

NATO — where we do have certain obligations — and it's in

keeping with the whole attempt of the NDP to pull us out of NATO.

I said, NATO has done an effective job in many areas, and frankly much

of what we enjoy today and the relative peace that exists, which we

hope will grow and which we hope can be furthered still, is because of

nations working together through NATO.

SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

HON. MR. DUECK :

In my absence a question was asked by the member for Burnaby North (Mr.

Jones) and taken on notice by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Strachan). I would like to reply to that question today.

The

question was whether increased hospital admissions could be directly

related to high levels of sulphur dioxide emissions from oil refineries

and cement plants in the lower mainland. We're well aware that Dr.

David Bates is in fact doing a study on this and writing a report. We

are taking steps to obtain a copy of this report for study and

analysis. I don't believe it has been published yet. We will be

extending an invitation to Dr. Bates to discuss his findings with us

and with Ministry of Health staff.

It is my intention that

once this review is completed, staff from my ministry will be meeting

with the involved Vancouver and area health departments to consider the

appropriate action.

Hon. Mr. Davis presented the 1988 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

ACCREDITATION OF PRIVATE COLLEGES

HON. S. HAGEN :

The member for Burnaby North last week asked me a question with regard

to the accreditation of private training institutions in general, and

more specifically the Western Media Institute. I took that question on

notice, and I'd like to reply to it at this time.

I would

first of all like to respond to the question of accreditation. There

are over 400 private training institutions in the province from which

about 50,000 students graduate each year. These institutions are

registered by my ministry under the provisions of the Apprenticeship

Act.

Institutions applying for a certification of

registration are required to furnish a surety bond. The amount of the

bond is determined by my ministry and is based upon the number of

students attending that institution, the number of courses that it

offers and the tuition fees that it charges. This bond is used to

protect the students from financial loss in the event that the

institution is unable to fulfil the terms of its contract with the

students. This practice should be considered a form of consumer

protection only; it is not accreditation and has never been presented

as such.

As I have previously informed the House, my

ministry is currently reviewing alternative methods to enhance the

system of registration of private training institutions. We want to

ensure that the people of British Columbia have access to a stronger,

more cohesive training and education system, in which private training

institutions will play an integral role.

Accreditation of

private training institutions is one of the options my ministry is

currently reviewing. My staff is involved in ongoing discussions with

both institutional representatives and students about the feasibility

and benefits of accreditation, and I am awaiting their report. Since

this would become a much broader issue and may in fact require

legislative amendments, I will be discussing the report with my cabinet

colleagues later this year.

Secondly, I would like to

respond to the question on the Western Media Institute. As the hon.

member is aware, my ministry received a complaint in April of this year

from four students of this institution, As soon as that complaint was

received, my staff initiated an investigation into the allegation of

the students.

[ Page 7483 ]

These

students, along with four students from last year's program, then

initiated court action against the owner of the institution before our

investigation was completed. Subsequent to the students' action, the

owner launched a countersuit. We viewed the students' legal action as

replacing their complaint lodged with the ministry. My staff therefore

suspended their investigation, pending the outcome of both suits.

However, following consultation with our legal counsel and in

recognition of the needs of other students, we have now reconvened our

investigation, and I am awaiting a report on my staff's findings.

this point, I would like to respond to comments made by the hon. member

for Burnaby North about the actual number of staff in my ministry to

oversee the registration and investigation of private training

institutions. There are two dedicated staff to register private

training institutions. However, there is a network of employment

training counsellors throughout the province who are available to

assist in the investigation of complaints about these institutions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On behalf of the Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and

Members' Services, I would ask leave for them to sit tomorrow morning

at 10 a.m.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 16: minister's office, $224,490 (continued)

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister a few questions that have to

do with the implementation of some measures that the minister has

promised, but which, of course, are not yet in legislation: that is,

the implementation of what the minister calls "ungraded primary," which

will be coming — we'll say it is coming. We may debate ungraded

primary and the philosophy of it later, but right now I want to talk

about the implementation, which the minister has proposed, as far as I

can make out.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, out of courtesy to the member on her feet, could we have some order and quiet in the room, please.

MS. EDWARDS : The proposal that the first three grades — 1 to 3 — be

put into an ungraded process that simply follows for three years or so.... I

presume it would be three years; I guess the amount of time becomes the cutoff

instead of grades. In order to implement that, the ministry had a conference

at the end of May — very recently — at the New Beginnings conference. At that

conference the minister said, as I understand it, that the goal of the conference

was to involve as many people as possible, to get them out to start talking

about the opportunities that exist, the new changes and the chances to do continuous

progress work within the primary education system. My question to the minister

is: I understand that the ministry paid for the cost of the conference itself

but not for travel or accommodation for anyone who attended. Is that correct,

Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Go ahead and finish your questions. We'll make a note of them and answer them.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member continue, please.

MS. EDWARDS :

As I understand it, the expenses for most of the people who attended

had to be paid for by the local school districts. If that is indeed the

answer, Mr. Chairman, it leads to further questions about the

implementation of this particular program. There is concern among many

of the people throughout the province that the implementation needs to

be very serious; it needs to be funded by the provincial government. It

is a provincial government move to change how these things are going

on, and as the system changes and the minister and ministry prefer to

change the system, it is thus the responsibility of the system to

implement the change and pay for it.

The first part, as I

say, is the involvement in a central conference, the costs for which, I

believe, went to local school boards and taxpayers. If you move on to

that, how is the ministry going to pay for the implementation by

involving all the teachers who are going to have to upgrade skills and

probably change their outlook on how they handle their grades because

they have been working within a graded system? If they are now to go to

continuous progress in an ungraded system, how does the minister

propose to do that without imposing on...? Perhaps he had intended...I

hope not, because the teachers certainly don't want him to, and there

are a number of others who don't want an imposition on the five

non-instructional days which teachers currently have. Those days have

been planned; some of them, in fact, in some districts are

teacher-directed. If the ministry plans to implement this system across

the province in some fairly equitable way, how does it intend to do

that and work around the number of days currently legislated for

classroom or instructional days without using the five

non-instructional days, which would be inequitable? Has the minister

any cost figures on that? Has he made a decision on how he will do it

and what the cost would be within his budget?

[ Page 7484 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Once again, it would appear that the member is either misinformed or

trying to promote and foster the notion that this is a central

minister-imposed change on the education system. Nothing is further

from the truth. The Sullivan commission went around this province and

found out that primary teachers believed in opening up from that

compartmentalized grade structure, and they said it in various ways.

The people of this province were concerned about students being

labelled as failures because they work at different rates, or being

constrained from making progress at their ability rate. From that comes

the idea of the ungraded primary: recommendation No. 2, very strongly

stated, in the royal commission report. To have that member say this is

a centrally imposed system that's got nothing to do with the districts

or the teachers has to be bordering on ludicrous.

As far as

the funding is concerned, the ministry paid $100,000 towards that

conference, and school boards throughout this province have been

allotted $10 million in their budgets this year for expenditures to

implement the recommendations of the royal commission report. Not all

of that $10 million went to this conference, but the $10 million is

available on an apportioned basis to school districts in order to

provide for sending people to conferences as necessary, for sending

them information, for the spending of money on the required input that

has to come back into the proposed implementation plan and curriculum

changes, the proposed in-servicing of teachers There is more money from

the Sullivan commission implementation strategy fund in order to

provide more in-servicing and all of that. Money is set aside for that.

[2:45]

To nitpick — did you put this dollar in this pocket at this time for this particular travel —

is fairly difficult. The travel requires substitutes, so boards have

money to hire substitutes. Those conferences require travel, so there

is money in the budget for travel, put in there through the fiscal

framework. The other allotment out of the $1.4 billion over the ten

years: there's more money allotted in rough estimates for each

department — curriculum changes and all of that sort of thing. I

guess it's easy enough, if it's your total objective, to say: "Well,

I've got one number here, and I don't have the other number." I guess

my vain hope for the critics and the opposition is that somebody will

see the forest instead of trying to find one blemished tree in the

system. Somewhere in there is the ungraded primary.

Let me

explain the ungraded primary; maybe that will help. In the system that

we have now, students are put into compartments called grades. The

system — not the teachers necessarily, and I'll get into that later —

says: "Here is a predetermined set of things that you have to know. If

you only master the first five then you're a failure, and at the end of

the year — after ten months — you've got to go back and start

with item No. 1. If you happen to be capable of mastering the ten items

in six months, you must mark time until June; we can't put you into the

next compartment where you can learn hoop No. 11, No. 12, No. 13."

all accept the diversity of abilities of children, and yet we try to

compress them into predetermined compartments stamped grades. Educators

don't believe that's a sensible thing to do. Neither does the public.

Neither do parents. Neither did the Sullivan commission report. They're

saying you shouldn't have to force a student who only got halfway

through a predetermined program to go back with a younger age group;

that may be where he fits academically, but physically, socially,

emotionally and psychologically, the student probably does not fit as

well there as he or she does with their own age group. Neither should

you say to a student: "You must mark time until the kids of lesser

ability catch up to you, because we don't have a compartment to put you

in." You have to accelerate in the present system. You have to move

them into an older age group where you may solve their academic

problems and create emotional, social and psychological problems.

Thank

goodness that, despite what I'm hearing here, the teachers and the

schools in this province have made many modifications to "the system"

in order to accommodate the best interests of the students. What the

ungraded primary does, in effect, is to remove those artificially

determined compartments and cater to the diversity among students.

We're going to let them learn, and we're not going to force them into

thinking they're failures because they're different. Anybody will

accept that students are shorter, taller, and you still have an average

height. Everything in the academic world is geared to the average

student. Sure, we have grouping, we have many modifications, but by and

large the system is confining them in predetermined compartments. The

ungrading says: "Let's let them learn. Let's help them learn. Let's

encourage students to move along at a better rate. Let's not say to

them that they're a failure because they only run eight-tenths as fast

as another student."

That's the philosophy behind the

ungraded primary, which is widely supported in the educational and

public community. What the critics are trying to say is that the

ungraded primary means there will be no grading of progress, no

monitoring, no evaluation structure. That is ridiculous.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Implicitly you're saying that. How are you going to determine how kids

are making progress if you're not keeping any grades? Grades can mean

progress according to certain predetermined objectives or they can mean

compartments with a number stamped on it. We're trying to get away from

the number.

We have general agreement philosophically from

the education community. I don't think anybody in this House will stand

up and say that you should make them feel like failures or hold them

back until they're ready. So philosophically you agree with me, and

then you try to nitpick and say: "Why are you

[ Page 7485 ]

imposing

this on the system?" All along we have said that this will take time,

and the time will be needed for the teachers to become aware of it, for

the teachers to recognize the system — many teachers don't need

to; they're already doing it — and for the parents to understand

fully what ungrading means so that we can get on with the program.

have some critics saying: "Don't start; let's study it for another two

or three years." Well, you start, and what we've set up is that the 750

primary teachers in this province are called together to discuss how

the proposal might work. "What are your opinions; what is your

feedback?" We've put that all together, and that goes out to every

primary teacher in the province, and every primary teacher in the

province will feed back into that curriculum before it's finalized and

as it's finalized. And before it's in place, the parents will be fully

informed and will have their opportunity for feedback and that sort of

thing. So that's why I get so exercised when I hear: "Why are you

centrally imposing this when the people don't want it?" I think it

would be a dereliction of my duty to say that I'm going to preserve the

old system because that will get me less criticism.

We're

putting the money up, we're putting the philosophy and the backing up

in order to make the ungraded primary work. Surely to goodness we are

going to try to help students to learn to their optimum potential

rather than because some people say: "Well, we don't have the

in-service." Of course you don't have the in-service, because the

primary teachers haven't put the program together yet. They have gone a

long way towards it, and that will all flow together. It will happen,

it will serve the students in this province a lot better, and it will

implement the intent of the Sullivan report, "A Legacy for Learners," a

more relevant education for the times in which they find themselves.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, since I began by saying I wasn't arguing with the

principle, I guess I might suggest that you stop nitpicking about what

I say about the principle of ungraded primary. Why do you nitpick at me

all the time? Will you please stop nitpicking?

Mr. Minister, my question was: how do you intend to fund, since you

are, if you choose, a centrally — I don't believe I ever used the

word "imposed" — administered system? How do you intend to

implement it? How do you intend to pay for those implementation costs?

Is it simply through the $10 million that you say you put to the

various boards, and $100,000 for the conference; then by preparing the

in-service program which then goes back to the boards, to the districts

to administer? How are you going to arrange that the teachers get this

in-service training outside of their five non-instructional days?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I believe it's known as joint planning. There is an amount of money set

aside. Some of it will be made available to school districts; some of

it will be, as in this conference — to use that as an example —

that the ministry paid certain amount of the conference, and there were

other expenses that were peculiar to each district. It's easier for the

district in New Westminster to decide how much it costs to send their

person or their teacher to the conference in Vancouver than it is for

the board in other places. So that's an attempt to account for all of

that, travel expenditures and so on. There is extra money set aside.

The difficulty in answering some of these questions — and I guess why I referred to it as "nitpicking" —

is that there is an amount of money set aside for curriculum

development. That involves primary teachers; that involves travel from

the districts and so on. There's an amount of money set aside for

in-service development. I can't tell you exactly now how many primary

teachers are going to do what next March. But we know there is going to

be a cost involved, so we made an estimate and we put it there. So a

fair amount of it will be from the districts.

As for the

five professional development days, perhaps we have a different

impression. I was under the impression that professional development

days were so that teachers could get together so that they can discuss

and find ways to improve their learning skills in order to make a

better education system for the students in this province. That may be

an old-fashioned concept of professional development. So part of their

time, surely, on those professional development days should be to

enhance programs to bring themselves up to date, to familiarize

themselves with what is going on. To say, "Look, we have five days for

professional development; if you want to do any other professional

development, then you've got to stuff it somewhere else," what do they

do on their days, then, if we're taking five other days in order to do

professional development that goes along with curriculum, upgrading and

in-servicing?

So there are five days allotted for

professional development. Not all of the five days will be needed for

all teachers for this and not in any year. But surely some of the

professional development days shouldn't be: "Well, that's something I

have in my hip pocket which has nothing to do with professional

development that's related with the ministry." So I don't know what the

problem is. I thought professional development was teacher days;

sending the kids home for five days so that teachers could engage in

activities that would benefit the kids. That's exactly what we're

talking about.

MS. EDWARDS : I think that the

minister has been in the business long enough, and I have been in the

instructional business as well. I believe we know that we often make

plans for our own professional development, and we can see very clearly

from our experience in the classroom what would be very helpful in

order to do what we want to do. Perhaps you've had this experience; I

certainly have. It comes down from somewhere else. It could even come

sideways; I'm not suggesting that it's imposed. But there is a decision

that your professional development be done for some particular goal

that may be

[ Page 7486 ]

very good, but it leaves you no time to do your own professional development.

I understand it, many of the teachers in this province feel that

professional development will be used certainly to go ahead with.... If

they are primary teachers, they will want to know better how to deal

with a different system, which is the ungraded or the continuous

progress. But they are asking me what the Minister of Education is

going to do about this. Is the Minister of Education expecting that all

the development for continuous progress will be done within their five

non-instructional days that are currently within the School Act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I guess I have some difficulty with the implication that the ministry is suggesting —

in conjunction with the suggestions that have come back from the

Sullivan report, EPAC and everything else, for what changes need to be

made in the educational system, and because the ministry is putting up

the money and saying that these exercises must take place — that

it's got nothing to do with professional development, and that somehow

or other it is a ministry initiative and professional development

really has to happen from the teachers. Am I to assume that the

teachers say: "Because you're doing the ungraded primary and there's

some time in servicing and curriculum development necessary for that,

on our five days we can't talk about that"? I guess I can interpret the

other side of the coin. Can't we work together with the teachers? I

think most of the teachers will accept this. I don't know if the BCTF

executive ever can, but certainly the teachers can accept that

professional development is professional development and is best done

when their input is put together with information from the ministry and

from the school districts and everybody is working for this common

purpose: to serve the best interests of the students.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS :

I take that to mean that the minister does not accept that there is a

certain centralist tendency. It's there. When the minister decides he's

going to go in a particular direction, then it is a ministry program,

it's a ministry initiative, the minister has decided to do it, the

government is putting it in place, and you definitely have a

responsibility to get that program in place and do the PD to go with

it. You are saying you don't want it that way; you want to pretend that

it's coming up from the grass roots, out of the marsh like swamp gas, I

guess, and it's going to all come together and everybody is going to

use their PD days, and the ministry is not going to make any

predictions or planning in order to arrange the kind of professional

development related very specifically to this change in policy, done

outside the days currently there for teachers to direct their own

professional development.

[3:00]

1 have a couple of other questions I've had given to me by primary

teachers who were concerned about some announcements the ministry made

in its information circulars. This is implementation of the whole

primary program and the whole business of assessing, which the minister

doesn't want to do by grade anymore, but somehow he says it still

exists somewhere else but wouldn't if this way and the other way. The

essence of the concern is that nearly half of the government's

technology program expenditure this year will be diverted from buying

computers for student instructional use to the use for administration

and for the assessment machines that would have to be reallocated to

the central access to local systems that monitor student progress. Is

that correct, or would you like to respond? As you know, it was brought

out as one of the points in one of the BCTF publications. I'm sure you

have an answer. I don't know the answer.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

You bet I have an answer for that one, and I'm certainly delighted you

asked the question. Again, it's the type of unfortunate distortion that

goes out into the hands of people and is repeated in the press,

repeated in so many documents, when it is absolutely incorrect.

Last

year we committed ourselves to $15 million a year for five years for

computer technology implementation in the schools. About $11 million in

round numbers was given directly to the schools. The other was for

preparation of software and so on that goes with it, and the other

portion of it was for the special education technology centres that are

being developed in each of the regions.

This year, in

January or whatever, we announced the regular $15 million for this

year's program. As we got moving into the Sullivan report, we realized

that further technology would be necessary in order to monitor

continuous progress and do the kinds of things that were coming from

the consultation process as to what was necessary. So before the end of

March, in recognition that it takes time to set up this system and

there is no use preparing the programs when they don't have the

machines, and there's no use having the machines unless we prepare the

programs, we put up another $5.9 million. On top of the $15 million we

had already allotted, we put the $5.9 million up to say, since we're

moving in this direction and since they need lead time for the programs

and the computers.... These are different computers. So $2,500 was

allotted for each school, regardless of size, plus then on a

proportionate basis according to the needs. We put out that money, and

we set some of it for the implementation of the software that is going

to be necessary. The ministry is doing a lot of work on that.

put out our $15 million as usual, as planned, as committed. Then we

went out and said: "We're putting out $5.9 million for this part of the

program." I'll be darned if I don't read in the next BCTF newsletter

that we've taken the $5.9 million out of the money that we had allotted

for the year, when it was on top of.... That goes out and then

everybody says: "Well, look at that. For their central purposes,

they're taking money away from computers for school." Now

[ Page 7487 ]

you know why I'm glad to be answering that question? It's high time.

Then you pick that up, you don't check with me, you feed it to the

House, to your own colleagues and to everybody, and you say: "Look at

what they're doing." It's absolutely incorrect, yet here we are being

blamed for taking this money out of the system.

I know your

question didn't encompass all this, but I think I'm expressing some of

my frustration. When you manage to get Treasury Board to give you an

additional $5.9 million to get on with what you're trying to do, and

then people say, "You're shafting the school system...." I get a little

tired of that kind of incorrect information. Nobody in the press will

phone me and say: "Is that correct?" They just print it, because

somebody makes the accusation.

What is the BCTF agenda when

they do that? Why do they put that in the newsletter that goes out to

every one of their teachers? What is the purpose of that kind of

misinformation?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I appreciate the

minister expressing his frustrations, but it's not appropriate for him

to ask questions of the critic; at least the critic is free to answer,

but I don't think is obliged to.

MS. EDWARDS : My

tears of sympathy for the minister are exceeded only by my tears of

sympathy for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) when I asked him

recently about another program and he wept a lot because he was

misinterpreted.

I'd like to go a little further. You're

obviously aware of this, but one of the other concerns I have.... In

case the minister is worried about this, I get these concerns put to me

by teachers, and I am coming to the minister to ask. That is exactly

what I'm doing. I would like to know whether the ministry plans to stop

collecting information about class sizes, because that is a matter of

considerable concern. It's central to the issue of good education in

British Columbia. That is another

interpretation there: is it correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The answer to that is no We need to have average class sizes and that

type of information, so we're not going to stop collecting information

that we need.

MS. EDWARDS :

I don't know whether the

minister wants to go into the whole kindergarten business. Of course,

the dual entry has been delayed, in a sense, but in fact there is some

concern about what kind of assessment is going to go on in

kindergartens. Kindergarten is referred to in various publications the

ministry puts out as part of the first four years of school, and

there's an indication that there's a considerable assessment

function — in other words, frequent assessment and lots of entries

into these computer systems we've been talking about —

and that in fact that's where it's directed. I wonder if the minister

could give me any idea of what he sees as the cost of that kind of new

assessment process for kindergarten, particularly when we've got a

rather bifurcated system; let's put it that way.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Again, it's difficult to answer about the cost of a function that isn't

necessary, that doesn't exist. There's no new assessment process

necessary in kindergarten.

MS. EDWARDS :

I find it interesting that the minister then.... I mean, the literature

very clearly states that we will have — and some of this

literature was put out, I believe, before the minister decided to delay

dual entry into kindergarten —

the first four years of a student's life, and kindergarten is the first

of those four years. Then, of course, we talk about this assessment,

which involves rather extensive numbers and reporting, and training to

get people to put in numbers so that the ministry staff has access to

it. That is extremely different than the rationale for kindergarten

right now, and I'm just interested in what the minister has to say on

that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : There will be new

assessment, new measuring tools and new evaluation tools necessary in

the first four years of school. Do I need to repeat that, or have you

got that first part? You got it. Okay.

New assessments and

that sort of thing will be necessary throughout the first four years in

school. When I said there is no new assessment program necessary in

order to institute dual-entry kindergarten, it's because kindergarten

teachers have regularly assessed when the pupil is ready to read, cut,

colour and when they are ready to know these sorts of things. No new

assessment programs are necessary for kindergarten.

If I

might mention the dual-entry kindergarten, since you have asked, right

now it's possible for students to be up to one full year apart in age

when they start school. The royal commission recommended that we do

something about that, and there was a lot of concern in the education

community. I can remember the concern when I was in the school system

as an elementary principal.

What we have done is say we

can't solve it all as they do in New Zealand where they can enter

school on their fifth birthday, whatever time of the year it is. They

seem to be able to cope with that. We said we don't think we can go all

the way. Look at the static that some people have been able to make in

just suggesting twice a year.

have said let's make it no

more than six months apart, and that will be better than a full year

apart. Then we said that will mean a second entry during the year. We

said students therefore will be eligible to enter in September or

January if they have turned five in that closest six-month period.

We've said that in discussion. I even questioned the dates, but EPAC

and other people suggested that the best date was January 1 —

after Christmas when school starts — so we've got two entry dates.

We've

suggested that happen, so we said we'd then make students eligible to

enter at those times. Picture it if we had said: "We are going to pick

a few, and only select 40 percent or 50 percent that we would make

eligible, and then you pick the ones who

[ Page 7488 ]

are

ineligible." We've said they are eligible. We have said, in recognition

of reality and the transition, that we will allow boards to delay this

where they find it difficult or impossible — and there could be

situations; we couldn't anticipate all of them. But we've got to make

them all eligible, so we made them eligible.

On some sort

of a misunderstanding, they looked at their budgets that were given to

them and said: "It's not in the budget." Yet I had clearly tried to

say: "If you need extra teachers, extra room, extra materials, that is

part of the extra money. So it is not in your budget."

There

is also good reason for it not being in the budget; it's a one-time

shot. If there are 40,000 kindergarten students of eligible age in a

year, and 20,000 of them show up in September, there will not be

another 40,000 showing up in January; there will be maybe another

20,000. In other words, it's just the one-time move in the first

January in order to top that up.

Then you don't have to get

rid of the teachers and extra materials, because those kids will flow

through, and hopefully the increases in enrolment are coming anyway.

That will all catch up and come together very nicely. That's what we've

done with dual entry.

Then people said: "You don't have a

new curriculum ready." When we start the kindergarten students in

September, it doesn't depend on a new curriculum, so you can teach them

kindergarten in September according to what you are teaching them now.

You take another batch of students in January and teach them

kindergarten. It could take a year. Some students now are doing things

in kindergarten that other kids are doing in grade 1, and they are

doing it before the end of the year.

What we are talking

about is not novel, and it isn't an invention or an imposition by the

ministry. It is what people are putting together — the teachers

and others. Paranoia is created by somebody standing up and saying:

"They are going to get a new batch of kids in January, and they don't

have a new curriculum for them." You don't need to have a new

curriculum if they are just starting from the beginning of kindergarten

and taking them as far as they can, any more than you need a new

curriculum starting in September.

That deals with that.

People say: "Oh yes, now you say you don't need a new curriculum, and

yet you are talking about changing the curriculum." The whole thing

goes together.... The dual-entry kindergarten is not dependent on

curriculum changes; it's simply dependent on a little more space.

That's been provided for, along with additional funding, as required.

Many school boards have said: "We're not going to do it, and the

ministry is not going to lay this one on us." We have said: "Fine. You

tell the parents whose students turn five in February and who are

eligible that you are not going to do it even if the ministry is

putting up the money. Have fun."

MR. G. HANSON : I'd

like to address a few remarks to the subject of native education. I

know some changes and improvements have been made over time, but

fundamentally I think it remains that native people and their tribal

organizations.... Those are the real organizations, not strictly the

bands, because the Indian bands are an artifice of the Indian Act, etc.

The real political organizations of native people are the tribal

councils.

[3:15]

Very little recognition is given to them, and I want to say to the

minister that more participation in curriculum development and matters

that affect native education must be turned over to native people. I

know that when the master tuition agreement was renegotiated after two

years of negotiations.... From my reading, some discussion about native

matters was injected, but the fact of the case was that when push came

to shove, the tribal organizations were not given the kind of say they

require to make the necessary changes. In 1988-89, the statistics seem

to indicate that something like 27.5 percent of native people will

finish high school, compared to 55.8 percent of non-natives.

There

are a few other statistics that I would like to put on the record in

the minister's estimates. There are approximately 30,000 people of

native ancestry in the public education system, including about 7,540

registered or status Indians. There are an additional 3,300 in band

schools. Yet there are only about 200 native people with university

teaching certificates in the province. That is only one native teacher

for every 167 native children.

While I am making that

point, I want to make the same point that I made during the estimates

of the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree). In the non-native

establishment bureaucracy, there tends to be a lumping, because a

native is a native is a native. Of course, there are approximately 25

different linguistic groups in the province lumped together into seven

language families — 25 or 26 dialects and seven major language

families. When we talk about increasing the number of native teachers

and native teacher aides and the whole matter of curriculum, more

attention has to be paid to the fact that a Kwakiutl person is

different from a Salish person, in terms of their language and their

culture. My colleague, who happens to be the only person of indigenous

descent in this House, is a Nisga'a person. Yet it may not be

appropriate for him to be a teacher's aide in a Carrier school. More

appropriately, it should be a person of Carrier ancestry who

understands the language.

I want to make that point,

because I think the ministry and this government.... To break that

mould of paternalism, which seems to characterize the history of

education in the province.... Of course, we're very proud that the

Nisga'a School District was established under the NDP government in

1972-75; it's a source of pride in our party. I think there should be

more native school districts in the province and more direct

participation.

I know that there can be negotiations

between the Indian bands and the school districts, and then Indian

Affairs gives money through to the band, which buys the services from

the school district or provides the

[ Page 7489 ]

money.

The native people are not satisfied with that system. They want to

stand on their own two feet with respect to education, because it is so

fundamental to the continuation, vitality and revitalizing of native

culture, values and so on, which is so important to the well-being of

native cultures.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

would like to read into the record a little bit of the background, and

then I'm going to ask a few specific questions of the minister. In

February of 1969, when the master tuition agreement was first signed

providing federal funding for status Indians attending B.C. public

schools, there was no consultation with the native community

whatsoever. When that master tuition agreement expired on June 30,

1987, there were protests by native groups. A new agreement was

negotiated and signed by this minister and William McKnight, the

minister at the federal level at the time, on April 20, 1988 — again

largely without native participation.

Today, as a result of

the history of native education and many other factors, native students

face a significantly higher drop-out rate than non-natives, and

unemployment rates are significantly higher. Increasingly, it has

become recognized....

I want to read a quote that goes back

to 1972, from the National Indian Brotherhood: "Only Indian people can

develop a suitable philosophy of education based on Indian values

adapted to modern living. Until now, decisions on the education of

Indian children have been made by anyone and everyone except Indian

parents." No other people in British Columbia would be asked to

tolerate that kind of situation. Even though the curriculum has

increased to some extent as a result of the Sullivan report, matters

relating to Indian language and Indian culture are still basically the

same.

Native groups saw the ending of the old master

tuition agreement as an opportunity to obtain greater control over what

was essentially a paternalistic delivery of education services. The

ability to control education was seen as an essential part of the

larger move towards greater self-government among B.C.'s aboriginal

people. But when the master tuition agreement was negotiated and signed

without the participation of the various native groups, the Assembly of

First Nations walked out of the talks in August '88, publicly rejecting

the very concept of the master tuition agreement, largely on the basis

of a lack of involvement, direct input and participation.

When

I look at what was stated in the Education Leader on May 20, 1988, the

deputy is quoted.... Even when the funding was allocated, because it

costs more to fund education on an individual basis.... The example

used here was the Stikine. In the '87-88 school year, under the fiscal

framework the per-pupil tuition fee ranged from a low of $3,235 in

School District 36 in Surrey to a high of $8,626 in School District 87

in Stikine. It was pointed out that because the provincial average is

always lower than the actual cost per district, school boards are faced

with consistent underfunding of native education. As a result of that,

there was a top-up of an additional $4 million from the federal

government.

This is the fundamental question: what is the

obstacle to involving, in a fuller, more participatory way, native

people in negotiating education matters such as the master tuition

agreement? Why aren't they granted full equality in terms of having a

direct, equal say in their own education, as parents in other school

districts would have? What is the obstacle? I'd like the minister to

respond to that question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : There's

no obstacle. We've tried to encourage that. Native representatives were

invited to all of the negotiating sessions involved in the MTA. They

came to some and didn't come to others. I guess that was because of a

fundamental misunderstanding of what the MTA was. The native community

saw it as an opportunity to negotiate an educational policy agreement,

and all the MTA is, in effect, is a payment transfer agreement between

the federal government and the provincial government.

When

the MTA was running out, we were still trying to involve native people

in doing things, but we were told that the federal government had no

authority to transfer some $33 million to us unless the agreement was

signed by March 31. Rather than give up the $33 million, we signed the

agreement. What we did incorporate in that agreement, however, since we

couldn't come to a total educational policy concept agreement, was that

it was based on the number of eligible native students, as determined

by the federal government, times the number of dollars in each

district. The old agreement had the number of students times the

provincial average.

There was a lot of static on that,

because as you pointed out in your statistics, Mr. Member, the average

is determined by the highs and the lows. We took the average, so any

district could say, "You're paying us more than the federal government

is giving us"; but they wouldn't tell us that. The other districts,

however, were saying: "You're paying us less than the federal

government is giving us for native students." We had based it on the

average, and that came out in the discussions.

So we said:

"Okay, that's fine. Why don't you base it on the district where the

students reside?" The federal government agreed to that, and later

found out, of course, that it cost them about $5 million more because

the actual costs are higher in the districts where many of the native

students are. Anyway, I won't go into all of the details of that.

The

other thing we did get an agreement on was that where a local band

could negotiate an agreement with the school district, the money would

flow directly from the government to the band or the district, whatever

their agreement said. Count us out; we were only the pipeline for the

money to get to the districts. As was mentioned before, we had to top

it up because the pipeline wasn't as full as was needed. That was done

under the MTA.

One of the provisions was put there because we had no local agreements in place. We said agreements

[ Page 7490 ]

must

seek the approval of the provincial minister and federal minister. The

natives had considerable objection to that, so we've agreed to discuss

it with the federal government and with them to see if they can

negotiate a local agreement. The concern was that it had to be a

year-long written agreement — staff for it and put in whatever

they need. They can't in and out sort of thing. We're accommodating as

much as we can.

[3:30]

The other thing is, before the Sullivan report came out, we had

tried to find ways.... I met with some of the Indian bands who asked to

meet with me, or groups of bands with Indian leaders, and they put some

of their concerns on the table. One of them was that they wanted their

own school district. Of course, the question then was, how do you fund

it? How do you operate it? Do you go back to residential schools at the

secondary? Some of them said no, because they wouldn't have enough

students in one place for a secondary school. Are you really looking

for isolation of the Indian community — back into their own schools —

or do you want integration? There are no easy answers to those

questions, but we kept exploring them. The result was an attempt to set

up a native advisory committee to meet with the ministry, with reps

from native bands all over the province. That got started and then

bogged down.

Then the Sullivan report came along and

confirmed, fortunately, that we should really be involving the natives

more, and I'm delighted. I guess part of it is that we don't have the

answers, but we certainly have the intent. We've put a native

representative on the provincial advisory committee. We're carrying on

with our native advisory committee. We have made a commitment and

provided funding for working more about the true native story into all

social studies curriculum. That's an attempt. We're providing for the

opportunity to teach the native languages in the schools where it makes

sense. We have to deal with where numbers warrant. Our biggest problem

is: who's going to teach them? There aren't enough native-speaking

teachers who have teacher qualifications. The system says you have to

have a teaching certificate before you teach in the schools. So we've

proposed that school boards be authorized to hire people to work with

teachers. There's quite a resistance to that. Some people see it as

union-busting or contracting-out. I hope it will be taken a lot better

once people realize that our intent is to assist teachers, not to take

over from teachers.

These are the kinds of things we're

trying to do. We've allotted money. We hope we'll get help. We've tried

to fund some between ourselves and post-secondary at Prince George —

a language training for native teachers to collect the visuals. We've

funded some of those things. We're a long way from there. I agree with

the member that the statistics are bad They're deplorable. I can't

change the statistics. If there's anything we can do to change the

basis for those statistics, that is what we're working on. Hopefully,

with the initiatives that we're taking and the initiatives that will

come from the native advisory committee and others, we'll be able to

make it so that these people are not at the low end of the statistics

on performance, graduation and continuing.

We're doing the

best we can. We could use all the help we can get, believe me. I would

be a complete failure trying to teach the native language. I might

teach about it if somebody gave me the right information, but I would

be a disaster trying to teach the native language. Hopefully we can

develop more of these people. We're also working with the universities

to say: "You've got to work more about native culture into the teacher

training courses and, to whatever extent possible, try to make native

training available." Some of that is happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The first member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, it seems most propitious to stand during debate on the

estimates of the Minister of Education and introduce to this

Legislature, on behalf of the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen)

and myself, a group of 28 fine grade 6 and 7 students from West Heights

Elementary School in Mission. They're accompanied by two of their

teachers, Miss Elizabeth Coulter and Mr. Ross MacLeod and they'll be

here for a couple of days. I would ask all of those present to give

them a very warm welcome.

MR. GUNO : I want to thank

my colleague for stepping aside to allow me to take

part in this

estimates debate on education. I want to touch on a few issues

pertaining to northern education. I realize that the minister, like

myself, represents a fairly large northern riding and has first-hand

experience as a teacher in a northern community and appreciates the

challenges of trying to provide quality education to the people in the

north. I think some of the problems he encountered during his

experience as a teacher are still around. It's a big problem. It's a

challenge. I think it's an important area for the government to

address, because if we're going to subscribe to the notion that we deal

with education on an equal basis, everyone in B.C. ought to be provided

with quality education.

There are problems, and one that I wanted to highlight — I've done this just about every year during these estimates —

is the whole tax issue. I've canvassed this with the minister last

year, and I just wanted to get an update on what is happening to deal

with this. In talking to many of the people in my riding, it is a major

problem, because there are actually very few taxpayers, and they often

bear a disproportionate share of the burden in terms of meeting the

extra costs over and above the amount that they get from the provincial

government.

For instance, in Telegraph Creek there are only

40 to 50 taxpayers for the six schools there. Many of the residents are

on a reserve and are exempt from those tax burdens. Also in Cassiar

School, as I understand

[ Page 7491 ]

it,

there have been recent changes in the fiscal framework. It has

certainly helped, but it does not completely resolve the problem of

very few taxpayers bearing the rather overwhelming burden of trying to

make up for the extra amount required.

Another thing that I

wanted to get some comment on from the minister is the looming problem

of teacher shortage. Most of the people I've talked to in Atlin have

indicated that this is going to be a major problem — more now than

in the past because of the greater demand for teachers in the south.

Special education teachers are almost impossible to get, a problem

compounded by similar shortages in social services and health.

understand that there are incentives, such as loan forgiveness, for

teachers to go north, but these are not significant enough to attract

more and more teachers to the north. I was just wondering if the

minister has any programs in this year's budget that would provide for

or at least take a look at the problem. I think it's going to be a

serious one for the northern schools, to try and have enough incentives

such as school facilities. These are often areas o great frustration in

trying to teach in the north: the lack of equipment, up-to-date texts,

funds for extracurricular activities and adequate accommodation for

teachers to live in. It gets more and more difficult for these school

districts to attract teachers not only to come but to stay.

understand that there are some creative things being tried in the

Yukon. They are having the first two or three years of teacher training

in the community and then finishing off in the south. Those are the

sorts of things that I think we ought to be looking at in the future.

I'm wondering if the minister has contemplated those kinds of programs

to start meeting or at least dealing with some of the problems that are

certainly going to arise in the future.

The other thing — I think my colleague has touched on this —

is the lack of any funding for developing native content in the

curriculum. The only area seriously doing that is the Nisga'a School

District. I have to commend the minister for responding to the Nisga'a

community in changing the name of the district from — I think it was —

School District 92 to Nisga'a School District; it's a step in the right

direction. Now that we have the right name, we ought to have some

programs that would be appropriate to that particular nomenclature.

is a problem in Cassiar. The community of Good Hope Lake has been

trying to develop, along with the school district, a program to have

some native content in the curriculum, especially in language training.

But the problem, of course, is lack of funding Again I want to canvass

the minister about his plans for meeting some of these things. Has

there been any consultation with people from the north in terms of

developing these areas?

The prolonged strike in the Nisga'a

School District this year points out some very serious problems there

in terms of funding. There is really nowhere for them to go once they

have had to spend all the money they are provided by the provincial

government. There is no really solid tax base to go to. They have to

live within that, and it causes a lot of problems in providing some of

the more special programs.

I would really urge the minister

to seriously sit down with the people from the Nass Valley school

district to see how we can deal with some of the serious problems that

are there right now.

I will stop there and hear what the minister has to say about the issues I've raised.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I thank the member for his comments and questions. I've sat down with

the various boards, met them at conferences and that sort of thing, and

I am getting a pretty good handle on the problems. I wish I had as good

a handle on the solutions.

have been working on it, and

the provincial fiscal framework review committee has made

recommendations in the past about funding for dispersed schools. If

they are more than 30 kilometres away from the headquarters

office — and that's virtually every school in the Stikine

district — they get a higher per-pupil allotment. There are all

kinds of things built into the formula.

Let

me just carry on with the Stikine district for a moment. We recognize

their low tax base, and so we share 90 percent or better in the Stikine

district, while the average is 75, and the other 10 percent comes from

local taxation. That's in the fiscal framework. I recognize, as you do,

that if they go above the fiscal framework, all of those dollars are

100 percent on the local taxpayers. So a small amount in the Stikine

district can be a significant tax.

The only thing that I

can tell you is that in terms of what people are paying for education

by and large, when you take off the $430 homeowner grant, then they are

paying quite a bit less for education than in Victoria, Saanich or

Vancouver, where they have all the amenities. I don't have any

argument; it's just a fact.

don't know what the net

average cost is. The net average that they are paying is probably below

the $430 in the Stikine district. For instance, in the Nisga'a

district.... I've just got these figures; maybe I'll get them for the

Stikine. For any taxpayer there, after the homeowner grant it's minus

$224; they get $224 more than the average person paid. If somebody has

a $100,000 house — and this mill rate is based on a $30,000 or

$40,000 average — he doesn't care what I say; he's taxed at that

mill rate.

[3:45]

In the Stikine district, the average homeowner, in this coming year

with all of the taxes that have been put on, has $249 left after the

homeowner grant. Again, that's averages. What we are looking at, if you

get away from the averages.... The mill rate is based on the total

amount, and of course you can work out the average arithmetically. If

you get away from that, you have to wonder about the whole valuation

structure and so on, and that's something we've decided to look at in

the next year.

Much has been done to try and accommodate the needs of this other school district. We are constantly

[ Page 7492 ]

bombarded

with statements that we should give the industrial and commercial tax

back to where the districts are. If you want to just make the

comparison, if all the industrial and commercial tax in the Fort Nelson

district goes to the district instead of to the province and is

redistributed.... Then in the Stikine, unless you get a lot of mines up

there.... The industries don't have the decency to locate themselves

evenly throughout the province, and so we take that money into general

consolidated revenue and put it back out with the other. It has gone

up, from consolidated revenue, while the commercial tax has gone down,

Just talking about those measures that we have taken to try and beat

the tax system....

All I can tell you about the language

and the native culture and those sorts of things is that we are trying.

In the Nisga'a district they have, out of that funding and, I guess,

other funding, done a great deal to develop the Nisga'a language and

teaching of Nisga'a in school. It's probably more advanced there than

anywhere because of the concentration and because they have had the

opportunity and a lot of assistance to do it — and a heck of a lot of hard work on their part.

the other areas, I mentioned we were talking to the university. There

is some proposal now, maybe a tri-university proposal, to do a native

teacher training program in the north. Through the technology funding

we are trying to get upgrading programs out there. Once we get those

linkages with satellites, we can get that out to any teacher. If it

happens to be a video, fax or updating on something that should be in

the native studies curriculum, it can go out.

We are doing that, the teacher training, both them coming south to get the education —

but as much as possible we want to try to put in effect the flavour of

the Sullivan report, which said: "Try to take the training, upgrading

and in-service programs out to where the teachers are." The

teacher-training programs, the access-for-all program that the minister

of post-secondary put out to try and get it out into the colleges....

It's much more likely that some people from the Nisga'a or the

northwest could come to, say, a college at Terrace and put in a proper

language training program there than have them all at great expense

come and live in Vancouver or Victoria Those are the things we hope

will happen.

As I said to the member from Victoria, we can

use all the help we can get. We're fairly rich in intent, but fairly

poor in our knowledge of the native history, culture and language,

because there hasn't been much written on it. I hope that within a few

years a great deal more can be done on that. I don't know if the member

is aware that I spent a couple of years as elementary supervisor for

the Stikine School District, so I know what he's talking about when he

mentions Telegraph Creek, Dease Lake, Good Hope Lake, Cassiar and those

areas. I know the problems, and we're doing our best to come up with

the solution, in terms of putting money, resources, effort and good

intentions into it.

MR. G. HANSON : I want to

continue along the same lines as my colleague for Atlin. There are a

number of initiatives and issues that need to be addressed here. One is

that projects like the Native Education Centre and the Nicola Valley

Institute of Technology should be accorded more recognition than they

get. They do a fine job. We've met with students and staff at the

Native Indian Education Centre. They are providing an important

service. I think they should get additional support from the province

for their work.

I've got a number of questions later on

that I want to ask with respect to provincial contribution of native

education, so I just serve notice of that.

The native

Indian teacher education program at UBC is very useful, but the demand

is enormous. When we saw the students demonstrating with respect to

this capping — the idea that somehow there would be a cap —

on post-secondary enrolment and saw the kind of impact that that had on

students across the country and how they mobilized themselves around

that, it indicates the extent to which the demand for education is

increasing among the native people.

It's

a very young

population with an average age of.... I don't want to pick a number out

of the air, but I know it's an extremely young population. There are a

lot of native people who have gone through the residential-school

experience or through work or whatever and are wanting to return to

school. Like their counterparts in the non-native community, there are

many native people wanting to go back as mature students. They've had

their families, or their families have moved on, or they've worked, or

for whatever reason they now want to attend — they want to catch

up - a post-secondary institution, whether it be a college, the Native

Education Centre, BCIT or whatever. My point is that there is an

explosive demand: a young population and the same features as of the

prevailing population — mature students wanting to return. So the

demand is very high and the need for funds and support is very high.

point was that we need in this province more native teachers who can

return to their own communities or go to rural areas. My colleague

talked about added incentives to meet the needs of the northern and

interior rural areas. Even though the ministry has committed $2.4

million over the next year for incentives for teachers to go to rural

areas, my question is: will these — or what proportion of them — be native-trained teachers?

have a series of questions; that's the first. Second is that the master

tuition agreement permits bands to deal directly with the Department of

Indian Affairs for the federal share of education funding. Does the

money then go through the bands to the school board? Do bands have any

say about how that money is spent? What say do the bands, after having

received the money directly or to the school board, have about the

policy and curriculum spending of those funds?

Another question is: if bands deal directly with the federal government for

education money, how

[ Page 7493 ]

does this affect their ability to qualify for provincial money — that is, for special programs — if at all?

Next

question: how are band schools funded? Is their curriculum and

administration any different than non-band schools with native

students? There's a great need in the classroom for additional

assistance for native students. To what extent can you increase the

funds available for aides to assist in the classroom with native

children?

I'm going to go through a number of things and then ask the minister to respond.

also want to talk about education for non-natives on native issues.

It's important that the curriculum be beefed up and that there be more

information available to non-natives about, as the minister said, the

real story of the native people and their history, culture, values and

what matters to them.

The underlying concern for natives is

that education must support, not destroy, the traditional lifestyle.

However, education must also address the general lack of knowledge

among non-natives about native history and lifestyles. Greater emphasis

in the curriculum on these issues would be important, as would more

native teachers. The point there is an obvious one. As they say,

knowledge is a very light load, but it takes recognition, funding and

support to make sure that the non-native community has an appreciation

of native people.

For example, there are many people who

say: "Well, did the native people here have pottery?" No, they didn't

have pottery. "Why didn't they have pottery?" Well, they didn't have

pottery because they had wood technology. First of all, if they're

coastal people living in a mature coastal forest.... It's not easy to

control a forest for agriculture, especially when you don't

particularly need agriculture and you have marine and woodland

resources, be they animal or vegetable, that can support a very high

level of society. So people developed wood technology, cooked in boxes

and made boxes. Often the people that I know are not aware of the level

of sophistication around things. They assume that pottery, etc., is

important.

Hollywood and the film industry have certainly

influenced people's attitudes and ideas about native people, and

stereotyped ideas about plains Indians. The 10,000 years or 25,000

years of human history, depending on what particular evidence you look

at.... I think the people of the province, native or non-native,

whether they are of Asian ancestry, or from Africa, the Caribbean or

wherever.... The more knowledge they have of the human history of

British Columbia, the more enrichment and enhancement of their sense of

this province and this country they will have. It's an important

investment in our understanding of our own human history in this land.

The

most fundamental question in education is language, because language is

the glue that holds a culture together. I know there's an advisory

committee in place studying preservation, enhancement and promotion of

native languages in the province, but I don't see any legislation

before us. We've had some 60 bills that are going to come into this

House during the course of this session. There's not a bill from the

government side on the issue of native languages. I had hoped this

would be the session. It was promoted to be, but apparently it's

somewhere in the machinery.

Every year that goes by — I shouldn't say every year; I should say every hour, every day —

native elders pass away. They move on, and when they move on, they are

the lost windows into the past. I've seen a native poster, as the

minister probably has, promoting the preservation and use of native

languages. It said: "Save our languages. Let us learn our languages so

our grandparents can tell us who we are." I think that poster sums the

issue up very well. Any further delay in establishing a native heritage

and language cultural institute in the different areas of the province

will be a loss to all of us, not only as a country but as a human

family on this globe.

[4:00]

Greater recognition of the need for native language training is

required. The Ministry of Native Affairs has announced its intention to

have a heritage and language institute, but there is no legislation

before us. As the minister was saying, "who will teach the languages?"

because there are not a lot of linguists. It's easy to train people to

transcribe. I think there has to be a provision to grant elders — people fluent in the language —

some kind of associate teacher status so that a person who is a fluent

speaker in a native language and has the ability to teach young

children can transmit that language and transcribe it.

There

are video technologies available now, although money is required for

programming. For example, a disk is put into a video terminal, a button

is pushed, and you can call up the Kwakiutl language, Kwakwala. You

push "eagle" and the word comes up, the eagle is there and the sound of

the eagle. The Kwakwala word for eagle is "kweek." It's interactive.

Children who love video games, native or non-native, can interact with

the machine and actually learn the native language under the guidance

of an elder.

I would like the minister to look at exploring

special associate status for native elders who have the ability to

teach these precious disappearing native languages within the province

so that they would be able to work right in the classroom directly with

native people and allow a sort of fast-tracking of the bureaucracy

around status of teachers, qualification and so on. Someone fluent in a

native language with the ability to teach and transcribe it should be

allowed to teach in a school under a special status. I think that

should be done.

Money should be expended to provide

programming of video software around native languages in the province

of British Columbia for interactive language training of children with

a video terminal in their own language. As you push "eagle, " you can

then push "eagle fishing" and "eagle flying." I think you get the

point. That needs to be done.

[ Page 7494 ]

Because of the higher drop-out rate, natives face particular difficulties in re-entering the education system.

MR. PETERSON :

On a point of order, I note that we don't have a quorum in this House,

and I wonder if perhaps we should have one so the business of this

House can go on in proper order.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank

you for bringing that to the Chair's attention. While we are waiting

for the members to enter the House, the second member for Vancouver

East requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK :

I have the honour and privilege today to introduce in the House a group

of senior citizens not only from my constituency but in fact from the

neighbourhood in which I grew up and the neighbourhood in which I

currently reside. They are the Renfrew Park Community Centre seniors

and are very pleased to be here today. Many members of this House may

not realize that in Vancouver East there is a very high percentage of

seniors, although they live in their own homes as yet, so it is

relatively hidden, As many members know, I have been pushing on this

side of the House for more services in Vancouver East for senior

citizens, so I am pleased that they are here today and I ask the House

to make them welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member may proceed now that we have a quorum.

MR. G. HANSON :

We need good support networks for mature native students who want to

return to the school system for upgrading, Certainly people need help

in the transition between high school and university, as they have in

the Saskatchewan native pre-law program. Nothing like this has been

announced from this government. We looked at other jurisdictions,

because usually you find certain jewels in other jurisdictions in terms

of progressive policies around aboriginal education.

I just

want to let the minister know about the Edmonton school district, which

has an interesting project called the Sacred Circle.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON : There seems to be a lot of yacking going on here.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the members please take their chairs, and then the honourable member can proceed with his deliberation.

MR. G. HANSON :

In Edmonton there's a project called Sacred Circle, which involves

native home school liaison service; a native studies consultant service

to help teachers develop native studies programs; and a larger number

of native classroom aides and summer cultural training camps for

natives and non-natives to learn about native traditional culture.

These ought to be considered in British Columbia, not only because we

have a very large native population and over half of all the native

languages in the country, but because they're the right thing to do,

and the time has come to do them.

I've covered a fair amount of ground, Mr. Chair man, and I'd like the

minister to think about some of these things. There was a gentleman who wrote

a report in the late sixties, Mr. Harry Hawthorn; he wrote a two-volume royal

commission study called "Indians of Canada" covering everything from

education, culture, economic — you name it. It's in the library here. One

of the things he said was that you have to regard the native people as citizens-plus,

and with that notion comes added support.

the minister said, the statistics are deplorable. The numbers cry out

for remedial action. The minister said he would welcome help. Well, I

think I'm offering help today. I'm suggesting a special status for

elders to teach in the schools, extra native aide workers for

classrooms, more curriculum, greater recognition for the Native

Education Centre and more support for the things that my friend from

Atlin raised about the tax problem in the north, where there's an

insufficient tax base to provide the special needs projects and

programs that are required. I should give the minister an opportunity

to respond, and see what he thinks of these ideas.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I appreciate the assistance. You'd get little resistance from me about

giving associate status of some kind to the elders to teach. I met with

a couple of the native groups and have suggested.... I'm frightened, as

you are, that some of these elders will be gone in a short time and

with them will go the language, the colourful stories and the things

they can tell us. With video we can capture that. So for heaven's sake,

let's capture it, even if we haven't got time to transcribe it into

writing. But let's get it on some sort of record. I think we can use

that. We can use their stories; we can duplicate videos and use them

directly or indirectly as teachers. I hope there is widespread support

for our initiative to say that....

We can't rely on these

people strictly as volunteers. I believe in the Queen Charlottes there

are two native seniors, under the direction of a teacher, who are

teaching or assisting in the school. There is great concern that anyone

who does not have a teaching certificate should not do any actual

teaching. Well, when you're trying to convey a language knowledge to

people, it may have to be teaching. We haven't got time to prepare them

with teaching certificates in order to get the language into the

schools.

Yes, you have my full support. We can certainly

use them and the technology. Let's do those things. I know there's no

bill before the House on native languages as such, but I can assure you

that the intent is to include native languages as well as other

[ Page 7495 ]

school system. It will certainly be permitted and hopefully encouraged.

would point out that we have set aside some money specifically for

language and culture development incorporation into the public school

system and also into the native schools, whether they have an agreement

with the local school board, or they're setting up their own schools.

You

asked the question about the MTA funding. When the funding arrives,

what say do the natives have? If there's no agreement between a local

school board and ourselves or the native band, then the money comes to

us, and we send it to the district. Then it varies in the districts, as

to whether they have a native advisory committee. For instance, in

Terrace they've had a fairly good one operating, and it helps in some

of the other communities. They also have committees. How they spend

that money is a local decision.

Where a band chooses to set

up its own band school, rather than send the students to the public

school, they have complete and full say and the choice as to whether

they want to use our B.C. curriculum materials or not. If they do,

they're available to them. If they have an agreement with the local

board as to how they arrange it, then the money from the MTA from the

federal government can come to the band, to the school board or to the

board directly, according to their agreement. But we're out of the

picture. I guess part of the question is, if it takes $5,000 per pupil

to educate them in the school system, how much of it goes to native

education?

I'm trying to answer most of the questions that

the member had. Another initiative we've taken as a result of the royal

commission report is to provide up to a full day of kindergarten for

native students and special ed students. Now it's half-day

kindergarten. The theory behind that is simply that because of cultural

blockages or whatever they're behind when they get to kindergarten, and

so they stay behind. By giving them a full day, maybe we can bring them

up to scratch. It will be by choice, and we've asked people to let us

know.

[4:15]

As far as non-native students and the curriculum for them, that's

where I hope we would get a lot of assistance. Much more material is

now being developed by the native community. You mentioned a few

examples. When I was teaching, many years ago, I remember a series of

booklets on the natives of British Columbia: the Charlottes, the Haida,

the Nisga'a, the Sekani and that sort of thing. I found them very

interesting. I would imagine they're quite a bit out of date and too

condensed. A lot of good stuff has come out since then.

You

may remember that the native community in Kamloops took on the job of

trying to collect this history and actually translated it into a book

involving the stories. We put in $15,000 originally towards the

research in developing a textbook and another $25,000 the next year

into the printing of it: Donna Meets Coyote

and.... I'm sorry, I forget the other title These are stories from the

natives which were then distributed to the school districts. They were

the native culture. They have helped. What's the one from south of

Prince George? Stoney Creek Woman , which I've just heard about. I know it has the potential. There are a lot of others.

did get a set of books from Alberta on some of the things they've done

on native stories. Whether they're applicable here or not I don't know,

but certainly the more we can put together of that.... We're willing to

put the effort into it. We're far behind, so we've got to take such

measures as using the technology. When I say the technology, obviously

you can put so much more on one disk than you can store anywhere else.

They even have computers now that will translate signals into voice, so

maybe for pronunciation purposes, why not? As one example, Japan has

sent us some material in the Japanese language to distribute in

schools and the stuff is popular. The kids will use it. When I was an

elementary school principal we put some local history on, including

some from native people. We had native people into the school to tell

us, and we asked them for permission to tape-record it and put it into

the library with some of the listening posts. It were more popular than

the books.

So the potential is there; we've just got to try

to put it together and capture it. Even after we finish this

discussion, maybe specific items that the member has which we may not

think of, or no one else thinks of.... I would certainly be willing to

meet with you and the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) at any time to try to

put it together and get it into the works. I wish I could do more of

it, but obviously I'm limited in the hours I have.

If I haven't answered some of your questions, I'm sure you'll take another crack at me.

MR. G. HANSON :

I'm going to conclude my remarks, but I just want to say one thing. A

number of members on both sides of this House had lunch last week with

a delegation of New Zealand Members of Parliament, four from each side

of their House. An interesting point that I learned about the Maori

people of New Zealand is that they've recently determined — and it

should be obvious to everyone — that performance at the later

levels of school go up if a child has an opportunity to learn their own

language initially. The confidence that they gain from knowing who they

language at the later levels of school.

Operating on that

premise, whatever can be done to provide the opportunity for young

children to learn their own language and to centre themselves in their

own culture provides an opportunity for them then to go on and do

better and increases the opportunity to graduate from high school and

go to university, etc. I just wanted to make that last point.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I have a couple of different areas that I'd like to canvass with the minister. First

[ Page 7496 ]

of all, a constituency concern. I have raised this in several different forums, with the minister present, I hope.

First

of all, during the budget speech I went through a lot of statistics

that our school board is wrestling with around issues of growth. I

don't know whether the minister had an opportunity to take a look at

that, but I'll go over them briefly, and perhaps you can respond.

The

primary concern is, Surrey being a young community and the population

growing at such a rapid rate.... I believe the statistics are that

something like 60 percent of the lower mainland's growth and 50 percent

of all the province's growth went into our particular municipality.

Most of the people moving into Surrey are moving there because of the

the majority of people moving there are young families. Along with that

come school-age children and pressures on the schools.

The

minister, I know, on several occasions has met with our school

trustees, as well as the administration of the school board, talking

about some of these problems. I hope he has had the opportunity to

begin to tackle in an imaginative way some of the solutions that are

necessary.

Our

school district is unlike many other school

districts in the province, in that we are dealing with not only the

problems brought about by growth — whether it's the number of

portables or the number of young, new, beginning teachers — but

the whole budgeting that goes along with that.

quoted some numbers that the school board has been able to pull out

that deal only with costs related to growth and not acknowledged or

picked up by the province; in other words, costs of growth borne by the

taxpayers alone. I have made the argument for some time, and I believe

rightly so, that the whole province benefits from the growth in our

municipality, and therefore there should be a shared cost — a

recognition that the province also has a responsibility to try to

buffer that from some of the citizens.

The

minister looks a little puzzled by that comment, so I'd like to

elaborate. I believe the costs of schooling all of our children provide

benefits that we gain as a society and as a province down the road. The

fact is that a large number of the school-age children in the province

are going to school in municipalities like Surrey. Therefore there is a

responsibility beyond just the basics, in that without recognizing

growth there becomes too much of a discrepancy between the districts.

Let

me see if I can pull some of the numbers out of this particular report.

The cost for portables, for instance. The fiscal framework does not

provide enough funds for leasing costs. The shortfall this year is

estimated at $700,000. There is also a shortfall for portable equipment

costs which contributes to the non-shared capital component of this

year's budget.

The report goes on to identify, in addition

to portable costs, the maintenance cost. The shortfall in recognizing

maintenance costs this year, the report says, will be $4 million. The

argument here is that the framework does not recognize the rising costs

associated with increased enrolment and more intensive use of

facilities in the district. They are estimating that the increase in

costs because of the pressure of growth and the pressure of the number

of kids trying to use the facilities will be $4 million.

Growth-related

planning. The administrative allowance in the fiscal framework makes no

provision for costs associated with the planning and commissioning of

new schools. This ignores the hundreds of thousands of dollars of staff

time and consultant fees required specifically for this in Surrey

because of our rapid growth. The point the school board has tried to

make — and I think successfully, in that they have support from

the ministry in recognizing the need to fast-track, so-called, the

capital costs, the building of new schools — has to be made also

for the other costs incurred by the school district that are related to

growth. There's a need for some relief.

I'm hoping that the

minister can unfurrow his brow and provide some information or comments

relating to the concerns I've outlined.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

My brow, as the member has to point out.... I suppose if I blink my

eyes, it will be on the record. I don't know what relevance it has, but

some of the statements the member makes are enough to furrow one's brow

permanently, let alone temporarily.

One statement I got was

that because our growth rate is faster and because that benefits the

rest of the province, we should get special consideration. Madam

Member, I would like you to come back to Fort St. John with me, to my

constituency, and convince the people that because your growth rate in

Surrey is a lot faster, it benefits my North Peace constituents,

because they keep telling me that they're sending all this oil and gas

money down to build schools in Surrey and those sorts of things. That

one had me a bit puzzled.

I move away from those extremes, if you help me convince Maple Ridge,

Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford — where there is also

growth —

that we should knock it off and put special consideration into Surrey,

because somehow or other their growth rate benefits those districts as

well as it does Surrey — I have some difficulty with that one.

That was what got me frowning, I guess, since we've got it on the

record.

The

other statement regarding the growth in Surrey is that we have worked

very well with the Surrey School Board. We have made every effort to

fast-track. I have our high-priority list for the next couple of years,

and Surrey seems to be up at the front end of it — 28 total

high-priority new facilities, 12 of them in Surrey. And we're

fast-tracking as quickly as the plans are put in. We've made the case.

Then I get to additions. I have a list of only about 30 here, with 11

major additions out of the batch in Surrey, and on it goes. I have

about 16 site acquisitions for the whole province, and 10 of them are

for Surrey. Twenty-eight new facilities; 12 out of the 28 for Surrey. I

don't think we're doing too badly. As a

[ Page 7497 ]

matter

of fact, some other people are saying, "Hey, how about us?" but we are

trying to put the priorities first where the students don't have

accommodation. Even with the fast-tracking we're doing, the kids are

showing up faster than we can build the schools, so there have to be

portables and that sort of thing.

Whenever school boards

make the case that they've had to provide temporary space that they

hadn't allowed for, we've accommodated them. I think if you checked

with the school board, you'd find out that they're quite happy with the

ministry's response to their requests of: "Since we're growing so fast,

we need more." Every time you get more students, you get more money on

the basis of those students and for each staff member and so on and so

forth, so automatically the formula triggers increases to the Surrey

district.

I would suspect that if our provincial average

increase was about 10 percent, you would find that Surrey is probably

much higher than that over last year's budget because of the growth

factor. Anyway, we can look that up if the numbers particularly appeal

to the member in exact terms. I know that we're putting a lot more

money into Surrey because of the growth, and we're putting a lot more

facilities into Surrey because it's necessary.

[4:30]

I'm a bit concerned about the member saying that since we're doing

all this, then the administrator should get higher pay or there should

be more allotment for more administrators. There's a bit of a question

there.

I guess I was right: Surrey, for instance, as

compared to that 10 percent provincial average increase in budget, last

year was 16.1 percent. This is the fiscal framework this year — 14.3 — and then they've added on top of that.

don't know whether it takes more administrators to build more schools

or whether it can slow up the process if you have more people handling

the same paper. I'm ambivalent on that one, but there's so much

administrative money that goes along with the funding for teachers,

staff and so on, they're automatically picking up more administrators.

Now

that's interesting. You take the homeowner grant into consideration

despite everything in Surrey The projection for this year is a

one-dollar decrease in the net tax payable by the average homeowner in

Surrey. That's quite different from most other places.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm glad the minister pointed that out, because it reflects a

tremendous school board, in touch with the needs of the community and

able to manage the money in an extraordinarily responsible way, given a

very difficult situation. I'll go over the numbers again for the

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER : Do you disagree with that? Give him a chance to disagree.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I hear some of the ministers on the other side having some difficulty

with that statement. Perhaps they would like to say it for the public

record.

Let me go through my points again very slowly. What

I am referring to is a principle upheld by the public education system,

and the recognition for a need to educate our young people, because our

young people are our future. If the minister will agree with that,

we'll go to the next step.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm with you so far.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

We're okay there; all right. The minister agrees that there is a

principle here for public education, for access to the education system

for all young people, because what we're looking at are our future

adults and the future of the province. My argument, Mr. Minister, is

that if we do indeed uphold that principle, then what happens in one

school district is for the good of all of the province. Would you agree

there?

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Is

treatment may cause some problems for his ministry? It's fairly

fundamental. It's fairly basic, in that what is good for your

constituency indeed is good for the whole province. In other words, I

would fight for the rights of the kids in your riding to have a good

education as much as, I'm sure, you would fight for the rights of the

kids in my riding to have a good education. I mean, that's pretty basic

stuff. I would be really disappointed if anybody disagreed with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Excuse me. Is the member directing her remarks towards the estimates presently before the House?

MS. SMALLWOOD : I certainly am, and through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Although your comments are very interesting, Standing Orders

does clearly state that debate must be not only relevant but "strictly

relevant." We know that all debate in the House is to be relevant, but Standing Orders

does point out that the debate in Committee of Supply is to be strictly

relevant. Of course that additional word "strictly" does mean that the

debate in estimates is much more limited than in some of the other

items we debate in this House.

With that, I would ask the

member to proceed but to remember that we are debating vote 16, which

is the Minister of Education's estimates.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to thank the Chair for that interesting intervention, and I

would like to go back to the minister. The minister suggested that he

had some difficulty in understanding the point I made earlier. I'll

continue on that basis.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 7498 ]

What

I am trying to do is to establish a pretty basic principle within the

education system, one that says that there should be equity, there

should be fair treatment and everyone should be treated the same. The

point I was making to you is that our school district has an unfair

burden, brought about by the fact that it is taking a disproportionate

amount of the growth in the lower mainland. I want to make it very

clear that my argument, while I'm talking about School District 36 in

Surrey, is applicable to any other school district that has to pick up

the extraordinary costs brought about by growth. My argument points out

how the funding formula for school districts that the minister has in

place has a bias, and that that bias treats school districts with

declining enrolments more favourably than school districts with

increasing enrolments.

I'll

go through the numbers again,

because the minister finds this amusing. In the 1989-90 budget for

Surrey, they have identified — and this is the beginning of the

process; they have not identified all the related costs —

$700,000 for portable costs. They have identified $4 million for

additional maintenance because of the growth factor, They have

identified an area that is related to planning for schools. The

minister points out that he has fast-tracked capital costs, but that

fast-tracking does not deal with these costs, nor does the funding

formula. So these costs have to be picked up by the school district,

through the taxpayers. Thousands of dollars for staff time and

consultants' fees are regularly required to deal with the planning and

to compensate for the growth.

I make the comparison from

the school district in Burnaby where I grew up and where they are

actually closing down schools. A lot has changed in Burnaby since I

left. Many of the schools are closing down, and they are not having to

pick up the same kinds of costs for planning new schools, new equipment

and new facilities. They're not having to pick up the costs of that

additional pressure on the schools and the additional need for

maintenance money because of all those little feet going down the halls

that the school wasn't meant to facilitate in the first place. Burnaby

doesn't have to pick up the cost for the leasing of portables.

you can see, Mr. Minister, that it is not equitable. The school

districts are different, and the funding formula does not recognize the

difference in the pressures brought to bear by this growth. If the

minister would share in these costs and would recognize and deal with

the funding formula in such a way that there is some compensation for

the pressures brought to bear, that money could go to other services

for the kids.

talked a little bit about the fact that many of the teachers in our

school district are new, young teachers. That means — and the

minister, with his background, should understand —

that when contract negotiations are up, many of the teachers' salaries

are being brought up to the more senior levels as they progress through

the system. A school system that is more established and has older

teachers in it does not have the same flexibility in the budgeting

process that is a reality of the fact that you have numbers of new,

young teachers.

I hope that I have made it clearer. I've

tried to speak slowly and simply to the minister, and I hope that his

response will reflect some consideration of this very real need. It is

not an argument simply for one school district, but an argument that

tries to point out that there are discrepancies in the funding formula,

and that all school districts could benefit if the province would

recognize the additional pressures brought to bear by this reality.

Would the minister comment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I did answer some of the questions, but I guess the member is on a

mind-set that doesn't allow for those answers to be slotted in with

that information.

I said we adjust the fiscal framework

based on enrolment. To allow for growth after the September enrolments,

we do it again in December. I did say that we provide for portables,

where the need is approved by our facilities branch.

Let

me give you another fact. For instance, this highly unfair system that

means the average taxpayer in Surrey — after the homeowner

grant — pays $210.... The average homeowner in Burnaby —

where the member took the liberty to say there are declining enrolments

and so on — pays $359. That's almost $150 a year more for a

quality education system, as compared to what the Surrey taxpayers are

paying.

know the member mentioned $700,000 for portables, $4 million for

maintenance and that sort of thing, and that they're not getting

enough. Would she believe that there are 75 school districts in this

province, and that each one of them feels they should get a little

bigger share for maintenance, heating costs and things of that nature?

The fiscal framework tries to make all that equal.

But I think I did get the member's main point: that she believes in equity, as I do —

equal opportunity for students to learn. Maybe not as MLA, but as

minister, the only place where I

part company with the member is that

she seems to say that if it's good for Surrey, it's good for all. Maybe

I can go that far, but then she starts to get into: "...and if Surrey

gets a bigger share of the pie, then what the formula dictates for

everybody else is also better for the others." Of course, I have a

little difficulty with that one. The salary increases and all of these

things are built in. I'll go along with you in that if it's good for

Surrey, it's good for all. I'll go that far, but I can't go along with

you if Surrey then gets a disproportionate share, based on the formula

that it would be better for the other districts.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm increasingly happy just for little bits, and if the minister will

go that far, then we'll keep working at it. Perhaps some years down the

line we will have an agreement on the need to take a look at the

funding formula, and what's included in it.

[4:45]

[ Page 7499 ]

I'd

like to move along to the issue of dual entry and again use my

municipality and school district as an example. I also believe that

because it is a new, young, growing community, we can learn a great

deal about some of the difficulties by these stresses.

would like to ask the minister if he understands that his new plans for

dual entry will cause the school district to put in place 18 new

dual-entry classrooms that will require 18 new teachers; that we are

expecting something like 720 new students to come into the school

system. I believe that they have estimated there will be a need for

extra money amounting to $1.4 billion to implement the Sullivan

recommendations. In particular, it will cost something like $15,000 to

equip each of these new classrooms. Can the minister advise where this

money will come from?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I sometimes wish that members would either listen or be in the House.

pointed out that we did not put the money into the budget for the

dual-entry kindergartens in January. We said we're putting money aside

for equipping, housing and staffing the dual-entry kindergarten needs.

The member also, I guess, would miss the point that if half those kids

come in in January, the other half will come in in September. So it's a

one-time advance, rather than an addition to the operating budget. I

don't know how many times I'll have to repeat that, as everybody takes

a turn at it.

We have provided for it. We've said: when you

show us what your costs are.... There are some places where there is no

need for another room. Kindergarten is a half-day program. If in that

school they're running one kindergarten or three kindergartens, there's

automatically room for one more, in space terms, but it might need

extra staffing. We don't necessarily say each new kindergarten class in

January will generate the need for another classroom or more equipment.

What we're saying is: put your needs together. We know there are going

to be some difficulties, and so tell us about it or delay it.

A whole bunch of districts in the province, without getting into that, said: "You can't make us do it.

said we didn't intend to. So they said: "Okay, we're going to delay

it." Then what are they going to do next year? The same problem —

going to change. And in the meantime some parents are going to be

beating on their doors, saying: "My chil