1990 Legislative Session: 4th 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, MAY 9, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9497 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Western Premiers' conference. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9497

Mr. Harcourt

Electoral Districts Act (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Dirks

Introduction and first reading –– 9499

Park Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Messmer

Introduction and first reading –– 9499

Oral Questions

Premier's statement on Portage la Prairie conference. Mr. Williams –– 9499

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 9500

Earthquake preparedness. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9500

Privatization. Mr. Williams –– 9500

Mr. Sihota

Motions not on notice –– 9501

School Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 11). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 9502

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Ms. Cull

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Appendix –– 9526

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, visiting you in the precincts today are 32 members of the

World Sugar Research Institute. On your behalf, I would like to welcome

two of their representatives, Ann Cherniasky and Dora Tysoe, who are in

the members' gallery this afternoon. Would the members please make them

welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : In the gallery today are

Mr. Gordon Moffat, general secretary of the B.C. Principals' and

Vice-Principals' Association, and Donna Palmer, director of

professional development for the same organization. I would like the

House to welcome these two fine examples of responsible educational

leadership in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to have all members welcome Mr. Scott Bonner of

Prince George, who is the executive director of Intersect, which is an

organization dedicated to assisting youth who have a conflict with the

law. Scott, over the years — and I have known him for some time now —

has done a remarkable job in our community in terms of leading,

directing and beginning social service agencies to the benefit of those

less fortunate.

With Scott today are his parents, Charles and Sydnie Bonner, and they are from Victoria. Would the House please welcome them.

MRS. McCARTHY :

I would like all members of the House to welcome a former member of the

council of Saanich to our session today. She is a former alderman, an

active former member of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, a

very active booster for tourism for our capital city, an entrepreneur

of great note in the city of Victoria — recently retired from her

Island Florist business. She has been an entrepreneur who has been

associated with almost every community effort to raise funds for good

causes, such as the B.C. and Yukon Heart Foundation. Will the House

please welcome Mrs. Norma Fitzsimmons.

Ministerial Statement

WESTERN PREMIERS' CONFERENCE

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement. I want to report to the

House on the outcome of the Western Premiers' Conference, which took

place on Monday and Tuesday in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba.

The conference dealt with a wide array of economic, environmental and social

policy issues of importance to British Columbians and to other western Canadians.

We agreed on a number of communiqus on these matters.

Monday we discussed our grave concern about the federal government's

fiscal and monetary policies, which we all see as posing the real

danger of creating a made-in-Canada recession. The federal interest

rate policy, which has resulted in nearly unprecedented spreads of

almost 600 basis points compared to American rates, constitutes an

overwhelming disadvantage to Canadian businesses and robs many

Canadians of their dream of owning their own homes.

Higher

interest rates also lead to a higher Canadian dollar. These together

represent a double whammy for Canadians, threatening to wipe out the

gains made after the recession of the early eighties and undermining

the benefits of the free trade agreement.

We rejected the

view that these policies can in any way be justified. We challenged

Ottawa to demonstrate what possible benefits they represent for

Canadians. We challenged Ottawa's fiscal policies in unilaterally

offloading responsibilities for critical programs such as health,

education, social assistance and regional development, while failing to

get their own house in order.

We proposed that our

ministers of finance work together with Ottawa and the other provinces

to address the critical economic problems we face as a country.

spent considerable time on Monday discussing the crisis in Canadian

agriculture and farm finance caused by international subsidy wars and

other factors beyond the control of farmers. Special reference was made

to the situation faced by the British Columbia tree-fruit industry. Mr.

Speaker, you can see that western Premiers pull no punches; we call it

as we see it in standing up for the interests of western Canadians.

Our

meetings also gave us the opportunity to review a number of areas where

significant progress has been made through western cooperation. In such

areas as economic diversification, environmental protection, science

and technology, tourism promotion and development, trade policy,

transportation, rural development and enhancing the family, western

Premiers and western ministers have worked very effectively together

over the past couple of years to promote the interests of the west.

Premier

Filmon and I signed a letter of understanding regarding the TRIUMF kaon

project at UBC. We already have an agreement with Saskatchewan and are

continuing our efforts to bring this world-class project to fruition.

spent considerable time yesterday continuing discussions begun in

Vancouver on March 23 with respect to the current constitutional

impasse. On the basis of those discussions, we will be pursuing further

ideas with other Premiers over the next days in an effort to forge a

national consensus which will not only resolve this impasse, but do so

in a manner which significantly advances the goals and aspirations of

all regions of this great country — most definitely including those of

British Columbians and western Canadians.

[ Page 9498 ]

I indicated in proposals made public in January, I concluded some

months ago that we must move on together as Canadians to renew the

spirit of constructive compromise and accommodation which built this

country. This effort must entail creation of a consensus in the country

on a broad basis and involve movement on issues of key importance to

the west, most especially Senate reform.

This is no longer

a question of saving Meech Lake. There is a much broader and more

significant issue at stake today. We must now respond to the concerns

and objectives in all regions of the country for renewing the national

consensus and reforming our national will to build this country

together.

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear whether the efforts

that my fellow western Premiers and I are continuing to undertake will

hold the key to unlocking this particular problem. I break no

confidences in saying that we believe that the possibilities for

reaching a renewed, more broadly based consensus are real enough that

we should continue our work.

Certainly British Columbians

will agree that no effort should be spared on an issue of such central

importance to our future as Canadians. I and my fellow western Premiers

are united in our dedication and determination to undertake those

efforts on behalf of western Canadians and on behalf of Canada.

The

Meech Lake accord, without additional accommodation of regional

interest, will not likely proceed by June 23. It cannot succeed in its

present form, but further initiatives can see us yet achieve meaningful

constitutional reform. That reform must be directed to one basic goal

we all share: to reaffirm and support our great nation and maintain

Canada as a unified and truly great country.

The

differences we have in this House are a reflection of the benefits and

values of the constitutional democracy we enjoy and must maintain. We

must all affirm a common commitment to our Canada and do all in our

power and influence to keep this country together, to maintain a great,

rich and complex country which stands in this world for the principles

of democracy and individual rights and freedoms.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker, my goal as Premier, and the goal of all members on this

side of the House, is to play a positive role, be a positive force and,

if necessary, assert a leadership role in securing the future of our

province within a strong and unified Canada. We are trying to generate

a set of new ideas and new options, such that our new generations of

British Columbians can secure and celebrate their futures as Canadians.

British

Columbians are strong and proud Canadians. Our people want us as

legislators to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals

and all provinces. They also want us to maintain and improve our

position in Confederation. But most of all they want us to preserve and

protect the nation that we share. We will not swerve from that course.

I asked my fellow western Premiers to meet in Vancouver during Globe '90,

on March 23. My purpose in calling that meeting was to try, through joint initiatives,

to build a consensus on constitutional reform. It is not so much the specific

details of Meech Lake or companion resolutions as the willingness to realize

that nation-building is an ongoing process that demands a long view and an unwavering

commitment to our country.

Mr.

Speaker, this Premier and this government will maintain that course.

The process is not yet complete. Further consultations are required,

both with other first ministers and with the public.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Premier for his report to the

Legislature on the western Premiers' meetings. On this side of the

House we welcome the Premier's efforts, along with the other western

Premiers, to stop the high-interest-rate policy of the Mulroney

government.

We thought we were getting rid of the Crow

rates on freight, and we were cruelly misled. We now have the Crow

rates of the central bank having a very serious impact on the western

economy.

The Premier spoke about the freedom and democracy

that we enjoy in this great Confederation of ours. He spoke of the

discussions that took place on making sure that this country remains

strong and united. I'd like the Premier to know that while he was away,

his Finance minister was turning the future of this country into a

dollars-and-cents issue. He didn't speak about a great Confederation.

He didn't speak about freedom and democracy. He spoke about the costs

to British Columbia being in the negative.

As you're aware,

this Finance minister has been reeling for the last two weeks with the

disclosures of a dishonest budget by Peat Marwick, the certified

general accountants and the auditor-general. The BS fund was exposed as

just that, and the auditor-general's report made it very clear....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Would both members please take their seats.

Once

again, I must remind the members that when a ministerial statement is

made, the reply must be within the scope of the statement. The

statement was pretty broad, and there were a number of things there.

But there was nothing about the budget. Hard as I try, I can't find

anything relevant in terms of the reply.

So I would ask the

Leader of the Opposition to continue, but I remind him that the

comments he makes now must be relevant — and there has been quite a

broad degree of scope allowed alread y— to the statement originally

made by the Premier.

MR. HARCOURT : With that guidance, Mr. Speaker....

listened very carefully to the remarks of the Premier. He spoke about

freedom, democracy and a strong Confederation. He spoke about the

financial issues that are plaguing the western provinces. While he was

away, I thought I would remind him when he

[ Page

9499 ]

returned about the financial problems that are plaguing this province of ours and this government.

think it is a very relevant comment. As the Premier used his high-flown

words about the freedom and democracy we have in this country of ours,

and how important having a strong united Canada is, his Finance

minister was undermining his efforts to have a united Canada. He was

bashing Confederation. I would hope that when the Premier is a thousand

miles away from British Columbia he would, before he left, remind his

ministers to work on nation-building rather than mischievousness — and

remind him that he once again was wrong, that the figures from

Statistics Canada made it very clear that in 1988 we were not in a

deficit situation in this Confederation of ours. I think people are

entitled to know the facts.

In conclusion, I would hope

that when the Premier goes to Manitoba, and his Finance minister is

here being irresponsible at a very delicate time for this country and

our constitutional dialogue, he would make sure his Finance minister is

making sure that B.C. gets a fair share in Confederation, such as

fighting for the Polar 8 at the right time instead of after the fact,

fighting for FRDA II and making sure that they fight the GST not at the

end of the process but at the beginning, as New Democrats have been

doing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, surely even this Leader of the Opposition could take your

warning to heart and stay relevant to the Premier's statement. He has

wandered all over the map, and I suggest it's time he concludes his

feeble response.

MR. SPEAKER : In the remarks of the

Premier there were a number of issues that were brought up that we

skated close to, but the Polar 8 was not among them. If you could

continue....

MR. HARCOURT : I'll sail by the

shipyards, and say that I would hope now that this Premier is back he

would at least sit down with his beleaguered Finance minister and tell

him to get his financial facts — for once in the last two weeks — right.

Introduction of Bills

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Dirks presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Electoral Districts Act.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, this bill will complete the process of

electoral boundary reform which was commenced when the government asked the

hon. Judge Fisher to make recommendations for reform of electoral boundaries

and the elimination of two-member ridings.

Subsequent to Judge Fisher's report, the Select Standing Committee

on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations made a unanimous

report recommending the names and the boundary descriptions of the 75

new electoral districts. This was done on October 31, 1989.

Subsequently, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council was pleased to enact a

regulation establishing the 75 new ridings, together with their names

and legal descriptions. This was done on January 24, 1990.

This

bill honours a commitment of the government to incorporate these

changes into legislation at the present session of the Legislature.

This bill sets out the names of the new districts. It establishes the

boundaries of the 75 electoral districts. It repeals the January 24,

1990, regulation. The act will come into force upon the dissolution of

the thirty-fourth parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the

bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3 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.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Messmer presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Park Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. MESSMER :

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to improve government

protection of more provincial parks by legislating their boundaries.

The bill adds a

schedule with 23 parks to the existing

schedule of

parks, with legislated boundaries. Following proclamation, there will

be 103 parks with boundaries entrenched in legislation.

This bill also undertakes minor housekeeping matters.

Bill

25 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

PREMIER'S STATEMENT ON

PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE CONFERENCE

MR. WILLIAMS :

I have a question to the hon. Premier. I listened with interest to his

statement since Portage la Prairie. Could the Premier advise us what a

basis point is?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I would defer that question to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I really find it astounding that the chairman of one of

the credit unions in the province of B.C. should be so unaware of the

answer that he has to ask the question in such a public forum.

[ Page 9500 ]

MR. WILLIAMS : Is there anybody in the cabinet ranks who could answer the question?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

First of all, I make no great pretence to being a financial expert. As

I've said a number of times, on this side of the House there are

probably at least 35 individuals who could do the job equally well or

better. They've all got a vast amount of experience in the financial

community. I just happen to be the MLA who holds the job at the moment.

But I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that any one of the people on

this side of the House could do a better job than any one of those

people on the other side of the House, particularly given the fact that

the alleged financial expert on the other side doesn't know the answer

to such a simplistic question. I find it astounding that this person

could have won the position through some sort of electoral process when

his ignorance of the process itself should be such an obvious matter of

public knowledge now.

[2:30]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, just to put an end to this question, 1 percent equals 100 points.

MR. WILLIAMS : A little humble pie is good, Mr. Minister of Finance. Thank you.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

A question to the Premier regarding Expo lands. Are there unresolved

liabilities that the government still has with respect to

non-performance on the Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the last part of the question. There was too much noise over there.

MR. WILLIAMS : Are there unresolved liabilities still remaining with respect to Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I might take this opportunity, I'm a

little astounded that after a statement that I think is of considerable

importance to the people of British Columbia and the country....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Question period is 15 minutes long. If you have a remark

that you wish to make about your earlier statement, the appropriate

time to do that would be after question period. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, my reference would have been with respect to the purpose

of question period, which is for matters of importance and of immediate

concern. But I will defer this question to the minister responsible.

HON. MR. PARKER : I'd be pleased to take the question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS : Can the Premier assure us that the Minister of Crown Lands is the minister responsible for the Expo lands?

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor-General. Vancouver

residents are very concerned regarding reports that in the

neighbourhood of $11 million may be required to make our city bridges

in Vancouver earthquake-proof. Can the minister tell this House what

the government is doing to ensure the safety of all bridges in this

province, to make sure that we are ready and prepared for an earthquake?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, the first point I would like to make regarding the

question is that I, personally, never use the expression

"earthquake-proof." You might want to use "earthquake-resistant,"

which I think is more reasonable.

Secondly, with respect to

earthquake preparedness, as you know, the ministry spends a great deal

of time and energy trying to raise the level of awareness about the

possibility of earthquakes and what to do before, during and after.

This, of course, has involved the city of Vancouver examining its

bridges to make sure they are more earthquake-resistant than they are

now.

This has also been a subject of discussion and effort

and expenditure by Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro with its dams,

the Ministry of Highways with highways and bridges, the Ministry of

Health and all kinds of other ministries. So an expansion of your

question is: yes, the government is making all kinds of efforts to

ensure public safety in the event of an earthquake.

PRIVATIZATION

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the minister responsible for privatization. We paid $240,000 more

last year for privatized signs that we didn't receive in the Ministry

of Highways, but the privatization task force showed earlier that the

public company cost us only $25 a sign. Has the minister's staff

reviewed those differences and added up how much more privatization is

costing us now than previously?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to bring the answer back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER : Question taken as notice, I presume.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Last year, the Ministry of Environment paid $180,000 for privatized

lab services that it never received. Has the privatization staff added

up the added costs here and determined whether the Crown indeed

benefited through privatization?

[ Page 9501 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN : Again — and I don't like to seem to be avoiding answering your questions — I'll take this on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Final question to the minister responsible for privatization. The

Premier noted earlier that there would be phases 2, 3 and 4 of

privatization. Has the minister's staff determined whether this rich

province can afford any more privatization?

MR. SIHOTA :

Question to the Premier. No one insisted more than the Premier that the

government proceed with privatization. He wanted, of course, to impose

his political belief in privatization on us all. Yet in the latest

auditor-general's report, the evidence as to that lab that my colleague

referred to — insofar as the auditor-general looked at it — "concluded

that the direct costs of the services provided during the first year of

the contract were more than they would have been had the ministry

continued to operate the facility." That's for the time period the

auditor-general looked at this report. Would the Premier not agree that

in this instance privatization actually cost us money?

the Premier didn't hear, I'll reword the question. Would you not agree

that in this instance privatization has been a costly experiment?

MR. SPEAKER :

It would assist the Chair and all members of the House if the

preambles

were made shorter so that those who are listening for the question

would actually hear the question and all the

preamble.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The question is very timely, because I had an opportunity to speak with

western colleagues in Portage la Prairie. There is great interest,

obviously, not only in the tremendous fiscal accomplishments of this

province.... There isn't another province in western Canada — in the

whole of Canada, for that matter — which has gone so long without tax

increases. As a matter of fact, this year we have a tax reduction.

This

did not come about because of any assistance that might have been

received from the NDP. Only this morning I was adding up some of their

demands, and they are anywhere from $3 billion to $10 billion. I expect

to have a more accurate figure fairly soon. All of it adds up to

doubling either the sales tax or the corporate tax, or a bit of both;

and it certainly includes, as Mr. Krog said, a considerable increase in

personal income tax.

In conclusion, I guess the

privatization process has been tremendously effective and successful.

I'm proud of a government that has been able to accomplish that and not

only save money, but in many instances improve services and reduce the

number of public servants, which certainly gives us flexibility that no

other jurisdiction enjoys.

In response to this question and

the earlier question, if we can effectively see some services that are

now carried out by government, carried out in the private sector, save

money and thereby have the ability to reduce taxes, this Premier and

this government are all for saving the taxpayers money.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier would rather listen to his political rhetoric than to the

quiet logic of the auditor-general's report. He can't admit that he's

wrong.

In August 1987 the Premier, when he was talking

about privatization, said that "there won't be any fire sales, specials

or giveaways." Yet with respect to the sign shop, the auditor-general

says in the course of his report that we are paying $240,000 for signs

that we're not getting and that we didn't even order. How does he

reconcile that fact with the statement he made earlier about no fire

sales, specials or giveaways?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, the member will have an opportunity to ask about those

specifics when that specific budget comes up for discussion, but I can

again assure members on the other side that, yes, we have a saving in

signs by having them done by way of tender as opposed to being

committed to a fixed cost — number one.

It certainly needs

to be mentioned as well that the sign shop is a special example of how,

through the privatization process, we can create initiative,

entrepreneurism and, above all, more jobs for our people.

Motions

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would like to move authorization for the

Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands to continue their

examination of and to make recommendations with respect to exemptions

under

part 12 of the Forest Act and, without limiting the generality of

the foregoing, to consider the items that were on their agenda. Rather

than read the whole motion, if I have leave to move it, I'll move it. [See appendix.]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion is for the Select Standing

Committee on Forests and Lands to continue the work it began last

session on the Vancouver log market under

part 12 of the Forest Act. I

understand that prior to prorogation on April 5 the committee was

considering a draft report, which the House will be receiving shortly.

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair has a copy of the motion if anyone wishes to see it, but I'd like to put the question.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 11.

[ Page

9502 ]

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[2:45]

section 5 as amended.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, for those people who may actually be referring to the

bill and because there are a number of clauses within the bill that are

related to the finance

section of the School Act, I'll reference them

too. We're looking at

section 124 and, I think by extrapolation,

section 125.

To clarify this debate for me procedurally and

because we're dealing with

section 5 as amended, I gather that we're

going to go through all of

section 5. We could presumably discuss any

aspect of this from

section 124 through to — well, I'm not sure how far.

Please give me some direction on how we might discuss this, because

normally we go through clause by clause and you ask us when we've

finished our debate on the clause. It would be helpful for me and

members on this side of the House to be clear on how wide-ranging our

discussion might be under this

section that we're dealing with.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I understand very clearly what you're saying. The answer is that we

will entertain questions on any particular portion of the various

divisions under

part 8, but we will only take one vote to deal with

section 5 as amended.

MS. A. HAGEN : That's very

helpful, Mr. Chairman, because I know that there are a couple of

members from this side who are not presently able to be in the chamber

and who may want to range widely. However, for the convenience of the

minister and his officials, I intend to proceed in an orderly way,

shall we say, at this stage. I'll be following through the various

sections under

part 8. We may come back to them then with other

speakers in the course of our discussions this afternoon.

want to zero in again on

section 124 and ask the minister some

questions about the procedure. This legislation tells boards dates and

procedures that will be part of the timetable for the preparation of

their budgets. I have heard a number of queries about the availability

of or lack of information in this statute as boards prepare their

budgets based on block funding

In subsection 124(3), it

states: "The minister shall announce by February 1 of a fiscal year the

average per-student amount that is anticipated to be used to determine

the provincial block of funds for the next fiscal year." But as I see

it in this legislation, there is nothing to commit the minister to any

other provision of information to boards as they prepare their budgets.

all know that the procedure over the past two or three years at least

has been for the minister, sometime around mid-February — this year,

toward the end of February — to provide boards with

specific-to-each-board information about the amount of funding that

will be coming. In this case now, it will be coming out of the block.

also know that under the old system there was information about tax

rates and those elements of the budgeting process that enabled boards

to budget in the fullness of knowledge. We also know that there is

provision for the minister to provide, at some unspecified time,

information about special grants. The minister has noted that he has

now, under his ministry, a number of specific, very important grants

for boards in their planning: the Royal Commission on Education funds,

for example, computer funds and other special funds.

would like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, to provide us with

information about what he is required by this statute to do. I read it

that he is required to provide boards with only the provincial average

per-student amount and the total block. I want to know if there is any

other requirement in this legislation and if not, why not. Will there

be regulations that inform boards of what this minister will provide in

the way of information and a timetable for that information, or are we

relying on goodwill policy or past practice for us to know how the

minister is going to give boards the very essential, concrete,

specific-to-each-board information that assists them in developing

their budgets for the current year?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I note that the member has picked up that this legislation provides the

dates and the procedures. I'm pleased that I don't have to explain that.

The

act also says that by February 1, the block for the next year will be

announced. This year the block and the increase.... We had to set the

block as a starting point based on the 1989-90 year, and then we said

we would increase.... Therefore that is the provincial block for

1990-91, and that was announced on January 31.

The boards

were also told that as soon as possible, the fiscal framework would be

run to provide them with the district allocation, and that fiscal

framework is based on the information we have on the projected

enrolments. Much of that work is done. We usually look for confirmation

of the projected enrolments. We look for the information about average

teachers' salaries, because that's one of the factors that kicks in to

running the fiscal framework. Then, depending on how soon all that

information is assembled — and thank goodness for computers — it can be

done within about three weeks.

We said on January 31 that

we anticipate we can put in all this information and run the district

blocks by February 23, or by the third week in February. Thanks to the

diligent work of my ministry and the gift of computers, it was possible

to provide that information to boards.

Now there was other

funding over and above, but that's the block. We will need less

information in the future, because the total provincial block will be

determined based on this year's block and increased by the economic

adjustment factor. So we won't need

[ Page 9503 ]

much information in the future, and the act implies that we're going to

take a lot less information — just what we need to run the district

block. But we don't need that kind of information to run the provincial

block; they will just distribute it.

Then we know — and we

had committed — that there would be extra funding for computers. We

didn't know the exact amount. There would be funding for the royal

commission implementation. We wouldn't know the amount until the budget

comes out, and that, I think, is reasonable and fair. As quickly as

that can be broken down, that is going out to school boards. But it

does not affect their operation. They can carry on with their operating

budgets.

If, as it turned out, we got $15 million for

computers, as we had expected I think, so far, three years out of five,

and we said we were on a five-year plan of $15 million a year, we have

been delivering on our promise, We said that we were going to put out a

lot more money for the royal commission implementation, and we have

been delivering on our promise. Now suppose we had got only $10 million

for computers; that would not affect the school district's operating

budget. All it would mean is that they would buy fewer computers. Or if

we got $20 million, they would buy more computers.

boards have chosen to factor in.... "Well, we've got to go for

computers. We've got to go for royal commission implementation money in

their operating budgets." That's absolutely unnecessary, because the

money that is in addition for that and other programs will be added on,

and we will do whatever we can.

As for the capital program,

we will put as much money as we can to upgrade schools or to add new

schools. That money is over and above; it has nothing to do with the

determination of the operation block. All it determines, subsequently,

is how much we can do.

I hope the member can understand

what the block is now. It's a block of money that will be increased

each year, according to the economic adjustment factor. That will be

distributed to school districts by way of the fiscal framework, as

quickly as it can be run and done.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr.

Chairman, I'd appreciate if we didn't lecture each other on this. I'm

really trying to get some very specific answers to questions. I think I

do understand what the block is, and I do understand what the special

funds are. I do understand that there are problems with boards in

knowing what information they're going to get and when they're going to

get it. That's the simple information I'm trying to get at.

would gather from the minister's response that it will be policy to

continue to provide boards with their grant allocation sometime in

February. There's nothing in the legislation to require it; there's

nothing in regulations to require it. But I would gather that's a

policy, if you like, of the minister.

I would gather, too, from what he says, that boards will in fact continue to

have only that information as they prepare their budgets and prepare for the

possibility of going to referendum. Contrary to what the minister says, I believe

that the lack of information on the total budget that boards will have does

complicate their budgeting. It does make it more difficult.

Let

me just make some obvious points. Certainly they are very practical

points from the perspective of boards. If there's going to be $15

million in the pot for computers and it's going to be divided among

school districts, that's one thing; if there's going to be $10 million,

that's another thing. Boards may want to add to the resources that are

available from the provincial government out of their block or by going

to referendum. Until they know what is coming to them from those

special funds, it's impossible for them to make those decisions.

royal commission funding, the minister keeps talking about this as if

it's some extraneous activity to the board's work. From my

perspective — and certainly from the perspective I'm hearing from

boards — planning for the changes which are encompassed under "Year

2000" and

implementation of the royal commission report is an integral part of a

board's budgeting. The minister himself has noted that there are funds

in the block that may be used for royal commission implementation, so

it's not all an add-on.

I think it's fair to note that

boards find it difficult to budget in a coherent way for the year ahead

when, number one, they don't have all of the information about the

funds they're going to have available and, two, they don't know when

they are going to get that information. I would note, for example, that

the Vancouver board — which the minister has accused of holding some

funds for computer purposes in an account instead of spending it — has

noted that it takes time to plan for those kinds of expenditures. That

kind of planning is what most boards want.

The Victoria

board puts it very neatly and succinctly: "I don't care for this

foot-dragging and lack of information. My duty lies with the kids of

the district." That's a quote from trustee Peter Yorke, who chairs the

Victoria board's finance committee, in the May 8 edition of the

Times-Colonist .

The minister seems to feel that everything

has to work according to his agenda. We know from this legislation that

he can regulate a change in that agenda under a later

section — at his

whim or, more presumably, the Premier's, or at the time the House is

called and so on. It's not a very efficient, effective and informative

way for boards to be able to budget. I want to make that point on

behalf of boards who are finding it difficult to meld all of these

initiatives and these dollars together into good, effective short-term

planning for the next fiscal year, and longer-term planning as well.

[3:00]

I want to just note again that there is nothing in this legislation,

other than February 1, to note a global figure that is required by law.

We have to rely on the minister's commitment to providing information.

Even that minister is obviously constrained by these funds to the

extent of the information that he

[ Page 9504 ]

can

provide. That's not good enough for the kind of good planning that

boards would like to be able to engage in. It is further complicated,

of course — as all of this is — by that referendum issue and the very

difficult and not-easy-to-make decision to go to referendum. At the

best of times that decision is being made without really knowing what

all of the factors are.

The minister can explain to his

heart's content that these are separate, that they're not a part of

this, that they're not a part of the block and so on. But a school, its

staff and its work are an organic whole; they are not made up of little

pockets of this, that and the other. This legislation, and the policies

and procedures of the minister around those special funds, is not

facilitating boards in being able to do the best job in maintaining the

system and renewing and transforming it. That is, I think, a very real

challenge that they face. It's not assisted by this minister and this

legislation.

I want to move on to a couple of points made

in clause 125 on the allocation of provincial blocks. I want to ask the

minister what procedures he plans to have in place to deal with

variations in the cost of delivering educational programs in those

districts and an updating and review of those variations Yesterday we

had some considerable discussion about what I deem to be fundamental

inequities and problems that are built into the initial block funding

The minister was not prepared to make a commitment to any clear process

for reviewing that block. He has just reiterated that next year's block

will be based on this year's block. That means that next year's block

will compound any of the problems and inequities that may exist in this

year's block. Perhaps there is in this clause some means by which the

minister is enabled and in fact prepared to commit himself to some kind

of review.

Again I want to note, Mr. Chairman, that our

concern is that this block funding be established in a fundamentally

sound way that enjoys the trust and confidence of trustees, the staff

of school districts and parents. We haven't accomplished that yet. It's

all very well to have the legislation in place, but unless those

elements are addressed, we will be building a new funding system based

on mistrust and concern on the part of the public that it's not going

to work fairly throughout the province.

Can the minister

again discuss how he will deal with variations in the cost — presumably

again through the fiscal framework — and what review process is

implicit or planned that will enable that block to be established and

maintained in a way that is seen to be fair and equitable to all people?

want to acknowledge that it will never be perfect There are always

going to be questions and challenges. But we've got to start with a

better base than what we started with in this particular year. Perhaps

in this clause there are some opportunities for the minister to assure

us that in the first year of implementation there will be some good,

solid processes that will enhance confidence and knowledge of how the

block has developed and how it is going to be maintained fairly for all

districts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I know the member would

really like to know when all this information will be available to

school districts. Well, I guess we can't even anticipate what the

opposition is going to do in the House — such as interim supply — to

delay debate on anything. So it is pretty hard to consider all those

factors and still come up with a definite date.

However, if

the member would read the total bill, she would find that we require

boards to submit a budget by a certain date. It logically follows that

we can't expect them to submit a budget by that date unless they have

the block allocation before that — in time to do that. They cannot make

the decision whether to go to referendum if they don't know how much

information is there for their operating budget for these other items.

So it naturally follows back.

It starts from the tax

notices that must be out by the end of June, so by some time in May the

tax rates have to be out there. And for the tax rates to be

established, we have to know what the total educational expenditures

will be; and to know that, we've got to know all the school district

budgets. For them to prepare all their budgets, they need to know what

they're going to get. So it's in there, implicitly, if you track it and

if you understand the funding system.

In answer to the last

part of the member's question: "What is the basis in

section 125...?"

In very simplified form, having determined the block of money and

converted that to a per-pupil amount...then the amount for the

district will be based on the enrolment. The fiscal framework picks up

all the variations in costs between school districts — and we mentioned

there are hundreds of those variations. That is the basis for the

distribution. In other words, that describes the fiscal framework.

Then

there is the last part which the member made a point of in that

section

125: "The minister may adjust the allocation of the provincial block to

a board...if the basis for the calculation under subsection 1

changes." So that means that if the enrolment changes or if one of the

variables changes, then I can adjust the block. And that will be done

on the basis of fiscal framework. I don't know what is plainer than

that.

MR. CLARK : I don't know anything about the details of these questions.

I have never been a school trustee, and I find this difficult. I would like

to ask some questions from a layman's point of view just for my own clarification.

So I ask the minister's indulgence, if he knows them. I don't know the

details of this.

does seem, however — just to follow up on the member for New

Westminster — that there is a lot of discretion in the bill. It says,

for example:

"...as determined by the minister." I wonder if the minister is

concerned that that leaves the minister open every year to the kind of

lobbying by various school boards that I gather he had to deal with

this year.

[ Page 9505 ]

seems to me that because of the discretion in the bill, the minister

has the power to change the variables — to change the allocation — for

every individual school district. So each board can make the case that

its district is unique. I'm sure they all make that case. Each board

can make the case that it's somehow being abused by the fiscal

framework. And each board can go to the minister with justification and

ask for the minister to exercise his discretion in its interests. I

wonder whether that's correct, first of all, and whether that's a sound

basis for a bill — or whether it might be easier and fairer to spell out

the formula in more detail in the bill, so that discretion is fettered

by common knowledge by all districts and everybody is operating on the

same basis.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I suppose I could

answer it this way. Yes, there is discretion on the part of the

minister. But there is also the responsibility to carry out the

commitment of this government and this ministry to increase the block

on the basis of the economic adjustment factor. If we don't, we're held

accountable for that.

Each year in the past the budget was

determined by what the government decided to do. We've put it on a more

rational, predictable basis. If you know the economy has gone up 4

percent, you can expect a 4 percent increase next year; if it goes up

by 10 percent, you can expect a 10 percent increase. So the discretion

is there.

I think the question was that if we could pin

down these amounts, then maybe there wouldn't be any lobbying, If I

said today: "I'm pretty clairvoyant. I know the economy is going to

increase by 4 percent next year, and I say that your enrolment is going

to stay stable. So next year I assure you that you will get a 4 percent

increase, based on the same enrolment...." Because my learned friend

objects to ministerial discretion, next year it's: "Tough luck if your

enrolment goes up 10 percent. I can't vary it, because they want to

hold me to some figures I've committed to this year." As facetious as

that sounds, it still says that the amount will be based on the number

of pupils.

I don't know what that amount will be, because I

don't know what the economy is going to do next year. I don't know what

the total block increase will be, so I can't specify it any more

clearly than that. But the public, the school boards and the opposition

can hold us accountable to the commitments we have made to providing a

more stable, more predictable and more reliable system of educational

funding, rather than just making a political decision in any year. I

think it's a great stride forward, if people would only recognize it.

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could deal with what appears to be a problem,

again from a layman's point of view. It sort of reminds me of the

Soviet system of quotas. The factory is given a quota of 100 things to

make. If they make 110 things, then next year their quota is 110. So

presumably there's no incentive.

I guess what I'm getting

at in a roundabout way is that efficient school systems, which have

kept down their costs.... Let's take Delta; it has one of the lowest

per-pupil costs. This framework seems to lock them in and penalize them

for being more efficient, perhaps, than other districts. In other

words, there is no rewarding of those that have been cost-effective; in

fact, it's the reverse. If you've kept your budget low and you don't

have as many programs as other districts, for example, then you're

locked into that in perpetuity, because the framework doesn't take that

into account. At least that seems to be the argument I hear from people

in certain districts like Delta or Langley, where they have kept their

costs lower than Vancouver. Now they're locked into a framework that

keeps them lower in perpetuity.

First of all, I wonder

whether that is valid or whether the minister agrees with that — that the

unevenness of services between regions is in some way more difficult to

change now because of this formula. If he doesn't agree with it, how

could school districts make a case for that?

Obviously

Vancouver has a more expensive system, for lots of very good reasons.

Certainly they make more, but they also have services that other

districts don't have. If other districts want to implement services

such as Vancouver's, and they perhaps have different demographics, with

different changes taking place.... It doesn't seem to be possible. It

seems to be based on their historic pattern rather than on what may be

happening demographically in the region today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I tried to cover that yesterday, but it seems that I have to repeat it

as different members from the opposition side come into the House at

different times.

Yes, it was based on their costs last

year. Every district that is below the provincial average, and even

some that are above the provincial average — notably Vancouver, which

is well above the provincial average — said: "We were so conservative

and efficient last year. Why are we being punished for that?"

The

costs in Langley were lower; the amount in the Langley block is lower

because their costs were lower. I have to assume that not every

district had the same expenditures last year. If the member is saying

that boards are now saying what they have said to me every year: "When

you go to a percentage increase, does that mean that if we had found a

way to spend more last year, we would get more money this year because

we were efficient...?" Do you want me to destroy that efficiency by

saying to those that had lower costs, because their costs were lower,

that it should increase?

With the supplementary amount

available to boards last year, they were responsible, they were this

deficient.... Presumably they met all of the needs they saw were

necessary in their district last year. Now they're saying: "Gee, if we

had thought ahead, we could have spent more next year." That's a rather

ludicrous statement, in that they're saying that the whole system

should be based on how much we

[ Page 9506 ]

could possibly spend rather than on how much we need to spend.

Some

of the districts that had lower costs for education — their turnout of

kids; their production on provincial exams by any standard that we

measure with or that we can measure — did well. In Vancouver, for

instance, yes. Last year they apparently had 26 percent of their school

population in ESL programs. The ESL students are funded at a higher

level. In Langley I think it was 1.6 percent of their student

population, so should we fund all of those students at the higher level

when they don't exist? Should we fund the teachers in Surrey at the

same average salary level when it went down last year by 1.5 percent,

and is lower than Vancouver? No. We fund costs, and so it goes on.

[3:15]

The reward in the future is going to be that the school districts

can carry forward their surpluses, so if they are efficient this year —

and that's a new development, where they can carry forward their

surpluses — it rewards them. It also prevents that silly practice of:

"If we have a surplus, they'll take it away from us, so we've got to

spend everything by March 31." So it's sensible, rational and also

rewards boards for efficiencies.

If a board with the

block funding system next year, for instance, can cut costs in some

area by some responsible measure they take, that will benefit them to

provide the extras the following year. I think it's a very good system,

and people understand it. I would rather hope that once the referendum

thing is over and some of these things are in place, we can get back to

education.

It's there to do a great education system, with

what's in their blocks, what's within the provincial block and with

what is available in the other expenditures that are being announced

now as quickly as the ministry can run them to each board — what they

are going to get.

MR. CLARK : The carrying over of

the surplus is clearly.... For the first time the incentive is there to

save money, although one would probably be a bit careful about that,

because if boards were running large surpluses, I'm not sure I would

trust the government to continue funding the block at a certain level.

But I still think it's a good idea that they can carry forward a

surplus in this way.

I guess the point still stands,

however, that you may be rewarding efficiency in the future, but you

haven't rewarded in the fiscal framework with this current block

funding. You haven't rewarded efficiency in the past. So I recognize

the balance the minister has to play in terms of not wanting to destroy

efficiency and give more money than is required, but at the same time

there is an imbalance there that I think many boards feel. I'm not

talking in this case about Vancouver; I'm talking about other boards.

What has happened as a result of that.... The other point I want to make is

that school boards change. A school board may have been very conservative — and

I don't mean that in a political sense — and have very low costs, and a new

school board may want to introduce a program that exists in most other jurisdictions,

yet they will have to go to referendum for a new program.

other words, you set up a system of inequalities in this respect. You

have a new board that gets elected; they want to bring in a program

that exists in almost every other school district, but doesn't exist in

theirs; they have to go to referendum. So we have this absurd situation

where school districts may have to go to referendum for a program that

exists in other jurisdictions inside the fiscal framework.

That

seems to have been the case in some of the referendums we've seen

before. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on what appears

to be varying quality of education, or varying programs of education —

we assume that relates somehow to quality — between districts. How does

the framework try to deal with that, given the situation we had where

some districts were going to referendum for programs which already

existed in other districts and were being funded under the framework?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The fiscal framework in the past was not based on a board's attitude

towards efficiency or nonefficiency. Surely not everybody, above the

provincial average was inefficient. They had higher costs, because in

some districts in a small secondary school the pupil-teacher ratio to

give a quality education has to be considerably different than in a

large school. That's all accounted. In some schools remote factors are

calculated in, and so on.

It's hard for me to accept that

those who were at the average were average, those who were above the

average were inefficient and those who were below the average were

efficient. That's the point that people are trying to make now. The

fiscal framework from previous years was based on their costs, not on

their attitudes.

Many of the boards are now claiming

efficiency as the reason their costs were below the provincial average.

I don't know; I guess it could be a factor, but by and large it was

because of the variables between the districts — the difference in ESL

between Langley and Vancouver. That cost differential was not based on

the board's attitude. It was based on the fact that there were a whole

bunch of other services: special services, more special needs kids in

Vancouver than in Langley, native education programs, physically

handicapped — all of those are funded at different levels. That's what

made the difference.

Now boards are claiming: "We were

below the provincial average." I've had this from some of the boards in

the lower mainland: "Because you have come up with a new system.... Our

costs might have been lower than the others last year, but now we think

that you've changed the system. We should all be at the provincial

average or above." You think that one through for a minute, and you'll

find out that it doesn't make any sense to say they didn't have a

program that another district has.

[ Page 9507 ]

Well,

if they didn't have ESL students last year, they didn't need an ESL

program. If they have ESL students this year, they get funded in the

fiscal framework distribution of the block for those ESL students. All

they have to do is show them, and we rerun it at the end of September

based on actual enrolments.

If they had no handicapped

students integrated into the system last year, and this year they show

in their projections or in September the actual numbers for handicapped

students, we rerun the fiscal framework and provide for those at the

appropriate funding level. So those programs are built in.

know that boards — politically or for some other reasons — have

said.... Your leader, for heaven's sake, went out there and said that

under this new system, disabled kids will be precluded from getting an

education. Yet we have put in money this year to integrate disabled

kids into the school system. We have a protocol agreement between the

other ministries to enhance the services available to those students.

Your

leader goes out there and plays politics with the kids and accuses me

of doing it. I'm not playing politics with the kids — no way. We're

funding where the needs are; the disabled students will get that. But

he can get a good emotional reaction.

"This government is taking away the opportunities for disabled students

in the system." That has to be nothing but crass political garbage, because

it is not true. We are increasing the funding for those disabled students. But

it's frightening to them, isn't it? That's why I call it crass politics.

It's not correct; it's untrue. Yet that's the kind of game we play.

there are less students in one program and more students in another

program, without even consulting us the board can shift their

priorities. They can move things around. They can put a librarian or

one more teacher in a school. We don't question that. The amount of

money is there based on the enrolment and all of the other variables.

So to say that districts who don't have a program now can't put in a

program unless they go to referendum is patently false. All they have

to do is show us that the need is there, and the fiscal framework picks

up that recalculation. They can set their own priorities, and they can

do those sorts of things. So I cannot accept some of these invalid

criticisms that are implicitly stated by members of the opposition who

accuse us of playing politics with the system.

MS. CULL :

I have a number of questions, and I'm just going to pick up on the

minister's last comments. If there are two school districts, and prior

to this year both of them had special-needs children requiring

integration.... One district had an integration program — perhaps they

had gone through their supplementary budget last year and increased the

residential taxes to pay for such a program — and the other district had

not.

My question is: does the new funding formula address

the fact that the second district had the need but was not providing

for it, for whatever reason that may be? Is that reflected in the

uplift? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard you say that if

a district wasn't providing a program last year, there wasn't the need

for that program to be provided.

Interjection.

MS. CULL : Well, okay, then answer that question for me, because the answer to that is important for my next set of questions.

a district that was — for whatever reasons — unable to meet a need prior

to the new funding formula, I want to know if that need is recognized

in the new funding formula before they get the other uplift that the

other school districts would have gotten in any case, because they were

providing it out of supplemental funds.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Perhaps I can respond this way. A handicapped student generates $6,000

in the block. If that handicapped student exists — this year or next

year — it will generate $6,000 in the block as compared to the $3,000

that a regular student would generate in the elementary system. It

varies between elementary and secondary. So the funding will be there

if the students are there.

The

policy of this ministry has

been — by ministerial order and by implication in the new School Act —

that the policy is integration. So if you have 20 handicapped students

funded at double the level of regular students, the money is there, and

we expect any district to integrate them to the extent possible.

MS. CULL :

So last year, in the Greater Victoria School District, the supplemental

budget included $600,000 to integrate special-needs students. That was

a partial move towards integration, which, in the opinion of the board

and the parents, took them about a third of the way down the line. Is

that funding represented in the block this year? Is it correct that

that $600,000 is included in the Greater Victoria School District

block funding so that that level of funding, at least to the partial

integration, is still reflected in their block funding?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would think yes, because I believe Victoria was about at the

provincial average of supplementary spending over the fiscal framework,

so there wouldn't have been much of a change there. The point remains

that if the Victoria school district had X number of students that

qualified for handicapped-level funding, they got that money. They may

have put those particular dollars somewhere else and convinced their

taxpayers that the only way they could teach those students was by

raising an extra $600,000.

[3:30]

I say to you that the funding was there for those students for the

Victoria school board last year. You chose, I guess, to go to your

taxpayers and say: "We're going to have to get another $600,000." As I

pointed out in the House yesterday, the Victoria school district had

budgeted a 10.5 percent increase

[ Page 9508 ]

for

taxpayers. When we changed the formula from a 55 percent base to a 57

percent base.... As a former school board chairman, you should

recognize that you've got over $2 million more than you had expected

from the provincial grants. You did not reduce your budget. You did not

go to the taxpayers for $2 million less and say, "We had already

determined our total budget." Oh no, you expanded your expenditures by

the $2 million, and left the tax increase at 10.5 percent. So I don't

know how you manipulated or handled the $600,000. I'm saying that If

the kids were there, the funding was there. How you arranged the money

and how you said to your taxpayers that you needed that money....

education critic here said it was a matter of mistrust. I would say

that it's that side of the House that is disregarding the figures and

doing everything it can to generate mistrust; this side of the House is

going by a formula that we try to fine-tune every year, on the advice

of people from the field who are in the field. We fund objectively on

the basis of that formula, disregarding the politics of the board.

MS. CULL :

The minister is assuming, of course, that the funds that were provided

by the fiscal framework were in fact adequate for integration. They

certainly were not adequate for integration last year in the Greater

Victoria School District.

The other example I might give to

illustrate this is the funding that was available for gifted students.

We know that that comes on a formula basis, that a certain percentage

of students in a district are entitled to funding for gifted students.

The Greater Victoria School District has in excess of the percentage

that was allocated. So the money that was available from the ministry

to provide programs for gifted students could either be spread more

thinly or the board had the alternative of going to the taxpayers and

asking for increased funding. I think that's at the root of the problem

here.

I just want to return to the

section we were

discussing and talk about what disturbs me, which is the question that

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) asked. I don't believe

the minister answered it. He asked about the variation as determined by

the minister, and the minister replied about the total adjustment of

the block, the economic indicators. I fully accept the fact that costs

are different between districts, and that there are many reasons for

them to be different, but how I read

section 125 is that the minister

can determine the variation in the cost of delivering education

programs in that district. It reads: "The minister shall allocate the

provincial block based on (

b) variations in the cost of delivering

educational programs in those districts as determined by the minister."

That's the part that disturbs me.

I would like to know what

the basis is for determining the variations in costs. What kind of

process occurs? What options are there for boards to debate or appeal?

Is there some kind of mediation process available to boards? Or after

going through a dispute as to whether in fact a cost is X or X plus one

in a particular district, does the minister then give his decree? Or

what actually happens in negotiating this?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, I had already answered the questions. The member mentions

that the variation, as determined by the minister, is the authority for

applying the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework picks up those

variations if the variations change. Somehow or other the member is

reading into it that I can just willy-nilly decide that. And I suppose,

technically, I could say that I don't like the Greater Victoria School

Board and that I'm going to cut their funding in half. Do you really

think that is a realistic type of approach? We have an objective fiscal

framework that is adjusted by responsible people according to a

formula. To try and attribute that....

The school district

and your school board chairman can determine some of the policy

decisions with your board, so should you say that there is no room for

any adjustments on the policy or the amount you spend per pupil, by any

discretion of the board? The adjustment or change in the calculation

can only be done, according to the act, if the factors or variables

change or the enrolment changes. That's what it says right there. I

don't know how many times I have to answer that.

MS. CULL :

We appear to be asked to have trust and faith and not to worry about

what the words in the act say. I think the act is very clear. There is

immense discretion by the minister to determine the variation in the

cost of educational programs, and I see no ability for boards to

dispute that with the minister. If the answer is that it would be

unreasonable for the minister to be arbitrary.... I agree that it would

be unreasonable, but unfortunately the history of public education

financing In this province doesn't mean that it's unlikely.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't think I'm going to let that go. It's the usual slanging that

they do: "Well, the history of the funding isn't that great and...."

MR. CLARK : The truth hurts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It does not, because it's not the truth. If it were the truth, I could

deal with it; but it's not the truth that education funding has been

based on those objective terms.

I guess that member is

asking that once you apply the fiscal framework, then will you stop and

negotiate with every board whether it is right for their district. We

would never get the budgets completed if we opened that, because

practically every board will say: "Well, we believe in a provincial

average as long as we're at the average or above." That's the thing. Do

we negotiate with every board, or do we use the fiscal framework?

we use the fiscal framework, the boards, through their representation

on the fiscal framework advisory committee that looks at it all year,

have input to say that the fiscal framework is inadequate

[ Page 9509 ]

this section, should be topped up here or shifted here. Those

recommendations have been taken every year, and many of them have been

incorporated in the fine-tuning of the fiscal framework. The boards

have that input.

If the member is asking whether there is

an avenue for every board to appeal the fiscal framework as soon as

it's announced, I guess I have to answer no, because we can't

negotiate. I have even had some board chairmen come to me with the

board's position, and then another trustee come to me with another

position, and both of them try to negotiate with me. Imagine a system

based on that type of system. It has to be something rational, and it

is.

MS. A. HAGEN : We have probably discussed this

issue pretty thoroughly. We've made the point that the bill is pretty

bare-bones. We know what the procedure is with the ministry. We know

that there is a good deal of discretion there. I think there's still

some considerable nervousness out there in that because there aren't

some more concrete legislated stipulations, there is a lot of

discretion at the hands of the minister. The minister has, without

question, over the last number of years made information more available

and worked diligently, I believe, on a number of these issues.

There

is no question, however — and it's demonstrated by the fact that all

these supplementary amounts are rolled into the block — that the fiscal

framework was not adequate and that boards had to go to their own

taxpayers to find the funds needed to run the system.

want to come back for just a moment to the matter of grants. There is

some reference to special purpose grants in

section 131. The minister

persists in saying that somehow the opposition is responsible for the

fact that school boards don't know about their computer grants, royal

commission education grants and so on. In the same breath, he keeps

saying that we're trying to run them through the computer as fast as

possible.

Let's just note that there are special-purpose

grants. They are presumably not defined in their global amounts until

the time of the budget, the date for its coming forward being

determined entirely by this government. Once the budget is down, none

of the allocation of those grants has one whit — if I could be so

blunt — to do with what's happening in this House; it has to do with the

ministry's timetable in getting that information out.

I just want to make the point again, Mr. Minister, that as far as boards are

concerned, they deal with global budgets. As long as we're going to have

special-purpose grants along with blocks, then if the ministry doesn't get

that information to those boards in some reasonably expeditious way — and the

end or middle of May is not a very expeditious time to be still waiting for

critical information on quite significant dollar amounts that are needed, which

the boards need to know in order to do their planning — then we are going to have

a continued hue and cry about boards trying to make comprehensive decisions,

unfortunately including, if this legislation goes through, a decision about

whether to go to referendum based on incomplete information. I have not heard

from the minister anything that really gives us an assurance that next year

things might be expedited considerably.

Perhaps

we could give some acknowledgement that with changes this year and a

lot of work that's had to be done within the internal workings of the

ministry, that has delayed the process. But the budget came down on

April 19, and boards still don't know when they're going to get

information on the Royal Commission on Education funds. The minister

announced on April 28 the actual disposition of those around a whole

range of elements. Boards still don't know.

Can the

minister give us some indication on these special grants, which I'm not

very happy about in terms of their being in some special area where it

takes time for boards to get the information? Can the minister give us

some indication of when, perhaps in another year, that information

might be available to boards? Supposing we have a traditional year and

supposing we get our budget around March 15 or 19, is it possible that

the minister, being somewhat — what's the word? — prescient, might have

some idea what might be in that budget, some knowledge that would allow

him to do some work before the budget comes down on some hypothetical

figures that could get fine-tuned, so that boards might have that

information by the end of March instead of by the end of May, which is

only a month before the end of school year, and only a couple of months

before we've got to figure out how boards are going to make good,

efficient, effective educational use of those very important dollars?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

With respect to the comments about the nervousness and mistrust out

there, I guess when you have an opposition that devotes almost 100

percent of its time to fostering the nervousness and mistrust, and with

their friends out there pursuing that, then it's not surprising that

some of it exists.

In terms of trust, I believe that I and this ministry have delivered on every promise we have made for the last three years.

agree with the member that the discussion in this House probably has

not one whit to do with the reality of what's going on in the budgeting

process, but I can't help that, because the members opposite are

playing politics. That member, who has been in this House now for a

little while, says to me: "Would you pre-empt the budget by announcing

the amounts, because you might have some idea what's in the budget?"

Yes, we make our submissions in the budget, but in all fairness — and

that member should know — we hope that our submissions will be accepted

as made. I did say that there would be more money, that I didn't see

how we could carry on with the same amount of money for the royal

commission implementation. I expected a considerably greater amount

this year, because that was our commitment.

[ Page 9510 ]

it turned out, the amount in the budget was even greater than I

expected, and then the members opposite tell me that I lost the

arguments in cabinet. I don't know; where do you go?

announced when the budget came down.... Admittedly it was much later

than usual this year, and it was complicated by a change in the system

and other factors. We have done the best we can to get the information

out as quickly as possible. We said at the end of January that we

expect we will carry on the computer program we had last year, so any

district could expect their proportionate share. They had received it

for two years, and we couldn't guarantee it, because we didn't know the

amount. We had said there would be more money in the royal commission

implementation, and it would cover the extra expenses as required, so

you don't need to calculate that into your block. You get more

dual-entry students next January and the money will be there for the

staffing, the facilities and the supplies. We said that, and they said:

"We have to go to referendum for money for dual entry for next

January." Why? Because the opposition said, "Don't trust them, " when

we had made that commitment.

[3:45]

I'm supposed to put out some hypothetical figures about....

MR. CLARK : No, no.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

That's what that member was asking me: "Would the minister put out some

hypothetical figures about what might be for the extra grants and the

special grants?"

Mr. Chairman, when the budget came out

this year, it was announced there would be X number of dollars for

computer, X number of dollars for royal commission, and X number of

dollars for these other funds. It was there. It was in our press

releases on April 19 and 20, and we said the money was there. I think

it's reasonable for school districts to expect that they would, as in

the past, get their proportionate share, because I have made into a

formula the amounts that people get for computers and many of these

other programs. I have made that objective in all the time that I've

been in here. Why would they expect anything different this year,

except because the opposition says: "He's wrong. You can't trust the

Minister of Education"? I don't accept that. I don't make promises

lightly, and I don't make promises that I can't keep. So I'm not going

to put out hypothetical figures.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr.

Chairman, I just want to clarify the question. Boards are looking for

that information in concrete terms as soon as possible Although the

budget has been out since April 19, perhaps the minister, who hasn't

been able to provide that information yet, can give us some indication

of when it's coming, especially if he has a formula and has it all

worked out. Perhaps he can tell us whether, if we have a normal

legislative session, with the budget coming down around the second or

third week of March and with some improvements in how he manages the

information, we can expect that information to be earlier next year.

Let's

face it, boards are creatures that like to work with good solid

figures; they want to know how much money is going to be there. They

don't have any idea, and they're trying to plan for next year. I think

it's fair for the minister to give us some information rather than to

twist my question. My question was only about what the minister plans

to do about getting the information to boards as quickly as possible.

When might it come this year, and when might boards expect to have it

in the years coming, since he has a ten-year program for the royal

commission?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I think I've answered

that question several times. We try to get the specific information out

as quickly as possible. I've been in this Legislature 11 years, and I

don't recall a normal legislative session. So I don't know what the

norm is, quite frankly. I guess the one thing I can recall is that

whatever we do, and no matter how much we've increased it, it's not

enough; we don't do it right. The opposition keeps sowing mistrust if

they possibly can, because it's to their political advantage to do so.

I have had some members on the opposite side say: "I'm happy with what

you're doing, but please don't expect me to say that publicly, because

politics interfere with that." But there's certainly no hesitation on

the criticism.

I can't give you a date as to when the

budget will come down next year; therefore I can't tell you on what

date I'll make the information available next year. I have said clearly

that we like to get it out as early and as quickly as possible. This

year we had a slowdown in getting out the block allocation to districts

because some districts dragged their feet on getting the information to

us; that happens periodically. We have to have tax rates set by next

week. I don't know the deadline. School boards were supposed to

finalize their budgets on May 8, but we haven't developed the capacity

to go and grab them by the throat and drag it in if they don't deliver

it here by the morning of May 9. We can't even rely on Canada Post, but

we do have fax systems and that sort of thing. So we get the

information as quickly as we can, and the ministry puts it together.

The

short answer is that we will get the information out to them as quickly

as we can, if for no other reason than to get the opposition off my

back.

MR. CLARK : That seemed to be a rather

aggressive response for a fairly gentle question. The minister said

that there are members on this side of the House who secretly agree

with him on some aspects of the bill but won't say so. I'll bet you,

Mr. Chairman, that there are sections of this bill — like the referendum

section — that the minister doesn't agree with, but he doesn't say that

publicly.

I'll just ask one question, and then I want to

move to a different topic within this section. I was a bit confused by

some of the answers. I want to take the

[ Page 9511 ]

example

of the school lunch program — the very modest program that exists in

Vancouver. That, I gather, is included in the block funding by the

government, and I applaud them for that. I think that's good news and a

positive step. What I'm asking is: say another school board thought

that there was a need for a lunch program — say Prince George or

somewhere. How can they make the case to get core funding for that

program? Or do they have to go to a referendum? I guess that's the

essence of the earlier questions I was asking.

The minister

said that with respect to ESL, they make the case by saying that there

are ESL students, and they get funding for it. I accept the minister's

remarks in that regard. The minister said that Vancouver has more

disabled students, and they get more money; if other districts get more

disabled students, they will get more money. But what about programs

like the lunch program, which is now funded by the provincial

government in their block formula? The minister is making faces, so

maybe I'm wrong. But as I understand it, the Vancouver School Board is

funding the school lunch program on the basis of the block funding

provided by the ministry; I assume that's the case. Why might other

boards have to go to referendums for something like that which is

funded by the block funding formula in Vancouver?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I think the member still has great difficulty understanding the block

funding system and the fiscal framework as a means of distributing.

It's based on the enrolment plus a whole bunch of variables. Any

district can decide whether it puts the money into this thing or into

another. In the case of Vancouver, we're talking about a $290 million

budget, in which they find $400,000 for lunch programs. In the case of

Surrey, they went to referendum for $150,000 for a lunch program. I

have to consider that more politics than fact, because with a $187

million budget, all that you have to do is decide that lunches are

important. Last year, they said: "This year we've got to go to

referendum for a lunch program, and we just don't have a nickel in that

$187 million. It's not a priority unless you, the province, give us

another $150,000, or unless the taxpayers approve it." Last year they

ended up the year with about a $3 million surplus. But it wasn't a

priority; $150,000 wasn't a priority last year. But this year, as an

emotional referendum item, it becomes a priority. I guess, emotionally,

these things work.

Since

some referendums have been

defeated, people have now said: "We have got to cut staff." In their

referendum they were not talking about reducing class size nor about

adding staff; they were talking about these wonderful programs that

they were going to do — they were going to no longer spray the grounds

in Vancouver. Now, all of a sudden.... Well, they passed their

referendum. But in a couple of the districts I guess it's natural, when

people are out to fight a battle on emotional tearjerker grounds, that

out of $187 million — Surrey says: "We lost the referendum" — you can't

find $150,000 to feed the kids. One-twelfth of 1 percent of salary

increase in that district would be twice as much as they need for that

program. The teachers and the trustees — sometimes they're the same —

tell me that it's a priority, but only if we give them $3,150,000

surplus, instead of just $3 million.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Now

you stop and think about that one, and wonder why.... Any school

district in this province, for the cost of a lunch program, can do it

within the block funding, within the multitudes of millions of dollars,

the $3 billion that we put out there. They can do it. But they're

saying the only way to have a lunch program is to increase this $3

billion. It went up 15 percent this year. They say: "The only way we

can do lunch programs is if you make the increase 16 percent, and then

we'll tell the taxpayers that it's your fault."

MR. CLARK : Would the minister agree with me...?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Seldom.

MR. CLARK : Seldom, I know.

understand the minister's point. There's a certain validity to it,

except that I.... Would he agree with me that because the school lunch

program was funded in Vancouver last year, and because those costs form

part of the new block funding, it was easier for Vancouver to continue

funding the lunch program than it would be in Surrey, that didn't have

a school lunch program and therefore faced a new spending initiative

not covered by the block funding formula?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

No, Mr. Chairman, I can't agree with him on that. There were different

items funded in different districts. If Vancouver, for instance,

chooses this year to change their pupil-teacher ratio, then they

wouldn't have any money left for a school lunch program. So whether

it's easier or not is a decision out of their approximately $290

million budget.

MS. EDWARDS : I'd like to talk about

School District 1. As you may recall, they had some difficulty trying

to put their budget together, trying to decide whether they'd go to a

referendum, based on the fact that they don't know what their target

grants are going to be. They don't know what it's going to be. And they

made a very clear statement to you, as minister, by sending you their

budget with a supplementary amendment saying that if their target

grants are not adequate, they will have to send you a supplementary

budget. You obviously have all the right on your side on this, and you

could do what you like if they chose to do that — which is perhaps not

the accepted way to do things. But what School District 1 has done, Mr.

Minister, is make a very clear statement that they need to know what

their funding is, or they can hardly be expected, in a short amount

[ Page 9512 ]

time, to make decisions about whether they're to go to referendum. That

was a very clear statement. It said exactly what they wanted to say to

you.

So my question to you is.... And I push again, because

I haven't heard the answer yet that I think is a reasonable answer. The

ministry lays out dates by which it needs certain information from

school boards, but school boards don't have any knowledge of when they

are going to get information back from the minister so that they can

make informed decisions. Will the minister consider that they could

know what their grants are before such time as they have to go back to

make you a budget?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : By the third week in February, as promised — thanks

to the efficiency of our ministry — they were told what their operating block

would be, so they knew how much money was available. They had already been told:

"We don't know the exact amount, but you will get computer funding.

We don't know the amount, but you will get the necessary funds for all of

the requirements of the royal commission implementation."

[4:00]

They knew how much money was there, and for any board to say to me:

"We'll send in the budget, and if it turns out that what you give us is

adequate, then we promise we won't go to a referendum...." How do I

define adequate? Is it a matter of attitude, numbers, costs? We talked

a lot about the fiscal framework being based on costs. A lot of people

have told me: "That's not adequate. It should be based on whatever

expenditures we feel like generating." You can't operate a system on

that type of agreement.

In School District 1 they were

told that on the basis of the fiscal framework, they got a 5.8 percent

increase in the block. We allowed 2.4 percent for enrolment increases;

that's broken down. They were given that information in February — what

their block would be and what they needed to operate They were told

that the capital and all of the other amounts would be determined — that

we would do the best we could with the capital, depending on the

amount; and that we would not ask them to implement dual entry if we

weren't prepared to fund it from royal commission funding.

They had the information early.

MS. EDWARDS :

As I understand it, they didn't know what their block funding was. But

that was not the point. The point was that above and beyond their block

funding, they didn't know what they were going to get out of the

commission funds, as they call them. They labelled them "target

grants"; in the bill they are called "special grants."

This

board is made up of responsible individuals, not all of whom agree very

well all of the time on their moves. But they agreed quite well on this

move, which was a very clear statement to you as minister to please let

them know before they have to send you a budget what information they

have to work with.

I find myself being amazed that you say: "Well, we told them they'll

get enough for...." "Enough for" does not have definition, Mr.

Minister. What they think "enough for' is, as you've said a number

of times, is not exactly the same as what you think enough for" is. I

think that some promise would be in order if you expect boards to meet certain

deadlines, and that you would agree in return to respond by certain dates on

the amount of funding a board has to work with to do its budget.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't know how often I can repeat this. The information necessary for

the board to move to the next step in its budget is all provided in

adequate time, albeit in somewhat of a tighter time-frame this year

than in other years. It is specified when the information has to be in

and when the information has to be out.

I suppose they

said: "Well, we don't know how much we're getting for computers." We

have told them that we expect that it will be the same amount, so they

could guesstimate. But If they got $20,000 for computers at $2,000

each, then my arithmetic tells me that they know they could buy ten

computers above the budget. If they only got $12,000, then they would

buy six computers. Less computers, more computers; it has nothing to do

with their operating budget.

Some boards even said: "Before we can make a decision on whether or not

to go to a referendum, we've got to know what the tax is going to be."

In other words, translated: "What is the tax room?" We had announced

at the end of January that there would be tax relief, so they asked: "How

much?" I came back with the only answer I could give them: "Your budget

should be based on your needs and your costs, not on the amount of tax room

we create." They didn't need to know, because we had said: "From

now on, we'll take over the responsibility to see.... You will get the money

that's necessary for your block; it will be provided to you."

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm sure the Fernie School District didn't know that your homespun

advice was so readily available: "If you don't get it, you won't have

it." I don't think that was the kind of advice they wanted to have.

They wanted to know what they were going to get, not simply: "If we

don't get ten extras, we don't get ten extras. So what?" That's not the

kind of budgeting they want to do.

However, Mr. Minister,

your comments make me even more nervous about

section 133 — "Conditions

of grant payment" — in which the minister has extremely broad powers to

make decisions that were previously made by boards. I would like the

minister to elaborate a bit on the circumstances in which he sees that

he might make a decision which would be counter to a decision by a

board about whether or not the duties of secretary-treasurer are being

discharged satisfactorily. If the board hasn't conducted its affairs in

accordance with the act, if the school buildings haven't been

established or maintained to your satisfaction, and if the board

perhaps hasn't sent all its paperwork in on time.... You as minister

will get there as quickly as possible, but there is a very clear

[ Page 9513 ]

requirement in this

section that boards have to send their information in or they will lose their grants.

course the final one in subsection (1) says, "the operating expenses of

the board, if they've been reduced during a strike or lockout," and

it's the minister who benefits from that particular circumstance.

First

of all, I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what he would

foresee happening. What are the circumstances that you foresee where

you're going to go and tell the board that their secretary-treasurer is

not behaving adequately or that a school building has not been

maintained adequately?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, how desperately they grope to criticize, and what little understanding they have of the system.

The

duties of a secretary-treasurer are spelled out in the School Act. The

duties of the board are to see that the secretary-treasurer carries out

the duties as spelled out in the School Act. It's very clear. I think

the act and the regulations are quite specific. If a board defies or

ignores the act, or shuts down schools for a week contrary to the act

or regulations, the minister can withhold a grant. In the past we had

the right to withhold a grant, and that was about it. This is better:

we can withhold or reduce a grant now, under the same section.

have the last section, which the member sees as particularly

threatening. Maybe it's not understanding it. If the teachers don't

show up for work because they're on strike for two weeks, they don't

get paid. Therefore the board does not have that expenditure. Though

some boards have said: "You should leave us the money anyway, and we'll

find some other way to spend it." We say: "No. If you are saving

$200,000 or $2 million that you are not spending on teachers' wages

because

the teachers aren't getting paid, then we'll reduce your grant by that

much." I think it's fairly clear.

MS. EDWARDS : Thank

you, Mr. Minister. On the final point, of course, it's one that's not

new; the minister has on other occasions been criticized for deciding

that it's the minister who should take advantage of any local

bargaining or activities that take place. That has been resisted

strongly right down the line, and the minister is at it again.

The

minister has for some reason failed to answer why he thinks he would be

in a better position to decide whether a building has been maintained

satisfactorily than would the local board. Perhaps the minister could

answer that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : You see again how

desperately that member is searching for problems. We are not

interested in shutting down a school or withholding grants from school

boards; we would like them to keep the school running. But if all the

windows are broken in the school and they don't repair them, we have to

say: "Look, that's not correct." Before we withhold the grant, our

facilities manager would go to the board and say: "Look, this school is

not being kept up to standard. This school is not built, hasn't been

established."

If they say to us that they have a one-room

school out in the country and have moved a portable in, and we go out

and find that they didn't move a portable in, would you say we should

give them the money anyway? Let's be reasonable. There is a degree of

reasonableness and common practice that comes in here.

the opposition, if it doesn't spell out in 17 pages what we are going

to base inadequate maintenance of a school on, that leaves the

discretion to the minister. Do you think I go and check all these

schools? If the parents complain, we might send somebody to check. If

we find out, we always try to rectify the problem before we ever move

to withholding grants. But if boards refuse to do anything about a

school — not place the school where they say they're going to place it

- and we've provided the funds, should we not be able to withhold those

funds? In other words, let's use a little bit of common sense — even in

your efforts to criticize every possible

section of this legislation.

MS. EDWARDS :

Speaking of being desperate and searching for desperate answers, I

think the minister has resorted to desperation. What do you mean, a

school with all the windows broken and the school board sitting around

twiddling their thumbs saying: "Oh, oh"? The minister has said it's all

laid out in the legislation, and now it's the board's job is to see

that the secretary-treasurer does it. It's the minister's job then, I

guess, to see that the board sees that the secretary-treasurer does

it — da da da. So who is laying all the things out in detail and using

what is not common sense — which is not even sense at all? Why is this

laid out?

If the school board was taking care of it, it

would be their responsibility, and that would be the way it is.

Instead, the minister has to lay it out, and the ministerial

responsibility is now there. Do we think that you go and look at every

school in the province? No, we do not, Mr. Minister; we think that the

school boards do, and that's why the responsibility should be left with

the school boards.

It's the most insidious section. The

attitude that underlies this whole

section is the most amazing kind of

centralization of power. It's unnecessary; it lacks common sense.

It's

somewhat desperate for the minister to suggest that he's going to have

to run around and deal with school boards that leave schools with all

their windows out — or maybe the floors aren't waxed, or who knows

what. If that's the level of poor maintenance that has to occur before

the minister comes in, then the minister should apologize for this kind

of proposed legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr.

Chairman, I did try to point out that these clauses about the duties of

the secretary-treasurer, which the member, in her eagerness and

desperation to criticize, jumped on, are all spelled out in the School

Act, not in here. These are

[ Page 9514 ]

not

new clauses. The only real change from what was in the act is that this

one combines: it says we may withhold or reduce a grant. The rest of it

is carried forward from the act. And that member, because I tried to

point out a ridiculous example in answer to her question about how a

minister will determine whether there's proper maintenance in a school

building.... I was trying to be as facetious as that member was being

ridiculous in her desperation to criticize. Then she says: "That's the

minister's standard for schools." I guess I'm not going to give you any

more examples, because obviously you don't understand facetiousness.

[4:15]

MS. A. HAGEN :

I have just one specific question that I'd like to ask the minister

before we begin some discussion of the referendum process. Boards are

budgeting now in a different way. I think the new budget process is

probably one that will be welcomed, In that there is only one budget.

the preparation of that annual budget, boards are going to be

essentially making a decision about the referendum procedure. I would

presume, Mr. Minister, that boards can continue to do provisional

budgets, and work on those budgets until the time comes for them to

make a decision about referenda.

In other words, the

minister has to have some information, but boards will have a process

that they decide is going to serve their needs. They might want to do a

provisional budget like the one a municipal council does: go out and

take that budget around to the school district; have people examine

what their priorities and goals are for the year, what resources they

have; find out what the community is interested in seeing develop, what

innovative programs the board might be considering, what changes there

are to expand and enhance the services available to kids.

would presume that there is nothing at all in this preparation proposal

that has anything to do with whatever process of consultation a board

wants to follow, as long as they get to a point where they make some

decision about whether they're going to go to referendum or not.

I'd

ask the minister to comment about that in a moment because I think we

sometimes get locked into a procedure, especially when we've been so

used to having a provisional budget which we couldn't increase at the

board level, but which we might decrease when we made some final

determinations after those consultations. That's the first question.

The

second one is a specific one, and I'm looking here at

section 127(2).

I've been asked what local revenues are, whether there are any changes

in local revenues. For the minister,

section 127 is on the preparation

of the budget, and there's a reference to local revenues. I'm not quite

sure that it's clear, because there is no definition of "local

revenues." For example, I think local revenues have in the past

included taxes in lieu of regular taxes. Taxes may be paid by the

federal government, or even by the provincial government. Local

revenues may be funds that come from other sources — perhaps from the

federal government for French programs, for example. Since there is no

definition and since local revenues become a part of what the board has

to work with, along with the block funding that comes through the

decisions of the ministry, could you define "local revenues" and what

might be included in that term?

Could you also comment

about board budgeting processes, and a kind of provisional discussion

budget that boards may work with, that may be different from what they

send over to the ministry for the ministry's information?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, quite definitely — and it's what Bill 11 tries to explain

— there is not much sense in having the old procedure of a provisional

budget which you can only reduce but you can't increase, because now

the block funding eliminates all of that process.

The

ministry does need a bit of information in order to calculate the

district allocation of the block. The provincial block, as we say, will

be determined by those objective criteria of the economic indicators,

but then in the distribution the debt services between districts will

vary, and so the ministry needs that information to do that. There

would be a minimum amount of information required on or before March 15

of each year.

It does not prevent the board from doing

their budgeting all the time from September. In other words, they can

be working at it by, we expect.... We have to announce the provincial

block by February 1, and I would think that within two or three weeks

the districts will know what their block allocation is, and that's when

they have to start pulling together what's available in order to bring

a budget together.

In the definition

section of the bill

there was a definition of local revenue, probably fairly vague, which

said it does not include money from the block or the referendum. There

are a variety of local revenues under the fiscal framework which boards

are familiar with — the sections under the fiscal framework: federal

French grants, other Ministry of Education grants, revenue from

provincial ministries, summer school fees, continuing education fees,

instructional cafeteria revenue, sale of supplies, miscellaneous fees

and revenues including offshore student fees, community use of

facilities, investment income, rentals of space equipment including

short-term leases, and so on. In other words, by simple definition,

it's what money they raise locally that isn't provided.

Remember,

all of the money that the block generates will be provided to them from

the provincial government in their monthly payments. Their referendum

money will come from the municipalities to them. So those two amounts

are not in, but many of the other amounts are classed as local revenue.

By definition, you can't possibly define anything else. I don't know —

if a school board got a benefactor that gave them $100,000 for

something, I think we would classify that under local revenue; that's

the sort of thing. You can't name every possible source, but it's

[ Page 9515 ]

that

money that doesn't come from the block and that doesn't come from the

referendum that the school district takes in as revenue.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Boards are indeed at various times becoming more entrepreneurial simply

because this provides some additional sources of revenue, and it will

be interesting to see how that develops over some period of time.

want to turn to the issue of referendum, which I think without question

has been the most contentious and — if I could use this word in its true

meaning — disreputable aspect of this bill. It certainly is a clause

that is held in very poor repute by many, and perhaps including people

on the other side of this chamber as well. I certainly have not heard

ringing defences of referendum except from the Premier, who has at

various times called it a triumph of democracy.

However, it

is important for us to look at this aspect of the legislation for what

it is. To repeat some comments we have made before, it is a very

ill-considered, ill-thought-through method of trying to deal with what

the minister believes to be a very necessary task: that is, the task of

containing the cost of education.

I think that the

introduction of this

section is based on a myth that is wrong: that the

cost of providing education services is out of control in the province.

I think it is based on a second myth: that boards have been and will

continue to be irresponsible in respect to their budgeting. Having been

premised on two myths.... They are not myths in the sense that we

sometimes use those terms, that they provide us with succour and

nurture and ideas and idealism; rather they are indeed false and

ill-defined and ill-conceived. What the government has done is to seek

the wrong solution.

We have had, in a very unique way, a

pilot project while were still debating this bill in principle. Last

Saturday, nine of the 75 school districts in the province piloted the

referendum. It was born in controversy and confusion. Everybody

involved with that referendum dealt with it in a manner that

extrapolated and exacerbated that confusion. Both in districts where

the board was successful in winning support for the referendum and

where it was unsuccessful, it has been roundly and thoroughly condemned

as a method that no one wants to see perpetuated. No one wants to live

through it again, whether they were actively involved with it during

this particular referendum round or whether they might consider it in a

future year.

It's really interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the response has been such

a tempered one. It has been more in the nature of a plea than an explosion.

I think it was best put by the chairperson of the Vancouver board — a board

that is politically conservative as well as conservative, I believe, in how

it has carried out its role — who said: "Look, this is not a system that

we want to work under. Let's sit down and look at what the minister's

and the government's concerns are about the responsibility and role of boards

in financing education. There are other solutions available that will be good

for boards, will answer the concerns of government and, most fundamentally,

will be better for kids.

could go through the list of reasons why this particular clause and all

the ramifications that run throughout this

section and this bill are

not good for education. We could talk about the fundamental problems it

has created between the minister and boards. We could talk about the

fact that it is premised on out-of-control spending. We could talk

about the fact that it asks that boards spend money year after year to

confirm the same decision of a district — because only annual decisions

can be taken by a referendum.

We could note that this

legislation will discourage boards from being innovative and from

consulting with their communities. It will discourage those lighthouse

boards that in the past have helped provide us with some direction for

the framework for "Year 2000" initiatives, because the task of getting

extra dollars and resources to carry out innovative projects will be

daunting, and boards will be discouraged from undertaking those tasks.

could talk about the fundamental flaw — I think the minister has

referred to this as well — in saying that we are going to stipulate what

must go to referenda and that boards have to find ways to take those

programs that they think are most salient and saleable in order to get

that support. It goes against everything that I think the royal

commission and the royal commissioner, Mr. Sullivan, were talking about

concerning co-management, joint responsibility, working together and

finding consensus. Those are the ways in which boards make decisions on

the funding of education.

There are no objective facts that

bear out that spending is out of control, that boards are not

responsible in their budgeting, that this draconian measure — which

fails far more times than it works, produces far more problems than it

was ever intended to solve and saps energy, time, resources and the

impetus for long-term planning — will be met with the continuation of

this referendum process.

The minister has been asked

personally and editorially, through the comments of leaders in

education — parents, trustees and people who work in the system — to

take a sober second look, to sit down and talk about the issues and the

methods of their resolution and, for heaven's sake, to put this

particular bad, ill-conceived and destructive element of this bill to

bed and make a commitment that we won't be facing it in another year.

[4:30]

Mr. Chairman, there has been no way that we could bring in an

amendment that could deal with referenda, because although there is one

specific clause that defines how referenda will be run if boards decide

they are forced into this measure, all through the bill, the

implications of referendum are a fundamental element. It's not an

aspect of the bill that can be amended by a simple clause or two that

we might ask to have struck from the bill. We could do a symbolic

gesture of moving to amend this clause, but

[ Page 9516 ]

because

of the way in which referenda are referred to throughout the bill, it

really would not serve the purpose. Moreover, if the referendum is not

a part of this bill, there are other elements of the legislation that

would have to be encompassed.

There are ways, I think, in

which we can see the initiatives that government has taken on improved

funding for education and improved management of the system and

effective and important changes in curriculum. There are ways in which

we can follow through with the mandate that we had with the Sullivan

commission: that it be a task that we undertake cooperatively and

through consensus.

I would note that not once has this

Legislative Assembly been asked to deal with any of these issues. I

could go back.... In committee, not once have a group of legislators

been given any opportunity to discuss this issue. It's part and parcel,

again, of a point I make whenever I get the opportunity: that although

there is a Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social

Services in this Legislature, not once in four years has any matter

been referred to a joint group of legislators from the government and

the opposition side of the House to look at an important public policy

issue. This might be, in fact, a matter that this minister could refer

to such a committee for review and work and a recommendation, so that

we could see a change in this initiative and never again face it in the

finance

section of the School Act. That would be, I believe, based on

the pilot project, based on the experience, based on the public

consensus, based on the ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and ill-planned

decision to bring in a referendum process. That procedure would be

welcomed and would be consistent, I think, with an approach that this

minister has taken, over a number of years, with the challenges in

education that he has sought to face.

I said earlier that

this decision alone is going to mark what is otherwise a record that

this minister is himself proud to speak about and that I think many

people have commended. I would urge the minister to again make some

commitment that this particular clause, this method and approach, is

one that he is prepared, as various people have said, to address with a

sober second look. Nothing that the minister could do at this time

would be more beneficial to the long-term agenda of a healthy,

well-financed, responsive and responsible education system.

The

challenge lies with this minister and with this government. I would

hope that he might give us some signal or some indication that he would

be prepared to rise to the challenge and to respond to public opinion,

public concern and public desire with those kinds of changes.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would like the House to welcome 50 students from Hillside Middle

School in West Vancouver, who are here today with their teacher, Mr. B.

Herrin. Would you please make them all welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I know the member has called it disreputable, and that it's

unacceptable to everyone. I don't know how she forms that conclusion,

because I certainly get the impression from the public that there's a

lot of support for some way of, not cost control in education, but cost

control about increases.

The member says there's absolutely

no factual justification for taking this position. Well, in an economy

running at between 4 and 5 percent, and because we consider education a

priority, and because there were some places where we were behind, in

the last two years alone we increased education grants from the

provincial government by 20 percent. School boards, with the

supplementary option, increased that to 25 percent — a 25 percent

increase in two years after about a 20 percent increase in the two

previous years, in an economy running anywhere from 3 to 5 to 6

percent, looking to the future.

Government has also

undertaken a major revision of the education system based on the

Sullivan commission report. Whether those members over there will ever

acknowledge it or not, the cost control measure that we have taken may

well assure the continuation of those changes in education.

Even

with the referendum option this year, we have increased operating

budgets in this province by 9.9 percent, when the average across Canada

is probably around 4 percent. It ranges from 3 percent to 5 percent in

the other provinces. That's the increase, including enrolment

increases. Ours is 9.9 percent this year, including enrolment

increases, and we have picked up in the block funding the whole 25

percent increase, because all the costs in education before that....

lot of distortion goes on. Many of the members on that side keep coming

up with the statement — I guess they think if they say it often enough,

perhaps it will develop some degree of truth — that obviously this

Minister of Education does not support referendums. They use that,

because two years ago the question was asked: "Do you think that

education funding should depend on referendum?" and I said: "Absolutely

not; it would create inequities, and it would create problems." I still

to this day don't think that the funding of an education system in this

province should depend on referendums.

But they forget....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Oh, quiet down and listen; you might learn something. I wonder if there

is any way we could send him to a conference, because the House is

always a lot better without him here. Despite the fact that I was so

rudely interrupted, I would like to conclude my statement about

referendum.

[ Page 9517 ]

am also satisfied that with the block funding approach and with tying

it to the increase, it will be in line with the economy. It was

recommended by the royal commission that the funding should be a block

system with autonomy for boards to move the money around in that block.

We have accomplished that.

We have said that it should not

be on a roller-coaster ride by willy-nilly decisions each year. Boards

should be able to know what to expect, and we have said the increase

will be based on the economic indicators. That means that the taxpayers

know, and I think they are not averse to increasing the funding on

education by what the inflation index increase is.

Another

figure I can give the member.... I have studied this a great deal, and I

think I've managed.... Our government has accepted the valid arguments

that are made. If the increase in education spending had been in line

with inflation since 1981, the average cost per pupil in the 1989-90

year would have been $4,118 per pupil provincially. When we added up

where it was, it was at $4,954 per pupil. So I think that we can

honestly say that the spending on education has considerably exceeded

the economic indicators and inflation.

I am satisfied that

now the government will take full responsibility for all the actual

costs that were expended on public education this year — the actual

expenditures — and that this year we had, as the economic indicator

suggested, added another 6.17 percent. The government is taking full

responsibility for 100 percent of this year's expenditures plus the

economic increase. That means that the continuation of the quality

education system we have in this province is assured and guaranteed.

Implicit

in the block funding in the Sullivan report was that we shouldn't

wonder how much it's going to be. Implicit in that was if the block

includes all of the money necessary to run that educational program,

and it is linked rationally and reasonably with the economy, that is

the amount of money that should be available for public education each

year. And having satisfied myself that all that was in place, then

there should have been a cap; that should have been it. That's the other

option.

When you're funding everything, and funding the

increase and guaranteeing all of that, that should be the end of it;

that's all you need. We have gone well be