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)

MONDAY, MAY 14, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9591 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Engineers Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 9591

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 9592

Oral Questions

Island Highway cost estimates. Mr. Lovick –– 9592

Mr. Gabelmann

Fraser Valley hospital bed demand. Mr. Peterson –– 9592

Labour dispute at Riverview. Mr. Sihota –– 9593

TRIUMF Kaon project. Mr. Mercier –– 9593

Federal funding of native Indian programs. Mr. G. Hanson –– 9593

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

On vote [7: minister's office 9594

Ms. Cull

Mr. Williams

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. G. Janssen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Jones

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Perry

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the members that we

have friends in the gallery today from the South Pacific, and they have

brought a Commonwealth friendship quilt to give to Victoria as the host

of the '94 Games. That quilt, as the members know, is going to be

unveiled this afternoon at 5:30 at the Victoria Conference Centre.

would like to introduce them: Joan Caulfield is the coordinator of the

quilt project and a newly arrived resident of Victoria; Carole

Shepheard was responsible for overall design of the quilt; Toi Maihi is

the designer of the Maori elements of the quilt and a member of the marae

where the friendship totem pole was permanently installed following the

1990 Games in Auckland; and Luseanne Koloi of Tonga is a member of the

Pacific Island Women's Association in Auckland and coordinator of the

Pacific Island contribution to this beautiful piece of fabric art,

which is given to Victoria as the host of the '94 Games.

Would you please give them a warm welcome.

HON. L. HANSON :

This past week the city of Vernon in British Columbia was privileged to

host the Centennial Cup, which is emblematic of the tier 2, junior A

hockey championship. The finals were held on Saturday night with two

teams from British Columbia, which is most appropriate. The Vernon

Lakers were the winners of the Centennial Cup. Would the House please

join me in congratulating them.

MR. GABELMANN : Mr.

Speaker, every year Fletcher Challenge brings students to Victoria from

their various operating areas. As in previous years, a group is here

today from Campbell River. Thirty students from the three high schools

in the Campbell River area are in the gallery this afternoon,

accompanied by teachers Stu Meldrum and Gunter Mundschutz. As well,

Brian Cruise from Fletcher Challenge is here. I'd ask the House to make

the students and their chaperones welcome this afternoon.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, as an honorary member of the Victoria Rotary Club, it is

my very great pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Steve

Coppinger, group leader of the Rotary exchange program. The group is

composed of four professional young women from the Philippines, as well

as a team leader and his wife.

Our Rotary Clubs are indeed appreciated. Throughout the decades, their members

have enhanced the life in communities throughout the world by their hard work

and commitment in a wide range of educational and social development undertakings,

exemplifying the creative potential of dedicated volunteers in reaching out

to others.

I would

ask the House to extend a warm welcome to Annabelle Eusebio, who's a

registered nurse; Gloria Comprendio, a college teacher; Fatima Nonita

Laquin, a senior food researcher; Rebecca Maria Lejano, working in

banking and finance; Salvador Isleta, team leader; and his wife Candy

Isleta. Please join me in wishing our fine visitors a most enjoyable

stay in beautiful British Columbia.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to introduce, on behalf of the

second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, Ald. Rick Green, who

has served the constituents of Delta for a number of years and is over

meeting in my office on agricultural matters. He also serves as the

vice-president of the Delta North constituency. Would this assembly

please make Rick welcome.

MR. PERRY : J'ai le plaisir

de prsenter Mlle. Carine van Zuylen, 1'attach de presse du consulat

gnral de France, qui est dans la galerie aujourd'hui. J'aimerais

l'accueillir chaleureusement de la part non seulement des dputs mais

aussi de la galerie de la presse.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the MLA for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker), I'd

like to ask the House to welcome a group from Hazelton Seventh-Day

Adventist School. Here today are two chaperones, Judy Walper and Dan

McCreery, and students Rose Lee Lang, Kim Pfannmuller, Jennifer King,

Melissa McCreery, Tim McCreery and Rhett Proctor. Please join me in

making them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I thought it

might be appropriate to call to the attention of the House that today

is the ninth anniversary of the election of one of our MLAs. I refer to

none other than the venerable House Leader, the first member for

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who is much greyer now than he was nine

years ago.

Introduction of Bills

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

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

a bill intituled Engineers Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

presenting this bill, I'd like to briefly tell the assembly that the

bill has been requested by the professional engineers' association, the

geoscientists and others. What it essentially does is to combine people

with applied science degrees in the geoscience specialties and allow

them to be registered with the Association of Professional Engineers of

British Columbia. It therefore allows that association to have

disciplinary procedures, as they normally do with their other members,

and allows the whole field of

[ Page 9592 ]

geoscientists to be included, for their benefit, under the Engineers Act.

Bill

27 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.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION ACT

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

a bill intituled Private Post-Secondary Education Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Members

may recall that during my estimates we discussed private post-secondary

institutions and a few problems that have occurred in British Columbia.

I must point out that there are 426 institutions that offer

post-secondary training operating in the private sector, and there have

been very few problems. That is to the credit of the private

post-secondary community.

However, there have been a few

problems, and the post-secondary institutions have requested that we

put this legislation in place. Essentially it is consumer protection

legislation and will to some degree govern a little better the

management, affairs and consumer protection of students attending such

post-secondary institutions. I'm sure the members will look forward to

debating the bill. It is good consumer affairs legislation, and we are

pleased to present it now.

Bill 24 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

ISLAND HIGHWAY COST ESTIMATES

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways. The estimated cost of the Vancouver Island Highway

upgrading has doubled since it was announced some 18 months ago. Does

the minister agree with the auditor-general's conclusion that this huge

escalation occurred because her ministry does not have the basic

ability to estimate the cost of a major highway?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, I don't agree.

MR. LOVICK :

A supplementary, if I may. The minister said to one of my colleagues

some months ago that she could provide no estimate on the cost of part

of that highway. How can she reconcile that answer about inability to

cost-estimate the project with what she said just now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In response to the question, the estimate was a very preliminary

estimate that was originally given, and it was determined as a rough

estimate before the scope of the project was finally determined. We are

now in the final stages of determining the scope of the work that will

be done, and we are now in a position to give some more accurate

figures.

MR. LOVICK : A further supplementary. At no

time has the minister or her predecessor ever said that the announced

Vancouver Island Highway project, with a cost estimate...was a

preliminary estimate. When was the decision made to say that everything

done previously was a preliminary estimate? When did you decide it's a

new one?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I'm really delighted

that the member for Nanaimo is questioning us on the appropriateness of

the Island Highway. I was in his community last week, and I can tell

you that the people in the Nanaimo-Parksville area are delighted with

the progress we're making.

MR. LOVICK : A

supplementary again. The minister obviously has a predicament hearing.

I am not asking about whether the project is good or bad. I am simply

asking the minister whether she knows how much it's going to cost. Can

she tell us? I'm giving you a chance.

[2:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : As I said earlier, the cost of the project will be determined by the scope of the undertaking in all of the sections.

MR. GABELMANN :

Further supplementary. Twelve years ago, when we were trying to get the

highway, we were told that the phase from Parksville to Menzies Bay

would be $200 million. The cost in 1986, from Victoria to Menzies Bay,

was to be $400 million. Three years later, the cost was to be $600

million. Several months ago, the cost was to be $1.2 billion. I wrote

the minister a letter and asked her how much it was going to cost. She

wrote back to me saying she didn't know. Does she know today?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It's difficult to be precise to the cent until you have gone out to tender, but we do have....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The hon. Leader of the Opposition is throwing questions out, and I'm having a problem understanding what it is he's asking.

The

project is proceeding, and we are looking at costs in the area of $1

billion. When we have more precise numbers, we will certainly be

pleased to table them.

FRASER VALLEY HOSPITAL BED DEMAND

MR. PETERSON : I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Fraser Valley hospital council report

[ Page 9593 ]

indicates

a current shortfall of about 500 acute-care beds and a need over the

next ten years for an additional 1,300 to 1,450 additional acute-care

beds, due to very rapid population growth projections. Can the minister

tell this House, first of all, whether or not he accepts these

findings; and secondly — if he does — what action he is taking to meet these very serious demands?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Yes, we're very much aware of the need for additional beds in the south

Fraser area. In fact, we have met with a number of the hospitals and

asked that they coordinate their planning in terms of the additional

bed requirements in the particular area of care they specialize in.

We've met with the Delta, Surrey, Peace Arch and Langley boards, and we

encouraged them to put forward a coordinated plan of action, which I'm

pleased to say they have. As a result of this coordinated planning, we

announced last week $97 million in capital construction for the Surrey

and Peace Arch area.

This will significantly enhance our

capability in terms of primary and secondary health care for those

areas. For example, the size of the hospital in Surrey will grow from

357 beds to some 650 beds, and Peace Arch will also have significantly

enhanced capacity. We continue to address other concerns. We're very

much aware of the need for additional bed space, occasioned both by

growth and demographics.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT RIVERVIEW

MR. SIHOTA :

There is currently a dispute involving psychiatric nurses at Riverview.

I'm sure the Minister of Health knows about this. Will the minister

confirm that employees of the superintendent of brokers' office and the

Securities Commission have been told that they will be required to fill

in for those who may be striking at Riverview?

HON. J. JANSEN : I have no idea, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA : I have a letter here signed by the employees of the office of the superintendent of brokers — and a copy of the letter has been sent to the Premier, as well —

complaining that they have been told that they will be asked to back up

at Riverview. Could the minister explain why this government has

decided that accountants and financial experts should be providing

emergency health care services and why he has not been informed of this?

MR. SPEAKER : I believe the question is addressed to the wrong minister, but the Minister of Health may wish to reply.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, the question not asked was: how are we resolving this

dispute? In fact, the dispute is being resolved, so perhaps the

question is not necessary.

MR. SIHOTA : I can tell

the minister that it is of significant concern to those who work at the

superintendent of brokers' office. Accountants may know about the

intricacies of the BS fund, but they don't know how to give enemas.

The

question to the Minister of Health in this regard is this: does the

minister not agree that it would be preferable for these services to be

provided by people who have skills in health care, as opposed to those

who have skills in financial matters? Would that not be his preference,

as Minister of Health?

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Speaker, it's preferable that the contract be resolved.

TRIUMF KAON PROJECT

MR. MERCIER :

My question is for the Minister of Regional and Economic Development.

In view of Premier Filmon's endorsation of the world-class kaon project

on behalf of the government of Manitoba, can the minister advise this

House how long it will be before the high-tech project, which will be

of great benefit to B.C., can go ahead?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The question, I think, is directed at the status of the project

definition study, which is undertaken jointly by the federal government

and the province of British Columbia at a cost of $11 million split

50-50. A great deal of work has gone into this study by some of the

brightest scientific minds in the world.

I am sure that the

House is aware that on any given day at the TRIUMF facility at UBC,

there are 400 scientists from 26 countries around the world working and

carrying out experiments there. Some of the questions asked by this

study are: do we have the ability to build this project, and do we have

the ability to engineer it?

I am pleased to inform the

House today that the project definition study will be presented to

ministers from both the federal and the provincial governments on May

24 in Ottawa. I know that this will be of great interest to the

scientific minds in Canada, as well as to the great scientific minds

around the world.

FEDERAL FUNDING OF

NATIVE INDIAN PROGRAMS

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier agree with his Minister of Native Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) that it's up to the federal Members of Parliament

to demand the restoration of funding for aboriginal programs in B.C.,

which were cut by the Secretary of State?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, we've not had an opportunity to discuss the federal

funding programs or the lack of them, but certainly I know there is a

trend for the federal government to unload the cost of certain programs

onto the provinces. In particular, we've experienced it, as well as

Alberta and Ontario. I think we ought to try and do all we can to

protect the interest of B.C. taxpayers, because I

[ Page 9594 ]

believe

that we owe it to them to make certain that they do not become burdened

with costs that have historically been the cost of the federal

government.

In principle, certainly, I would agree that we

ought to do whatever possible to make sure that the federal government

continues to fund those things that it has historically been

responsible for. If you'd like to send me some particulars with respect

to your findings on this, or if you have your own views, I'd be pleased

to receive such information from you in the normal manner. As always,

we'll certainly consider all such matters.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, it's apparent that the Premier wasn't even listening.

That's the problem; he's not listening to the aboriginal people of

Canada.

Because of pressure, the Secretary of State

restored funding for women's centres, and they left the Indian people

out. When I raised it with the Minister of Native Affairs, he said: "Go

and see your MPs." Do you agree with that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I agree that perhaps we are at a bit of a disadvantage in having so

many New Democratic Party members in Ottawa, and that perhaps we have

too often seen them get tied up in their own philosophical issues or in

statements they can hardly back up. But I would certainly agree that we

should not ease up on the Members of Parliament; regardless of what

party they represent, they have a responsibility to the people in this

province. Just because they are New Democrats, they can't walk away

from that and say: "We'll leave it to the province. We'll have some MLA

raise it in the House. Our hands are clean." Those MPs were elected to

represent the people of this province — all the people — whether they are on that side or this side. Shame on those members if they're trying to shove it on us.

MR. G. HANSON : To the Premier. Why has your government been silent on the lack of restoration of funds for Indian people in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

It seems that the silence has come from the NDP MPs in Ottawa. I have

yet to receive a letter, a message, a phone call or a visit from any

NDP MP. They can come to my office; they know where it is. One of them

occupied the office for a time. If they can't take those few minutes

required to pay a visit to the Premier and say to the Premier: "How do

we resolve these matters? Together, we are the Members of Parliament.

We live in Ottawa, Mr. Premier. We would like to work with you to see

how we can see things done better for the native people of this

province." If they can't find those few minutes, if they don't care

enough or if they are so hung up on their party politics that they're

afraid to visit someone of another philosophical or political

persuasion, I say shame on Mr. Barrett, shame on every one of those NDP

MPs!

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled answers to questions.

MR. SPEAKER :

I thank the member for doing this. This is an opportunity to actually

read those questions, rather than take up the time of question period.

All members should appreciate the courtesy offered by the minister, and

hopefully a similar courtesy would be extended by everybody.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and

Fisheries, I ask leave for that committee to sit this afternoon at 2:45.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I would remind members of the House that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet tomorrow at 8 a.m.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 17: minister's office, $308,497 (continued).

MS. CULL :

I want to return to some of the debate we were having on Friday before

we adjourned, and to the discussion and exchange that the Minister of

Education and I were having about innovation and capital funding.

[2:30]

I took the opportunity this morning to have a look at Hansard

to see what had been said, and I want to go back to some of those

points because I think there were some very interesting remarks and

suggestions made, and some things that definitely deserve being

followed up.

To begin with, the minister was talking

about the need for innovation and cooperation between school districts

and municipalities, particularly in the areas of the province where we

are experiencing rapid residential growth, and school districts are

scrambling to keep up with that growth by providing school sites and

facilities, expansions and what have you.

The minister

remarked that one of the innovative ideas he would have liked to have

seen was a turn-key school operation paid for. Presumably the developer

would provide a turn-key school operation.

The remarks he

made were: "It would take a little imagination, wouldn't it? People

will automatically say to me: 'But the system doesn't allow it. Can you

give us the authority to proceed?"' He said if someone came to them

saying, "Can you give us the authority to proceed?" that: "I'll tell

you, I'm not going to tell them to take a run."

Presumably

we'd have to get school boards, municipalities and developers together

to agree to such a proposal. The first thing that we would have to do

is bring the local governments onside. The school

[ Page 9595 ]

districts

and the local governments would have to sit down and talk about this

before approaching any prospective developer, and I'm certain that one

of the first things that would come from a local government — in fact, I know it has come in the past when school districts have discussed this with various municipalities — is that they don't have the authority to require it.

know the minister said: "Well, let's not let the lack of authority stop

us here." But we do have a problem, because we have the Minister of

Municipal Affairs — certainly many of the past Ministers of Municipal Affairs —

telling local governments that the way they will best address growth

problems is to ensure that the zoning is in place. There is a lot of

pressure on municipalities not to hold their zoning at artificially low

densities, thereby adding to the length of time it takes the

development community to respond to the demand for more housing, more

commercial space and what have you.

The clear message that

has come from this government with respect to zoning is to ensure that

the appropriate zoning is there in advance of the need. That puts the

municipality in a very difficult situation. If the developer has the

zoning that he or she needs, there is no need to negotiate with a

school district or a municipality about providing additional services.

The developer simply gets permits and goes ahead.

Obviously

there is a need for some kind of legislative mechanism here to assist

the school district and the local government in their discussions with

developers because, no matter what we choose to think about the

development industry, I haven't in all of my time in the planning field

noted that many of them are particularly altruistic when it comes to

providing community services. Municipalities do need some kind of

leverage — or, in this case, legislation — so that they have something concrete with which to sit down with the developer to extract these kinds of additional services.

It's

not enough just to demonstrate that there is indeed a cost of

development. There quite clearly is. The municipalities know it, the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs certainly knows it, and the developers

know it too. But what we're looking for here is some means of assisting

local governments and school districts to be able to conduct these

negotiations.

My first question to the minister is: what is

the minister doing with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation

and Culture to bring forward such legislation?

I'd also

like to move on in the remarks made by the minister. In response to

some comments that I made about this need for legislation, the minister

immediately zeroed in on development cost charges. I thought that was

very interesting, because in my remarks I didn't mention development

cost charges at all. In fact, my preference — and the preference of school districts, and probably that of municipalities in many cases — would

not be to go to changes or additions to the cost charge system that

exists in this province, but to deal with the whole question of

acquisition of sites, such as we have now under the Municipal Act for

the acquisition of parkland.

I'm sure the minister is fully

aware of this, but for the information of the other members, under the

Municipal Act municipalities, when approving developments or

subdivisions, have the authority to require that a certain percentage

of the land, up to 5 percent, be taken as parkland. The Municipal Act

has been very helpful in this respect, because it's given local

governments, provided they do their planning properly, the ability to

request specific parkland. In other words, the developer doesn't have

to just turn over the swamp for parkland; the municipality has the

ability to determine where the most appropriate site for parkland would

be.

In addition, in the last number of years — again, this is to the credit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs —

they have given local governments the ability to say: "We don't really

want any of the land in that development for parkland, because it's not

in the appropriate location. But we will take land in another area or

we will take cash in lieu." Those are the kinds of innovations I'm

certain the minister was referring to. But there is no ability for

school districts to cooperate with municipalities to acquire this land

for school sites. That would be, in my mind, a very innovative approach

along the lines of what the minister has been suggesting, if school

districts could identify, in cooperation with local governments through

a community planning process, sites that would be needed for schools in

the future.

This isn't a particularly radical idea. Our

neighbour to the east, Conservative Alberta, already has and has had

such a system in place for many years. Under Alberta legislation, 5

percent of land can be taken for parks and an additional 5 percent can

be taken for schools. In fact, within this enabling legislation — and I think that's the key; the province has provided the enabling legislation —

all kinds of cooperation has occurred. Let me give you just one

example. The city of Edmonton has used this legislation to develop a

tripartite agreement between the city parks department, the public

school board and the Roman Catholic school board in Edmonton to come up

with a sharing formula so that they can take the total 10 percent of

land and allocate it to parks and public and separate schools in the

most effective manner possible.

That's the kind of innovative solution I was talking about —

not necessarily development cost charges, although they certainly

deserve a look as well. Those kinds of legislative mechanisms would

allow the very kind of cooperation the minister was talking about. The

difference we have between Alberta and B.C. is that that province has

shown some leadership; it has amended its legislation to provide the

framework for cooperation.

If we look at just one example

here in British Columbia, again at the Westwood property, which affects

the Coquitlam School District, we know from the ministry's own figures

that the original budget for school sites in the Westwood area, where

three to four schools would be needed, was somewhere in the

[ Page 9596 ]

order

of $450,000. The actual purchase price is now estimated at $1.5

million. That's quite an increase in cost that could have been

avoided — freeing money from capital funds to be used for all of the other long list of projects that school districts have — if there had been legislation in place allowing school districts to acquire sites.

I've

talked about a number of different things in response to what the

minister said, but I'd like to know.... On Friday he basically

challenged school districts to be innovative, and I've said they have

tried to be innovative; they've asked the ministry to be innovative.

What is the minister doing with respect to negotiations with the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture to change their

legislation and to change their attitude, which appears to be against

such innovation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm very

impressed with the member's attempt to tell us and the world what she

learned as an employee of the provincial government — on a municipal planning committee, I guess.

What

I put out were some suggestions about some innovative approaches. The

member says I didn't mention development cost charges. Today that

member says: "Well, we might not want the piece of land that the

developer wants to provide for us; what we want is the money so that we

can go and buy the land somewhere else." Once again we're into that

socialist status quo mentality: don't change your thinking, don't do

anything innovative, simply add development cost charges.

The

member makes a great issue of the Westwood Plateau, and yes, I would

like to have seen something a little different. But to take a piece of

raw land with no road, no sewage, no water and no connections of any

kind, and to compare that price with the developed land with all of

those services and infrastructure in place is again an attempt to

distort that sort of thing. I think the member said: "The

municipalities and the school boards don't have the authority." Have

they asked?

MS. CULL : Yes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

They haven't asked me. The UBCM and that member over there say: "We

want development cost charges restored. Let's not think of anything

new." Some districts are exchanging land with municipalities for parks

or whatever. Arrangements are being made at the local level, and we try

to support that as much as we can, to try and expedite the building of

schools. But all the member says is: "Well, let's keep the status quo

system and just put in some centralized regulations to make it

possible." When people are not even asking for the right to do

something new and innovative, what's the point?

I have had

discussions with colleagues, members of Municipal Affairs, Treasury

Boards and others, trying to make these suggestions. Then we get into

the House, and I say, "Look, we could use some innovative thinking out

there," and all the member comes back with is, "Well, it hasn't been

done in the past"; or "It has been done somewhere else," or that sort

of thing. As long as you take that approach, instead of saying: "If it

hasn't been done before, maybe we should look at it...."

Take

the Sullivan commission report. What did that opposition do regularly?

They said: "You shouldn't be trying to implement these changes." It's

the same mentality. In other words, what we're doing.... Let's

criticize that, but if somebody asks for an innovative idea or for

someone to come forth with a suggestion.... I suggested quite a few

things on Friday. But, of course, the member's knowledge is very

narrow, so she just focused on the land issue.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Did I hear the minister right? Buried in all of that rhetoric I think

there was a minor aside about the Westwood Plateau. Isn't that right?

"It may not quite have been the way some of us would have liked" — something like that. Indeed!

Did

the minister stand up there and say: "Let's at least reserve 5 or 7

percent of the Westwood Plateau site for public schools"? Did he carry

on that fight? Did he recommend that a reserve for public schools be

held with respect to the Westwood lands?

[2:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Yes, the minister tries everything he can to ensure that school sites

are preserved. The only difference between us is that I try to get

changes, and I persist. I continue to try to get changes made. I don't

just stand up and exploit it for political purposes.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Okay, the minister has now said that he actually did try to get a

reserve for schools on the Westwood lands; that's the case. But he

failed, obviously. It's not that difficult, and I guess the minister

can at least join us now with a chorus of "I told you so." It didn't

make a lot of sense to let the Westwood lands go, with countless new

neighbourhoods in the Coquitlam area that you're going to have to pay

through the nose for in the future.

Does the minister have a current cost estimate of buying back school sites from the Westwood lands?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

No, but I can tell the member that the cost of the land that will be

serviced and with the infrastructure will be more than it was as raw

land.

If the member would like to know, I also had to face

a situation in Coquitlam where, when the land was already there and we

wanted to put a small addition onto one of the schools, the

municipality tried to charge us— the school system — a horrendous

development charge, because they wanted to do all kinds of other

things: pay for the sewer, and so on. So I don't know whether you gain

anything. Here's a municipality that said: "Oh, you should really get

that land at the raw land prices rather than paying the serviced land

prices." If we had got it at the raw land prices, I wonder if that same

municipality would not have done the same thing and said: "Well,

[ Page 9597 ]

now

the Ministry of Education should come up with a million dollars in cost

development charges, because that way we could pay for municipal

services." I don't know where the answer lies.

Yes, I have

had some difficulty in changing the system. One of the reasons I've had

some difficulty is that everybody has the same answers: we don't have

development cost charges; we don't have this; and we don't have the

other. I just say: "Well, let's look at what might be possible." Then,

of course, it doesn't help a bit when these members, just for political

purposes and nothing else.... You couldn't care less about what happens

to those school sites if you can't get a few political points out of it.

MR. WILLIAMS : Come on! You're saying that our new member from Oak Bay is simply doing this for political reasons.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, I've got it. You complain about information between Municipal

Affairs and Education going back and forth that we may have been privy

to. The point is a reasonable one. It's a public policy issue that was

advocated within the public service— I say, properly — and it's a public policy issue that is now being debated in public —

properly. The minister attempts this phony bravado by saying it's all

politics, when other provinces have long since had this kind of

requirement.

The minister didn't give me a number; he just

said, "Yes, it's going to cost us more." Well, that doesn't make sense,

Mr. Minister. You had an opportunity.... And I presume, from what you

say, that you tried to talk the Premier into being a little smarter

than he normally is.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's a challenge, no doubt about it. But if he had been the last guy

who had caught you in the parking lot, it might have worked. It's all

those other guys along the hallway with another idea. My God, he really

has a problem. But you know, the trick is to get him just before he

gets into the cabinet meeting and has to vote. That's the way to deal

with that specific problem.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

No, no. You had the opportunity here. You sold the site off for $63

million, and on any pro rata basis, you're going to pay through the

nose for schools at Westwood. As I understand it, the current number is

$10 million that you're going to have to pay back.

shakes his head. Wait until you get through that Wesbild wringer and

see what you have to pay back for school sites in the Westwood Plateau.

You'll excuse it by saying: "Oh well, it's the servicing cost, and we

have to pay because of those added costs for infrastructure." But you

had that opportunity; the Premier had that opportunity.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It's all taken care of.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, it's all taken care of out of the taxpayers' pockets; that's how it's all taken care of.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, that's how the NDP does it; they're always in the taxpayers' pockets.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Why are you so itchy today, Mr. Premier? Did you just get the latest

polling results? Did you just find that a summertime election is not in

the cards? Is that why you're as itchy and antsy today as you are?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Socialists don't stand a chance; people don't want socialists.

MR. WILLIAMS : What are the numbers that are bothering you, Mr. Premier? You know what they are; that's why you're so antsy today.

That's

the problem: there isn't any long-term planning. You guys are the most

hung-up people on ideology in British Columbia. If it comes down to

planning, you're against it; you say it's a socialist idea. I kid you

not.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Look, yes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : There's the great planner....

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, now the Premier's against free enterprise. Can't he make up his mind? No, he can't.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh yes, you really are antsy today. It is the polling results that are disturbing him.

But let's get back to the business of planning. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head (Ms. Cull) has raised a valid point, and that is that in terms of

major developments at least, we should be requiring that a percentage

of those lands be set aside for schools. If it isn't set aside as

direct lands, it should be an amount in lieu of it. We now do it for

parks; it makes every good sense that it should be done for schools.

This minister gets up and dismisses this business as politics.

remember when I became a new member here a century ago.... Those kinds

of speeches are often given by new members, and they tend all too often

to be ignored by the government side of the House; they genuinely do.

After a while, you learn that you need something bigger than a 2-by-4

to catch your attention. I'm saying that, because the member isn't

using something bigger than a 2-by-4, you should listen,

[ Page 9598 ]

because she's a person of considerable competence who has a specific message to put here.

is not politics, as the minister would dismiss it. It's a valid policy

issue that deserves some rational debate, and we have not seen it so

far.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I'm intrigued by the contribution to the rational debate that the member put forward.

Actually,

what I as trying to do was to make the first member for Vancouver East

a little smarter, because he's saying: "Give me a price that they're

going to charge for that land, and then you try to negotiate the best

deal." That's quite a system, isn't it? Give me the top price that you

might have to pay for that land, and then see how good a deal you can

make.

Well, I'm not about to come up with that price. I

said I can't give you the specifics of it, because we negotiate the

price. We don't put out an exorbitant figure like $10 million to

encourage the people to ask for $10 million, because obviously you're

saying to the public that if you were government you would put a $10

million price-tag on those lots for the schools. At least, I can take

that implicitly from that. I'm not about to increase the price by lack

of intelligence on the way I debate it.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Chairman, I'm saying you wouldn't have the problem of negotiating

price if you'd establish by legislation a percentage of major sites

that would be available for schools. You would not have the problem.

You wouldn't be wasting the taxpayers' money. It just involves a little

bit of planning. That's the trouble that this government has: even a

little planning is difficult for this administration to handle.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It's something called expropriation without compensation.

MS. CULL :

It's hardly expropriation without compensation. We already have the

proposal within the Municipal Act for parkland. As I pointed out a few

minutes ago, the province of Alberta also has it for parkland and

school sites.

I was encouraged to hear what the first

member for Vancouver East had to say, though, because I am a new member

in this House. I raise these points again because of the discussion we

had last Friday.

The minister has put out a number of ideas

calling for innovation. I was present at the education facilities

planners' conference when he floated some interesting ideas. I know

that the minister, despite what he says in the House here, has had

positive reaction back from school districts. There are people in the

educational community, particularly facilities planners, and people in

the planning departments of local government, who are interested in

putting politics aside and getting on with developing school sites,

with managing growth, with meeting the needs of the people in this

province.

What I am putting forward is a number of ideas

that probably mesh very well with some of those that you've put out,

such as amending the Municipal Act to allow municipalities, in

cooperation with school districts, to acquire land for schools. That

gets you around a lot of the problems that we've been talking about

with the Westwood lands. It also puts the school districts in the same

position with development cost charges.

The minister persists in trying to twist it around to say that we're asking for more and higher development cost charges.

There

are many other things we could be doing, and I'm hoping that the

minister is working with his colleagues in the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs to get these brought into place.

Since this one

seems to be falling on deaf ears on the other side there, let me turn

to another issue — that is, day care. Again, going back to the comments

that we had on Friday, the minister said that I and members on this

side of the House were suggesting that the Ministry of Education fund

day cares. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. What I asked

the minister — and I will ask him again today — is: has he

been working with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the

Ministry of Health to determine whether capital budgets from those

ministries and the Ministry of Education can be pooled or coordinated

in some fashion so that we can actually build community schools with

facilities that include far more than the traditional education

facilities?

I'm not suggesting that the Ministry of

Education fund items outside of the educational field; I'm just saying

that it's not good enough to simply ask why these people aren't coming

together in the community, when the ministries themselves have not been

providing any leadership in this area. If you're looking for

innovation, surely one of the things that the Ministry of Education

could be doing is to work with the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing, to work with the non-profit child care operators in this

province to find ways to build facilities that then can be run by other

groups to provide those services which are most ideally provided at the

community level, in conjunction with schools.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, the member says that we're not interested in planning — that

we're not interested in working on any of these things. It was I who

suggested some of these innovative approaches. The member, instead of

agreeing and saying there might be some merit, and being a bit

supportive, found that somewhere in there there has to be something to

criticize this government for. That's the kind of mentality that makes

it much more difficult to achieve things.

[3:00]

As far as day care is concerned, from the Cornerstone study, we have

discussed with our other colleagues things that should be done to

coordinate our efforts. But I can tell the member quite honestly that,

not being able to fund the educational capital facilities as much as

I'd like to within my ministry, no, I

[ Page 9599 ]

don't

go looking for how I could extend that funding to day care facilities.

We don't go out looking for funding day care facilities. What we do is

encourage boards, when the facilities are available, to work to the

betterment of their students.

My mandate is K to 12. 1

don't go looking around for how to fund buildings for nursery schools,

or day care facilities, or all of those things. If there's some

coordination possible, of course I'm interested. But if you say, "Are

you going out trying to find ways to fund day care facilities," the

answer is no, I don't go looking for more work.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I think we can all appreciate the difficulties that this

minister has in trying to meet capital needs of districts. He's come

into a ministry where there was a deficit in that area. There's a huge

problem. It's a problem that's acknowledged, I think, by everyone. What

we're attempting today is to have a good discussion around those issues.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN : If the Premier would let me speak, it would be helpful.

I'd

like to ask the Minister of Education, who is talking in his capital

cost projections about what I think are called "Year 2000" schools,

what some of the characteristics of those schools might be that are

different from schools built in the past. Perhaps the Premier might

listen and get some information that would be helpful to him as well,

since I think the Minister of Education quite often has difficulty

educating this Premier on education matters too.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I think the member said it very well — that

they are trying to talk around these issues. I would much prefer if

they would talk on the issues, but that's fairly difficult because it

doesn't suit their political agenda. Perhaps if we can get on some of

the issues....

We don't go around looking to design a

building in a certain way. What we're talking about are programs, and

then we're discussing the capital structural implications to make those

programs effective. We're looking at some extra funding money for some

schools to say: "If you did the school a bit differently, how would it

serve the objective of the programs better?" We're not trying to come

up with some new fancy castle into which we can then stuff a program.

No, we want it to serve the needs of the kids and of the program. So I

don't have a set of specifications.

We're asking people if

there is another way to be more flexible. There is. That is one of the

things I would hope that people would sometimes look at — does it really need extra space? — to change their minds.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The minister seems to be fixated on the issue of space, but indeed

space is one of the things we need in order to provide programs. Let me

just make a couple of suggestions which came out of the Royal

Commission on Education that might in fact be incorporated into

schools. It follows along on the comments of my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head about community schools and schools which serve families within the catchment area of the school.

The

ministry has developed an extensive set of protocols, many of which

have to do with health and community services. It's possible that some

of those protocols will require, if children are to be served, some

special arrangements in the design and development of schools. Within

those protocols, for example, there is a suggestion that although the

ministry has no responsibility for preschool children, there may be

children, particularly in the ages very close to the time of entry into

the school system, who should be accommodated part-time in school and

part-time still in a developmental preschool situation, because there

may be developmental delays in their progress. It seems to make sense

that those children would stay in the same setting, that they might go

from one place to another within the school. But those are extra

children, and they are going to need space for those programs. Those

are just two examples of the kinds of issues we are talking about. I

have question to the minister. In the planning of new schools, are the

needs in a community for children's services being looked at?

Specifically, are they being looked at in respect to royal commission

recommendations that will integrate children, perhaps at a younger age,

into a school setting?

When we talked about dual entry, we

talked about the fact that children are now entering school, according

to the minister's program which will take effect in the '90-91 school

year, at two separate times. Many of those children are involved with

day care part-time and with school the rest of the time. We're talking

about what will happen to children who may in fact stay in a half-day

program for a full year and quite possibly could have a preschool or

day care program situation, as well as a kindergarten program. Is the

minister looking at any of these kinds of issues. And are there

developments around what we might call "lead schools," in the design of

schools, that might give us some futuristic approach to the way in

which services for children are provided in a community? I ask that

question, recognizing the difficulties the minister has in meeting all

the needs that he has had brought to his attention and that we will

undoubtedly continue to bring to his attention through these estimates.

It would be nice to hear that the minister is in fact looking a little

beyond K to 12, a little beyond just the straight education services,

because I think the royal commission initiatives recognize the

integration of children's lives into a school setting. New buildings

could well reflect the forward vision that the commission brought

forward, and we now have an opportunity to respond, as we are building

new schools in the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : In the school plans, there are facilities or space requirements for nurses' rooms

[ Page 9600 ]

for

health facilities, for those involved in protocols. I guess the one

thing I'm once again trying to do is break the mentality that the

member has just confirmed, that to change a program you have to send

the students to another program box. You cannot integrate students in a

classroom; you have to have a separate integration room. That's the

kind of nonsense we have to get away from. You serve the program, and

it can be served in flexible ways: in standard classrooms, in different

classrooms, in flexible classrooms. I don't know what the member is

looking for. Do we have to have a separate integration room? Surely the

member is not suggesting that.

MS. A. HAGEN : Could I

just ask the minister a simple question? If there are children who,

according to the protocols, are going to require education programs

under your ministry and children who are going to require education

programs that might be under Social Services and Housing.... I'm

thinking particularly of developmentally delayed children between the

ages of about four and a half and five, where there is some indication

that the ministry is going to have part-time programs in the regular

school program or part-time programs that might be in the more

traditional, developmental preschool or day care. Is it the ministry's

suggestion that those programs all go on in the same classroom? It may

be possible, but is the ministry planning that kind of arrangement? Or

are those children going to be in a different setting with a different

program suitable specifically to their needs, because they are not yet

fully ready to be integrated into the K-12 program?

This is

just one example of what I'm talking about in how schools could be

developed so that broader uses may be made of the space. Since these

are daytime uses, it's pretty difficult — unless the minister says these children are going to be integrated before they are five years old —

to figure out where you're going to put them, unless you are putting

them in a preschool or a special developmental day care that might be

attached to a school, in order for those children to benefit from two

different programs as they move into the early stages of schooling.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't know whether there's much point in repeating myself. We are not

getting into preschool programs. According to the Sullivan report, in

the primary program, the "Year 2000" philosophical statement, the idea

is to get the students when they qualify age-wise for entry. Then we

provide an educational program that suits the children. It's not that

we say: "You send them to this room to put this part on them, and you

send them to this room to put that part on them." We're trying to get

away from compartmentalizing.

I guess the member doesn't

understand integration of students or continuous progress, if you have

to send them here and there. The protocol agreements simply ask what

services from other ministries would be provided toward the educational

program. My ministry takes the responsibility for providing the

educational program, and so does the act.

We also are

looking in the protocol agreements to see what other people from other

ministries we need to bring in to assist the teachers, the school board

and the school to provide the educational program. We're not saying

that if you need to learn how to tie your laces you have to go to

another room because in this room we're doing reading. For goodness'

sake!

MS. A. HAGEN : I think that under the protocol

agreement for preschool programs for children with special needs, we

might anticipate something happening in school buildings to provide for

those children. It would be an excellent move.

I want to go

back to capital funding with a more general question and ask the

minister to clarify fairly briefly for me the amount of funding

available. I would just like to walk through a question and ask the

minister to help us on this side of the House to understand what the

ministry does have available for capital funding.

The budget speech announced — and the minister has noted on a number of occasions —

that there's $350 million available this year, which is $100 million

more than the annualized program of $250 million over six years. We

note that within the actual debt servicing aspect of the budget, $214

million is identified. Because I'm not always clear about how debt

servicing and actual expenditures relate, it would be helpful if the

minister would just explain what we are going to have available that

can be translated into actual building costs, and where the $214

million fits into that. There's $350 million available for capital

funding, but $214 million is available for debt services. Can the

minister explain the discrepancy and whether there are funds in any

other category of the estimates that relate to that $350 million?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, I guess the member is right: she doesn't understand the

relationship between capital and debt servicing. In capital approvals

we have $275 million worth of projects to approve this year, and $75

million in minor capital. That adds up to $350 million worth of

projects. Many of those projects are not paid for by cash at that

moment. In our financial statements, we have to show what the existing

and new mortgage payments add up to, and that's $214 million a year.

The

member keeps saying: "I realize that the minister has these problems of

not being able to get all of the capital he wants." Will that member

ever give us credit for moving up to a commitment of $250 million a

year for six years, and then moving that up to $350 million to

front-end some of it while we've got it? There's no credit for any of

that, just a constant reiteration of the problems. If you're going to

constantly nitpick, how about at least acknowledging that some progress

has been made by this minister and that there's been some support from

this government to show its commitment to improving the facilities in

this province? Can't you even recognize that, Madam Member?

[3:15]

[ Page 9601 ]

MS. A. HAGEN :

If the minister were a teacher, and I asked a question for information

and he responded in that way, I would say he was a very poor teacher. I

asked a question for information; it was a straightforward question.

It's helpful not to have a lecture when you ask a straightforward

question. I appreciate the answer. I did note at the outset of the

question that there is additional money, and I think that that is

commendable.

Now I want to ask one or two questions about

those funds and particularly turn to a set of priorities the minister

referred to on Friday, when he said that as he was dealing with his

task of trying to prioritize a large number of requests in the pool of

dollars he had available, there were three criteria he used in

descending, or ascending, order: first of all, he is concerned about

having a roof over the heads of kids, presumably not a leaky roof;

secondly, he is concerned about health and safety; and thirdly, he is

concerned about repairs. I think that was his rough rule of thumb of

how those priorities might be established. Given that there isn't a big

enough pot ever, as the minister has noted, to provide for all of the

needs out there, it's probably as reasonable a rule of thumb as one

might expect.

I want to briefly deal specifically with the

health and safety issue. All of us know, especially since the San

Francisco earthquake, that there has been great concern on the part of

parents about the kind of work that needs to be done to make buildings

safer for children. I understand that in 22 or 23 districts some

surveys have been done in this regard. First of all, is the minister

prepared to release at this time, to the public in the districts where

those surveys were carried out, the results of those surveys regarding

earthquake preparation and earthquake safety?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think the member has the priorities

wrong. I believe I said that the first priority is health and safety

and the second is a roof over their heads; then we go on from there. It

is a rule of thumb.

We have done a great deal. Every school

that has been built since about 1958, when earthquake standards were

put in place, is built to those standards Any renovation is done to

those standards. We recognize that we can't do them all in one year.

The

member asked something about some studies: will we release the studies?

The ministry has had some discussions with school boards in order to

come up with what schools are old and that sort of thing. That's

available at the district level. We did a rough survey to find out what

we needed to zero in on so that we could do some planning. The $24

million in minor capital in the budget, the $31 million we put into the

budget this year for minor capital, and the capital reserves the

districts are sitting on — there's all kinds of money there for

them to survey.... Then we will try to reconstruct, build and fix the

schools up to adequate standards as soon as possible. I suppose that

even if we came up with all of the money we wanted, we couldn't do the

design planning to do that. So we try to do our best to deal with the

problem, rather than creating paranoia.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I commend that attitude, because it is a very difficult area, and one

that I know the minister and school boards are mutually concerned about.

There

are going to be schools which are old and whose construction is such

that they are not repairable on any kind of economical basis. Surveys

will show that there are schools that cannot be repaired within any

kind of reasonable cost estimate. Is it the ministry's policy that for

schools that have been identified as requiring such extensive

engineering work and reconstruction work it would not be economic, in

fact, to carry out such remediation for earthquake protection? Is it

the ministry policy that those schools will be on a priority list for

replacement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : First of all, if a

building is old, that doesn't mean it's unsafe. The first thing a study

determines is whether it is safe. There are schools in other parts of

the province that may be old but they're not in an earthquake zone, so

that is a determination.

When we study a school, the

engineers look at what it would take to make it safe and fix it up. If

that is as much as or close to replacement, then we don't; we try for

replacement. We do replacements when it doesn't make sense economically

or for safety reasons to fix up a school. Within the envelope that we

have to spend we try and give priorities to those schools that have the

greatest needs for fixing up or replacement.

MS. A. HAGEN :

In the last year or so the ministry has provided a track system for

building schools with planning money up front and then the actual

capital cost for building or replacement following in the next year.

For schools that do exist and have been identified as needing to be

replaced because it's not economic to repair and upgrade, can we assume

that if planning money is approved in let's say this fiscal year,

boards could count on the usual course of action and those schools

would be on track for replacement in the year following?

other words, once the school gets into the track and replacement is

decided upon by district and ministry, can we assume that that track

will follow as the night to day, with planning money one year and

dollars for the actual construction of a new school in the succeeding

year?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : There are two types of

planning money. One is preliminary planning, which is usually minimal.

We make every possible effort so that when we get to the detailed

planning it is to ensure that when the plans are complete the

construction can go ahead. I can't guarantee every one, such as night

follows day— or day follows night, which I'd rather say on this side. We don't know if plans might slow down or break down. We have had

[ Page 9602 ]

situations

where it didn't go according to plan, and then we have moved that money

to something that was ready to go rather than sit on it.

The

member thinks that when we approve $350 million for projects, we take

$350 million and stick it in a bank account and there it is. It is not.

It is approval, and then the borrowing is done as the need develops.

But we can approve projects up to that point.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'm not sure whether the minister hasn't created a new kind of

planning. I didn't know there was preliminary planning. Obviously once

a school is identified as being prepared for either replacement or

building, I would imagine that the preliminary planning is long past

and we're into the business of actually planning to construct a school.

The

minister has made all kinds of promises over the last few days and

asked us to ask him a week from now and he'd let us know. Could the

minister just let us know the status of the capital budgets? When can

boards anticipate getting some information about what will be available

for them in the year ahead?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The status is ongoing, in the works, and making great progress.

MS. CULL :

I just want to go back a bit to earthquakes. The member for New

Westminster was asking about the relationship between planning money

and money the following year to replace schools that might need

replacement. The studies on earthquake safety and a school's ability to

be upgraded to be safe in the event of an earthquake might be such that

it wouldn't make sense to actually try to repair it and that it would

make more sense to rebuild.

I just want to shift the focus

a little bit onto those schools that do have the potential to be

brought up to standard. I know that as part of the work the Ministry of

Education has been doing on earthquake safety a small number of schools

were looked at to determine exactly what it would cost to bring them up

to standard. One of the schools in this area is Victoria Senior High

School. The studies have been done and in this year's capital budget is

a request for $1.4 million to do the work to bring the structure up to

standard.

Given the priorities that the minister outlined

for health and safety, could the minister tell us if once the surveys

have been done and the work has been identified, school districts can

then count on getting approvals in their next capital budget?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

My ministry staff have had good discussions with the districts on their

priorities and concerns. As I tried to indicate last week — but it falls on deaf ears — I'm not yet in a position to announce which projects are being funded and which aren't.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Chair, by using that illustration, I wasn't asking for the minister

to tell us now whether the Greater Victoria School District would hear

about its approval; I was asking whether we can assume that there is a

relationship between having completed the survey, and knowing what has

to be done, and getting onto that high-priority list for approval in

the next capital year for the work to be done. If, according to the

minister, the number one priority for capital approvals are, in fact,

health and safety, surely once we've finished the architectural and

engineering work to determine what has to be done to a specific school,

that renovation or repair would be the number one priority for the next

capital year. I'm asking if there is a relationship between the study

and the approval for the work to be done.

HON. MR. FRASER :

I can hardly contain myself when listening to socialists talk about

engineering and public safety. The reason I was so amused was that I

remember an event in the city of Vancouver one time, when it was

rumoured that an old school building was coming down. The old socialist

didn't want it to come down. He didn't care about the safety in that

building; he was worried about saving the building from a heritage

point of view. The story stuck with me all these many years, and it

goes something like this. It's a good story.

[3:30]

An engineer was hired to survey the building and look at the masonry

and the stones in the foundation, the bricks, the floor loadings, the

roof and the whole thing — they almost counted the stones; it was a very careful analysis. Finally we were in city hall one day — I just happened to be there — and

here's the old socialist talking to the engineer, whom I knew, and he

said: "Now, tell us about the building, whether it is any good or not."

The answer was: "Well, the foundations aren't very good; in fact, it's

probably a miracle it's still standing." Then he asked: "Well, how old

is this building?" And he said: "It's about 80 years old." Then he

asked: "Well, what about the floor loadings and the wood?" "Well, the

wood is in quite good condition, but the floor loadings" — we were in imperial units at that time — "are

30 pounds per square foot. For a public building, you need 100, so you

have to do massive upgrading in order to have it go with the new public

standard."

He went through the building, the electrical system and everything mechanical — heating, ventilating, the roof —

the whole building. The old socialist was told over and over again that

the building didn't pass and would cost millions and millions of

dollars to retrofit. But he wanted to save the building. Safety was not

the issue; he wanted to save the building.

So finally he

turned to my engineer friend and asked: "How old did you say the

building was?" He said: "Eighty years." "Have there been any

earthquakes in the last 80 years?" "Yes, there have been several."

"Have they been quite large?" "Well, some of them have." "And the

building is still standing?" "Oh yes, it is." He asked: "Would an

engineer like to have a building that he built last 80 years?" "Yes, he

[ Page 9603 ]

would." "Well, then it will last another 80 years, " he said. And on he flew over all this engineer said.

Listening

to the rhetoric from the other side today, I can hardly believe it. But

you know, it's this minister and this government initiating all that

safety; it's that side over there complaining about every single

initiative. I know that the minister has devoted hundreds of millions

of dollars to upgrading schools, and other ministers have done the same

thing. I commend the government and that minister for their effort. And

so they should be commended. So should all those people in the

districts, who really care that we've got safety out there and really

care about the education system.

I must be sympathetic to the minister —

on and on, nitpick, nitpick, nitpick, when in fact, the thrust and

philosophy of the government are to make sure that all students in

British Columbia get a decent education, that they can go from high

school to any post-secondary institution in the province or even in the

land. I say to the minister: keep up the good work, because they

probably don't really want to hear what you're doing; they just want to

nitpick at you. Good on you, sir.

MS. CULL : Last

December, Willows Elementary School contacted the minister and asked

about the situation at that school and whether the government would

release to the school at that point the earthquake surveys that had

been done and indicate what was going to be done in bringing that

school up to standard. I wonder if the minister can tell us what

decisions have been made with respect to Willows Elementary School.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 17 pass?

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'm not quite sure whether the minister indicated that he planned to

answer that question or not; perhaps he could clarify it for us.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Perhaps it hasn't been mentioned this session, but I would just remind

hon. members that there's no compulsion at all for any question to be

answered. If the minister doesn't choose to answer a question, there's

no requirement for him to do so.

MS. CULL : Mr.

Chair, I am not familiar with estimates debates, but I heard the

minister make some remarks without using his microphone, and I wasn't

sure if he was answering me or not.

I just want to go back

to the question about replacement buildings and also renovation. It's

interesting that the member opposite used the illustration of an

80-year-old building. We know that sometimes the old buildings are

actually quite able to withstand earthquakes, while those that were

built during the 1960s, when architectural design was such that many of

the building envelopes are quite unsound because of windows or other

items....

Interjection.

MS. CULL : In greater Victoria one of the most dangerous buildings is the fire hall on Yates Street. Check when that one was built.

Interjection.

MS. CULL : Built in the 1960s.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I don't build fire halls.

MS. CULL : Yes, I know you don't, Mr. Minister, so I will stop replying to the members opposite and come back to the issue here.

want to go back to the criteria again, because they are of great

concern to local school districts. Again, I'm encouraged to hear the

minister say that health and safety are the main priorities.

school districts which are experiencing some growth, the minister will

agree that space is obviously needed to house those students. While I

certainly agree with the minister that it's not always new space that's

needed — in fact, there are all kinds of flexible and innovative ways for space to be created —

eventually, school districts do come to an end of being able to use

creatively the space they have. In the capital planning process, school

districts are required to prioritize their request. And they are faced

with requests of prioritizing a roof over their heads — that is, space —

with health and safety issues. Can the minister advise us whether

school districts are being directed to prioritize health and safety

issues over the space issues, or, if not, whether that is what the

ministry is doing when the school district has to provide additional

space for new enrolment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm sure,

Mr. Chairman, that the member just won't let it pass, because she's got

to get on record her concern for this particular school district and

individual schools. She's not really interested in answers; she's just

getting on the record.

I have said health and safety, roof

over their heads. But we don't quit building any new facilities until

everything else is fixed up. It's a concurrent operation. We prioritize

in those terms. If it's an emergency, then it's dealt with. I don't

know what an emergency is; I rely on the engineers and the facilities

experts for that. I know the members opposite have absolutely no

trouble being experts in everything, but I rely on some of the

professionally qualified people around me.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I'd like to thank the Chair and the minister for having this

opportunity to speak on the minister's estimates. The Premier just made

some remarks on the good logging jobs that are diminishing very

quickly — particularly with this government's policy in logging.

However, Alberni continues to have a shrinking population base, which

is probably good news to the minister, because it means you have to

provide fewer classrooms and fewer seats in the Alberni district.

However, it does create some concerns in the community, which has seen

its popu-

[ Page 9604 ]

lation decrease a further 1 percent in the last year — to

the envy obviously of some members from the Vancouver area. The average

price there is only $46,000. When you consider that in Vancouver you

need to make an income of $85,000 in order to even qualify for a

mortgage....

The reason I mention that is simply because if the Alberni School District was forced to go to referendum — they feel they may have to next year although they managed to squeak through this year with the funding provided —

the assessments on a house at $46,000 are of course much less than the

assessments on a house of $220,000, the average price in Vancouver this

year. So the rate of tax would have to be considerably higher in

Alberni per house than it would be in Vancouver. It would be more

difficult for my constituents to raise the required dollars to fund

necessary education.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Some five schools have closed down in the Alberni region in the last number of years.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The whole of Alberni will close down if you elect the NDP.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I like the Premier's comment that Alberni will close down. Well, the

Premier and his Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) are quickly

moving to see the demise of my constituency. Maybe that's why his party

has had such a dismal record in the by-election and previous elections.

I would like to continue in the estimates, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'm leaving. I can't stand it.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I'm glad to see that the members opposite are applauding the Premier leaving the House.

plan to be brief, Mr. Minister. If you're as brief in your responses as

I am in my questions, we should be through here fairly quickly. In the

Alberni riding we have a couple of secondary schools and three junior

secondary schools, and some 12 elementary schools.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Many of those schools I attended.

HON. MR. FRASER : Did you graduate?

MR. G. JANSSEN : No, I didn't, as a matter of fact, Mr. Minister. I was lured away by those good-paying logging jobs in Alberni.

The questions I have for the minister.... I hate to sound like I'm covering

again the ground we covered last year, but the same problems still exist. The

Alberni District Secondary School, which has some 1,200 students attending

it, was due for some renovation, or a new school was needed. I think the school

board has decided to go with a new school.

The

problems there are immense. The music room is no longer there, so the

children have to carry their music instruments from one room down into

the auditorium and back again. The science classes are now located in

the old arts and crafts room, which has had some bearing walls removed

in order to make room for it and now faces an earthquake hazard. The

library is in a similar situation.

Last year the minister

assured me that the school would receive a high priority on the list;

still there has been no resolution to that problem. I wonder if the

minister has another priority other than the high priority, so we could

get on with building a new school for the senior secondary students in

Alberni and providing a good education level.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It's still on our high priority list. You are on the record as showing

your concern for your constituents and schools, but I have to give you

the same answer: I'm not in the position yet to announce that list. I'm

glad you found your last year's notes.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I'm glad the minister remembers his last year's response.

A number of other schools in the area — such as Eighth Avenue Elementary School, which some people have said should be bulldozed —

are awaiting funding. The school in Bamfield, which was again promised

last year.... I understand the native community is waiting for some

federal assistance in order to go ahead with that project. I wonder if,

in fact, the minister has anything to add on those two schools, or to

the fact that the A.W. Neill and E.J. Dunn Junior Schools also have no

facilities in which to offer such basic courses as music.

I indicated earlier, the community is diminishing in size. However, we

still expect to have first-class education for our students there. A

lot of that, of course, depends on the minister's capital funding so

that we can rebuild those schools and bring them up to standard. We are

dealing with 1950 schools in Alberni, and we're trying to provide 1990s

education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The Alberni schools,

from what the records show, are providing a good education to their

students. They did a local educational survey there and came up with

some good results. Once again the member is on the record for his

interest in these schools. Once a year it's nice to know that the

member takes an interest in the schools in his constituency. I wonder

who represents the constituency the other 12 months.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

The questions are very simple: when is the capital funding going to

come forward; when can we expect some results in rebuilding those

outdated classrooms — other than them being put on a high-priority list?

The minister continues to say — I suspect for not just last year when I asked these questions, but for

[ Page 9605 ]

many years: "You're on a high-priority list." We continue to send our children to schools that are on the verge of being unsafe.

We're trying to provide a 1990s education in Alberni. The job skills required in that community — thanks to the policies, in some cases, of this government —

are moving out of those primary-resource-based industries, so we're

trying to upgrade our young people so they can get an education to move

into those other highly skilled jobs. However, we're being asked to

meet 1990s technology with equipment and classrooms that were designed

in the 1950s.

[3:45]

Is the minister prepared to tell me when we can expect some capital

funding in order to rebuild those schools, or is he just going to

repeat that it's a high priority?

Obviously the minister is not prepared to make any kind of commitment to my constituents.

Another

concern we have is that the Alberni primary schools now have 23 to 25

students enrolled in them, which is relatively good in the provincial

scheme of things. However, with diminishing class size, diminishing

schools and the fact that the Year 2000 program is coming, it's of

concern to teachers and the school board in the Alberni riding that it

could move up to 29 students per classroom, which they find is reaching

the unacceptable point.

They are also wondering if the

minister is prepared to provide more dollars for assistance in training

teachers to meet those Year 2000 criteria, since the school board is

finding itself stretched at this point with a lower population base to

find those dollars that are going to be needed to provide the programs

I've just asked about.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I can't keep giving the same answer over and over about when I'm going to announce it. When it's ready —

soon, I hope. I can tell the member that when we moved up to having

$350 million available, the priorities went to well over $538 million.

So we have to reprioritize the high-priority list according to the

greatest need. As soon as we can, we will be announcing it. Just

because the member keeps going on record about what we're going to do

about his schools and so on.... I've said to every member on that side

that we're not in a position yet to announce that. If I announce it for

your school, then all of a sudden everybody else would want to know

about the position of their schools. I would have to put the whole

package together. You tie me down in the House with these inane

questions, which makes it more difficult for me to work on the list.

However, I guess that's the way it goes.

The money is

provided for in-service, for retraining teachers, under the $140

million above the budget. I don't know why your board is strapped for

providing in-service to the teachers when the teachers are getting

in-service and all kinds of opportunities, and there is funding

available for it. Is $140 million not enough? There's a 15.2 percent

increase, a $400 million increase and a 7.1 percent increase in the

operating budget in Alberni, with a reduction in enrolment, and the

member says they might find themselves strapped, they might have to go

to a referendum; and if they go to a referendum, the cost to the houses

there.... The price of houses is less. On the referendum ballot, if the

member would do a little studying instead of just spontaneously

standing up in my estimates, he would find what the cost was per

$10,000 assessment. If it's only a $40,000 home, it's only times four;

if it's a $100,000 home, it's times ten — very simple arithmetic, really.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

The minister continues to say "soon," not only to me but to other

members of this House, and he wonders why we continue to ask when. If

he would give a direct answer and not just say "soon," but perhaps "in

August, May of next year or 1993" — he can't say that because he won't be in government then —

it would give a definitive answer as to when we can expect some of the

answers to these questions. I don't enjoy standing up on behalf of my

constituents year after year, asking the same questions and receiving

the same benign answer: "Soon." Another priority list and a higher

priority, perhaps, but there's still no school.

The school

board has indicated that they're ready to go with the new capital

projects to rebuild both the Alberni District Secondary School and the

Eighth Avenue Elementary School, and they're simply waiting for the

ministry to come up with answers. But the ministry keeps delaying the

answers. The minister keeps saying: "Soon." Well, soon is not good

enough, Mr. Minister. We're looking for capital funding and some

answers in this House to the questions we're asking. Perhaps if you

gave more definitive answers, we wouldn't be here as long as we are,

and we wouldn't have to keep asking the same questions.

Is the minister prepared to say that the answer will be coming — he can write me the answer if he likes, after his estimates are over — or

to give some indication to my constituents as to when his ministry is

prepared to move on some of the questions that I've raised and, I'm

certain, the school board has raised to him?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Certainly after the estimates are over — I can be that definite —

and before March 31, 1991, because we're talking about the capital

allowance for this budget year; preferably much sooner than that. We

won't go to '93, as the member suggested.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I think we've exhausted the issue of capital funding, unless some of my

other colleagues want to raise some issues in connection with their own

school districts.

I'd like to change the focus of our

discussion for the next session of this set of estimates and turn to a

document that has come out of the royal commission called

"Interministerial Protocols for the Provision of Support Services to

Schools." First of all, I want to say that I think this initiative is

an excellent one on the part of the ministry. It fits with the framework

[ Page 9606 ]

that

has been part of the development of the royal commission

implementation. It states the purpose, the principles and the matter of

protocols. I would like to suggest that if the minister could have a

little faith, he might just anticipate that questions are for

information and clarification, not necessarily for criticism, which

seems to be his standard perspective on any question, no matter in what

good will it is put forward.

Let me deal with an issue that

the minister has addressed in a press release. There has been some

concern about tasks that teachers and teaching assistants may be

required to perform. I know that there are different perspectives, not

only within the teaching profession and the support service workers in

the teaching field but also between perhaps the BCNU and the RNABC,

around this matter of providing health services for special-needs

children. There's no question that we have in our districts and in our

schools children with very severe levels of disability. It's quite

wonderful that those children indeed are integrated into our regular

classrooms.

For the sake of clarification of the issue of

who will perform certain medical services and whether they are at what

is called level 2, which involves such services as gastrostomy feeding,

related care, administration of oxygen and medication, and so on, or

whether they are higher level services which involve using catheters

and a whole range of activities that we normally would think of as

being very much in the medical and health-related field, would the

minister be prepared to provide a definitive list of the details of

what teachers and teaching assistants may be expected to perform, and

the basis on which decisions will be taken about whether these

school-based personnel will have that requirement of them? I think

there's a real concern among professionals and paraprofessionals in the

education field that they may, even with training, be asked to perform

services that they don't feel they're competent to perform or that are

not appropriately within their domain.

This is an

opportunity, perhaps, for the minister to clarify what kinds of

services might be performed by teachers and which services will indeed

be performed by health staff, whether they are public health nurses or

specialists who come into the school to deal with the needs of these

very special children.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr.

Chairman, I can't come up with a list of every single procedure that

will be covered to help students. In many cases, teachers take some

specialized training; they have assistants who are required to have

some specialized training.

I guess someone found that, for whatever reason, to try and relate two, if you like, unrelated phrases — one from one page, one from the other — and try and create some fear, paranoia, negative thinking....

The

health people, the education people and the social service people who

worked on these protocols were satisfied by them. There are certain

routines that are described in the protocol agreement, and I would

suggest that the member read them. But I know that if you're looking

for negatives, or the possibility of criticizing.... "These routines

include but are not limited to...." By saying "not limited to, " they

mean that it's possible for someone to provide some service, and their

willingness to provide it, and the assistants are there.... So they

can. But I can't come up with all of the things that might be excluded.

For

instance, the criticism and the paranoia resulted from Mr. Denike, on

the Vancouver school board, a university professor who is enthralled

with his own ability to juxtapose two different things, unrelated, and

come up with a problem. The man searches for ways to come up with

problems and then expresses them to the public.

Then you

had the reaction of the president of the nurses' union saying,

"Teachers aren't trained to provide these specialized services, " when

a little reading of the protocol agreement would have shown that the

list that they were protesting — Mr. Denike and the president of

the nurses' union.... Those were specifically described in the protocol

agreement as only to be administered by licensed nurses in British

Columbia.

There was a reference on the one page to

post-basic, child-specific training. That referred to specialized

routines such as gastrostomy feeding and related care, administration

of pre-established and prescribed oxygen, administration of premeasured

and prescribed medication— implicitly, by the proper medical authorities —

seizure management without specialized training. I had students in the

school system who had epileptic seizures. We didn't leave them lying on

the floor and say: "I'm not a medical professional." We dealt with it,

and we tried to acquaint ourselves with the basic measures to do that,

and people are still doing that in the school system.

Then

it says on the following page in the protocol agreement: "Educational

assistants hired for children with special health needs will be

required to have basic skills...equivalent to those provided in home

support or community support worker programs offered by community

colleges." Then in the next one — and this is the one that has

caused all of the unnecessary paranoia: "Teachers and assistants will

also be required to have child-specific training from a health

professional in order to carry out the specialized procedures." That

child-specific training is predetermined by the Medical Services

Association to be possible to be administered by other than fully

trained professionals; but they need some basic training in that.

[4:00]

The critics are relating that to the phrase on the previous page:

"Some procedures which include but are not limited to tracheotomy care,

ventilator care, suctioning and catheterization may be carried out only

by nurses holding an active licence to practise in British Columbia,

working under written instruction from the child's physician." Yet the

press release that was put out attempted to create paranoia. The

president of the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C.

[ Page 9607 ]

said: "That's unfair. Teachers are not qualified to carry out these procedures" —

which it specifically says in the agreement can be carried out only by

licensed nurses. Why do people persist in trying to create problems

that don't exist? Why is it that for political purposes you don't care

about that kid who might have a seizure when there is no doctor or

nurse handy? You don't let that student die. You deal with it as best

you can.

MS. A. HAGEN : I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that

what we're trying to get at here is that there is appropriate personnel

for regular procedures, and that teachers who may be required to deal

with the emergency circumstances the minister has just described have

that kind of training.

Let me ask the minister if any

teacher will be required to undertake then level 3 care. I note

throughout the protocol agreement, as a background to my question, that

there are times when personnel may not be available. Is it the

intention of the minister to in some instances provide training for

teachers who are needed to assist those students, or does the teacher

have the option to say that she or he does not feel qualified or

prepared to provide those services? I'm talking here about routine

procedures that are a part of the child's daily health routine and are

necessary for that youngster to be able to function within an

integrated school environment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, again, that's how people distort. Teachers will not be

required to take specialized training; however, if teachers want to

work with these students who need specialized services, then the

protocol agreement says that training shall be provided by professional

health care people. If the teacher wants to work with students in that

category — and many do — the health training should be and

must be provided only by them, and boards are responsible to see that

if a person is going to work with this child that needs that

specialized care, that person must get appropriate training from the

appropriate health people. That's what the protocol agreement says, and

somehow or other it has been translated into: "Every teacher therefore

must take this kind of training."The answer to that is no.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I presume that means that when the protocol agreement

refers to the fact that tracheotomy care, ventilator care, suctioning,

catheterization and other very specialized procedures will be carried

out by nurses, that is who will provide those services. It's very

specific. I agree with the minister that it's very specific, that it

does state that these will be carried out by nurses.

I have

a few more questions that I want to ask just around the protocol

agreement. Just in general terms, this agreement comes out of the

suggestion from the royal commission that there needs to be greater

coordination among ministries that provide services for children. I'd

like to ask the minister if the Ministry of Education elements of the

protocol are funded within the block, or from the royal commission

funding resources of $140 million, for example, this year, or a

combination thereof? If he could perhaps just comment on where the

funding for these services may come from.

In the same

question, I'd like to ask the minister to comment on whether the

services are now defined or enhanced. Are there enhanced services that

are the outcome of this series of protocol arrangements with Health,

Social Services and Housing, and the Solicitor-General?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

There is some funding in the block for the ongoing provision of health

services in the districts. There is additional funding under the royal

commission implementation for the increased services that are

necessary. Then we have our share — I think it's about $3.5 million — to

make possible the intent of the protocol agreement, and the other

ministries also have some money to provide the necessary services. For

instance, if the Health ministry is to provide the instruction, they

are providing for that.

For the first time that I know of,

the four ministries combined and coordinated their budget efforts to

make sure that we wouldn't say, "This is to be provided by the Health

ministry," and not discuss it with them. So each of the ministries has

some money in its budget to implement the protocol agreements.

There

are some statements of objectives in the protocol agreement which I

wish we could achieve overnight, but some of them require specialized

training. I could use physiotherapy as a good example. We say that

there should be a physiotherapist for every so many in the school

population. In some cases we might provide for that, but we can't get a

physiotherapist to go into the region. We are making our best efforts

to set some achievable targets.

MS. A. HAGEN : I

would assume, then, given that about $9 million in support services to

schools has been identified in the $140 million available this year,

that if we take off $3.5 million to actually service the protocols,

which is what I heard the minister just say, we then have perhaps $5.5

million in enhanced services in the schools. If I'm hearing the

minister correctly, he says that the royal commission funding is

directed towards the enhancement of services,

whereas the fiscal

framework provides for the ongoing services.

I take it, too — I was going to inquire —

that the issue of inequities is simply a fact and that we're going to

continue to have some inequities, because of the issue of the

availability of personnel.

I would like to ask the

minister, though, about another overall principle that is addressed.

Under the

section called 'Purpose," one of the purposes of the paper is

and "increase the responsibility of local communities for the provision

of such services." That's a fairly broad statement. I'm not sure what

it means — whether it means local communities, in terms of the ministry

[ Page 9608 ]

offices

that function in those communities, or whether it has a broader

interpretation. I would like to ask the minister to comment on that

purpose and on who indeed is involved at the local level in this

increased responsibility for the provision of various services for kids.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, it means specifically what it says. It means that we

expect greater interministry cooperation to service the students, not

the provider of services.

I have to refer to a comment the member made — this

is the way they distort things: "I take it that these moneys will only

be used for new services." If the kid is bleeding from an old wound,

you treat the old wound as well; you don't worry about which dollar you

attach to it.

MS. A. HAGEN : I think there is a little lack of clarity there, and I appreciate the minister's comments about that.

The

other issue, in terms of having for the first time an opportunity to

look at these protocols.... It appears that when we are looking at

services in the school system that may be health-related and that are

provided under Ministry of Education funding, the costs are shared

between the ministry and the local school districts. Would it be

correct to say that any Ministry of Education services coming under

this protocol that are in the fiscal framework are shared-cost services

and that local taxpayers are responsible for some of the costs through

their residential taxes? They may be responsible, for example, for some

of the equipment the Ministry of Education supplies for deaf or blind

children and for a whole range of items I haven't particularly listed,

but that I noted as I was reading through the protocol. Are some of

those costs recoverable through the appropriate ministry — most

likely the Ministry of Health? Are local residential taxpayers

providing, with their tax dollars, medically related services or other

special-needs services to children through the fiscal framework and the

shared-cost funding?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman,

the short answer is no. The total education budget in the block is

$2.66 billion, and just under 10 percent of that comes from residential

taxation, in total, across the province. The 100 percent of the block

is provided by the province.

The other additional

expenditures are provided from the consolidated revenue fund of this

government to provide these services. I can't say that the local

residential taxpayers aren't contributing, because they are. But they

are not being held accountable for what happens in their district. If

it's in the block, government is guaranteed 100 percent of that. If

it's over and above the block, we've guaranteed 100 percent of that.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Just to conclude on the protocol issue: it has long been a concern at

the local district level that certain services that really are in the

field of Social Services or Health come out of Education dollars. In

many districts where the combination of non-residential and residential

tax pays pretty well all of the cost of education, even though it is

funnelled through the consolidated revenue account and then transferred

back to school districts, it is a direct cost to taxpayers.

The

minister euphemistically keeps talking about 100 percent of the funding

coming from the province. It is a euphemism. We must remember that in

quite a number of school districts, a very significant amount of that

funding does come from residential taxes. I hope that sometime in the

next few days the minister is going to tell us what does come from

residential taxes.

I think that at some point it may be an

interesting public policy issue about whether residential tax dollars

should go to some of these health-related services that come under the

Ministry of Education budget. That is a public policy issue that boards

have brought to the attention of the minister time and time again.

would anticipate, too, that that cost to the local taxpayers is going

to increase because, although at this stage of the game we have money

in so-called royal commission funding for added services, once those

services are in place, presumably they are mandated services and are

going to be part of the block. They're not going to be in some special

fund. The tax bite at a local level will be increased. In terms of

public policy, that's something we need to take a look at in future, as

far as that shift of cost to the local taxpayer is concerned.

Mr.

Chairman, I know my colleague for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms.

Smallwood) has some comments to make in respect to this coordinated

service to children that is being addressed for the first time in a

planned way through the interministerial protocols.

[4:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Chairman, I want to address something that I'm sure everyone in this House is very disturbed about, and that's the....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Yes, all six of us.

AN HON. MEMBER : I'm not disturbed.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD : At a time like this, I really hope that Hansard

is able to pick up some of the comments. I wanted to talk about the

incident in Surrey where they've just recently found that one of the

students in a Surrey school had been murdered, and many of the kids in

that school knew about the murder of that child and didn't find it in

themselves to talk to anybody about that — their parents or any of their teachers.

While I would hope that the concern I feel about the situation is shared by everyone in the House — and quite frankly, I believe it is — I want to be able to

[ Page 9609 ]

talk

to the minister. I'm glad the Minister of Social Services and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) is also here, because we're talking about the

interministerial care for kids, and how governments relate to the

services they provide to children.

We've tried on other

occasions during different estimates to talk to the minister about some

of our concerns, and quite frankly, in my recollection, we've never had

an example quite so stark as this one to focus in on as to the need for

a holistic approach to the care of children.

While the

ombudsman is doing a considerable amount of work around coordinating

and trying to deal specifically with children who are in the care of

the state, I think there are some things we can learn by looking at

this situation. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his

ministry is specifically looking at some services in the schools that

relate to the mental well-being of children. Very clearly the teachers

in the system, with the number of children that they're trying to deal

with, are focusing most of their attention, skills and so forth on

trying to make certain that there is a transfer of knowledge and that

those kids have an opportunity to learn.

But I think that with the changing times — and very clearly these are younger children who I understand are in elementary school —

there may very well be a need for counsellors to be in the schools and

for there to be more direct coordination with Social Services and

street workers, for instance, so that there's more of a connection with

the schools as to what's going on in the streets and what those kids

are having to face. I believe that it's a need that has been advocated

for a considerable length of time.

I'll leave it at that. I

have other things I'd like to raise at this point, but I'm hoping that

the minister will have something to add to this debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Let's put on the record the opening comments of the member: "I know

this is something that everyone in this House is concerned with." I

pointed out all three of the opposition members who are in the House to

discuss this issue, and that member has the audacity to stand up and

talk about how everyone in this House is concerned.

I get a

bit upset with that member. I don't think I have ever run into a

character with the ghoulish tendencies of the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. A tragedy has occurred, and that member sees

it as an opportunity to exploit politically in this House. I don't

pretend that I'm going to deal with that kind of question. Is there no

end to your ghoulish tendencies to exploit politically every tragedy?

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to say that I'm disappointed in the minister's response; but

quite frankly I'm not surprised. As I said, it isn't the first time

that we've asked the minister to talk about interministerial

responsibility. It's not the first time we've asked the minister about

counsellors in elementary schools. It's not the first time that we have

asked the minister to talk about the needs of kids. We have a situation

in my community; as their representative I am compelled to deal with

it, and I will deal with it whether the minister wants to respond or

not.

The reality is that we have children in the school who

knew of a tragedy and had no one to talk to; who went into a survival

mode and said nothing because they were afraid themselves. The ministry

has an opportunity here to try to grapple with this problem, and

instead the minister tries to shuffle it under the carpet and say that

this is not something we talk about publicly.

My community

is traumatized by it, and we want you to talk about it. We want to hear

what you're going to do about it. We want to know that those kids are

going to have some options in the future. We want to know that you are

sending a team into those schools in the north end to try to deal with

the trauma which those kids have been struggling with on their own,

without any support from the schools. I want to know, Mr. Minister,

that you have a plan in place to help deal with my community.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no difficulty in discussing the

interministry coordination. I have no difficulty in discussing

elementary counsellors. I just object to that member using a tragedy to

make political hay.

MS. SMALLWOOD : If the minister

doesn't have a problem, why doesn't he answer the questions? This is a

terrific opportunity for you to say what you're doing for counselling

for kids in Surrey. Do we have to wait until another community has

another tragedy, Mr. Minister? We'd like to hear what you've got in....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : You're sick.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

We'd like to hear, Mr. Minister, what you're going to do. Do you not

accept the responsibility? Is that the only way you have of answering?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I would suggest you address the Chair in your questions.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like the minister to answer a specific question. My question is:

does the minister have a program in place? Can we be assured that there

will be specialists sent into these schools?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I think I'd be more inclined at this point to recommend counselling for that member.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I think the minister's response shows some real neglect for his

responsibility. The minister is unable, especially in a time like this,

to show some leadership, to provide some information and some relief to

the people in North Surrey. Does the minister want to go down on record

as not answering the questions, and abdicating his responsibility as

the Minister of Education?

[ Page 9610 ]

MR. JONES :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise an issue with the Minister of

Education, but after the testiness he showed to the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, I'm afraid that he won't be able to accept

his responsibility to deal dispassionately and objectively with

questions from this side of the House.

My question deals with another tragedy. Perhaps the minister has a simple answer to the question.

The

tragedy resulted from an accident on a school bus in the Burnaby School

District. There was a letter to the editor in the paper last Friday in

which the parent of a child on that bus expressed fright because there

was no seatbelt protection for those children, or at least some of them.

was under the assumption, based on accidents that happened a few years

ago on the Island, that there was a seatbelt policy in place for school

buses, so I was quite surprised to see the letter to the editor last

week. Could the minister clarify for me, please, government policy with

respect to seatbelts in school buses.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, there has been a fair amount of research at the federal

level, in the United States and in various places. No one, to my

knowledge, has come up with any conclusive evidence that it is better

to have seatbelts in school buses. The construction specifications for

school buses are very rigid.

Once again, I guess it's easy

enough, when one accident occurs and no one was killed.... As a critic

I guess it's easy enough to say that if there isn't a seatbelt on there

next time, it could be worse. Nobody has yet established that.

We are aware of the seatbelt issue. It raises its head periodically. But no one has come up with a definitive answer.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could explain to me then why it's

different for school buses than for all other vehicles in this

province. I accept what the minister says, but it just does not make

any sense to me.

The minister talked about school bus

construction. Perhaps he could elaborate to the point where I could

appreciate his argument. We require seatbelts for cars; we require

seatbelts for trucks; we require seatbelts, as far as I know, for all

vehicles in the province. Why not for school buses? It doesn't make any

sense to me.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, if the

member is really interested in the information, rather than the

political possibilities in this, I'd be delighted to sit down and

provide him with all of the information and particulars that we have

received.

Because I say the buses are to rigid

specifications, I'm supposed to know every one of the specifications. I

do know some of them. They have high seat backs to protect them. Other

buses don't have seatbelts either. They must be able to withstand their

whole weight on the roof without collapsing. There's a whole variety of

rigid construction — the seats have to be bolted to the floor so that they will withstand the jar from a crash, and those sorts of things.

[4:30]

I don't have at my fingertips every one of the specifications

for a school bus. But I do know there are regulations in place from the

Ministry of Highways and Transportation and other organizations which

say you can't use it as a school bus unless it meets these rigid

specifications.

MR. JONES : Mr. Chairman, I accept

everything the minister says. I am sure that in the interests of safety

for children and passengers on buses.... On airlines and in virtually

every other vehicle there are stringent safety requirements. The

minister has not explained, and I guess he's saying that he cannot

explain. I don't expect him to have the answers to every single issue,

but I don't think this is an unimportant one. I'd like to take the

minister up on his undertaking, so that I might receive those studies

and better understand the issue, because I want to be able to explain

it to that Burnaby resident to the point where parents are satisfied

that the minister is doing the right thing. Right now I cannot do that.

The

minister is not paying attention. I suppose he isn't concerned either

that we have a correct policy in place or that members of this assembly

are able to explain it to their constituents. I was trying to help the

minister out by explaining to my constituent why there are no seatbelts

on school buses, and unless I'm provided with that information, Mr.

Minister, I will not be able to do that. So I would appreciate the

information that you suggest you have.

On a completely

different topic, I'd like to ask the Minister of Education the ministry

view on American Sign Language, as an accepted language for deaf

education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : First of all, I'm sure

that we can provide the member with some of the inconclusive studies

showing that it cannot be determined, which is how I answered at first.

There's no conclusive evidence that seatbelts would help in school

buses. In return, I wonder if the member would provide me — other than with the

article from the Province —

with his conclusive evidence that seatbelts would be a great asset on

school buses. I wonder if that member would help us in that regard.

Concerning

which form of sign language is best, there is an ongoing discussion

between different groups about that. We're not taking a position on it.

If anything, our position is to best serve the students. I suppose that

if I took a position, you'd want to know my research, and so on it

goes. We won't have a position on a disagreement between whether left

is better or right is better.

MR. JONES : I asked the

minister to make studies available to me, so that I might explain to

Burnaby residents why there aren't seatbelts on school buses. The

minister wants to twist my remarks into some political argument. I

don't have any political argu-

[ Page 9611 ]

ment;

I'm just trying to understand ministry policy. I'm trying to understand

ministry policy on American Sign Language. There doesn't seem to be any

ministry policy. He says there's a debate going on. The minister seems

ambivalent as to which direction that debate goes. It seems to me that

there is some requirement for investigation, for understanding the

debate, and for recognizing the desire of a large segment of the deaf

community to see that American Sign Language becomes the language of

instruction in this province. Can I take it from the minister's remarks

that he is not pursuing this matter and that there is nothing underway

that might lead in future to some change in policy with regard to

American Sign Language?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'm rather bothered by that member's implying that because we

don't say that one system compared to another is better or worse — we accept both systems, and let the people do it —

it somehow reflects an inadequacy on the part of the ministry. We don't

plan to change the policy, because we don't have a policy on it. We let

the people speak the language that they are most comfortable in, and I

would imagine that practice will determine which is the easiest. For us

to say that this textbook or this philosophy is superior to these or

that this practice is superior to the other.... What does the member

want — central government control? Is he saying that we should

feel inadequate unless we take a position on which is the best way to

sign? People are signing in more than one way. I don't know why we

should say: "You are wrong. We're going to legislate that system out of

existence, because we like this one better." We don't want to operate

that way.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The member

keeps coming back to the school bus issue. He wants to explain to his

constituents. Check with ICBC. Check with the motor vehicle branch.

Give us your statistics on why you think the way you do. All that

happened is that I read the

article in the paper and somebody wrote in

and said: "I was so concerned, and I was surprised, that there were no

seatbelts on school buses." The discussion has been raised before, it

has been discussed before, and now the member sees an opportunity to

jump on that particular issue. Well, jump on it; but do a little

homework first.

MR. JONES : Question to the testy Minister of Education. Are you monitoring the debate on American Sign Language?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Personally, no.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

On a previous question to the Minister of Education, the response that

the children in North Surrey had to this situation, from what I've read

in the paper, is a response that many victims have: rather than deal

with a situation they don't feel in control of, they go into almost a

survival mode. I would liken it to survivors of sexual abuse. Again,

what I'm asking the minister is twofold. First of all, will the

minister consider sending in a special team to deal with this specific

situation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I know

the member wants to pursue this, sees it as a great political

opportunity. But there are professional social workers out there from

the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services; there are

counsellors in the schools; there are a variety of professionals out

there; and I would like to let them do their job.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Just for clarification then, is the minister saying that his ministry

is not helping to coordinate a response to this situation?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 17 pass?

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'll repeat the question, if the minister didn't understand it: is the

minister saying that his ministry is not involved in helping to

coordinate a response to the situation in the schools in North Surrey?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 17 pass?

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Perhaps the minister didn't understand the question. Let me elaborate a

little bit. As I understand the situation from media reports, a number

of parents were appalled by the fact that those children knew of the

situation — or at least, knew of the stories — and did not

talk to anybody about it. I think that I am less appalled at the

children's response than I am at their continued victimization. If the

school system— the ministry under your leadership — is not prepared to

coordinate a response to make certain that the professionals are

available in this particular instance, then those children continue to

be victimized. The very judgment they made when they heard of this

story, the judgment call those children made that there's no one out

there that will listen, or that there's no one out there that can

change it, or that there's no one out there who cares, is being played

out right here, because the minister refuses to get involved.

I will place the question again, and I will continue to place the

question, because I have no intention of abandoning those children or

those families. If the minister doesn't have the information, all the