1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4457 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Private property. Mr. S.D. Smith –– 4457

Mr. Rose

Highway 3 — the need for upgrading. Mr. Lovick –– 4459

Mr. Chalmers

Spotlight on preventive health care. Mr. Crandall –– 4461

Mrs. Boone

Environmental lab privatization. Ms. Smallwood –– 4462

Hon. Mr. Strachan

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4464

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Jones

Mr. R. Fraser

On vote 27: Northeast development region –– 4475

Mr. Clark

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. RABBITT :

This morning in the members' gallery we have Peter Jones and his wife

Eleanor. Peter is the vice-president of 12,000 members of the

Association of Professional Engineers of B.C. With them is the

executive director, Harry Gray. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker,

that recent amendments to the Engineers Act have allowed for the first

time the appointment of a non-engineer to the association investigation

committee. This committee investigates complaints against engineers to

see if disciplinary action is warranted because of incompetence,

negligence or unethical conduct. I would ask the members of this

assembly to give Peter, his wife and Harry a warm welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER :

The Speaker has asked me to introduce for him two constituents of West

Vancouver-Howe Sound. Would the House please make welcome Mrs.

Josephina Haydahl and Sverre Haydahl.

MR. MERCIER :

In the gallery today are teachers Don Atwood, Dave Williamson, John

Walls, Irene McClure, Elizabeth Clark and the grade 10 students from

McPherson Park Junior Secondary School. This school opened in September

1951, and I am proud to say that I was a student in the first group of

grade 7 students that year.

The school will close forever

in June this year, so 1988 is a special year for McPherson Park Junior

Secondary. It might interest the House to know it's ironic that I have

a daughter, Suzanne, who is a grade 9 student this final year of

operation of the school. In September, all McPherson Park Junior

students will move to an expanded Burnaby South high school, also a

former alma mater of mine. I ask the House to please welcome the grade

10 students from McPherson Park Junior Secondary, and wish them well as

they proceed on to Burnaby South high school.

MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature this morning are my wife Launi,

our son Tore, and our daughter Heidi. From Coquitlam we have Launi's

sister Gloria, her husband Jack Danielson, and their son Steven. Would

the House please give them a warm welcome.

Private Members' Statements

PRIVATE PROPERTY

MR. S.D. SMITH :

I want to address a question today which I think we're going to be

hearing a good deal more about over the next weeks, particularly as we

lead up to the next federal election, and perhaps even in the

by-election going on in Boundary-Similkameen. It relates to the notion

of private property rights.

We've got many assumptions in this country about ourselves and what

we're about. Some of them that we're revisiting and looking at

currently relate to the open trade with the United States and the right

of people to own property. Many people in this country have always

assumed that we have those things — that we have open trans-border

trade with the United States, and that we have the right to own our own

property. We've always made that kind of assumption about Canada. But

lately, as we have been dealing with a number of current and larger

issues, we have had to ask ourselves what kind of Canada we have and

what kind of Canada we are in.

Some

of those issues, I suppose, are things like the Meech Lake accord,

which will grant to us as provinces a greater opportunity for

participation at the centre. I know there are some members in this

House who oppose that and don't want to see that change in our

constitutional framework. We're looking, as well, at Canada's place in

NATO and the kind of world we want to live in, and the way Canadians

might want to contribute to peace in that world. I know that there are

some people in this House who oppose that and who would pull out of

NATO, thereby diminishing the ability of that instrument to provide

peace. Free trade, as well, is an opportunity to expand the economic

pie in Canada, to increase the value of all our property and our

services, and our ability to provide them, and we have some who oppose

that as well. Indeed, we have one who says that he would rip up the

agreement if it was ever entered into. I suppose what we would do is go

down to the Peace Arch at Blaine with the 2,000-page document and tear

it up. He would turn himself into Ed the Ripper, I suppose. But there

are people who say that.

Then there is on our order paper,

as on all order papers across this country, a resolution dealing with

embedding in our constitutional framework the right to own property

privately.

All these things are important about the kind of

Canada we have and the kind of British Columbia that we want to share

in that Canada. They are about individual opportunity versus a kind of

collective control. On the one hand, through liberalizing trade,

through changing our constitutional framework, through embedding

private property rights in the constitution, we will enhance the

opportunity for individuals to grow; and on the other hand, if we don't

do that, presumably we will enhance the opportunity for a more

collectivist control of our nation. Probably that is one of the reasons

why we're seeing growing opposition to some of these issues.

[10:15]

I began this by saying there was an assumption — a correct assumption — that

you had the right to own property. Before 1981, in our parliamentary

system, all rights were presumed to be held by individuals unless and

until parliament took them away. Post-1981, when we created the

constitutional framework that we now have and embedded into it a

Charter of Rights, we now have a situation where ultimately the only

rights you have are those found in that constitution.

It's

important for us to know a little about our property rights and why we

should have them. It's about owning your own home, or your own car or

boat or family farm. It's about protecting your idea, about young

people being able to get a patent on software that they create. It's

about publications and censorship, and about giving meaning to an

individual's ownership of seniority rights.

Why do I talk

about this today? Because when we hear about property rights and

removal, we hear our socialist friends talk about it only applying to

large corporations and not needing to embed it in the constitution,

because as Allan Blakeney said: "We wanted to be able to get at

nationalizing

[ Page 4458 ]

the copper mine and the potash mine without undue compensation."

always starts with the large corporations, then goes to the smaller

corporations and then to something that's inconvenient if you have a

mineral claim in an area, a piece of ground that's inconvenient, or if

you have a timber right that you want to use something else for. If you

don't have these miserable little rights — like the right to own your property — embedded

in the constitution, you don't have to worry about that, because you

can devise systems and mechanisms to take those pieces of property away

without having to go through a certain process that ensures that the

individual gets his full and fair value.

All that may seem very sensible, and you may ask yourself why there would be any debate about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, hon. member. Your time under standing orders has expired.

MR. ROSE :

I'd like to congratulate the learned member for Kamloops for his very

thoughtful deliberations and say that I think he has one of the best

minds of the nineteenth century. I guess I'm the only one who was

actually there when we debated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and

the repatriation of the constitution, because I was then in my other

guise as an MP in Ottawa. I don't really understand the reason behind

the debate this morning. This Legislature before 1983 already expressed

itself on this subject, and I don't know why we need to do it again,

unless it's for some special mail-out to the cattlemen or something up

in Kamloops.

In March 1984 Premier Bennett went to Ottawa — I

believe it was in 1984. He was a private-property man, and he couldn't

get the other Premiers to agree with him. The fact that it is going to

go ahead again by someone, yet unnamed, in amending the Charter.... I

don't think it has much of a chance, because now if Meech Lake goes

through, it's not going to help us amend the Charter. It may even hurt

us, because each province will be guaranteed a veto. All it would take

is little Prince Edward Island, with 120,000 souls, to say no, and

property rights are out.

Why would they say no? They said

no before. They said no along with Newfoundland, Alberta and

Saskatchewan, because they were concerned about one thing — especially P.E.I. — and

that was to protect the foreshore and oceanfront of P.E.I. from a

complete sellout to foreign owners. If P.E.I. then with a Conservative,

right-wing government — was opposed to the inclusion of property rights

in the constitution, I am quite sure they will do it again in order to

protect their country.

I support the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, but I think we have to realize what it does. The Charter

protects the rights founded on the belief that the main enemy of

freedom is the state. It's state intervention that is protected against

by the Charter. Whenever there is a concern about private property or

private power, it's the power of the state that worries most people. On

the other hand, when you start talking about the social rights to a

decent environment, clean air, clean water, decent housing, decent

jobs, and all kinds of things that bring on individual well-being, the

proponents of property rights are very silent.

Is there anybody among the right-wing property-rights people who is going to

go to the mat for the kinds of amendments to the Charter that I think are necessary

for people?

I have

a number of excellent quotes here from scholarly people who have

written on this subject. I mention, for instance, Prof. Andrew Petter

of the University of Victoria. He writes in The Advocate :

"Nor could one invoke the Charter to challenge the common law of

trespass that legitimizes that refusal. Common law rules governing the

property entitlements of private parties are seen as pre-political

norms not subject to Charter scrutiny." What that means is that we

already have in common law all the protection of private property we

need. The common law was first developed to protect private property

and as a dispute-settling method over land disputes. That's where our

common law came from — in the ownership of property, deep in our culture.

People

came from all over Europe and all over the world to this country for a

specific purpose: land. People came here for land. Land-starved people

came to North America for land they could own. It's so deeply embedded

in our culture that nobody's going to threaten that. I think the member

need not worry about that in any real sense. I think he's put up a

bogeyman and suggested that if we don't pass this amendment — it's a blue herring — somehow that's going to threaten us.

MR. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House Leader says we ought not to worry

about this; we ought to trust it; we ought to be certain that in this

time when all our rights are embedded in a constitutional framework, we

ought not to be concerned. Well, I'll tell you, I am concerned.

The

reason I'm concerned is the behaviour of the socialists in the House of

Commons on May 2, 1988 — not in the nineteenth century, friend of mine

— in

which a resolution identical to our resolution No. 1, which says

everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of person and

enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except

in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice came before

the House of Commons. And guess who voted against it, my friend. Guess

who voted against it. Guess who stood up in the House of Commons and

said no to the right to own your own home. Guess who stood up and said

no to the right to own your boat or your property or your seniority

rights. Well, guess who, my friend. Jim Fulton from Skeena stood up and

said no to the right to own your own home; so did Pauline Jewett and

Margaret Mitchell and Nelson Riis and Ian Waddell. They all stood up to

say they oppose putting this fundamental right in the constitution of

Canada. That's why I am concerned, my friend, and that's why I say the

Leader of Opposition, wandering around the Boundary-Similkameen

constituency today doing his little Groucho Marx imitation, should

stand up and say he opposes the position of the NDP in Ottawa.

They

would oppose farmers in Boundary-Similkameen owning their own farms,

the people in the Grand Forks area who left mother Russia to come to

this area for freedom of religion and freedom to live collectively in

the kind of lifestyle they want. He should stand up and condemn this

little perfidy that has gone on down there in Ottawa. These socialist

members of Parliament did not stand up in B.C. before their

constituents and say: "We oppose the right to own your own home." No,

they didn't. They snuck off to Ottawa, stayed in their little cubicles

until the opportunity arose, and then they stood up and voted against

this most fundamental right.

Even though they wander around looking like little yuppies with their nice, well-trimmed suits and well-coiffed hair

[ Page

4459 ]

and neatly trimmed moustaches, as the old saying does so well go, if they look

like a crow and they sound like a crow and they fly and they, have black feathers,

then the odds are that indeed they are a crow, even if it is a socialist crow.

HIGHWAY 3 — THE NEED FOR UPGRADING

MR. LOVICK :

It's difficult to talk about something that belongs to the real world,

something that is mundane, concrete and tangible, after we have been

taken to the heights in the realm of fabrication. However, I do not

mean to be contumacious, nor do I mean to be controversial. Instead, my

subject today is highways.

Specifically I want to talk

about Highway 3. We all know that that is the Crowsnest route that goes

from Hope to the Alberta border. As we also know, it is a very

important road. Indeed, it traverses five constituencies:

Yale-Lillooet, Boundary-Similkameen, Rossland-Trail, Nelson-Creston and

Kootenay. It is a road whose importance will be recognized at least by

the members representing those constituencies.

Certainly it

was a road whose importance was acknowledged by the former first member

for Boundary-Similkameen. Indeed, that member said during a throne

speech debate in March 1985 that Highway 3 was most important to us in

the south end of the province. Unfortunately, it seems that the Bennett

government of the time did not listen to that member.

fact, Mr. Hewitt, the former first member for Boundary-Similkameen, was

a member of the self-same cabinet that approved in 1985-86 a total

expenditure for construction and improvements of about half a million

dollars. That doesn't sound like a problem necessarily until we realize

that that sum of money is about $4.3 million less than was spent in

1982-83, that it was about $3.5 million less than was spent in 1981-82,

and that it was even $2.8 million less than was spent in 1983-84, at

the height of restraint. The member for Boundary-Similkameen may have

worked very hard, acknowledged the problem with Highway 3 and argued

with justification that it deserved better, but his words clearly

weren't heeded. The government of the day did not listen.

Highway

3 is the southern transprovincial route. In fact, it is a route that,

with improvement, could be made a shorter alternative to the

Trans-Canada Highway. It would certainly represent — as most of us would recognize with any objective analysis of the map — a

better and wiser use of taxpayers' dollars than, let us say, the

Coquihalla. It would be a better road to build, especially if we are

talking about megabucks, as we were with the Coquihalla.

[10:30]

hope that that very point will be considered by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) as part of that long-term

transportation plan for the province that we have had reference to in

this chamber.

For the short term though, I hope we can all agree that Highway 3 does need

to be upgraded. Certainly that western portion — the Hope-Princeton — was a

very marvelous engineering feat for its time, but it's an old road. It needs

help; it needs work; it needs upgrading. The Anarchist Mountain stretch from

Osoyoos to Rock Creek needs work. My colleague the member for Kootenay (Ms.

Edwards) tells me that there are parts of Highway 3 in her constituency that

are in desperate need of upgrading and improvement. In short, it seems to me

that the people of this region have every right to ask that Highway 3 be upgraded.

Indeed, I think they have a reason to go beyond, to say that it is their right

and it is overdue.

The

simple reason why Highway 3 ought to be upgraded is that the traffic

flow demonstrates that it has similar volumes of traffic to the

Coquihalla. We are not talking about a minor route. Let me give you a

couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. If we look at the traffic flow

statistics for 1986 and at the average daily total figures in August

1986 at route 3, measured in Allison Pass, we discover 7,130 vehicles.

If we look at route 5, at Dry Gulch Bridge, 2.4 kilometres south of the

Coquihalla tollbooths, we discover 7, 064 vehicles. That pattern holds

throughout the months; I haven't been selective. I assure you, Mr.

Minister.

The point is that there is a pretty compelling

case for giving some attention to Highway 3. Unfortunately it seems

that there is a direct correlation between the underfunding of

improvements to Highway 3 and that black hole called the Coquihalla. We

have spent so much money on the Coquihalla that we have starved the

southern portion of the province, the southern route. The Coquihalla,

we all remember, was where the $1 billion went walking and where

certain members on the other side of the House tried to suggest that it

either didn't happen, or even if it did, that it wasn't a problem. We

all recall that rather interesting debate.

It's interesting

to note that this year's estimates budget shows that there is some $36

million budgeted for Coquihalla construction — and that's the

scaled-down, smaller version: phase 3. Highway 3, in short, deserves

some attention, and I would remind the minister of the words of his

immediate predecessor, who I notice is in the House. The former

Highways minister stated during the estimates debate last year, July

15, 1987: "We have budgeted $7 million for paving Highway 3." A change

of Highways ministers, alas, seems to mean we have also had a change of

plans.

Certainly there is no reference to Highway 3 in the

throne speech, or the budget speech; there is no reference to it in the

minister's opening comments about his estimates; nor is there, as

nearly as I can make out, any reference in the estimates. There should

be dollars for upgrading of Highway 3, and I hope we can hear

assurances from the other side that there will be dollars.

MR. CHALMERS :

I'm pleased today to respond to the member opposite with the sudden

interest in highways coming from the socialist in the comer. Being a

member from the interior, of course, I understand, as all the people of

the interior understand, the need for and importance of highways and

transportation systems in this great province.

A great deal

has been done to open up the north and the interior because of the

Socred vision of Mr. W.A.C. Bennett and his son Bill Bennett, and that

tradition will be carried on, I can assure you, by the present Socred

administration and future Socred administrations in this province. The

Highway 3 that the member talks about was brought in to become a modem

highway by the Socred government. It was opened in 1949, but over the

last 39 years a great deal of upgrading has been done to make it a very

good highway indeed for all the people. It will continue to be that way.

It's

very important, of course, to Boundary-Similkameen, and it would make

me wonder if maybe this issue is being brought up today because of the

by-election. The sudden interest in highways by the socialists.... They

talk about the present minister, hoping that he's going to have money

in the budget to upgrade Highway 3.

[ Page 4460 ]

I would remind the House and the member for Nanaimo that the great

Highways minister known as Pot-hole Lea, during the NDP administration

between 1972 and 1975, spent virtually no money on highways, not only

Highway 3 but highways throughout this province. In fact, his answer to

the problem of the highways, and the fact that the pot-holes were

getting deeper and greater, was for the American tourists to stay home.

He suggested that it was their cars and their trailers that were

creating all this problem for B.C. highways. It was certainly not that

mentality or attitude that developed the interior of this province.

great deal will be done to upgrade Highway 3 as well as other highways

throughout this province. You know, it's important on Vancouver Island

that they have a new highway built. It's important in the northern part

of this province. It's important throughout this province that we have

good highways built and maintained. Although our party has been called

by some the Blacktop Party, that's not something that I as a member am

ashamed of, because highways are what made this province, and that will

continue to be the case.

MRS. BOONE : What about the people?

MR. CHALMERS :

What about the people? Well, those people have to move around, Madam

Member, and I would suggest that that's even the case in Prince George

North. I think that highways are very important up there. Maybe it

would be interesting to hear from you someday about what needs to be

done in that region in highways as well.

Highway 3 is going

to become a very important route with the opening of the Coquihalla

Highway coming soon, something all of us in the interior are looking

forward to. Highway 3 will allow an opportunity for those in the

southern part of the province to create circle tours to Vancouver and

the Okanagan using the Coquihalla and Highway 97. Highway 97 is being

widened on an ongoing program for the last five years. They've started

four-laning the highway. It will eventually be four-lane from the U.S.

border all the way up to Salmon Arm, where it connects with the

Trans-Canada Highway. Once that is done and Highway 3 has been improved

even more, great opportunities will be there for the people of the

interior and from all over the province to travel on those circle tours.

All

of us in the interior, I can assure you, are looking forward to that,

and certainly those in Boundary-Similkameen, who know that Socred

governments have provided excellent service to that area for many years

and, with the election of Russ Fox on June 8 of this year, will

continue to provide good service to that area. I thank you for the

opportunity to mention that, Mr. Member.

MR. LOVICK :

Isn't it interesting that when I present a case for upgrading, and I

present a case that suggests that Highway 3 has not been well served by

the government, all we get is an effort to dredge up some mythical past

and some ideological diatribe about people on this side of the House

who aren't in favour of highways. What patent and total nonsense! I am

frankly offended by listening again and again to this mindless

iteration and incantation about the socialists who don't believe in

highways.

Let me tell the member what we don't like about

your attitude toward highways. We don't like the fact that we had

unrestricted and unrestrained spending on the Coquihalla for half a

billion dollars. We don't like the fact that highways policy in this

province has become a joke because it's a political pork-barrel. That's

what we don't like. We are talking about a sensible, coherent,

long-term highways policy and transportation for this province based on

need rather than on partisan politics. That's the point to be made.

would also remind the member that even though his sense of history

begins in 1952 with the advent of Social Credit, the highway in the

southern interior of the province was built prior to the advent of

Social Credit in this province. As you note, it was built in the late

forties — not after your government came in. I am suggesting that if

there are dollars to be spent on major and rather esoteric highways

projects, like Coquihalla phase 3 — which I think is — then it seems to

me that a transprovincial route that should be an arterial route should

get some priority status.

I am intrigued that we do not

have clear statements from government about how that is going to

happen. Rather, what we had was a rather airy-fairy and somewhat vague

comment about plans for Highway 3. Let me quote again the former

Minister of Highways' comments in a throne speech: "As far as turning

Highway 3 into a major artery, I can tell the member that this is

another very big ticket item somewhere out in the future, as far as the

long-range plans of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are

concerned."

Mr. Speaker, that is our problem. It is vague

and indeterminate. Surely we need an approach to transportation and

construction that tries to lay out for a ten-year period or longer

where the priorities ought to be, based on traffic patterns and

evidence. The people of this province deserve nothing less. Certainly

the people served by Highway 3 — in Boundary-Similkameen — deserve

nothing less.

MR. CRANDALL : I am amused by the

second member for Nanaimo who talks about the concern the opposition

has for overspending on highways. It's my opinion that the concern

there is not that they don't like overspending, but rather that the

achievements in building roads in this province have been primarily

during Social Credit administrations. That's what they don't like — the

Social Credit achievement. It isn't that the overspending has happened;

it's that all the major roads have been built by Social Credit, Liberal

or Conservative, and none of the major roads in this province have been

built during the NDP administration. In fact, I would challenge the

second member for Nanaimo to tell me what the NDP administration built

during those dark 1,000 days from 1972 to 1975.

I want to

digress before I talk about the preventive health care issue that I

plan to talk about, First of all, I want to talk about....

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order. Not that anyone here is without sin, Mr. Speaker,

but I doubt if it's in order — as has happened just recently — for a

rebuttal of a previous topic to be the beginning of a new statement

which deals with another subject altogether. If this trend develops, I

know what this is going to turn into.

As I say, we've done

it as well. If that's the way it's going to go, fine. I would have

loved to have my colleague rebut some of the demagogic remarks of the

member for Kamloops. I thought the subject was closed there. Similarly,

the other subject — having to do with highways — should have been

closed. I understand that the member for Columbia River had an entirely

different subject, and I commend him to get on with it.

[ Page 4461 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

If the member would just take his seat for a moment, please. I would

mention, as the hon. member did, that the second member for Nanaimo

committed the same sin as the member for Columbia River. Certainly

within the strict context of the rules, the point made by the

opposition House Leader is absolutely correct. I would caution members

that when we are doing our weekly members' statements, the subject they

are to address when they stand is the subject which appears on the

order paper. Having so said, I will recognize the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[10:45]

MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, you have precisely made the point that I was about to

make. I think the only difference between the two is that the member

for Columbia River was somewhat longer than the second member for

Nanaimo.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you. I'll ask Hansard to make that time up for the hon. member.

SPOTLIGHT ON PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE

MR. CRANDALL :

I want to spend a minute talking about the spotlight that this

government has put on preventive health care. I believe one of the most

positive directions put forth in our budget this year — and I've talked

about it briefly before — is the issue we have highlighted by focusing

on preventive health care. It is my belief and understanding that the

politics of wellness will be well received in our province and,

gradually, across Canada. I believe this will be another one of those

political issues, like good financial management, which start in B.C.

and then roll across the country. I believe the politics of wellness

will similarly start in British Columbia and roll across Canada.

The

major point I want to make on the issue of preventive health care is

that our government's initiative to focus on prevention is, I believe,

going to bring about an entire new thrust for preventive health care,

and an entirely new thrust for health care in general. It's good to see

preventive health care put in the spotlight by a government that is

willing to take new initiatives. Some may feel that a push on

preventive health care by our government will not achieve significant

results. In the initial part of my statement this morning I talked

about achieving results. This government, I'm very convinced, is

concerned about achieving results, and I believe we will achieve

results here as well.

There are some parallels that we can

look to. We can look right within health care issues to the

stop-smoking program put forward by the Canadian Cancer Society.

Smoking is much less popular than it used to be. In our airlines,

cigarette smoking is now prohibited on all the short flights. For those

people who do not smoke, that is a great move forward. We also found

this with the introduction of seatbelts. People who had no interest in

using seatbelts use them today routinely. I was one who wasn't excited

about seatbelts, but when they were passed through legislation, I now

find I use them every day.

Why do we have a concern for

preventive health care? First of all, I'm convinced that good

preventive health care with an emphasis from the provincial government

will improve the quality of life for British Columbians. When we focus

on health issues, I think we usually focus only on the costs. That's

not the whole issue with preventive health care.

We are

also very significantly going to improve the quality of life. As people

live longer and more healthily, besides simply reducing costs, there

will be an improvement in the enjoyment of life. But of course it will

reduce costs. There will be less acute care needed. That's the obvious

reason: avoiding the need for acute-care treatment.

addition, I believe an improved preventive health care practice will in

time move across the line from just avoiding acute-care costs to

providing improved treatments, even within our acute-care system, to

where treatment costs are not only avoided but also reduced. I think of

health issues such as cancer, arthritis and heart disease, where a

preventive health program will avoid costs; and even after people

contract or have health problems, we will be able to reduce the costs

of providing effective treatment.

We spend much of our time

in our society supporting various ideas of life, but in practice we

very often don't get interested in issues of health until ours is in

poor condition. I believe very sincerely that the people of our

province would benefit from having a preventive health care system put

in the spotlight by our provincial government. I believe that as a

people we would benefit from a good education program providing

information on nutrition. Similarly on exercise. Jogging has become a

popular thing, a thing that the yuppies do. But I'm not sure the

majority of our population recognizes the benefits of sufficient and

good exercise. I'm also not sure that in a province where we have

abundant fresh and pure water, our population is sufficiently informed

on the benefits of pure water. Our diet is comprised of a lot of drinks

and liquids, but we don't really benefit as much from pure water — and

many other things on the health prevention side — that I believe we

could benefit from.

MRS. BOONE : We certainly can't

argue with the concept of prevention. We have been promoting that for

some time. Perhaps you did read my estimates from last year. Is that

where you got most of your notes from? I would anticipate that's where

they came from. We have been promoting prevention for many years, and

it is something we must do. But we must not just give lip service to

it. What we see right now in this province is lip service to the idea

of prevention, but actually no — or very little — prevention taking

place.

The fact that 40 percent of the people in our

hospitals are there because of alcohol-related disease shows that we

have a job to do in that prevention area. If the province developed

some drug and alcohol awareness programs to put into schools, then we

could be dealing with those issues. If the government was truly

interested in prevention, they would be following the Jansen report.

The Jansen report clearly indicates that the marketing of alcohol must

remain in government control, because any move to take it out of

government control would lead to an increase in consumption. That is

clear in what is being told to this government by anybody who has

anything to do with alcohol and drug abuse. They are telling you not to

let this out of the hands of government.

You mentioned your

smoking programs. The smoking program is having a good effect. It's not

having as strong an effect on the female population as I would like to

see. I understand that young women out there are still smoking, but

young males are tending to quit. You also mentioned it was developed by

the Canadian Cancer Society. What is this government doing to promote

anti-smoking? What is this government doing to get that message across

to us?

[ Page 4462 ]

One

of the saddest parts around here is what is happening in our mental

health field. I don't care where you go in this province. If somebody

has any kind of problem whatsoever — whether it is depression or an

eating dysfunction — they are not able to get the assistance they

require in their communities. If you happen to be a young person — a

teenager — with a severe problem, you are virtually out of luck at this

point. Those are the things I think we ought to be dealing with —

getting some prevention out there so that these people are not going to

have mental breakdowns, or be put into our psych units — which are

already overused — and are not going to be put into some other areas.

We do not have the support systems out there for any of those areas.

you look into our health units, we have audiologists, speech

pathologists and dental programs. All of them are very good programs.

They do their jobs very well. But again, we are not addressing the

situation of where we get our staff. We're not training enough of those

people. If you went to any health units around this province, you would

find that there is a lack of staff, not because they don't have the

money to fund them, but because they don't have the ability to get the

staff there. We must address those areas as well.

If we

really thought about prevention, then surely we should start

reinsituting the family planning and planned parenthood that was cut

back so many years ago during 1983.

The Finance minister in

the budget mentioned that they were going to be keeping on

physiotherapy, chiropractic, massage practitioners and all those other

alternatives because they were good, helpful, worthwhile and

preventive. Yet he did nothing to remove the $5 deterrent fee that he

imposed last year. Surely if we are serious about prevention, we

shouldn't be putting a fee on to deter people from those areas.

major area of prevention that I feel we should be dealing with is

poverty. That's something that this government has not been addressing

at all. We've seen the whole area with regard to hungry children and

prevention in that end. What happens when children are hungry? They

don't learn as well; they can't function as well in school. We have not

been addressing the situation of the many families out there that just

do not have enough money to survive on — let alone feed their children.

They are the working poor; they are sometimes people that are on social

assistance. The poverty in this province is something that has not been

addressed at all.

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Speaker, the

member for Prince George North talked about lip-service — that we only

pay lip-service to the issues of preventive health. I want to remind

her that this government in its budget for 1988-89 has doubled the

funding for drug and alcohol programs. That isn't lip-service, Mr.

Speaker; that's achievement, just like in other areas of our

administration. I won't mention highways. This government is an

achievement-oriented government, and we don't just pay lip-service.

good health preventive program, Mr. Speaker, may even consider an issue

which we have not talked much about, but an issue that concerns me.

It's an issue that concerns me because of some of the small communities

that I represent. It's the issue of loneliness. Man is a social animal;

we like to be with other people generally....

Interjections.

MR. CRANDALL : Certainly women too; certainly both men and women are

social animals. Generally we do not like to be alone. But many British Columbians

do live alone; some do so by choice, but some do so simply because the circumstances

of their life have left them alone. Even with the excellent communications that

we have today — television, radio and newspapers — people still do not like

to be left alone. The issue of loneliness can also affect our health, I believe.

That may be another issue that we can wrap into a preventive health care program,

and one which I would like to see us do; again, partly because of the many people

who live alone in our small communities, where there are a small number of people.

[11:00]

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB PRIVATIZATION

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to say that I'm very pleased to see the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in the House. We've missed him in the

last couple of days; we had a lot of important business we wanted to

talk to him about.

My topic is the privatization of the

Environmental Laboratory. I'd like to start by quoting from the

minister's briefing notes that were circulated prior to the meeting at

the Environmental Lab, to dispel any comments that the minister might

make that they haven't privatized the lab yet and that our concerns are

premature.

First of all, what I have here is a calendar of

events, a schedule, to direct the restructuring and privatization of

the lab. The dates show indications that July 1 is the date when they

will issue layoff notices if necessary; on July 15 they will add fee

regulations to the Environment Management Act, allowing B.C. Research

to charge fees to permit-holders; on August 15 B.C. Research starts a

new audit program; and October 1, 1988, is the target date for closing

the deal on the privatization of the laboratory. I think it's important

that the House remember the date October 1, 1988, because it will be of

relevance in later comments in the statement.

For the

official record, and for some members of the House who are not familiar

with the role of the Environment Lab and some of the services that they

provide for the people of this province, I'd like first to identify

some of those services.

1. The Environment Lab is the first

line of defence for environmental problems in the province. I would

remind the House of issues like the cucumber pesticide poisoning last

year; the cyanide discharge into the Coquihalla, which is a

drinking-water source, a few years ago; and the chemical plant fire in

Richmond, which resulted in widespread contamination of residential

areas. The Environmental Laboratory was the first line of defence in

those critical times, and they provided tremendous support and backup

for emergency services.

2. The scientific support needed by

the law enforcement branches for upholding the environmental statutes

of the province: that is, to protect fish and animal habitats as well

as air quality and drinking-water for the province. No one in this room

has to be reminded of the importance of protecting air quality and

drinking-water because of not only the health and safety aspects to

communities but the tremendous costs of trying to deal with health

problems afterwards. One of our previous statements in the House talked

about preventive health and wellness; well, this is the front-line

defence for preventive health and for wellness.

3. The independent standard in the province by which the quality of analytical data from private industry is compared.

[ Page 4463 ]

This is the standard, the assurance, the check and balance that we will have one standard in the province for analytical data.

An independent laboratory where the public in any part of the province

can have the quality of their drinking water verified. This is

fulfilling the responsibility of the Environment minister to protect

the health and safety of the people, and will ensure that the province

can be confident that their drinking-water is safe.

Now the

question is: what will the privatization of this lab mean? Can we ask

the minister to ensure that these specific issues will be addressed?

There will be no uniform standard of quality, of data, making it

extremely difficult for the ministry to determine when pollution is

beginning to occur as industry expands.

2. There is an issue of confidence, an issue of response to environmental disasters.

3. No uniform standards by which legal cases can proceed successfully.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister says that it's the same as 1, but it is not. First of all

it's an issue of regulating, and secondly it's an issue of justice —

whether or not the courts can be assured that all standards are using

the same data and testing.

5. There would be nothing

preventing a few private permittee companies from eventually owning or

controlling all the relevant analytical expertise in the province,

rendering the B.C. regulatory agencies absolutely toothless.

6. Probably the end to the provincial-federal accord on environment, since the province can no longer uphold its obligations.

want to talk a little about what the lab does in specific communities.

In Terrace-Kitimat, for instance, the lab is responsible for extensive

monitoring carried out to assess any effects of industrial activity on

health and safety. The air is tested for acid rain, and there are

additional equipment tests for airborne particles and fly ash from pulp

mills, smelters and other sources.

Just to touch on some of

the highlights, in Atlin-Cassiar the Environmental Lab performs

analysis of air samples for asbestos. This is very important for that

community. As a quality assurance check on routine analysis carried out

by the mine, in Cassiar they have participated in testing the dryer

vent discharges from the mine — again, for asbestos.

I welcome the minister's comments and look forward to a wrap-up.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It's always nice to welcome the member to the assembly and hear her

debate on this subject. I know that it's a subject that's near and dear

to her heart, and one in which she expresses some genuine concern and

enthusiasm.

First of all, with respect to the calendar that

the House was advised of, the member has the dates correct, but makes a

quantum leap in suggesting that something will happen in August,

without advising the House that this is only May 13, and that there's a

critical date, June 24, on which bids close. Do you have that part of

your calendar? You didn't tell the House that bids close on June 24,

and you are all aware that today is May 13. You see, we will have to

have a buyer on the day the bids close before we can anticipate

anything else happening after that. That's the way any offer for sale

works.

On the presumption that there is a buyer on June 24,

the day the bids close, and that the buyer is acceptable to the

province of British Columbia, we will entertain privatization of the

lab process. However, let's not lose sight of the fact — and this is the

other item the member did not bring to the attention of the Legislative

Assembly — that we have a genuine concern with standards, which the

member mentioned. I can assure you that standards will not change. For

that reason, we have contracted by letter of May 4, 1988, with the B.C.

Research Council to do an audit process for us. B.C. Research will add

eight new jobs for chemical analysis and technicians. They will have a

responsibility to collect fees for doing tests; they will establish a

users' committee; they will report all audit results to the Ministry of

Environment monthly; they will acquire equipment from the current

Environmental Lab; they will carry out an efficient and secure audit

program on behalf of the ministry, the government of British Columbia

and the people of British Columbia. They assure us — and they are the

experts in the field — that the concerns expressed by citizens of

British Columbia and those concerned with what we do in the Ministry of

Environment will be of prime concern to B.C. Research, in whom I have

eminent trust.

So I can't accept the notion or any argument

that we do not have a first line of defence, that we will be changing

standards, and that private industry will run amok. What we have heard

here is an opinion from the New Democratic Party that the private

sector cannot be trusted, or in some way are faulted in doing what

they're doing. Their degrees — their chemistry and biology degrees,

their technical diplomas — are just as good whether they are working for

the BCGEU or whether they're not working for the BCGEU. They have had

the same standards of training, and even if they are employed by that

nasty private sector, we're sure they'll carry out their duties to the

best of their ability.

You don't understand the audit

process either. I've explained to you that B.C. Research is in place.

Now you're not criticizing B.C. Research, are you? I don't think you'd

want to do that.

Let me summarize; I see the green light is

on. Standards do not change. Whether we have the private sector

testing, with audit done by B.C. Research, the standards remain the

same. Confidence will remain the same. Response to environmental

emergency, such as chemical or other events that have happened in the

last year, will remain the same. The member's third comment was again

to do with standards. The member didn't say what number four was, and

number five in her comments is again answered by the fact that we have

B.C. Research in place. I'm quite convinced that the program of audit

research that B.C. Research will carry out for and on behalf of the

people of British Columbia is sufficient and will do the job extremely

well. I'd also like to point out that the rule will be retained in the

Ministry of Environment of six full-time-equivalent people to interface

with B.C. Research and also with the Ministry of Environment and the

user group. Twelve FTEs will be established at B.C. Research to carry

on the extra audit testing that they're doing.

I have to

deny and reject out of hand any concerns that the member opposite has

expressed and assure you and the people of British Columbia that this

privatization, when and if it occurs, will occur without detriment to

the environment or the people of British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Once again the minister is doing everything he can to belittle the people's concerns. If the

[ Page 4464 ]

people

of this province do not have a concern, Mr. Minister, then make the

information available to them. Stop closeting the information would

allow the communities to understand whether or not you are indeed doing

your job. Provide the information for the testing for the waste

management permits so that we can measure, first of all, whether or not

this ministry is fulfilling its mandate with the resources that they

have.

I want to talk a little bit about the

responsibilities and finish up that area. In the southern interior of

this province, which is not particularly different than other areas,

the laboratories do the testing for water and effluent samples in the

lakes and the rivers. They provide this information and do testing for

agencies such as fish and wildlife, waste management, pesticide control

branches. All of that work is provided by the environmental lab of this

province.

I have here a memo, Mr. Minister, that was sent

out on May 6 — about the same time as the meeting at the Environmental

Lab — by Mr. Ferguson of the waste management

section of your ministry.

The subject is the restructuring, the privatization of the

Environmental Lab. I'd like to read to you one of the statements in his

memo: "As a result of this action, the capability of the Environmental

Laboratory to perform analytical services is expected to be reduced to

approximately 50 to 70 percent of current capacity. All ministry staff

are thus being requested to reduce monitoring activities requiring

analytical services to only essential requirements until approximately

October 1, 1988.

[11:15]

Is that

your direction to your ministry staff? Are you closing down your

responsibility to fulfill the mandate of protecting the environment,

peoples' health and safety and the communities of this province?

Your

record, Mr. Minister, is abysmal. You are fleeing your responsibility

faster than anyone in their broadest imagination could possibly

suggest. We are seeing here a dumping of the very tools that you have

to fulfill your mandate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 23: minister's office, $211,618.

MR. BARNES :

I am going to be very brief, and I'm sure the minister will appreciate

that. I just want to canvass a couple of points that were dealt with

very comprehensively by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) and of course by the debate leader. They have to do with some

comments made by the Premier. I know that when you mention the issue of

hungry children in the schools, the minister gets a little twitchy and

thinks that we are playing politics, but I just want to get some

clarification for the record.

The Premier has said that

kids go to school hungry because their parents don't love them enough.

They are lazing in bed when they should be up making their kids'

lunches. Could the minister indicate whether he really believes that is

the case, and even so, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of

what the Premier says or not, does he not agree that those youngsters

are nonetheless hungry? If they are hungry, does he not agree that

their ability to consume their educational experience is significantly

impaired? If he agrees that their ability is somehow impaired, does he

feel that it makes sense, under the present formula through his

ministry, to provide funds to our school system for students who are

not going to be able to benefit from that experience to the best of

their ability?

I put it to you in the form of a problem

that I would think you and the Minister of Social Services and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) would be concerned about. Sure, there is an

ideological or political problem in how to resolve the question of

inadequate sustenance and incomes in families. It is a problem that we

have been wrestling with for years and will obviously not be resolving

today. But there is a fallout, regardless of our ideological and

political differences, which is simply that right, wrong, indifferent

or otherwise, the youngsters who are hungry remain hungry and therefore

are going to school and sitting in class unable to function and absorb

the experience and to participate to the best of their ability. There

are always exceptions, and I am sure there are youngsters who are

managing one way or another.

To give you just a brief

example of what some people are trying to do about the problem, on

Wednesday morning of this week I attended a program at the Kiwassa

Neighbourhood House in the east end of Vancouver, just around the comer

from Seymour Elementary School. There were some 20 youngsters there who

are charged 25 cents for a breakfast, which is hardly an attempt to

recover the costs for the breakfast, but nonetheless, if they have it,

they are asked to pay 25 cents. That is a direct attempt to deal with

the problem and forget about the politics or trying to shift the

responsibility. As a result, those youngsters are going to school,

participating in the programs and not having to be exposed or subjected

to a means test or anything else. The food is there. They go and they

take it in.

That is a sensible solution, not an ideal one.

The ideal solution would be that there were no dysfunctional families

and that everyone was equipped with the ability to manage their affairs

frugally, responsibly and in the ways in which we would like to see all

of our consumers out there managing so that the whole system would work

much better.

Unfortunately, with the pressures of life, the

tug-of-war that is involved, the temptations, the ups and downs, the

emotions, the challenges and the impulsive things that can happen, it's

not that simple to go from day to day over a 30 day period and be able

to predict that everything will turn out the way you start. We know,

through test after test and example after example, that our social

assistance program is not even an attempt to address the problems.

We've agreed that it is not adequate. We know that it's not adequate.

know, for instance, that the amount of money that we provide for a

single mother with a child would require at the very best an absolute

capacity to manage those affairs under the most ideal of conditions.

There would have to be the proper social housing available at the right

price. There would have to be a certain percentage, without fail, of

the income, like 25 percent of the income. There would have to be

amenities in the community so that there wouldn't be the expenses of

transportation. For instance, a person would have to be able to go and

shop at one of those economy stores and not at one of those 24-hour

joints that charge you twice as

[ Page 4465 ]

much

for a carton of milk than you would pay in a supermarket. These kinds

of things are important when you are trying to work out that equation.

A lot of those people in the downtown east side don't have that.

I'm

saying that it's a problem that is complex — and you're quite right

when you say that there are politics involved in this issue of feeding

hungry children. Why don't we expand the issue and really take a look

at what we're talking about? I agree that there is a problem of

management, but I suspect that even though there may be cases where the

Premier could maybe win a round or two, he would lose just as many. The

suggestion that 80 percent or 85 percent of the people who are on

social assistance are managing has never been proven. What we're doing

is assuming, because those people keep their mouths shut, don't

protest, don't write letters to the politicians and are too proud to go

public, that everything is being managed. We have no idea about what is

really happening unless we ask them.

I would suggest that

maybe what the minister should do in a ministerial initiative is say:

"Look, let's do a questionnaire." We do polls all the time to see

whether we are making right decisions politically. Why don't we inquire

into those homes and drop them a simple questionnaire? "How are you

managing? Are you having shortfalls? What do you do to supplement your

income? Are you having to commit what we call 'survival fraud' in order

to make ends meet? In other words, are you getting $50 or $100 that

you're not reporting to your worker?" This kind of thing.

think that these are the stories that we don't hear about, and this

is probably one of the reasons why there's a much greater loss to us

than we see on the surface. I'm sure that you realize that even though

we feed these children — and it has been suggested that you feed them

five days a week when they're at school — what happens to them on

Saturday and Sunday? What happens to them when school is out for the

term at the end of June, in July and August and until the first of

September? These are the problems and we all know they're there.

It's

not as though you're losing a political fight in terms of what the

solution is. The point is, let's address the problem seriously and

realize that the hungry children should be fed by whatever means.

That's our duty. Otherwise the public school system is at risk. We know

we're failing. We're spending tax dollars that are being spent in a way

that we know is not going to be effective. You agree with the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) in his very effective

description of what happens to a person who does not receive adequate

nutrients and who is not fulfilled in terms of the health facilities

needed to function. So we know that they are impaired in some way, and

all I'm saying is: what are you really going to do about this? It's a

problem that is only partially political. It's a human problem.

listened to what the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

said yesterday when he was talking about the youngsters who were

getting out of the school system and going for a walk. They just know

that it's not the way it should be; we know it's not the way it should

be. You even agreed with the minister that he was making some good

points, and that there was a lot of flexibility in the system, room for

creativity and room to expand their imagination and to take some

initiative and do some things.

I am challenging you in a

constructive way to assist by confirming that this problem is not being

looked at in the way it should be. In the meantime, the children are

hungry and should be fed. It's a joint responsibility not only of those

families, but — where they fail — of the community in general and

certainly by the various levels of government. We shouldn't turn our

backs on these children. We are doing even more for children in foreign

lands than we are doing for children at home. I don't think there is

any excuse for it, notwithstanding the ideological differences that we

try to hide behind from to time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his comments and his concern.

First of all, I believe he asked me to comment on what the Premier

said. I don't know what the Premier said. All I know is what the press

has reported the Premier said, and I have a little reticence about

accepting the exact wording of that.

Let me point out

something in the Province this morning as an example of why I have some

cynicism about that. It's by a staff reporter, so this objective

reporter is not even identified. It says: "It's okay for the Social

Credit government to send propaganda to B.C. teachers, but it's wrong

for the teachers' union to do so. That's the position of Education

Minister Tony Brummet, who yesterday charged that curriculum material

sent to teachers by the B.C. Teachers' Federation is 'propaganda."' I

did not say that.

I said that they have no right to pretend

that it's authentic material that the teachers have been told to do as

lessons in the classroom. The BCTF or anybody can send any propaganda

of any kind that they want to the teachers, but you see how that's

translated. It goes on to say: "Brummet defended Premier Bill Vander

Zalm's right to send teachers material on the Socreds' privatization

plan and to ask for their help in explaining the scheme to students."

That was specifically not in the letter.

The next editorial

will attack me for saying something that I didn't say. I don't know

whether they're doing the same thing to the Premier. I might give

another example of balanced reporting. Yesterday I thought I had a

fairly good debate with the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota). There is a lengthy report today, again by the Times-Colonist

staff, that goes on one full page about what the complaints were, what

they said and what the school board chairman said.

got

some coverage in this. I tried to explain a lot of that, but it said:

"Brummet said teachers' salaries had, in fact, been taken into

account." It's the only mention I get, of all the explanations that I

gave. I

guess that's considered balanced reporting. I have a little trouble

with that.

To the issue that the member raised, the matter

of hungry kids, I acknowledged yesterday that children do not learn as

well when they are hungry. I acknowledged that quite openly and will

continue to do so. We are concerned about that. The government has a

program in place to help them. It's run through Social Services and

Housing. The Vancouver School Board refuses to use that program. They

say: "We are not going to tell Social Services which children need this

help."

[11:30]

MR. BARNES : You don't think they've got a valid point?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

No, I don't. It's built around the cynicism that the Social Services

and Housing people will publish that list in the paper. They work with

confidential issues all the time.

[ Page 4466 ]

other words, there is a program that says: "Let us know who the

problems are, and we will do the best we can to deal with them." The

school board says: "No way. We've got an item going here."

Let

me put it this way. The Vancouver School District says they are not

playing politics with this, and that they're concerned about the

children.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Right. But let me put it another way. They say the fiscal framework

isn't adequate to fund the educational measures, so they have

absolutely no reservations about going to their taxpayers for $18

million, because they say that's the inadequacy of the fiscal

framework. I don't agree with them, but they say that. They go to their

taxpayers without a survey or anything for $18 million. They say nobody

is adequately feeding these kids.

But in that $18 million,

they can't incorporate $300,000 to feed the kids when they believe the

kids need feeding. I have some difficulty when they can add 50

teachers. They say: "You don't fund enough teachers." On an average

salary of $40,000 or more — with pensions and everything else — that's

$2 million. No problem. That's a decision they make at the board table,

because they would not get a lot of public sympathy in saying: "We are

adding 50 teachers at a cost of $2 million." It's no big deal; they

keep quiet about that. They just add it into the $18 million.

When

it comes to an emotional issue like hungry kids, then they turn around

and say: "In the $211 million budget that is there, in the $18 million

above that, we can't find $300,000 to feed kids because we believe in

that, so we will attack the provincial government because it's a nice

emotional issue."

The rest of the member's comments have

absolutely no relevancy to my ministry. You were talking about whether

Social Services should survey whether people can manage and that sort

of thing. That is properly the debate of Social Services and Housing. I

have said....

MR. BARNES : What about the students in your system? The students are being affected.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd ask the hon. members to speak one at a time and direct their remarks through the Chair.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Exactly, but if you want to draw that, that the students are being

affected, then how can a school district that says the students are

being adversely affected by not enough teachers, by not enough this, by

not enough that, and we are going to put $18 million above what the

ministry said we need into meeting those needs and doing that. When it

comes to feeding children, we believe also that that's inadequate, and

we want to feed them, but on this one, we can't find $300,000 out of

$18 million. This is one that we can view as a live issue and hand to

people to make a big political furor out of it."

That's

the point that I'm making — not that the children shouldn't be fed, not

that it isn't a concern, not that isn't that; but if they say they're

inadequate, why can they come up with $18 million for the other

inadequacies and make a political football out of this one?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Burnaby North.

MR. BARNES :

Unfortunately, I have an appointment, so I'm not going to be able to

stay here. You're going to get off the hook. But I'm going to leave you

with this thought: you never did say what happens to the children in

the meantime. In other words, you have these big groups....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, the Chair recognized the member for Burnaby North.

MR. BARNES : I beg your pardon? I'm not recognized?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARNES :

I just want to wind up by saying: what happens to the children who are

hungry? We've got these two big bodies, the Vancouver School Board, the

provincial government or any other large bodies out there debating. The

children are hungry. They cannot learn until their bellies are full.

Can't we have an interim system? Can't we stop our differences and our

arguments and ensure that they're fed? Why doesn't the government say,

look, this is totally against our policies and principles, but this is

even different from the adults in the food bank lineups. We're talking

about children. We're spending precious taxpayers' dollars to create a

situation where they can learn. We're letting them go in there, knowing

full well that they're hungry and not going to be able to learn. That's

irresponsible. That's all I'm saying. You must agree with that. While

we settle the debate, why not feed the children? What about a rescue

program? What about something temporary? We do it for all kinds of

things.

You can remember when the former Premier, Bill

Bennett, was pushing to finish the Coquihalla Highway. Remember all the

money he poured in there? He said: "I've got to have it finished." He

had an obsession. He found all kinds of dollars. Isn't it a shame that

we can't?

I agree with you. It's only a few hundred

thousand dollars. But I think it's a real tragedy in our time that we

can't get over our differences to feed those children, especially when

they are at risk. It's tough enough for them. We're letting them down.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't know whether it's been missed: that's exactly what I've been

saying, that it seems to be strictly a Vancouver issue. There may be

other hungry children out there, but they're not making an issue of it;

they're dealing with it. Maybe they're going to Social Services, maybe

they're.... This seems to be strictly a Vancouver issue. All I'm

saying is, by all means go ahead and feed the children.

MR. BARNES : But without the help of government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

They don't need our help for the other things, for up to $18 million.

So I'm saying, go ahead and feed the children and quit playing politics

with it.

MR. JONES : I find it difficult to switch

gears after that debate, but I think it's important that we move on to

canvass a few other areas under the Minister of Education's estimates.

I'd

like to go briefly to the topic of governance of education. It's a

critical issue in this province, and probably a much underrated topic,

one that we take for granted, one of the many issues in our society

that we cherish and we treasure, and because it's been in place for

such a long time, we tend to take the system for granted.

[ Page 4467 ]

I must confess to my personal biases in this regard, in that I served on

a school board for nine years and was chairman of the board for four

years. I notice the assistant deputy minister is here, and he shares

that experience as well.

I think the minister will see in a

few moments the reason for my raising this topic. It's a fear on my

part, and I think it's a fairly widespread fear in this province that

there is potential for a change in the governance of our education

system in this province. Let me give the minister a little bit of

background on this issue. It's a background that I'm sure he's aware

of, but I think it might be worthwhile for me to refresh his memory.

I'm

sure it goes further back than this, but I'll go back as far as 1979,

when the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is now the Premier of

this province, produced a paper called "Regional Government Reform." In

that paper the Premier recommended that regional districts be replaced

by counties. That paper said that "county boundaries would be

established to correspond to one or more school districts." This

"lends itself to consolidation of local, regional, school and hospital

functions."

You can imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the school

trustees around this province were very concerned by that paper. There

was a response to the minister of the day by the president of the B.C.

School Trustees at that time — a trustee colleague of mine, Gary Begin.

He said very clearly to the minister in his letter: "If it is not the

intent of your government to tamper with the established instruments of

school governance that have served B.C. well since 1872, please let it

be known." Very clearly, the trustees at that time were very concerned

about the directions in which the now Premier seemed intent on taking

this province. Their concern was stated in a 1982 BCSTA document. Their

concern was very clearly stated: that fully autonomous school boards

would be eliminated under a county system.

That's a little

bit of ancient history. Had that been the end of it, I would not be

standing in my place raising this issue. However, in September 1986 the

now Premier told the convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities in

Vernon that he strongly still favoured the county system and questioned

the idea that there be one educational policy for British Columbia.

Clearly what we've seen since that time, with the introduction of the

eight economic zones, is the precursor to the county system.

note that in the 1987 brief by the Minister of Education to the Royal

Commission on Education, which I've referred to before in these

debates, there was absolutely no mention of school trustees or of

school boards.

There was even one more recent statement by

the Premier. It was in a copy of the newsletter of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District at the end of last year: the

November-December 1987 issue. In that newsletter there was an interview

with the Premier. The Premier said very clearly in the article:

"Counties would assume more functions than are now held by regional

districts. I could see where in the future there is going to have to be

a greater awareness of the function of school boards and how they

operate locally and regionally, but counties could potentially

accomplish that." He also said: "There will be changes, particularly

in regard to the services provided and how they, the governing council

or board of directors, are selected."

The trustees are

still very concerned about this issue of the governance of education in

this province, a system which, as Gary Begin stated, has served this

province well for over a hundred years. The school trustees of the

province are so concerned that a major part of their submission to the

Royal Commission on Education talked about their concern with respect

to the county system of government.

If I could quote

briefly from their brief, they said: "Based on comments and initiatives

out of Victoria in recent months, it is clear that the provincial

government intends to look seriously at implementing a system of county

government in British Columbia." They also point out that "...discussions have been held recently with regional district

representatives about county government.

[11:45]

The

principle, the position, the vision that the now Premier had in 1979 is

well on its way. Clearly, the Premier has had no hesitation in

communicating his vision of the governance of school districts in this

province; he does not shy away from taking a position on this matter.

He does not try to divert or evade the issue. So I ask the Minister of

Education who, to his credit, has worked hard and spent a good deal of

time meeting with school boards when they've requested it and has often

served in an excellent capacity....

If the member for

Vancouver South would not be so rude as to walk in between the minister

and me, I would pose my question again. Does the Minister of Education

agree with the Premier of the province that we should consolidate

school, regional, hospital and other functions into one county system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I guess we're always dealing with the

interpretations that people put

on things. For instance, I don't know who my critic was quoting when he

said: "It is clear that the government intends to implement the county

system." That's somebody's opinion; I don't think it's clear at all. If

you recognize what has been happening in the new funding formula and

the new fiscal framework, we have said that the government will fund up

to this level. We'll approve the fiscal framework up to this level, and

school boards will be accountable to their local taxpayers for

expending above that. I think that's very indicative. In other words,

if we're going to be judged by someone else's

interpretation, that

makes it difficult for us. I would rather be judged by our actions.

When

the Premier was Minister of Municipal Affairs, he was a strong advocate

of the county system and he may still be. I don't think he should be

denied the right to state his views quite openly, which he is wont to

do. I think we need to be judged by our actions. The member also knows

— or should know, as he seems to be pretty good at getting letters —

that I have written countless letters to people who have asked this

question and have said that I do not see any advantages to the county

system. I've said that to the Premier.

I don't know what

will happen. I can't predict what decision might be made five years

down the road. I can tell the member quite clearly that I am not an

advocate of the county system. I have said that to the Premier, to

cabinet and to others. I don't even know that it's being discussed. It

almost seems in our discussions as if it's a dead issue. The only

people raising it are the opposition or other people who are speaking

out. They say that the regionalization and decentralization is clear

evidence that we intend to go to the county system. It isn't. That's

the label that you try to hang on it. We don't.

For instance, I wrote to Dr. Dante Lupini, president of the Association of B.C. School Superintendents, who raised

[ Page 4468 ]

this,

saying: "My God, is this the start of the county system?" I pointed out

to him that there is no intent to take over any of the functions of

existing government agencies in the region. The development region

exists to provide an opportunity for existing agencies to meet on a

regional basis and to make decisions or recommendations on how

available resources should be utilized. In my region, the school board

rep has joined our committee to express the concerns of education.

There's absolutely no intent to take over any functions of the school

boards — only to supplement them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The chirper may get his chance later on, if he can just resist and hang on for a little while.

don't know that the economic zones.... Indication has been made

clearly over and over again by us that we don't intend to take over any

local government functions. The only people saying that we are

intending to do so are the opposition critics, hoping that if they say

it often enough, maybe the public will believe there's some plot in

that direction. There isn't.

I happen to be one of the

ministers of state, and I would like, as far as I'm concerned, to allay

that member's fears about the county system. I can't find any good

evidence of how it will work better. I've looked at it and I'll admit

that I will take a look at anything proposed. I don't want it

translated that by looking into it I'm looking to implement it. I'm

not. In my analysis, I've found that I don't see any particular

advantages. I would hate to think — maybe I'm going too far here — that

somebody elected on a platform who wants better water and sewers makes

the educational decisions. I want the school boards dealing with

education. Does that help?

MR. JONES : I find that

very refreshing and I'm very much appreciative of the minister's

response, both its forthrightness and its — I think — correct position

in terms of education. I don't want to belabour that point.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : You agree with me?

MR. JONES :

One hundred percent, Mr. Minister. The only area where we disagree is

what I quoted from the B.C. School Trustees' Association's submission.

They suggest that there are moves going on, and I'm very pleased to see

you're on the correct side of this issue and that it is you and the

Premier who will be debating this. I wish you very well in that debate.

I'd

like to move on very briefly to an issue that has been canvassed in

this Legislature, but it's an important one that the minister has been

responsible for — it was certainly an important part of his annual

report — and that's in the area of the fund for excellence in

education. I think what's at issue here is in terms of a government

setting up a fund, and it's important in our democratic system that we

have these kinds of things. I'm sure there are important things that

funds can be set up for, certain one-time causes in, say, education

that can accomplish a good deal to the benefit of the young people of

this province.

However, I'm critical of the fund for

excellence in education because it was only used to a small degree for

the purpose for which it was intended. As the auditor-general pointed

out, it did not serve the major purpose of a fund in that the major

value of this kind of thing is for one-time initiatives — initiatives

that have a one-time cost rather than ongoing costs. I'm critical

because for that portion that did go for the purpose intended — setting

up computer labs and that kind of thing — I don't believe there was the

kind of coordination that I hope will be in place in the future. In

terms of the purchase of hardware and software and that kind of thing,

I hope the minister will assure me that there is the kind of

coordination that I read of in his recent initiatives.

One

of the most critical areas, as far as the fund goes, was he portion

that was spent. The promise to the people of British Columbia was some

$600 million in this fund. Although I don't have an accurate accounting — perhaps the minister will help me with this — I suggest that only

approximately half of that fund was spent. I would like to ask he

minister if he agrees with me that although the plan for the Excellence

in Education fund may have been a reasonable one because at the time we

needed an infusion of computer technology into our school system, the

fund was clearly mismanaged from beginning to end.

MR. R. FRASER :

I look forward to once again taking

part in this debate, especially

when we talk about the fund for excellence, a great fund which I had

some

part in as a member of this Legislative Assembly. Indeed, the

government of the day did suggest that the fund would in time total

some $600 million: $110 million the first year, approximately $200

million the second year and $300 million in the final year.

the member opposite knows, the fund for excellence has now been

withdrawn, but I note with some humour that the opposition was against

the establishment of the fund for excellence in 1986 and then in 1988

was against its withdrawal. Imagine that! What a flip, what a

turnaround. Didn't like it for openers, and then they liked it for

closers. It's really and truly amazing how they could flip the same

fund — be totally against establishing it and then totally against

removing it. You can't have consistency when you do that. I've listened

to all the debate that we've had day in and day out on this education

issue. What a great opportunity the opposition has had to grill the

minister unmercifully for days — practically this entire week — and in

my view they could have done it much more quickly and effectively than

they did.

I would like to talk about other things as well.

Burnout is not the word I want. I want to change the subject and talk

about the BCTF presentation which was raised by the minister and

defended by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), who said it was a

great submission and should be used in the schools. There are two

pieces to that document. One is a videotape, from the CLC essentially,

and the other is part of a program put together by the BCTF. I happened

to view the tape yesterday with some interest, and indeed it promoted

the idea of collective bargaining from the CLC's point of view.

don't have any problem with a union or a business or a government or an

opposition putting forward a point of view. Quite clearly, I don't

agree with everything in the tape, or the reasons that they give for

decisions that were taken by the government of John A. Macdonald, for

example. I doubt that unions were made legal because the Prime Minister

of the day wanted to embarrass a Leader of the Opposition. I suspect

his reasons were more profound than that. That is the reason given in

the tape.

I have no problem with the idea that trade unions should be promoting trade unionism. It would be illogical, from my

[ Page 4469 ]

point

of view, if they failed to do that — just as businesses would promote

their product, and the opposition will try to promote something, I

hope, and government promotes its programs. That's not illogical. I

would have very little difficulty with that tape going into the school.

the other hand, the part of that submission to the schools put together

by the BCTF was embarrassing — not to me, but it should be to them.

With all the opportunity and all the money they have to produce

something really good to promote the BCTF, which has a long history,

they should change directions over the years. That's not serious

either. They are allowed to change; the members are allowed to change

the direction of the group of which they form a part. They have this

great opportunity and all sorts of money — 28,000 people paying between

$50 and $100 a month, an income of $14 million or $15 million a year.

They have such a great chance to put together a project that would be

acceptable in the schools. But some of it is so bad and so unrealistic

that it destroys the good parts, because they've become illogical. It's

unacceptable because of the bad parts of the presentation by the BCTF. I

found it very disappointing. Because teachers as a group are all

educated, probably all went to university, many of them have

post-graduate degrees.... It's discouraging for a person like me to

think that 28,000 people paying hundreds of dollars a year in dues,

being able to hire the best in the country to produce a submission,

produced something that really will, in time, be embarrassing to them,

if indeed it isn't already.

I had the chance to watch the

news last night and watch the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes) and the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari)

tell all the students who came out here that B.C. was the bottom of

everything.

MR. S.D. SMITH : Who did that?

MR. R. FRASER :

It was really the second member for Point Grey who said: "B.C.'s the

bottom of this and the bottom of that in education." It isn't true.

MR. JONES :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the first member for

Vancouver South is into the postsecondary estimates, and I thought we

were on the Education estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you for the point of order. I would ask the member for Vancouver South to continue on vote 23.

[12:00]

MR. R. FRASER :

It always seemed to me that the two were connected somehow; there

didn't seem to be a big gap between education and post-secondary or

advanced education — whatever title you happen to put on it.

was using that discussion point, Mr. Chairman, to tell you that if

you're going to attack the minister or the government or whatever you

intend to do with the program, then all parts of the program you

present have to be good enough so they can't be picked off by some

little detail. B.C. is not the bottom of education; B.C. has got a good

education system. The minister himself has said our students are doing

very well compared with the students in the rest of the country. The

proof seems to be in the capacity of the students.

The

arguments we've had all week long lack substance. The member for

Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) said at the end of page 9: "What special

student groups will be addressed?" The minister was not specific,

because the report to the royal commission said we will try to help

students with special needs, whatever that group happens to be. He

was left open so that whatever group was having more difficulty than

they should have could be given some help.

AN HON. MEMBER : Sounds logical.

MR. R. FRASER : Sounds logical to me. How else would you do it?

picked away at words, and tried to dig in somehow, as if there was

something behind the words, when indeed, as I said and will repeat, if

the Minister of Education can't take a leadership role in the province,

then who can? And this minister has.

If you're going to

attack the government or its policies day in, day out, then at least

get something of substance. You seem to go for content. You're so

worried about the fact that we want to educate or should educate our

children in rooms. We're not talking about rooms; we're talking about

minds. We're talking about giving the kids in the province of British

Columbia a chance to learn. It doesn't matter whether it's over the

radio or through satellite or through home education or through the

schools. It doesn't matter whether the teacher is a female or a male.

It doesn't really matter if the class is big or small, as long as we do

our very best to make sure that students have the best opportunity that

we can provide for them on as individualized a basis as we can.

know the schools in Vancouver South, which I visit consistently, do a

good job, Mr. Minister. There are a number of superb teachers in the

riding of Vancouver South. The class sizes vary. There are classes with

as few as ten students and with as many as 37.

Obviously

some teachers are better at teaching large classes, and some are better

at teaching small classes. Some students do better in small classes;

some do better in large classes. If you want to talk about stretching

the mind and the opportunity for education, then we want to talk about

flexibility — not little structures and little boxes. Flexibility. We

want to talk about opportunity. That's what this minister is providing,

and that's what I applaud.

MR. JONES : I very much

appreciate the serious comments of the first member for Vancouver

South, all very relevant to the topic we were discussing with respect

to the funds for excellence. I particularly appreciate his remarks with

respect to taking time in the Legislature and the importance of all

members — particularly the member for Vancouver South — to make a

serious contribution to this debate. I think we're all better for it.

would like to go back to the Minister of Education, because I know he

wanted to respond to my question with respect to the fund for

excellence. I did suggest to the minister that a small percentage of

that fund was not used for the purpose. It did not involve one-time

efforts; it was supposed to be a three-year plan, and it did not end up

to be a three-year plan. Many of the costs of that fund are ongoing

costs. The early expenditure of those funds, in terms of computer

hardware and software, were not coordinated.

A small

percentage of that fund was spent on the purposes intended. Does the

minister not agree that fund was mismanaged from beginning to end? Is

it not fair to say that the

[ Page 4470 ]

unexpended

portion of those funds are being used to fund the increases in

education funding in this year? Where did the money go if that's not

where it went? Finally, would the minister not see it as fruitful to

have a full accounting of that fund?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I will respond to the member for Vancouver South briefly and concisely.

I have to assume that any member of this House who speaks is serious

from their perspective, even if other members don't see it as serious

or relevant. I could make the same comment about anybody, including my

critic.

However, I can say we're not the highest spenders

on education in this country. Neither are we the lowest spenders, as

some people try to make out. I've said that I don't necessarily equate

high spending with quality. I can tell the member that as far as I'm

concerned, we have one of the best education systems in Canada.

The

member commented on the package sent out by the BCTF, and I think that

is unfortunate, because I've done an analysis of it. It is not

incidental, extraneous material that has been sent out. My concern — and the reason I made an issue of it publicly — is because in my

opinion it is a professionally designed, carefully orchestrated

indoctrination project. It basically deals in fairness and

professionalism of teachers, because it is being sold on the idea that

it is fair. Teachers, in my opinion and experience, all want to be

fair. We'll leave that.

Getting to the computer questions

or the funds for excellence that the member was asking about, I think

he asked if I agree that the fund was mismanaged. The answer is

absolutely no. The fund is fully accounted for in the government

records. I think the member is well aware that all funds have to be

accounted for. In this case, they're certainly accounted for. If the

member wants me to agree that the fund was not distributed as

originally intended, yes, I can agree with that. Of the $600 million

allotted, in my understanding, to the end of March 1988, $328.23

million was distributed from the fund. I imagine some of the ongoing

commitments are there yet. The Ministry of Education got $155.68

million from that fund. That was made up of operating contributions to

school districts of $85.86 million. I might point out here that a fair

amount of that went into the operating functions, because many

districts.... In a time when the government was running a deficit

of a billion dollars a year, school boards made the point that they

legitimately had to pay these operating expenses, so some of that money

was allocated to that. But a lot of that money was allocated to special

projects in school districts: $52.23 million.

Just this

morning I got a letter from a school superintendent that said: "I want

to thank you very much for the funds for excellence, because it helped

us to train many teachers on computers. It got us into the position

where we now have one computer for every ten students in our districts,

including elementary and secondary." That's what we've been able to do

with the fund. As far as saying that there are ongoing expenses from

that, that was a finite fund in the first place. It was carefully

announced that this was one-time funding for these projects and that if

you bought some computers or other things, the operation of that would

go into the operating fund.

So yes, some of that money has

gone into topping up education funding, but I can assure the member

that all of it has gone into education or post-secondary education. The

manner in which it has been distributed may have varied from the

original projections, but I would call that an adjustment to the needs

that were there rather than mismanagement. I can tell the member that

we've got $15 million for computers for next year. We've got Pacific

Rim initiatives, which are all programs, and all of those programs take

into account teacher-training software as well as hardware. The fact

that the fund was not administered to the end as originally planned is

correct, but the money all went into education.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Dewdney requests leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN :

It's a particular pleasure for the first member for Dewdney (Mr.

Pelton) and I this morning to welcome probably the most enthusiastic

group of students that ever visited the Legislature. There are 32

students, and they come from Mission Central Elementary School. They're

here with their teacher, Mr. Tom Watkinson, and three parents: Mrs.

Friesen, Mrs. Ball and Mr. Lloyd. These are grade 7 students. I'd like

you to give them a good round of applause, because they are really

impressed by being here and visiting Victoria for the first time.

MR. JONES :

I thank the minister for his forthright answer. We do differ on the

management of those funds. I think the auditor-general sides with me in

this debate. At the time the auditor-general reviewed the Ministry of

Education, he was under the assumption that the fund was going to be a

three-year plan. I intend to write the auditor-general in order to have

a full audit of the fund for excellence in education. We'll let the

auditor-general decide whether or not there was mismanagement of those

funds.

There are a couple of other minor questions with

respect to the auditor-general's report that I'm hoping we can deal

with very quickly. I wonder if the minister could make a very brief

comment on page 86 of the auditor-general's report. It's just of

general interest, but I would like a clarification, if possible. It's

at the very bottom of that page, and it suggests a role change in the

ministry moving from a mode of closely monitoring school district

activities and processes to one of monitoring results only. I think I

have some concerns about that role shift, but I'm not really clear on

what is meant by that suggestion. I would like the minister to

elaborate if possible.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I think I

can comment briefly that instead of the content of the course being the

program, we are looking toward the intended outcomes and objectives.

Then the course material can be more flexible. We are moving toward

looking at the intent, and whether the intended outcomes and objectives

are reached; in other words, results. I think we have moved in that

direction, with the new funding formula. We have brought it up to a

base level, and we have then indexed it for the future, and an index

will be applied. We're more concerned with the outcomes than the

apportionment or arrangement of that money.

[12:15]

So we're moving into flexibility, and we will have to.... I share

the member's concerns, because moving into the new area of measuring

outcomes in analytical skills and those sorts of things presents us

with quite a different and substantial problem than measuring how many

facts students

[ Page 4471 ]

learn — to use the extreme; it's easy to measure that. In terms of measuring

what they are achieving in special ed programs and that sort of thing — the end results — we're going to try and focus on that. We've got quite

a job ahead of us, and we need the cooperation of the school districts,

the teachers and everyone to say: "What are we going to end up

measuring, how are we going to measure it and will our measurements

actually do the job of measuring it correctly?"

MR. JONES :

I don't feel I am any clearer. I sense the minister shares my concern,

and I also sense it's the kind of debate the minister and I would like

to have. I think we'll have to forgo that one until a later date.

would like to ask a related question, again as part of the

auditor-general's report. The auditor-general expressed concern about

the government exams in this province, and in particular the portion of

those exams that are multiple-choice, that do not test the higher-level

skills of grade 12 students. I would like to ask the minister if he is

considering other avenues, because he suggests he is moving in the

direction of more direct assessment of student achievement. In that

assessment process, is he considering finding better ways to assess the

higher levels of learning of our students in this province? Will he

consider giving less weight to percentage marks because of the

complaints in the auditor-general's report about the influence on the

curriculum of heavy emphasis on grade 12 examinations?

believe that the comments in the auditor-general's report were that

these exams are narrowing the curriculum, and as a result of that

tremendous focus on the exam, important parts of the curriculum — I

suppose those that aren't easily tested by multiple-choice questions — are being ignored. I would like to ask the minister: is this process of

greater emphasis on assessment going to be finding ways of assessing

the higher levels of learning of students, and is he considering giving

less weight in terms of the school mark versus the government exam mark?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

You have to remember that the auditor-general's report was for a period

in time — basically on last year's operation. Since then, the ministry

has moved dramatically to new assessment procedures, to look at the

whole examination structure, to try to develop and test, if you like,

the new ways of assessment. There will always be assessment and

monitoring, but we want to make sure that we're monitoring the intended

outcomes rather than the covering of materials. So there is a

considerable program going on in the ministry since the report was in

effect finalized. The auditor-general, of course, got a little further

into the educational process than perhaps he should have.

MR. JONES :

I must apologize to the House, because I was listening to the

opposition House Leader. Very briefly, the question was: is there a

move towards testing higher-level skills and is there a consideration

of less waiting in government exams? I'm sorry, I missed the answer

from the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I

did say that we were going to move towards that emphasis right now. In

order to test the higher-level skills, we have to try and define them

and any intended outcome — what our target is, in effect — and then

we've got to look at how you assess whether you've arrived at that

target. So the higher-level skills and that.... Our emphasis right

now is trying to develop the measurement tools, the assessment tools,

to see whether the program works and how students are achieving that.

I'm

sure that there will be dramatic changes in the future. I don't know

what the royal commission report will recommend in that respect, but

we'll certainly put that into the whole pot. Education is changing, the

type of testing is changing. and we'll have to have a cooperative

effort on that, because we can't do it without what's happening out in

the field. So that's going to be very important.

MR. JONES :

The minister has indicated that he would like to move in that

direction. He certainly has my support in that. It sounds like that's a

very slow process. I think the students of this province would like to

see a faster response on the part of the minister to those concerns.

Very

briefly, I would like to move on to one small question to the minister

with respect to the voucher system. Some six or seven months ago the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) indicated that a committee is

examining the total education budget to determine if there are ways to

spend money more efficiently, without hurting the system. One of the

options that will be examined is the voucher system. In the last six or

seven months, has that task force or committee that was examining this

particular system of funding education reported, and is the minister

willing to make any comments on that report? I understand also that

this was a resolution at the Social Credit convention, so I'm sure the

minister has given some considerable thought to this matter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The task force did report to cabinet. They did look at the voucher

system, and I'm happy to say that they confirmed my views on it. I

don't think the voucher system is the way to go.

MR. JONES :

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think this is becoming a very nice end to

the week. There were some low points in this week in terms of debates

of the estimates, but I'm very pleased with those forthright responses

of the minister, and very pleased to see that he understands the

importance of the preservation of our public school system and agrees

with me that that particular system would create real damage to our

public school system either way.

Very quickly, also, on

computers. Clearly the minister has made some response in terms of the

continuing need for the provision to students of computer hardware and

software. I think the minister understands that computer competency is

becoming a very basic skill — not one that I possess, but in fact one

that I've studiously avoided. If we even look around our own offices,

we see the growing influence of computers in society. The minister and

the government often talk about competing in the provincial, national

and international marketplace, and I think those skills are a good

illustration of the things that we have to equip our students with if

we are going to compete in the twenty-first century.

asked the minister last year, and I think the question stands, because

he did not respond last year. I know the minister does not like

interprovincial comparisons, but I think it's important for the people

of this province to have some understanding of how we stand relative to

other provinces in the provision of computer hardware. I think we were

slow in getting started on this program. Last year I indicated that in

1985 we were very far behind Alberta. We had some

[ Page 4472 ]

5,000 microcomputers while Alberta, with a much smaller student

population, had over three times as many. That was three years ago. The

funds for Excellence in Education were geared at filling that gap.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out to the Minister of Education, those

funds were not used for the purpose intended.

I want to

know from the minister where he sees us today in terms of the provision

of microcomputers for the students of this province and where he

expects us to go in the future. We've certainly had very little

information. The press releases that I get from the minister talk about

multi-year programs with no clear explanation of what those programs

will be.

The former Minister of Education established the

Provincial Advisory Committee on Computers, and that was the kind of

committee that I think all members in this House would be very proud

of: a broad spectrum of people from the education community, business

and labour — a blue-ribbon committee, in fact. That committee

recommended the purchasing of an average of 6,000 microcomputer

systems per year for a five-year period, which is a total of 30,000

computers. That would be roughly one computer for every 16 students,

and if we add in those we already have in the system, it would lower it

to roughly one for every 12 students in the entire school system.

The

advisory committee, in terms of interprovincial comparisons, pointed

out to the minister that

whereas their recommendations would put us at

a point of having one computer for every 12 students, the Alberta

proposal was to have one for every eight students, and that was a 1985

goal. They still haven't achieved it, but as I pointed out, Alberta was

far, far ahead of us in 1985, and I would expect that to be so today.

That same advisory committee report pointed out to the minister that

Ottawa's goal, as compared to one to 12 for us, was one to seven to be

achieved by 1990.

That advisory committee recommended to

the minister.... Let's understand that this is an advisory committee.

These were not a lot of pie-in-the-sky people. There were ministry

officials on that committee. They understood the politics of education

in British Columbia. They came in with their recommendation, their very

lowest figure, and I think you see that by the numbers one to 12 as

compared to one to seven and one to eight. That was the minimum. They

would have loved to have recommended to the government a much higher

figure. This was a realistic estimate that the committee felt this

government would find acceptance with. They reduced what they really

would have liked to recommend according to the reality of what they

felt the political climate to be.

I'm suggesting to the

minister that what we're doing.... I recognize the efforts of the

minister and the $11.7 million for computers is not to be sneezed at;

I'm not saying that. The minister accuses me of suggesting evil motives

on the part of the government. What I'm suggesting for our children,

for the future, is that we should be doing better. The advisory

committee recommends to the minister that we should be doing better — $11.7 million is not to be sneezed at, but the recommendation was

double that. The recommendation was an annual cost of $25 million for

five years. A real multi-year plan with the details spelled out — that's

what the advisory committee said.

I'm suggesting that we

are shortchanging the students of this province in terms of the

provision of computers. I would like to ask the minister how he intends

to respond to the recommendation on provision of computers and the

other 31 recommendations of the Provincial Advisory Committee on

Computers.

[12:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I'll respond as briefly as I can. I don't think that in this province

we were slow in getting off the mark. We were one of the first

provinces to put in a pilot program to test the use of computers in the

schools, and then I guess we can be blamed for waiting to get some

results from that pilot program. There was a period of time when we

weren't adding computers to the schools very carefully. If you take the

fund for excellence, I know that $20 million went into getting

computers in the schools — $15 million for computer initiatives, with

this multi-year program we put in.

Quite frankly, I don't

know how many computers are in the schools right now or what the ratio

is. That is not incompetence or mismanagement on the part of this

ministry; it's just that computers are going into the schools so

quickly that any month that you take a survey, you'd be out the next

month. I know that a lot of computers have gone in. I mentioned earlier

that one of the districts was already at one to ten; now we've given

them extra money. We've given them the money for another 48 computers

in that district this year, and if we can get a cost, it might be 50 or

60 computers, and they're already at one to ten.

One of the

other reasons I don't really know is that as new schools or additions

are built, there is a funding allotment for equipment. It's fairly

generous. Besides all we've been doing, there's been a lot of money

going into computer funds. The provincial advisory committee advocated

$25 million per year. That included networking systems and all sorts of

things to bring us into the computer age. I think that even with the

technology in computers changing, maybe moving a little slower isn't

all bad. When you get into tough times, and you get $15 million out of

a recommended $25 million, that isn't bad.

The member says

$11.6 million. But this year, we are setting up a computer centre for

analysis along with PEMC, and the rest of the money is going into the

district. We're setting up computer centres throughout the regions — we're talking about educational regions of the province now — and all

of those things plus the computer training. With that money and a

commitment that we're going to do this for five years, I would think

that by the time this program is in place, it wouldn't surprise me if

we have one computer for every five students in the school system.

I'm

going to try, for my satisfaction and the member's satisfaction, to

pick a point at the end of the school year. If I find how many

computers there are in your district in June, and then they order a

bunch of computers out of this new money for September.... Maybe I

could find out in June, and then I could interpolate with how many

computers have been added. I would really like to do a survey and find

out how many computers they have and how many pupils they have, and I

can do the arithmetic from there. I'm sure that all of us can.

I'm

delighted with what we are doing. I'm certainly delighted with what

school districts have done out of their budgets and out of the

equipment allotment for new schools and additions, when there's always

a percentage. They've added a lot of those. Yes, it would be nice to

find out just where we are. I don't think we're behind other provinces.

I indicated that in Ontario they are targeting about $10 million

[ Page 4473 ]

per

year for three years for a school population 3.5 times ours. I think we

have every right to hold up our heads with this computer program we've

got in here.

MR. JONES : I'm delighted at the efforts

we're making, too. I'm suggesting to the minister that the contribution

the province is making is half the bottom-line recommendation of the

committee. I also mentioned other statistics from Alberta and Ottawa

that would indicate we are behind. We were behind in '85, and I'm

suggesting that, despite the good efforts of the Minister of Education

and an important $11.7 million contribution to the school districts,

we're still falling far short. I'm afraid that's what the figures at

the end of June will show. I know the minister doesn't want to do it,

but I'll be very pleased if he does that kind of reporting, which I

think is important to the Legislature.

I'd like to raise

one further issue — I think we have a few minutes left. It's one of

many that I wish we had more time to raise, but I think it is a

significant one. The minister is well aware of his important

responsibility for the public assets we have in terms of the 1,500

school buildings in this province and the tremendous investment the

public has — some $4.8 billion worth of facilities that it's very

important not only to preserve but to add to when necessary, when we

have shifting populations and schoolchildren who, unfortunately, have

to travel distances that are often difficult for them. I think there is

an expectation on the part of the public that they have a neighbourhood

school. We see subdivisions going up. The member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) clearly pointed out the

problems in Surrey. I'm sure the members from Langley and Maple Ridge

have all experienced this kind of problem. Yesterday the minister,

through his government colleagues, announced considerable expenditure

in capital funding. The problem that I see.... I know the minister

doesn't want me to talk about the restraint years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Talk about anything you like. Quit accusing me of saying I don't want you to talk.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MR. JONES :

I apologize to the mercurial Minister of Education for suggesting

anything he would take offence at. I have no intention of doing that.

As I've explained many times to the minister, my job is to suggest to

the minister areas that he can work on. I'm trying to help him do his

job. One of the areas where I can help him do his job is to have him

look at the kind of capital financing that we had in the early

eighties. For example, my figures suggest that in the 1981-82 school

year the contribution to capital funding was $218 million. That was

some ten times greater than what we saw in 1983-84 — so

two years later

we see one-tenth of the contribution to capital financing of school

districts in this province. I fully believe that the minister agrees

with me that those levels in '81-82 and '82-83, where we had $145

million contributed to the capital funding of schools in this province,

or in other words, in those two years an average of $180 million....

The following year it dipped so low, it dipped to one-tenth of what

it was two years earlier.

The minister understands the

principle that either you pay a little now or you pay a lot later, and

I think that's the situation we are facing in British Columbia now. We

have a tremendous backlog. I can't prove my figures, but I suggest to

the minister that it would take something like $175 million every year

for five years in order to keep up with the tremendous backlog in terms

of capital construction and maintenance of our school buildings, which

is an investment in the capital assets of this province.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The

minister in this year has announced some $53 million, and I applaud

that. That's important. All I'm suggesting is that it is insufficient

compared to what we had in 1981-82 and '82-83. What the minister has

promised next year is much better, and I applaud him for that. Next

year the promise of $118 million is more like the investment in those

capital assets for the children of this province that we need to make.

I encourage the minister as far as he has gone, but I am suggesting

that the tremendous backlog that we saw during the restraint years has

created an inadequacy and real problems down the road. I know the

minister understands that in terms of those capital assets to the

province we either pay now — which we didn't do in the mid-eighties — or we pay a lot more later. I'm sure the minister would want to respond

to that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I thank the member very

much for clarifying his position. I think he agrees with me that we

have made great strides in moving up the funding for capital. If you

take the minor, the major and what's been put into the budget — $132

million this year besides the $53.9 million — I have been able to

convince the government to commit to $118 million next year. I

announced those totals earlier. What we did this week was announce

which projects have been approved in planning for the $118 million next

year.

The member says we're making progress. I agree. I

think we're making tremendous progress. But the member wants to focus

on 1985 — the low year — and keeps bringing that up. I don't know how

far you want to go back. The big money was going into school

construction during the boom period when our population and the

enrolment were growing; then there was a population decline. Surely

that member isn't going to suggest that we should keep building schools

when we're closing some because of a population decline.

recognize the inadequacies, and the argument I've used is that we've

gotten behind. That's why I got $50 million last year, $55 million this

year — we stole some of that and that's why it went down to $53.9

million — and $118 million for next year. In the ministry we have

developed a five-year plan to get us up to scratch. For instance, of

the projects that were approved, about half of the approvals in

construction have gone to Surrey because that's a growing district and

a large district.

MR. JONES : The minister doesn't

take my word for it, but I know he takes the auditor-general's word for

it. The auditor-general indicates that the schools are not being

maintained, and that major fluctuations in the approval of capital

amounts are the major cause of the problem with respect to maintenance.

It's

been a very instructive week, Mr. Chairman. I think I've learned a

great deal from my colleagues the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley

(Ms. Smallwood), the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) and all the

other colleagues that have made an important contribution to this

debate. I've learned something from the Minister of Education and even

[ Page 4474 ]

from

his colleagues opposite. I understand the difficulty of the role of the

Minister of Education, particularly when it comes to funding. My major

responsibility, I think, is to encourage that minister.

could have some debate. I know the minister often responds with: "Where

is the money to come from?" I'd like to have that debate with the

minister sometime, because I'm suggesting.... We'll find out after

the next election when we see tax reform in this province that will

free some funds for the proper funding of education in this province.

This

week we've heard some lengthy debate on education; and on occasion,

particularly today, we saw a minister that I think was open, responsive

and concerned. That's very much appreciated by this side of the House.

Unfortunately, at the same time, often we saw the problems that the

Minister of Education faces in solving some of the serious problems.

I'm not going to suggest that that's a result of a lack of leadership,

because I know the minister is a very hard-working minister, and it's

not an easy job. As the minister describes it, he doesn't make it a

very attractive job, actually. I know the tremendous problems faced in

the Ministry of Education.

Unfortunately, we spent a lot of

time in this Legislature this week where, I suggest, the minister was

being defensive and evasive. Very clearly, just like we saw the Premier

the other day when he had a chance to say, "Well, what I really meant

to say the other day was this," instead he resorted to a dic