2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Procurement Services Act (Bill 23)

Hon. S. Santori

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Journée Internationale de la Francophonie

R. Stewart

NoRooz celebration

R. Sultan

AMBER alert system

B. Penner

Oral Questions

Eligibility review for disability benefits

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

B.C. Hydro agreement with Accenture

P. Nettleton

Hon. R. Neufeld

Seniors facilities and non-profit sector

W. Cobb

Hon. K. Whittred

Early childhood development

S. Orr

Hon. L. Reid

Eligibility review for disability benefits

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

Petitions

J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents

Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual

report for year ending March 31, 2002

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

V. Anderson

Hon. C. Clark

J. MacPhail

B. Suffredine

R. Nijjar

I. Chong

R. Hawes

[ Page 5505 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: I am pleased to welcome to this chamber the Hon. Stéphane

Dion, president of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental

week to talk about the new federal action plan for official languages that was

announced yesterday in Ottawa by the Prime Minister and Minister Dion. We look

forward to expanding the Canada–B.C. partnership with services to the

francophone community and French-language programs in British Columbia.

He is

accompanied in the gallery by three staff members: Robert Asselin, Dan Hurly and

Anne Scotten. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. S.

Hagen: Today in the members' gallery we have special guests from New

Zealand. His Excellency Wade Armstrong is the high commissioner for New Zealand

to Canada, and he is accompanied by Tony O'Brien, consul general of New Zealand

at Vancouver. High Commissioner Armstrong will be leaving Canada shortly, and he

is visiting Victoria to make some goodbye calls. We wish him well. Would you

please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to introduce several members of B.C.'s

francophone community, who joined us in the legislative rotunda this afternoon

for a celebration of the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. I'm pleased

to introduce M. Claude Provencher, the president, and Yseult Friolet, executive

director, of Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Jean-Yves

Defay, the consul general for France; Christopher Natuik from Heritage Canada;

Diane Tremblay from Societé francophone de Victoria; Chantal Lefebvre from

Regroupment des gens d'affaires de Victoria; Vincent Portal from Societé de

developpement économique; Andrée Chenier et Paulette Bouffard from Éducacentre;

and Nancy Taylor from Canadian Parents for French. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Also, it's

my pleasure, on behalf of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, to introduce the

choir from l'École Brodeur in his riding. L'École Brodeur choir was able to

sing some songs for us in celebration of the francophone community. Joining the

students are Danielle Dupuis, Josee Paris, Jacques Gareau, Gisele Samson, Sandy

Gaudet and Bertrand Dupin as well as Alain Robert. Je demande à l'Assemblie de

les accueillir chaleureusement. Would the House please make them welcome.

Sultan: In the House today are the grade 5 students from Holy Trinity School

in North Vancouver, led by their teacher Ms. Iacus and guided by principal Chris

Sumner, parish priest Terry Larkin and parents who dig deep into their pockets

to support this fine institution. Holy Trinity is first and foremost a Catholic

school developing a full range of spiritual, intellectual, social and physical

skills. Would the House please make them welcome.

MacPhail: With us today in the gallery are teaching assistants from the

University of British Columbia. They're here to declare their respect for the

power of the Legislature: Alex Aylett, Carey Hill, Kevin Gould, Stacy Bulloch,

Meaghan Enright, Martin Duarte, Ben Friedland and Randal Clark. They're here to

show, actually, how upset they are with the most recent legislation. They only

took strike action as a last resort and would urge this government to take much

different action in terms of urging the employer to do the right thing and

bargain in good faith.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Genome B.C. is an organization that is part of the leading edge of

research in Canada in making sure B.C. takes its place in the forefront of

high-tech research and advanced research in Canada. I'm very pleased to welcome

today Allan Winter, the president, and Bruce Schmidt, the vice-president. I hope

the House will join me in welcoming them today.

MacKay: Today, visiting from the northwest, I have two guests from the Burns

Lake area and one from Prince George, I believe. I have Richard Peters, chief of

the Cheslatta band; Terry Kuzma from Prince George, who is the Cheslatta Forest

Products director; and James Rakoshy, who is the forest manager for Cheslatta

Forest Products. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1410]

Stewart: I would like to make a short tribute to the Pitt Meadows Secondary

School grade 8 basketball team, the Pitt Meadows Marauders. Under their coach

Jim Haworth and the mentorship of Rich Goulet, they managed to lose only one

game for them in their whole season. Fortunately, it wasn't in the finals

against the Delta Pacers, which they beat 54-52. I'm sure that as pleased as

Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are with the Pitt Meadows Marauders, Delta may be

feeling the pinch a bit, so my sympathies go out to them.

We all know

that all the great athletes come out to Maple Ridge. I won't bore the House and

make them jealous by listing them, but I would just like to ask the House to

join us today in giving this group of young gentlemen a well-earned round of

applause.

Harris: Somewhere up there today we're joined by a very good friend of mine

from Terrace: Frank Cutler. Frank is one of those breed of loggers that's been

around forever and does just a tremendous job of eking out a living in one of

the toughest forest districts in this province. It's really a pleasure for me to

have Frank

[ Page 5506 ]

down here today, and I would like the House to give him a really warm

welcome.

Hon. M.

Coell: I would like to welcome to the House three former members: Peter

Rolston, Art Cowie and Hugh Curtis. I've sort of followed Hugh Curtis for many

years as an alderman in Saanich, mayor in Saanich, chair of the capital regional

district and a minister of the government of B.C. I'm very pleased to welcome

them all here today and hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I had the great pleasure this morning of joining Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor in opening certainly the biggest and what I suspect will be

the most successful exhibition ever held at the Royal B.C. Museum: the Chinese

Dragon Bones exhibit. It is huge and it's spectacular, and I'm sure it's going

to be a great success.

I'm

delighted that there are so many kids in the gallery today because what I have

here — Mr. Speaker, with your generous dispensation — is a dinosaur

fingernail from approximately a hundred million years ago. It's slightly larger

than my own, as you may note. For kids of all ages, this show is going be

spectacular. British Columbians get to see, before anyone else in the western

world, these Chinese dinosaur treasures — some up to 250 million years old, if

you can imagine.

I'm also

advised that one of the three rarest fossils in the world is part of the show.

It's a dinosaur egg. No, it's not the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management. I take strong exception to that suggestion. It is in fact a dinosaur

egg, perfectly intact. It's a fascinating exhibit. I know it's one of the three

rarest fossils in the world, because I've been told that by one of the leading

experts in the world on dinosaur bones, or paleontology, Dr. Don Lessem, who is

in the gallery today. I do want to say that Don is not only one of the world's

leading authorities on dinosaurs, but I think he's also the world's funniest

leading authority on dinosaurs. Although, I guess I'd have to say that I've only

met one, but that doesn't necessarily diminish how funny he is.

While I'm

at it, could we all join together in a huge welcome for Dr. Don and wishing the

Royal B.C. Museum spectacular success on their very spectacular show.

Mr.

Speaker: It's apropos that this be followed by the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I sincerely hope he's funnier than the minister.

In the

gallery today is Wally Smith, who is the president of the B.C. Milk Producers

Association. Please make him welcome.

[1415]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I just wanted to point out to the House that Wally Smith is actually

one of my friends.

Mr.

Speaker: I also, hon. members, wanted to point out to the House that the

three former members who were introduced earlier are all members of the

Association of Former MLAs, and they wish me to remind some of you that you may

want to join their association at one time or another.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PROCUREMENT SERVICES ACT

Hon. S.

Santori presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Procurement Services Act.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move that Bill 23 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: Bill 23 introduces new procurement legislation to replace an

outdated Purchasing Commission Act in response to the new-era commitment to

promote fair and open procurement in government. The changes in the bill remove

a commission structure that has not functioned for many years. It removes or

replaces obsolete terminology and authorities, provides statutory authority for

acquisition and disposition activities on behalf of ministries and those public

sector agencies choosing to participate. It provides statutory authority to

recommend procurement practices, to support fair and open procurement in

government. It supports government's shared service initiative and supports

government's deregulation initiative.

I move that

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

sitting of the House.

Bill 23

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

Stewart: I'm pleased that the Speaker and many other members of this

Legislature were able to join in the celebration of Journée Internationale de

la Francophonie over the noonhour. As the MLA responsible for francophone

affairs in B.C., I want to thank the representatives of the francophone

community, the wonderful choir from L'École Brodeur and the many other

francophones and francophiles who came out for this joyous occasion.

Each year

we recognize the Journée de la Francophonie in honour of an international

agreement signed by francophone countries on March 20, 1970, in Nigeria. This

time of year is a opportunity to embrace the francophone culture and celebrate

diversity. For exam-

[ Page 5507 ]

ple, a few weeks ago I participated with the member for Nanaimo in the festival

de sucre d'érable in his community, and my family and I spent most of last

weekend celebrating the Festival du Bois in my community of Maillardville,

celebrating the richness of our heritage and culture.

Of course,

this week was designated as French Immersion Week in British Columbia.

Il me fait

grand plaisir d'annoncer la proclamation du 20 mars comme Journée de la

francophonie. Notre gouvernement travaille en étroite collaboration avec la

communauté francophone et le gouvernement fédéral pour mettre en place des

la justice et le développement économique. Aujourd'hui nous avons lancé une

page bilingue sur le site web du gouvernement pour faciliter l'accès à

[It

gives me great pleasure to announce the proclamation of March 20 as the Journée

de la Francophonie. Our government is working closely with the francophone

community and the federal government to offer quality public services in French,

particularly in key areas such as health, justice and economic development.

Today we launched a bilingual web page on the government web site to facilitate

access to information and services in French.]

[French

text and translation provided by R. Stewart.]

I want to

thank the francophone community and their regional and provincial associations

for their commitment to their language and culture and for working

constructively with this government to make services more accessible to all

British Columbians. I want to recognize my caucus and cabinet colleagues for

their support and thank my federal counterparts — especially Minister Dion,

who joins us in the House today — who have been working with us to provide

better services to B.C.'s francophones through our framework agreement.

There are

many celebrations taking place around the province. This week many members of

caucus were able to share poutine and tourtière. I ask you to join with your

francophone communities around the province this week. Merci.

[1420]

NOROOZ CELEBRATION

Sultan: I rise to ask this House to acknowledge NoRooz or new day, or the

first day of the new year, which our Iranian community will celebrate on March

21. NoRooz marks the spring equinox, when the sun is, shall we say, equally

north and south. It's an ancient celebration of the renewal of life. NoRooz has

its roots going back at least 3,000 years in the religions of ancient Persia.

It's been celebrated by Persian-speaking cultures from ancient Mesopotamia all

the way to Badakshann and Bokhara on the borders of China. Persian society has a

legitimate claim to having produced one of the world's first working democracies

and an ancient code that cherishes peace, justice and beauty, while regarding

all disorder and threats to life as evil.

Today the

Iranian Canadian community has a large and rapidly growing presence in British

Columbia. Our more than 30,000 citizens of Iranian background bring culture,

advanced education and superb business skills to many communities, particularly

those on the North Shore. We are pleased to join these remarkable people in the

celebration of NoRooz.

AMBER ALERT SYSTEM

Penner: Yesterday many of us rejoiced at news that 15-year-old Elizabeth

Smart of Utah had been found and reunited with her family nine months after

being abducted from her bedroom in Salt Lake City. This truly is wonderful news,

but sadly, it's not the usual outcome of this type of child abduction. According

to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, in 74 percent of abduction

homicides the child is killed within the first three hours.

I'm sure we

would all like to do more to protect our most precious resource, which isn't

oil. It's not gold; it's not even our forests. It is our children. Today

Elizabeth Smart's father challenged U.S. legislators to get on with implementing

a national AMBER alert plan, a voluntary partnership between law enforcement

agencies and the private sector. Following an agreed-upon protocol, police

quickly alert commercial radio and television outlets during the critical first

few moments following a child abduction to provide vital details. As of today,

39 states have announced intentions to adopt or already have adopted AMBER alert

plans, and a number of Canadian provinces have also announced such plans.

The systems

in the U.S. are credited with recovering 49 children so far, including a

high-profile case last August when two teenage girls were abducted in Orange

County in California. The girls were found about 12 hours later, just as it

appeared their abductor was getting ready to kill them.

With the

provincewide implementation of the new PRIME information-sharing system for

police in British Columbia, we will soon have a solid foundation for such an

AMBER alert plan here. A comprehensive AMBER alert plan in B.C. would provide

another tool for police by alerting the public and using their eyes and ears in

the search for missing children.

Beyond

PRIME and an AMBER alert plan for B.C., there's still more that can be done,

including tougher sentences for child abusers and an expansion of Canada's

federal DNA database for convicted criminals to give police additional

opportunities to catch and identify criminals before they strike again.

Let's be

thankful for the safe return of Elizabeth Smart, and let's all work to make our

province a safer place for children.

[ Page 5508 ]

Oral Questions

ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS

MacPhail: Earlier throughout this week, we've learned how this government is

attacking seniors who are poor, students who are poor and foster kids who are

poor. For days now, the Minister of Human Resources has given confused and

contradictory answers to some simple questions about the disability review. He

said the budget for the program has gone up this year. Wrong. It's being cut by

$4 million. He said 6,000 new British Columbians have the assistance that they

need. Wrong. His latest stats show, at best, a minor increase.

He said the

purpose of the disability review is not to take benefits away. Wrong again. The

opposition has obtained an internal ministry communications plan that I'll quote

from: "The ministry expects that about 9,130 disability 2 clients — 20

percent of the caseload — will not meet the new criteria." Will he now

come clean and admit that his plan all along was to kick people off disability

benefits to save money and keep his bonus?

[1425]

Hon. M.

Coell: The member knows that we changed the legislation last year, that 90

percent of the people who were on then disability 2 were moved directly into the

persons with disability, and there was no review necessary. She also knows that

14,000 needed reviews due to the lack of information on their files either

because of new eligibility requirements or because the old files had not been

updated for a long time.

I think the

member should also know there are only approximately 500 people left for us to

contact. We have contacted, and…. The rest of the review forms have been

received, are in doctors' offices or health assessors' offices or are on their

way in, so we have ample time for assessments to be done and further contact to

be made. I would also like to comment that 6,600 new applications have been

received. That's 6,600 people who believe the new designation fits their needs.

We also

have 3,200 more cases who are receiving disability assistance since we took

office. We've also increased from $200 to $400 the amount of dollars that people

with disabilities can earn and keep. We also have the third-highest rate of

disability assistance in Canada, and we've increased the disability employment

programs by $11 million.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Clearly, the minister spends too much time reading his own news

releases, but I'll tell you, the spin just doesn't fly. He has spent millions

forcing disabled people to go through this review…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …with one purpose in mind: to kick them off and cut costs so

that he can keep his bonus. It's all very well and good…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: …for the minister to try to spin backward when he gets caught

out, but the document proves exactly what they had in mind. Again to the

minister, a simple question: how many people does he expect will lose their

benefits to meet his budget targets?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think what the member fails to realize is that we're trying to

focus the moneys we have on those who are most in need. The disability caseload,

and she should know this from being minister, is fluid. There are people who

come on and go off every year. I think that at the end of this review….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. M.

Coell: At the end of this review process, I think you'll find there are

actually more people receiving disability assistance.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: It is incredible that this minister stands up and repeats

statistics and claims that because he says it, it's true. His own stats from his

ministry show he is not accurate. The budget has been cut, and there are a few

more who have been on DB-2. A political appointee in the public affairs writing

a communications plan doesn't just pick a number like 9,130 out of the air. A

political appointee doesn't say the caseload will be reduced by 20 percent.

It must

have been based on an analysis that the minister did to justify his cost-cutting

exercise. The minister should just tell the truth. He should admit what his own

documents reveal. From the start of this exercise, it was about kicking people

off benefits, but…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: …if the minister says that's not true….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please.

Would

the member please now put her question.

[ Page 5509 ]

MacPhail: Absolutely. If the minister says it's not true, is not accurate,

all he has to do is prove it. Table the documents he used to convince his

cabinet that they should spend $3 million to force disabled British Columbians

to submit to a review of the benefits. Will he table that document now?

Hon. M.

Coell: Right from the beginning, this member has just fearmongered….

MacPhail: Just show us the documents.

Hon. M.

Coell: Right from the beginning of this process, which is six months old

now, this member has fearmongered with her friends and has frightened people

with disabilities. I can tell you that at the end of this process, some people

will come on, and some people will go off. There will be more people receiving

disability assistance.

[1430]

B.C. HYDRO AGREEMENT WITH ACCENTURE

Nettleton: I have a question for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. To

the minister: I have made a formal request of the office of the auditor general

of British Columbia to investigate the nature and circumstances of the B.C.

government's recently signed contract between the private company Accenture and

B.C. Hydro. Minister, are you aware that people all across this province have

serious concerns about the deal B.C. Hydro and this government have made with

Accenture?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: B.C. Hydro has entered into an agreement to outsource some services

with a firm named Accenture British Columbia. This deal will save ratepayers of

British Columbia Hydro $250 million over the next five years. This contract will

guarantee that service levels will be no less than they are today and in fact

will get better in time. It is a new business in Vancouver that can secure other

business from around North America. This is a good deal for B.C. Hydro, and this

is a good deal for the ratepayers of British Columbia Hydro.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Prince George–Omineca has a supplementary

question.

Nettleton: Minister, are you then saying that the people of British Columbia

are happy that the government has handed over control of their public utility to

a private company named Accenture, which was called Anderson Consulting before

2001 — an American company which is blacklisted in California, registered in

the Bahamas to avoid paying taxes and is now registering in British Columbia? Is

your government now making B.C. a banana republic and a tax shelter for every

disreputable company that needs a place to hide and profit outside of their own

country's laws? Is that what this government means when it says B.C. is open for

business?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Well, as usual, this member is ill-informed. This company operates

in over 40 countries around the world. It operates in Canada, has a business

office in Canada and now has a head office in British Columbia where they will

pay British Columbia taxes, where they will be able to access $58 billion worth

of outsourcing in North America in the future, which will grow that business and

create jobs in British Columbia — private sector jobs. That's the kind of

investment we need in British Columbia.

I would say

to the member, who tries to talk about a company that's registered in Bermuda,

that he should look around a little bit and see how many companies are

registered in Bermuda. I mean, if you own Sun Life Assurance, which owns

Clarica…. Their head office is in Bermuda. Just because of that, this member

assails that company, but this is a good deal for British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

SENIORS FACILITIES

AND NON-PROFIT SECTOR

W. Cobb:

My question…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Could we have some order, please. The member for Cariboo South has

the floor.

W. Cobb:

…is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. For

years, non-profit societies around B.C. provided health care services for

seniors through community-owned facilities. Unfortunately, under the previous

NDP government and their no-direction-in-health-care, they expropriated many of

these facilities with little or no public consultation or compensation. Can the

minister tell my constituents if there's any hope that these facilities may be

returned to the societies that started them?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Our government values the extremely important role that non-profit

societies play, unlike the previous government, which was interested in taking

over their property. We have committed to building 5,000 beds with the

assistance of the non-profit sector.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1435]

Hon. K.

Whittred: That is the reason that one of the very first actions this

government took was to amend the Health Authorities Act to repeal the right of

health

[ Page 5510 ]

authorities to expropriate the property of societies. In specific answer to

the member's question, we have in fact developed a policy where both parties are

interested in transferring property from the health authority to the non-profit

society. We have developed a process to accommodate that end, and I would be

happy to work with the member in this process.

EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

S. Orr:

My question is to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. A

child's early years are critical to the course and outcome of their life. It has

been shown that children's development from birth to age six can affect their

schooling, their job choices and their lifelong health.

Can the

minister please tell us what her ministry is doing to ensure that our children

have the best possible start in life?

Hon. L.

Reid: I have the privileged position of having a Premier who's prepared to

go forth from the base of good science. Many of you will know that Dr. Clyde

Hertzman has come on to assist this province in driving better public policy

regarding the best learning for youngsters in our province.

The human

early learning partnership in British Columbia goes forward and involves…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. L.

Reid: …more than 100 university researchers today who are all about

discovering what, in fact, should be on the résumé of a typical five-year-old

when they cross the threshold into their first kindergarten classroom. That

work, the mapping work across our province, the EDI — early development

indicator — will drive the best public policy that, indeed, will guarantee a

very, very fine outcome for our youngest learners in British Columbia.

ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS

MacPhail: Back to the Minister of Human Resources. I guess he's trying to

deny this document. Maybe he'll try to deny this document, his own monthly

statistics from January 2003. At least a few British Columbians are being told

they get to keep their benefits, but thousands of others are being forced to

wait. His own ministry has acknowledged that. They have no idea what criteria

will be used to boot them off disability — a permanent designation, by the

way. The legislation doesn't tell them. The minister didn't tell them what the

criteria were in the debate in this Legislature. The minister certainly won't

come clean during question period.

So again to

the minister: what criteria are front-line workers using to determine who loses

their benefits, and will he table the manual that contains those criteria today?

Hon. M.

Coell: As the member knows, the review forms are filled out by clients,

medical doctors and health professionals. The individuals are adjudicated based

on that information. I think the member has to…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. M.

Coell: …go back a few years to when her own government was in. In 1991,

when unemployment rates were going down, what happened to the caseload for

people who were on temporary assistance? It doubled. The management of the

former government, without any studies, without any checks and balances, could

have built 12 fast ferries on the welfare experiment they used. This government

is working with people to make sure they find employment. This government is

working…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. M.

Coell: …with people to make sure they achieve their highest potential.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

MacPhail: I rise today to table a petition signed by 2,500 people living in

Salmon Arm who are opposed to the closure of Pioneer Lodge. They point out that

the health of 75 seniors is being threatened by forced relocation and that the

community is losing valuable long-term care beds.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present the twenty-sixth annual report of the

Public ServiceBenefit Plan Act, year ended March 31, 2002.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members

we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

[1440]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Long in the chair.

[ Page 5511 ]

The

committee met at 2:48 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 19:

ministry operations, $4,859,939,000 (continued).

Anderson: I'm looking at the minister's service plan. I'd like to ask for

clarification on some items, if I might. On page 15 of the service plan we talk

about surveys of students to understand where they are at in their development.

One of those surveys is the survey on social development, the percentage of

public school students that report overall satisfaction in human and social

development.

I'm

wondering if the minister would explain to us what the human and social

development category covers in that survey. That's over against stewardship on

the top, surveyed environment and academic in the others.

[1450]

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm advised that the topics we cover in that questionnaire, which is

conducted in conjunction with the foundation skills assessment in grades 4, 7

and 10, cover off much of the research that has been provided by Clyde Hertzman

in some of the work he's done. We've tried to learn from that — questions

about integrity and how they view ethical questions, racism and how they view

some of the questions around multiculturalism, how they think about democracy

and civic involvement and those types of questions.

Anderson: I was curious because I noticed that the percentages in those

particular areas are the lowest percentages we have, and they seem to decrease

with the age of the young people and the grade they're in. Is there a particular

plan in the curriculum to relate to these items as they are developed in the

curriculum program?

Hon. C.

Clark: It's difficult to compare the percentages in this human social

development questionnaire with the percentages we get, for example, on

foundation skills assessment. It's impossible to compare testing tools that way.

This is, though, a baseline year, and we're always looking to tune up the

questionnaire and make sure it works as well as it can. I'm sure we'll be making

some changes this year to make sure it works better.

Anderson: I appreciate that this is a baseline in this current year, and

we'll look forward to it in future years.

It's a

simple question perhaps. On page 17 — again, we're looking at developmental

process, talking about the percentage of principals who are satisfied with

school bandwidths — I'm not sure if the general public will understand what is

meant by school bandwidths, so I thought it might be useful to have it explained

for them.

Hon. C.

Clark: We're trying to make sure that all schools are connected with more

than just dial-up access to the Internet. Anybody who uses the Internet, who has

an Internet connection and has had one for some time, will remember when they

had to push a button and it would dial a phone. You might get through; you might

get a busy signal. In some communities that is their only access to the

Internet.

We want to

make sure all communities have the broadband access, which means they have that

instantaneous connection to the Internet, that is not just important for regular

access but important for the size of documents that one can transport through

the system as well. You can't download big websites, for example, or even

sometimes medium-sized or small websites, if you only have dial-up access. We

want to make sure that access is equitable across the province. We have a few

hundred communities that aren't hooked up and don't have, we think, sufficient

broadband access, and we're working on that.

Anderson: Moving on to page 18 in the plan, talking about the satisfaction

of the parents with the school process. I realize that community schools aren't

funded under the Ministry of Education at this point, but I'm wondering if the

minister can reflect on the significance that community school programs have had

in involving parents and families of the community in the total school process.

Hon. C.

Clark: Community schools have had varying levels of success in involving

parents in schools. Some have had tremendous success; some have had a little

more limited success. Not every school is designated a community school, either,

and receives funding for that. I believe that every single school should involve

parents as fully and meaningfully as possible. That's why we created school

planning councils, one in every school, with a majority of parents on the board.

They will have, for the first time, guaranteed, meaningful input into the plans

for growth for each of their schools.

Anderson: I'm wondering, then, if the minister would also elaborate for

people the purpose and scope of the community planning council, which is a new

program and very little understood by the community at large as yet.

[1455]

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm guessing the member was referring, perhaps, to a school planning

council as opposed to a community planning council. We have a school planning

council at every single school — one principal, one teacher and three parents

at the secondary level. I've stated my intention to try and make sure we can add

a student, so that it's actually six people on the planning council. They do a

mini–accountability con-

[ Page 5512 ]

tract for every school. That means they go out, they look at their results,

they set goals for improvement on those results based on the foundation skills

assessment and other kinds of assessments they do in their school, and then they

put together a plan to try and reach those goals.

Anderson: Another question on page 21. I noticed the survey of principals

and vice-principals indicating the amount of time they spend in the classroom.

Is the suggestion here that they should be teaching in the classroom? Is this

visitation in the classroom? I'm wondering what the relationship is with both

principals and vice-principals that you're expecting as a result of this

question.

Hon. C.

Clark: We believe that instructional leadership, which is the role of a

principal and vice-principal, means that they are in the classroom working with

teachers, making sure the instructional methods are sound and assisting teachers

where the instructional methods could be improved. That's part of the regular

supervision of a school. Parents expect that kind of leadership from principals

and vice-principals, and frankly, so do we in the ministry.

Anderson: Another area in which the parents are very concerned in my area of

the city, where we have many older schools, is plans for earthquake upgrading.

That's a major concern among many of my school parents.

Hon. C.

Clark: We provide $100 million a year to school districts for money to

upgrade schools. It's a lot of money. We distribute it throughout districts, and

they are able to use that for whatever purpose they want to try and improve the

capital infrastructure of their schools. The Ministry of Finance manages the

seismic mitigation program, and I understand there was some discussion of that

in those Finance estimates.

MacPhail: We're just trying to figure out the flow of questions here.

If I could

carry on, on the issue of seismic upgrading, we did have some discussion in the

Ministry of Finance estimates about seismic upgrading, and I understand that the

seismic upgrading has been prepaid to school boards.

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't want to stray too far into the Ministry of Finance estimates,

and I don't want to really set a precedent in this discussion where we're

talking about Ministry of Finance estimates. Those questions are better put to

the Minister of Finance, if the member would like to explore those questions

further. I know she did have some opportunity to talk to him about that during

his estimates. My understanding is that the Ministry of Finance is prepaying

those.

MacPhail: Sorry. I made a statement; I didn't ask a question. That is my

understanding. The minister is quite right; we had that discussion. But what the

Minister of Finance couldn't answer and referred me to these estimates is….

The prepaying of the seismic upgrading which the Minister of Finance says was

the full prepay of the $133 million over four years program that was started in

'98, which is fine…. But the prepay to the school boards leaves the decisions

for determining seismic upgrading to the school boards. I'm wondering whether

the minister can say whether her expertise…. Let me ask this, then. Is there

any expertise that remains in the Ministry of Education that assists school

boards in determining those priorities?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes, that expertise still remains.

[1500]

MacPhail: I'm going to do a little bit of MLA casework here rather than the

broader issue. For instance, there's one school in my riding that's been quite

vociferous. I laud them, the students. I think ministry staff will know it's

Vancouver Tech. In terms of working with my school board…. So I'll now work

with my school board on ensuring that that's paid. But does the school board

still have access to…?

Let me put

it this way: when I go to my school board, can I refer the school board experts

in this area to information that can be gleaned from the Ministry of Education

in order to come to a satisfactory conclusion to upgrading? I'm not in any way

suggesting…. I will be going there strictly as an advocate, not in any other

capacity.

Hon. C.

Clark: Yeah, there certainly are. The ministry, I think, has been in contact

with the Vancouver school board, so they know who the relevant people are to

talk to about that.

MacPhail: That was not as part of the order that I had given the minister.

Now we're going to move to targeted funding. We did have a discussion about that

in the context of the Rozanski report. Under this government there has been a

change so that in terms of funding, am I correct in saying there's one area left

of targeted funding, which is aboriginal program funding?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's correct.

MacPhail: I want to explore what the consequences are of the change in the

system. Under the previous funding formula…. I think the system of targeted

funding expanded under the New Democrat government, but it certainly was in

place in the 1980s, as well, under the Social Credit government. The previous

governments had a system to target funds to special needs students. Those funds

were monitored by government, and in the monitoring, special education programs

were protected. As a matter of fact, there was certainly a challenge made in the

1990s that school boards were spending beyond the targeted programs. I know that

the school boards still receive funding for special needs children, but as the

minister acknowledged earlier this morning, there are no

[ Page 5513 ]

strings attached now. What is the monitoring, if any, around spending for

special needs children?

Hon. C.

Clark: We do random audits of school districts and make sure their numbers

are what they say they are.

Second, we

are doing random audits of individual education plans, not something we've ever

done before. We're going to be going out and just checking that schools are

actually putting in place the individual education plans that they are obliged

to put in place under the law. That's been a big source of complaint we've heard

from parents of special needs children. We want to make sure those IEPs are in

place.

Third,

accountability contracts will focus on outcomes. There will be, in each

accountability contract, recognition of the fact that we need to disaggregate

the data for special needs kids and make sure special needs kids are doing

better year on year, just as we expect typical kids to be doing.

MacPhail: What has the ministry found?

Hon.

C. Clark: We've done seven districts so far. We found varying levels of

compliance with individual education plans. We expect that the actual content of

those reports will be made public within the next couple of weeks.

[1505]

MacPhail: Let's just take the seven districts, then. I'd appreciate

information on this question across the school system, but I'd be happy to do it

just for the seven districts. How many fewer teachers are there now allocated to

those districts that are teaching special education programs?

Hon. C.

Clark: We're looking at the outcomes for special needs kids — that's our

focus — not just the inputs, which I think are less relevant than what they're

actually achieving. Some districts have decided to manage this differently than

others. Some will say, "This child needs a teacher and a couple of

aides," or, "These students need just a couple of aides," or they

may need a couple of teachers. Different districts manage those things

differently, and it depends on the needs of the children in those individual

classrooms.

MacPhail: With respect, that's a little bit glib. There is an acknowledged

role for special education teachers in every education system across Canada and,

in fact, across North America. For those special needs programs that require

teachers in the seven districts — I actually would prefer the information

across the system…. Has there been a reduction in special needs teachers doing

special needs programs?

Hon. C.

Clark: The audits didn't make a special note of what the staffing levels

were. They were interested in the outcomes.

MacPhail: What kind of audit addresses an outcome that doesn't include who's

delivering the services?

Hon. C.

Clark: The audit looks at the number of children in the school who are

declared to be special needs by the school district and makes sure that the

children actually being funded are there. There have been cases where we've

overfunded districts, but there are also cases where we've underfunded

districts, based on the number of special needs children in their schools. How

they decide they want to teach those children is a decision we have decided is

best left up to the school district.

MacPhail: How does an audit come up with outcomes if, indeed, you're not

looking at the children themselves but just the funding of those children?

Hon. C.

Clark: The external review teams also go out and look at the outcomes for

special needs children. They go and look at individual education plans and make

sure those individual education plans are appropriate for the kids they're being

built for and that the drawing up of those plans has involved the parents, the

teachers and all the appropriate members of the community that need to be a part

of the planning for that child.

MacPhail: I am less comforted by the minister's answers at the end than at

the beginning, because the audit that the minister is doing is a funding audit.

Those are not new, but with funding audits in the past, because they were

targeted funding, the ministry then had to deliver the services attached to that

funding. The auditing now is just to make sure, I guess, that the boards are

getting the right amount of money, but there's then no follow-up to how the

children are treated. How is it that people are supposed to know about how

special needs children in our system are doing?

Hon. C.

Clark: Clearly, there's a philosophical difference between the government

and the opposition on this question. We believe, as a government, and the

philosophy that we ran on in the election is that school districts would have

the autonomy to decide how they wanted to manage their budgets, including

staffing for their schools. We are interested in the outcomes they are producing

in terms of standards and making sure that kids are doing better year on year.

We set those in place, and we monitor them.

How school

districts reach those goals, however, is up to districts, and that is, I think,

a philosophical difference between the government and the opposition. We could

have a debate about the value of one approach over the other, but that's the

approach our government has been taking for the last year and a half, and it's

the approach we said we would take during the election.

MacPhail: Well, we'll get into how this is affecting Vancouver district.

[ Page 5514 ]

I'm not

sure why the minister suggests there's a philosophical difference at all. I'm

just trying to seek information, with the shift from targeted funding to general

funding, about how that affects children. That's what I'm trying to find out. Is

it that parents are supposed to go school district by school district to figure

out how many fewer or how many more teachers are allocated to special needs

programs or what the outcomes are? The minister just said she's more interested

in outcomes than inputs, but how does she know what the outcomes are?

[1510]

Hon. C.

Clark: We'll make sure that information on outcomes is available district by

district and across the province. Parents can access that information.

MacPhail: Is there a standard report form that the school boards use to

report outcomes for students with special needs?

Hon. C.

Clark: Monitoring outcomes for special needs children is a little bit

different than monitoring outcomes for typical children. They don't necessarily

engage in a provincewide testing exercise like the foundation skills assessment

that's comparative and based on the expectation that kids are starting from much

the same level. Special needs kids are all much more unique. That's why we call

them unique kids. It's difficult to say: "Well, we've got a standard form

for these very unique kids." What we are doing, though, is…. In

accountability contracts we will be able to disaggregate the data for special

needs kids. We'll be able to have a discussion with each district about how

those kids are doing this year and set goals for their improvement overall in

the following year. It is a little bit different from the foundation skills

assessment exercise that we base much of our accountability contracts on for

testing the whole system in general.

MacPhail: Yes. I'm aware of that. That's why I'm trying to seek out this

information. What's form 1530? Would that be a form that would be available to

get information on special needs teaching?

Hon. C.

Clark: That form is submitted by districts. They talk about their different

staffing levels. Different districts call different staff different things. For

example, some districts will identify administrative staff differently. Some

will throw in principals, vice-principals; some won't. So it's not a fair

measure across the system.

MacPhail: Well, I'm just trying to find out what is. The minister just

referred me to school boards. I know the minister has suggested that parents are

going to have greater choice. So, how is it parents know where to enrol their

children? Based on what information? I'm trying to seek that information out. If

parents have a special needs child, where would they go to find out how many

special needs teachers there are, how many SEAs there are and what the programs

are in that particular school district? Is that form 1530? Where will this

information be available?

Hon. C.

Clark: I wouldn't suggest that any parent decide to send a child to a school

based on staffing levels which would necessarily be from the previous year,

before their child registered. Schools and school districts respond to staffing

needs based on the students that are in their schools, and that shifts around

year to year. That's how school districts decide what their staffing levels are

going to look like. I wouldn't really suggest that a parent go to a school

district, for example, and say, "Well, I want to find out where these

teachers were last year," because it won't necessarily be the same thing

the following year. That's why we track enrolment, and that's why school

districts need the power to be able to shift staff around.

When I talk

about provincewide, though, and I talk about outcomes, I'm referring

specifically to accountability contracts. Those are available provincewide and

set goals for improvement we're expecting over the years. This year, in

particular, we'll start being quite a bit more specific about the outcomes for

special needs kids.

[1515]

MacPhail: Well, I wouldn't limit a parent's method at all on choosing where

to send their children. I'm just trying to get the information about what

parents look for. I think it's probably safe to say everything is retrospective,

including accountability contracts. So is it that the accountability contracts

will have, on a district-by-district basis, outcomes for special needs students

including staffing levels, including programs offered?

Hon. C.

Clark: There are goals for improvement that will be based on their results

from the previous year. Those results will be accessible. More important is the

goal that they'll be setting for the next year. Different accountability

contracts will have different plans for being able to achieve those goals, and

that will be up to the individual districts.

MacPhail: I take it that the minister is saying form 1530 is not useful in

this area. I think that's what she said.

Hon. C.

Clark: We are interested in outcomes — absolutely.

MacPhail: I have no idea what that answer meant — none whatsoever.

Teacher-librarians.

What's the dialogue between the ministry and the association of

teacher-librarians? Has there been any information provided to the ministry in

terms of the number of teacher-librarians working in the system?

Hon. C.

Clark: We've talked to the association of teacher-librarians. Well, it's

more that they've talked to

[ Page 5515 ]

us and made some submissions to us. I can't tell the member categorically off

the top of my head what those submissions have been and how recent they've been.

If the member has some correspondence she'd like to share with me, I'd be

delighted to have a look at it. Again, staffing decisions are made at the school

district level, and those discussions, where necessary, we've directed to that

level.

MacPhail: Actually, this is the time when I get information from the

government. I don't have any information. I know discussions have taken place,

and I'm trying to find out what the nature of those discussions was. It's my

understanding — but it's only anecdotal, so that's why I'm seeking out the

real information — is that there are fewer teacher-librarians working at every

level of the education system. I'm wondering: is there any different information

the minister has?

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, there are 7,100 fewer children in our public education system

this year than last, so it could be true that staffing has gone down for

districts.

MacPhail: I think the minister is aware that there's a system of calculating

how teachers work. It's an FTE system.

I'm not

quite sure why this information is so hard to get out of the ministry. It's just

information, it's just data, and I think everything would indicate I'm trying to

be balanced in my approach here to either put to rest some of the anecdotal

stories that are out there or actually seek out what is real information. I

mean, I told people that I would be standing up here asking for the real

information on teacher-librarians, and I can't get that from the ministry.

Let's move

on to counsellors, then. How does the ministry keep track of counsellor services

to our children?

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, again, we look at outcomes for school districts. We make sure

they're meeting the expectations they've set for themselves and in conjunction

with us. As I think the member can expect, with fewer children in the system,

there are probably lower staffing levels in that area as well.

MacPhail: The only way that would result, actually, is if there were school

closures. If the minister is acknowledging there are fewer librarians because of

school closures, then I guess we can calculate that ourselves — or the parents

in Victoria, I should say, will be able to calculate that themselves. The

parents in Prince George will be able to calculate that themselves, and the

parents in the minister's own riding will be able to calculate that themselves.

Beyond that, there are staffing levels that are almost fixed, as I should say,

because of the nature of one library per school.

[1520]

I just was

asking the minister whether she has any indication of the staffing levels within

that library. I'm finding it a little bit troubling, as I stand here — how

much work parents have to do to figure all this out, given the change in

targeted funding.

Perhaps the

minister could just explain the accountability contracts. I believe that we're

into the second round of accountability contracts now. Perhaps the minister

could, because I haven't had time to do this — and I make no apologies for

that whatsoever — give me an example of an accountability contract that's

posted now that would have this information.

Hon. C.

Clark: Again, accountability contracts are focused on outcomes, and we're

looking…. We very much relied on Dr. Elmore's research, which the member

raised earlier, which suggests that you should focus on two or three things. The

accountability contracts that she'll see posted this year will focus on

literacy, discipline, behaviour issues around schools or numeracy, for example.

We're encouraging schools to focus on those specific things.

The issue

that the member raises about teacher-librarians and that there's always a

teacher-librarian for every library isn't necessarily accurate. Lots of schools

and school districts have for many, many years also used CUPE workers, who are

not teacher-librarians or members of the teachers union, to help staff those

libraries. It's not necessarily fair to say that the number of

teacher-librarians is always equal to the number of libraries around the

province.

MacPhail: I'd be happy if the minister had that information as well. I'd be

happy to have that information. That would be a good discussion.

We're in

March. What districts can go to the website and see the accountability contract

and make decisions about where to put their children next year?

Hon. C.

Clark: They're all up on the accountability contracts — the district

review teams. We will have done 20 by the end of our process. We've already got

five of those up on the web. We expect to have the rest up very, very soon.

That's very important reference information for parents.

MacPhail: Sorry. They're all done. There are 20 on the website?

Hon. C.

Clark: District reviews.

MacPhail: Sorry. Could the minister just go through that and maybe just a

little bit more slowly?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yeah, there are 60 accountability contracts, one for every district.

We also do a district review. We have a district review process. That's got two

different prongs to it. We review 20 districts externally with a big team panel

of people every three years — right? Well, every year we do 20, and every year

another 20 also get a visit from the deputy, where he sits down with them and

discusses their specific goals personally. We have a fairly specific review

process. The district review is the document where…. There are

[ Page 5516 ]

five up on the web in addition to the 60 accountability contracts, but we

expect we'll have all 20 up very soon.

MacPhail: The accountability contracts are — I remember this from the

debate last year in estimates — the goals, etc. How are they different this

year in terms of outcomes?

Hon. C.

Clark: They're much more specific this year. Last year was our first year,

baseline year, and we expect to keep improving them and getting more specific.

Some districts last year did have a fair amount of specifics. Some were really

light on specifics. The accountability contracts this year have had much more

focus, been much more specific about the goals they're setting. They are, for

the most part, focused on literacy, on numeracy and on outcomes for aboriginal

students.

[1525]

MacPhail: So a parent with a special needs student would just assume that

her child would have the same outcomes based on that?

Hon. C.

Clark: Some districts have done that. Some districts have put in specific

goals for meeting with their special needs students. Not all districts have done

that.

Any parent

that's interested in those specific focuses for school districts should phone

their local school or school district, because that's where these decisions are

made.

MacPhail: What meetings has the ministry or the minister had with parents of

special needs in the last six months, and what was the nature of those

discussions?

Hon. C.

Clark: I have met with representatives of special needs parents on a

one-on-one basis quite a number of times. I can give the member a specific

number but not off the top of my head, I'm afraid. I have to go back and review

my schedule. My deputy has also met with special needs parents quite frequently

over the last year and a half.

It is my

view, though — quite strongly — that BCCPAC, which is the parent

organization, does an excellent job of representing the interests of special

needs parents as well as parents of typical children — the B.C. Confederation

of Parent Advisory Councils.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could just give me a sense of the feedback,

then, on the changes, because the changes have been substantial in special needs

in the system.

Hon. C.

Clark: My sense is that parents of special needs children are continuing to

monitor the progress we're making. They're watching the changes quite carefully,

as the member suggested, as they should. They're pleased about some of the

things we've done. Certainly, the opportunity to go out and randomly audit

individual education plans addresses a big concern, potentially, of special

needs parents. So they're watching carefully; they're cautious, I think. They

want to monitor the progress we're making and then hold us to account for that,

as they certainly should.

MacPhail: Just to be clear, the parents have to go to individual school

boards to monitor the progress. I mean, that's what the minister's been telling

me all along, unless that's different.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Would the member like to ask a question of the minister.

MacPhail: Sorry. The minister gave me an answer that, of course, that's

always been the case. Actually, targeted funding has made it so that those

statistics are available within the Ministry of Education, so it hasn't always

been the case.

Let me try

a different approach on this. My understanding is that the limit on how many

special students can be in one classroom has been removed — removed by this

government. What are the statistics in terms of how many special needs students

there are per class now?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yeah, I think we were pretty clear when we brought in Bill 28 that

our view as government is that school districts are in the best position to make

these decisions about staffing and to support the needs of the children in their

classroom. It shouldn't be driven by collective agreements; it shouldn't be

driven by policy that's indifferent to the needs of the individual student.

We should

be making decisions to support students, based on the needs of that individual

and unique student in the classroom. We expect that school districts and school

principals will build their classrooms based on the needs of the students that

are in the class as opposed to the needs and desires of bargainers at some

bargaining table years before.

[1530]

I should

note, too, that while the context for collective agreements has changed for

school districts, the obligations placed on them with respect to special needs

children have not changed.

MacPhail: I wasn't referring to a collective agreement at all. I'm just

asking about how many children in a classroom.

It's

interesting, because this morning we had this discussion in terms of the

Rozanski report in Ontario and about reciprocal accountability. The minister

said: "Oh, we do that." I'm trying to figure out how they're doing

that in terms of reciprocal accountability, when indeed there's been a huge

amount of autonomy given to the individual school boards. Is the reciprocal

accountability the minister then refers to the school board

[ Page 5517 ]

to the parent, and the provincial government is out of it completely?

So far the

minister hasn't been able to give me any information on inputs. I fully

accept…. In fact, it was I who last year brought up with the minister that

inputs are only one-half of the equation and that outputs are the key.

Unfortunately, you can't have outputs without inputs. So far I haven't been able

to get any information on any of the changes this government has brought about,

so it will be interesting to see who actually is providing the reciprocal

accountability that the minister said they're already doing.

Does the

ministry have regular meetings with all school boards on the topic of special

needs education?

Hon. C.

Clark: We regularly meet with school boards. We meet with them mostly

through their representatives on the B.C. School Trustees Association. The

agenda is theirs. They often raise the issue of special needs, so we have that

discussion with them on a regular basis.

MacPhail: One of the things that has the potential of occurring when there

training is that school boards facing a crunch or a deficit allocate funds in a

fashion differently than perhaps the original intention was there for. In fact,

they — and I say this with the greatest respect to school boards — rob Peter

to pay Paul as they face school crunches.

This

government doesn't recognize fixed costs going up. We had that discussion around

gas prices. In fact, sometimes the pressures around increased gas costs can be

in the millions of dollars. One year it was, I think, $9.7 million just in the

K-to-12 system. There's every potential that schools that need to heat their

classrooms may look for sources of funding in areas like special needs or

keeps track of student outcomes when it seems, so far, that there's no data

being kept at all.

Let me ask

about another area where there's been a change with this government. There used

to be a legislative limit set on administrative spending, and I remember that

clearly coming about. It was very much encouraged by the then opposition, who

were outraged by the amount of money being spent on administration and the high

salary costs of administration. It was well documented in '92, '93 and '94. The

government of the day put a legislative cap on administration costs. This

government has removed that in the name of local autonomy. Does the minister

have any statistics on the percentage being spent on administration versus

classroom?

[1535]

Hon. C.

Clark: The issue with funding costs is, again, where I think we part ways

ideologically. We don't believe, as a government, in funding on a

cost-resource-based model, which is what the previous government used for

funding school districts. So if gas prices go down or if enrolment goes down —

which is actually happening — we don't take money away. We plow that back into

the system. Again, we're hoping that school districts will find efficiencies in

things like heating and transportation costs that they wouldn't otherwise have

found if we allow them to keep the savings they may find. In terms of

administration, we do not target funding. We do not have caps on spending

anymore. We say to school districts: "You decide where you want to spend

your money, and it'll be up to you to justify that for your public when you go

to an election."

MacPhail: Well, it's interesting, because I just watched the noonhour news

about parents in the Victoria school district, and parents don't have the same

view as the minister on this matter. The Victoria school board is facing a huge

cash crunch — and we'll talk about that in a moment — and are having public

meetings about the potential closure of five schools. One of the proposals put

forward by the parents at those five schools was that the government should have

a provincewide payroll system, for instance. They came to that conclusion based

on the view that there might be administrative cost savings. The parents would

have known that specifically if, indeed, the former system had been in place

about a cap on administration. What does the minister say to those parents who

made that suggestion just last night?

Hon. C.

Clark: Two things. One, Victoria's schools are one-third empty. I know it's

a difficult decision for school districts, and I do not underestimate how

difficult that is for districts and parents, but the school district is faced

with a choice of funding empty spaces or funding teachers and programs. That's

the decision they have to make. In a place like Victoria, where you could

literally uproot a third of the students in Sooke or Saanich and move them into

the existing spaces in Victoria, they need to think about what their priority is

to spend their money on. Do they want to spend it on empty spaces, or do they

want to spend it on teachers and programs?

That's the

decision the school district — I know it is difficult — is being faced with

at the moment. Certainly, I know that parents whose children are in schools that

are being considered for amalgamation have very strong feelings about that, but

I know that all parents across the district, whether they are in one of those

schools or not, want to make sure the district plows as much money as it can

into teachers, teaching materials, resources and curriculum to make sure the

schooling their kids actually get is as enriched as possible.

Second, a

provincial payroll system — I'm all for it.

MacPhail: I'm sure the parents who are protesting the school closures will

be interested in the minister's comments. That wasn't my point. My point was

that the parents said they shouldn't have to have their schools closed because

of administrative cost savings

[ Page 5518 ]

they thought could be made. This was actually a group of parents making a

suggestion. If the minister is in favour of a provincewide payroll system, is it

being considered? How would parents know now how much money is being spent on

administration, district by district?

Hon. C.

Clark: We are encouraging shared services wherever we can across the school

system. We're moving to a provincial payroll system for government. We're going

to make that available for Crowns. I hope school districts will also decide to

avail themselves of it. We are encouraging these discussions with school

districts as much possible. Victoria parents should go to their school district.

We expect school districts to be entirely transparent about how much money they

spend on administration, transportation and all other costs, and that

information will be available from the district.

MacPhail: How much is Victoria spending on administration?

[1540]

Hon. C.

Clark: We happen to actually have that information here, so I can tell the

member. I apologize that we don't have this here for every district, but because

we talked earlier about the fact we were going to be discussing Victoria, I

happen to have it here. Victoria's administration costs are down by 3.19

percent. That's down by $360,974. As a percentage of their operating budget it's

7.7 percent, which is actually the same as it was last year. The total in money

is $10,950,146.

MacPhail: What's down 3.9 percent? Is that by 3.9 percentage points it's

down or…?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's the change over last year in terms of dollars. It's down from

$11,311,120 to $10,950,146. It's important to remember that in the Victoria

school district, that includes their administrative staff — the people that

are typing and what we traditionally think of as civil servants — but it also

includes principals and vice-principals who are school-based and providing

services right at the classroom level.

MacPhail: Yes, and that hasn't changed. That was the definition when the

administration costs were legislated.

This is

very interesting. How do parents now go about discussing shared administrative

costs the way that I saw in the news last night? I'm not sure. I have no idea.

It was obviously just a news clip that I saw, but I expect that if the minister

had said at the school meeting last night what she said in the Legislature

today, there would be an interesting reaction to it — probably not that

welcome. But the school board was saying exactly the same thing as the minister

is saying. What are the next steps?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Sorry. Did you not understand — about closing schools? Sorry,

you're right.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Can't you read my mind?

It's about

saying exactly the same thing about closing schools that the minister said —

that, you know, classrooms are a third empty, etc. However, it seemed like it

wasn't washing with the parents. Is the ministry going to initiate, then, a

venue where school boards can talk about shared services?

Hon. C.

Clark: We have actually already started that and initiated that discussion.

We've had that discussion with superintendents at their annual general meeting.

We've also had that discussion with secretary-treasurers. The discussion about

shared services hasn't been equally welcomed by all districts. There's no

question about that. Nonetheless, it's an idea that has value. If we can save

money on bureaucracy costs and pump it back into the classroom, that's what we

should be doing.

MacPhail: There are ongoing discussions about the conversion of K-to-12 to

generally accepted accounting principles, and I note that the government has

provided funding for school boards in that conversion. Can the minister describe

the nature of those discussions? I was just thinking about whether there's a

forum there to discuss…. I'll take this in stages.

It's my

assumption that in the movement to generally accepted accounting principles,

there's a standardization of reporting. I understand that some of that is a bit

controversial within the K-to-12 system. Is there a forum there that lends

itself in the standardization of reporting for any best practices to be shared?

Hon. C.

Clark: Probably not. The better forum to do it is to talk to

superintendents, to talk to secretary-treasurers at their meetings and try to

push the agenda forward that way. The generally accepted accounting principles

discussion, as I understand it, is accountants that are talking about how to

categorize the spending of money as opposed to how to control or manage the

spending of money. That is a different discussion, and one that we are advancing

and going to continue to advance at every forum where we have the opportunity.

MacPhail: You're absolutely right. It is an accounting exercise, but it's an

accounting exercise the way all accounting exercises take place. There are puts

and takes, and puts and takes can change the bottom line.

[1545]

Also in the

standardization, as I understand it from GAAP discussions, is that it does lead

to a uniformity of the categorization and therefore may lead…. I don't know. I

could be wrong, but it could lead to some

[ Page 5519 ]

standardization or some general estimate of what's a fair cost for certain

services offered — that's all.

For

instance, as I understand it, the way you account for staffing levels,

replacement staffing levels or vacation can lead to either a bigger put or a

greater take, and there's either more or less money at the bottom line. That's

all I'm saying. In fact, the acknowledgment of that is that the government is

actually promising to make the K-to-12 system whole.

The

minister is saying the superintendents discussion would be the place, then, to

hold shared services costs. What would be the area of discussion around shared

services — the range?

Hon. C.

Clark: We've talked to them about payroll. We've talked about maintenance.

We've talked about purchasing and procurement. We've talked about a whole range

of possible things. It's technically feasible, I suppose, to suggest that almost

all the back-office services for a school district could be shared, but I'm not

sure it would actually work in practice. We've had discussions, and payroll is

an obvious one.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't have an updated act here, so forgive me

if I'm getting the wrong sections of the School Act listed here. I think it's

section 106.2, as my notes show here, that says on or before February of each

year the minister must establish and announce the amount of provincial funding

to be paid to boards in the next fiscal year. Have I got that

section right?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, whatever. If I don't have it right, you get the sense.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Yeah, and I remember there was always controversy and charges made

about how the previous government didn't announce that money quickly enough,

etc. We actually, on many occasions, changed the date at which we would announce

that by regulation.

The

minister this year announced on January 31 the allocation of funding. What

discussions occurred with school boards prior to that announcement in terms of

funding?

Hon. C.

Clark: They had a good preview of that, because we had been working on a

three-year plan with $3.79 billion for school districts in operating funding.

They had a good view of that a year before, and there had been lots of

acknowledgment and discussion about that fact. The member is quite correct that

we announced it at the end of January. After we made the announcement, we then

announced a further $50 million that was going to be made available.

I suspect

previous governments probably extended the date on which they announced funding

for school districts so that they could maximize the amount available in that

single announcement as opposed to making two announcements, like our government

has done. Nonetheless, we intend to be bound by the statutory obligations in the

act, which says we must provide the information to school districts before

February.

MacPhail: Yes, it was a two-part announcement, and the minister is quite

right. We made the announcement with our budget having been put to bed, so that

there was just one announcement.

When the

individual budget letters go out for the districts tomorrow, what follow-up is

there with the superintendents or the secretary-treasurers in terms of

explanation of budget letters? I actually haven't seen a budget letter. Do they

just get a budget letter with an amount, and then it's up to them to determine

further action?

[1550]

Hon. C.

Clark: We went through a fairly extensive and in-depth discussion with them

last year when we changed the funding formula, so I think all of them have a

good grip on how it works. We've been available to them over the last year as

they've continued to interpret their funding allocation. I'm pretty convinced

that they have a sense of it. We are providing them with an updated operating

manual, and of course, we're always available over the phone, and I can tell you

this: school districts do not hesitate to call when they have questions about

their budgets.

MacPhail: I think, Mr. Chair, what I'll do is talk about this in the context

of the Vancouver school board, if I may. These are public documents. Then after

that we'll go to questions on the service plan.

As the

minister knows, there's been a whole range of budget documents released by the

Vancouver school board. I mean, I love my new school board, but I'm talking

about this school board because it's my school board. It just so happens that I

also love them. But it's not on that basis that I'm using them, other than their

being my school board. It's something that I can carry through.

They

published a document about the actual impacts from last year, and I just want to

move…. I'll just generalize. Actually, I won't generalize; I'll give the

actual, specific information. They're looking at a reduction of about $12

million. No, sorry. I won't go there that quickly. They're looking at a

reduction of 264 teacher FTEs.

As part of

the class-size ratios, the international student allotment ratio is proposed to

increase from one teacher per 15 students to 19 students. A reduction of

approximately 124 FTEs is proposed in the number of non-enrolling teachers at

the elementary-, secondary- and district-based levels. Elementary and secondary

school–based, non-enrolling teachers include ESL, learning assistants,

teacher-counsellors and teacher-

[ Page 5520 ]

librarians. District-based, non-enrolling teachers include district resource

teachers, psychologists and speech-language pathologists.

I'm

wondering. Those seem to be pretty dramatic. Where do parents go to discuss this

kind of thing — to their school board?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yeah, that's where parents should go and speak. It's important,

though, for parents to remember that the Vancouver school district has a history

— regardless of political stripe, by the way — of predicting tremendous

deficits and always wrestling them down and delivering quality education

comparable to anywhere else in the world. So the doom and gloom is always

deepest and darkest in advance of the budgets actually coming out and the

consultations that the district makes. I think the board will be particularly

avid this year, given its political stripe, but that's politics, and that's the

way the budget process works.

MacPhail: Well, is there some reason to believe that the Vancouver school

board has been overly dramatic in its deficit? Perhaps the minister could give

me that information, then.

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't know if I have it here. I gave it to the member's colleague a

couple of days ago when I read through the history of Vancouver's predicted

deficits and its actual….

Do I

actually have that here? Thanks.

In '97-98

the district submitted a budget under protest and concluded that there were $16

million worth of cuts. No deficit was incurred. In '98-99 it requested a $7.1

million deficit. No deficit was incurred. In '99-2000 with an $11.8 million

deficit, no deficit was incurred. In 2000-01 with a $5.2 million deficit, no

deficit was incurred. Last year it was a $25 million deficit, and no deficit was

incurred.

[1555]

MacPhail: T hat's because school boards have to table balanced budgets, so

I'm not sure what comfort…. What point is the minister trying to make? They

have to. They aren't allowed to incur deficits, and school boards make cuts to

accommodate, or else…. Certainly, in the years '97-98 and '98-99 the then

Minister of Education went in and worked with the school board and actually

allocated more funding. I don't understand the point the minister is making. Is

the minister then suggesting that those deficits didn't occur and no cuts had to

be made?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm suggesting that the Vancouver school district has a long and

glorious history of doom and gloom before budget period — suggesting that

there are going to be massive deficits, which do not occur. I know that's part

of the normal budget-making processes for school districts to try and crank up

the heat as much as they can. Vancouver school district has a particularly

glorious past on that front. For example, in contrast to the suggestion from

last year that the school district was going to have a $25 million deficit in

2002, they actually ran a $6 million surplus in their operating budget.

MacPhail: Well, okay. I don't challenge the minister's figures on that, but

is the minister somehow saying, then, that there's no difficulty in all of this?

I'm not quite sure what her point is that she's making. Is the minister somehow

saying that there's no cause for concern? Is that it?

Hon. C.

Clark: No, I've never suggested that. I had a lot of discussion with the

member's colleague about the fact that I know there have been very difficult

decisions that districts have had to make. Closing schools in a place like

Victoria, for example, is certainly one of them.

I know it's

tremendously difficult for school districts to do that. I know that faced with

declining enrolment across the province, that's exacerbated the problem for

them. It's meant declining revenues for many of them. So, no, I'm not saying

that there haven't been difficult decisions to be made. I am saying that I

recognize, certainly, that there have been difficult decisions to be made. What

I am saying, though, is that as we get closer to the budget process, what often

happens is the doom and gloom gets much, much darker than it ever turns out to

be.

I wanted to

remind parents and citizens out there that sometimes the level of rhetoric

around budgets, particularly with highly politicized boards, gets a little bit

higher than it probably could be justified to be. I think that often frightens

parents and undermines their confidence in the public education system unduly.

MacPhail: Well, then this is the place to uncomplicate those matters.

Perhaps the minister could say what it was that occurred with the Vancouver

school board that moved them from a potential $25 million deficit position to a

$6 million surplus.

Hon. C.

Clark: The Vancouver school district had certainly made some reductions in

many areas. They talked about maintenance. There were teacher reductions; there

were a number of other reductions. They have talked about school closures in the

Vancouver school district. Those decisions have all been very, very difficult,

but again, Vancouver has managed, I think, those decisions very well. They're

continuing to give kids a really top-quality education.

The

Vancouver school district, particularly over the last year and a half, can pride

itself on the fact that they've been focused on outcomes. They've been focused

on making sure kids do better, because that's the bottom line: focus on

achievement and make sure that children are doing better year on year. That's

how we need to judge our progress in whether we're improving our education

system.

MacPhail: I find it difficult that the minister somehow says that because

school boards obey the law

[ Page 5521 ]

and balance their budgets, somehow they were fearmongering before that. The

law says school boards have to balance their budgets, and school boards do that

by making cuts. I think it's kind of, well, disrespectful in a way to school

boards to somehow suggest that they could be balancing their budgets in a way

that didn't involve some tough decisions — or that, in fact, that they were

fearmongering.

The cuts

they did make were substantial, and they were deep. It's also my understanding

that the one-time allocation funding of the $50 million in '02-03, which was

made in February, led to the surplus. To that point the board had made their

cuts to balance the budget, or am I wrong about that?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yeah, '02-03 isn't over yet, so I was talking about the surplus from

the previous year. That's the only information we have so far.

[1600]

[W.

Cobb in the chair.]

MacPhail: The Vancouver school board was never talking about a $25 million

deficit for '01-02, so I'm not sure what the minister's talking about. The

deficit they were talking about was for '02-03 being $25 million. In fact, the

funding for '01-02 was established by the previous government and included a

lift. I'm trying to be very factual about these discussions, and the minister is

putting forward figures that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The $25

million deficit predicted for the Vancouver school board arose out of '02-03

funding, so perhaps we could just stick to that. I already read into the record

reductions that had to be made to balance the budget. There were reductions in

staffing levels at the elementary level, the secondary level and at the district

level in classroom staffing. There were cuts made to learning resource centres,

education technology, the area discretionary fund, career education, career

programs, district learning services. Inner-city school funding was cut.

International baccalaureate fees were increased, and there was still a reduction

in the number of students who could participate. Japanese and Mandarin supplies

were decreased. The media resource centre recreational activities budget was

decreased, and the career technical centre budget was cut.

These are

instructional support budgets. Urgent intervention was cut, and that budget,

just so the public knows, deals with money available to provide urgent

intervention where student behaviour is dangerous or extremely disruptive. It's

interesting that one of the outcomes the minister talks about is citizenship or

behaviour in the classroom. Career program cuts. Career information was cut, and

these are secondary school support staff that are used for assisting students in

going on to post-secondary education. Those are the cuts that the board was

making.

Let me just

carry on here. There was a cut made to the maintenance operation budget that led

to an increased deterioration in building infrastructure. Planned building

maintenance work — which included interior painting, painting touch-ups,

plumbing upgrade, carpet replacement, window replacements — was eliminated.

There are now increased delays in responding to emergency repair breakdowns, and

the physical learning environment has deteriorated.

The

ministry had provided bus fares for students enrolled in special district

classes so that students could travel. There were cuts made there. There were

transportation cuts made. There were cuts made in the adult learning centre. The

continuing education computer centre was cut, and adult academic course fees

increased. Adult education supply fees increased.

I actually

did some highlights there of several pages of cuts that had to be made, and I

expect that, by law…. I don't think the Vancouver school district has asked to

break the law and file a deficit budget, have they?

[1605]

Hon. C.

Clark: No, not formally. They haven't made any suggestion that they want to

do that. I want to just be clear with the member. The reason we were talking at

cross-purposes about the money and the surplus versus the deficit is that the

$42 million that was provided in additional funding last year in '01-02 was

probably spent by the district largely in their '02-03 budget, and that's the

source of the confusion about this.

MacPhail: How many school districts either requested assistance from the

special adviser or asked to file a deficit budget for '02-03?

Hon. C.

Clark: None.

MacPhail: Sorry. Nobody asked for the assistance? Am I using the right term

— special adviser?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's correct. The answer is "none" to both questions the

member asked.

MacPhail: Does the minister interpret that as good news?

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, I think it's good news that districts don't want to file

deficit budgets. I think it's good news, too, that districts feel that they're

able to manage without additional assistance from the ministry. We're always

there to help, though, informally, and we continue to do that through a whole

variety of means. In terms of actually appointing a special adviser, we've

appointed one special adviser. That's in the district of Gold Trail, I think,

district 74. That was at the request of parents in the community, and I think

the district has found that assistance quite helpful.

MacPhail: So the school boards…. I'm not sure what school boards the

minister was referring to in

[ Page 5522 ]

terms of politicized school boards, but clearly, in the year '02-03 every

school district rolled up their sleeves and made the cuts on their own without

asking for assistance from the Ministry of Education. I would certainly say that

school boards are doing their best to cope with the cuts, but it does lead to

meetings that occurred last night at the school district here in Victoria, where

the parents…. The interface is between parents and school districts and school

board trustees about cuts, not between parents and the government, even though

it's the government that has forced the funding crunch.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, we've actually increased money. The budget actually announced

an increase in money for the Ministry of Education. We're going to be delivering

an extra $100 million over the next three years. We delivered $42 million last

year and $50 million in addition this year. We hope there'll be another

education dividend next year for districts so that we can provide some more

one-time funding in '03-04. Given that there's declining enrolment and there's a

substantial increase planned in the ministry budget, that's good news.

The

Chair: By agreement, we'll have a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

[W.

Cobb in the chair.]

MacPhail: We've got to do the Vancouver school board for this base budget,

Victoria, and then we'll move to service plan. As for the budget assumptions on

the '03-04 base budget for the Vancouver school board, I'll read into the record

what is anticipated. I understand this could change, depending on what their

budget letter says tomorrow.

This is

what their preliminary base budget is, based on what they were told January 31:

elimination of one-time expenditures, $3.2 million for 57 transitional teachers

and the corresponding one-time appropriation from the '01-02 surplus, which was

used to fund this expenditure. That would have been the $6 million surplus the

minister was talking about earlier.

They're

assuming the same enrolment level as September 30, 2002. They're also assuming

known collective increases for teachers and ALC instructors — that's 2.5

percent, July, of this budget — a 2 percent increase for the operating

engineer employees, and salary increases for principals and vice-principals at 2

percent.

They're

assuming salary increments for teachers — these are contractual obligations

— and known changes to the Canada Pension Plan. Now, that's a 7.68 percent

rollup cost on CPP and then an EI rolldown cost — that's the good news from

the federal government — a 4.5 percent decrease.

They're

assuming an elimination of remaining funding for the 2001-02 one-time enhanced

early retirement incentive program, and that's now gone. They're assuming

projected benefit rate increases — we've already talked about CPP — to

extended health because of the downloading of the provincial government. They're

assuming a 15 percent cost increase in April of this year due to changes to

Pharmacare, a 15 percent premium rate increase for July 2003 and an increase of

the municipal superannuation plan contribution of 1.2 percent.

They're

assuming inflation for goods and services of 1.95 percent and natural gas

increased prices of 4.2 percent. They're also projecting an increase in interest

revenue of $137,000.

On that

basis, they've done the puts and takes of the budget. Oh, and there's also

projected salary increases for the support staff, based on submissions by the

Public School Employers Association and CUPE to the arbitrator, Vince Ready.

They haven't actually calculated a cost to that but know that's a cost that

needs to be incurred.

Those are

all additional costs they have to fund, and therefore they have a structural

deficit created by increased costs. The deficit, the structural deficit — this

is the language that they use — is determined to be between $8.23 million and

$11.98 million. The differential is based on the decision by arbitrator Vince

Ready with respect to support staff salary increases. Then there's a chart with

that.

[1620]

They also

acknowledge there are one-time funding sources available from '02-03 of $4.36

million and that the projected balance of the local capital reserve is $4.8

million. They've done their puts and takes on it, and they're still coming up

with a projected deficit of between $8.23 million and $11.98 million. That's on

top of the cuts they had to consider for the budget before that.

In Victoria

they've also done the puts and takes of their budgets, and they have operating

pressures for '03 of $5.9 million. I want to say that in the puts and takes, the

Victoria school board has acknowledged the December announcement of the

minister, the February announcement, the social equity renewal, the increased

ISP profits, the CUPE award, all other savings and the enrolment decline grant.

Those are the revenue increases and cost pressures. Then on top of that, they

also believe now that because of the cut to the social equity envelope, the

school board will have a reduction estimated at about $1.5 million. After

everything is done, there is a substantial deficit they have to make up. So some

of the options they're considering — and this is what the school board is

going through right now — are what you see on TV in terms of the reductions

that are considered. There are five or six scenarios being considered, including

school closures. That's what the Victoria school board is facing in 2003-04.

I'm just

going to carry on, in terms of putting this…. Unless you want to respond to

it.

It's

interesting as the minister stands up and says that we've increased school

funding. I'm not sure that either the Vancouver school board or the Victoria

school board would suggest that it means anything in terms of students in the

classroom.

[ Page 5523 ]

I want to

give some information about…. I asked the minister for information about what

they have actually meant — the cuts. The minister didn't have that information

— fewer teachers and administrative officers.

Oh, by the

way, just so the minister knows, I'll be finished Education estimates in about

an hour. So if the powers that be up there want to organize that….

September 30, 2002, when the Ministry of Education and school districts

throughout the province collected data on the school system, there were 2,729

fewer educators than on the same date a year earlier. Of the positions lost,

2,654 were teachers and 75 were administrative officers. The 6.8 percent drop in

educator head count is almost five times the 1.4 percent decline in enrolment.

Just to make note, when educators working in more than one district are

excluded, the number declines by 2.152 percent to 5.2 or 5.5 percent. Those

figures are on a head count basis. In other words, they refer to actual people,

some of whom worked part-time. That's an acknowledgment.

[1625]

The

corresponding full-time-equivalent figures indicate the system experienced a

loss of 1,954.61 FTE teachers — that's a 5.9 percent reduction in FTEs — and

74.12 administrative officers. That's a 2.7 percent decline, for a total decline

of 2,028.73 full-time-equivalent educators. Again, that equates to a drop of 5.6

over all, while the FTE enrolment is down by only 1.22 percent.

It's my

information that the districts actually did close 44 schools this year. Is that

correct?

Hon. C.

Clark: It is.

MacPhail: We have 44 fewer schools and 5.6 percent fewer educators, and

those are FTEs. The enrolment decline is only 1.22 percent. The reductions are

about much, much more than enrolment decline. I acknowledge that there are

serious demographic changes underway, partly as a result of lower birth rates

and partly because of people moving out of the province. In fact, this year the

enrolment declined by 1.22 percent. That's why there are fewer students. Still,

only about one-quarter of the reductions in teaching staff can be explained by

reduction in enrolment.

Here's the

information that I have on larger classes and more students per teacher, in

spite of those real demographic shifts. Maybe I should read this. The grade 11

enrolment is the largest age group in the system, and it's 4.8 percent less than

it was last year. The kindergarten cohort is 4 percent smaller than last year

and nearly 14 percent smaller than in 1995. There's no question that fewer

students are entering the system. In spite of those real demographic shifts,

most of the changes still have meant that there are more kids in each classroom.

Elementary

class sizes increased by 0.6 FTE students. I know it's kind of dehumanizing.

What I'll say is students, and I mean FTEs unless I specify otherwise. The

elementary class size has increased to 23.11. The ministry doesn't report class

sizes for grades 4 to 12, but the student-educator ratio — the SER — which

is an indicator of both specialist and classroom teachers, has gone up to 17.12.

That's 0.8 students more than last year's ratio and one full student more than

in 1990.

There are

fewer high-incidence students and more low-incidence students. This, of course,

is dealing with the special needs students. This is important because of changes

in the funding formula. Changes in the funding formula and identification

criteria apparently had a large impact on the number of special needs students,

which was down by 5.3 percent overall. Under the new formula introduced this

year by this government, districts received $30,000 for each level 1 student,

$15,000 for each level 2 student and $6,000 for each level 3 student.

Just to

clarify for the public, level 1 indicates a dependent handicapped and

deaf-blind. Level 2 includes moderate to profound intellectual disability,

physical disability, chronic health impairment, visual impairment, deaf,

hearing-impaired and autism. Level 3 is intensive behaviour interventions and

serious mental illnesses. High-incidence, low-cost categories are no longer

funded separately, so under the new scheme a population-based amount is included

in the base funding.

The big

news out of all of this is that high-incidence, low-cost categories showed an

overall decline of 8.2 percent, much larger than the 1.4 percent enrolment

decline. In other words, there are 8.2 percent fewer students being acknowledged

as high incidence and low cost. The enrolment decline is only 1.4 percent. The

learning disability categories did increase by 2.9 percent. That was the only

category that increased. All other categories of funding declined — mild

intellectual disability by 7.8 percent, gifted by 7.2 percent, moderate

behaviour-support mental illness by 22.9 percent.

[1630]

That's why

I asked the minister what calculations, what statistics, her government is

keeping, because these statistics come from the teachers and the support workers

in the system. They're broadly, broadly based, though. What's the explanation

for the much higher percentage decline in special needs enrolment as opposed to

just overall enrolment decline?

Hon. C.

Clark: There was a decrease in the number of high-incidence, low-cost

students that were identified by school districts, but there was an increase in

high-cost, low-incidence students that were identified to school districts

overall. We're investigating the reason for that.

The

member's numbers about the increase in class size are generally correct. It is

about a 0.6 increase to a 0.8 increase per class across the province.

MacPhail: My information is different from the minister's in that the only

category that increased in terms of enrolment was the learning disability

category, formerly called the severe learning disabilities. Everything else was

a substantial decline. It is interest-

[ Page 5524 ]

ing, though, that the minister can challenge my statistics, when before….

Well, perhaps she would say it wasn't…. Maybe I wasn't asking the right

question before, but it is interesting that the ministry does have overall

statistics now.

Let's move

second language as another term for that. The number of identified ESL students

is down by 1 percent. That's down slightly less than overall enrolments, but I

want to bring to the minister's attention changes by grade level, where they're

disproportionate. Kindergarten ESL enrolment is up by 0.3 percent, even though

kindergarten overall enrolment is down by 3.9 percent. Secondary ESL numbers are

down. Enrolment is down by 7.5 percent, and that compares with an overall

enrolment decline of 0.5 percent.

Now, I

acknowledge that some of those changes result from the five-year cap on ESL

services, so that's fair enough. But clearly, kindergarten enrolment is up and

is growing, and I wonder whether the minister sees a challenge that needs to be

met in terms of capping ESL funding.

Hon. C.

Clark: We haven't capped ESL funding. For as many ESL students as the school

districts claim, they get an extra $1,100. School districts have no incentive to

under-report ESL students. There's no question about that.

The issue

of special needs. The reason we have specific information about what the numbers

are in the different categories of special needs is because that's the basis on

which we fund school districts. As the funding agency, we need that information

about the head count of students. In level 1 it's up by 1.2 percent. In level 2

it's 3.4 percent. In level 3 it's 1.4 percent, and it's yielded a total new

investment of $24.5 million more for school districts for special needs.

MacPhail: Well, that was the kind of discussion I was trying to have earlier

on when I asked the minister for those. And of course, at one time I remember

being challenged by the minister; "Well, you didn't ask the right

question." That was exactly the kind of discussion I was trying to have.

How does the ministry glean this information?

Hon. C.

Clark: School districts provide us with the numbers of children in their

schools, in their enrolment. They provide us with numbers about the composition

of the children in those districts, and that's the basis on which we fund school

districts.

MacPhail: The minister is suggesting that funding for every category is up?

[1635]

Hon. C.

Clark: Funding for level 1, level 2 and level 3 categories is all up. That's

why we're spending almost $25 million more on special needs than we were. As I

recall, the discussion we were having before about some of these numbers was

about teachers, it was about processes, and it was about the way school

districts decide to provide services to school districts. That's not information

that we have in any complete way across the province. The information that we

have that is complete — and this is publicly available — is the number of

students in each district and the composition of the school district in terms of

special needs, ESL and aboriginal.

We have to

have that information because we fund school districts based on those numbers

that they provide to us. If their enrolment has fallen or their composition has

changed so that there's less pressure on special needs or ESL, then they'll get

less money. If their enrolment has grown or the number of ESL students has grown

or the number of special needs students in any one of those three categories has

grown, then their budget in each of those categories will be up.

MacPhail: Well, yes. But perhaps the revelation of that kind of information

could have led to a more fruitful discussion with the opposition.

Interjection.

MacPhail: The minister shrugs her shoulders. Clearly, I have tried my best

to actually carry on this discussion in a way of information-seeking, and the

minister shrugs her shoulders and somehow suggests that perhaps the shrug means

"maybe you should have asked the right question." Of course, that

could have led to me then providing my information about what I have in terms of

special needs teachers.

Is it that

the minister is challenging…? All right, let me ask this of the minister. I'm

trying to be very specific. The high-incidence, low-cost category of special

needs students is now funded how?

Hon. C.

Clark: School districts tell us how many…. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Low-cost, high-incidence is funded based on the number of students that are

claimed. Previously government put a cap on the number of students. It was up to

4 percent that they would fund for high-incidence, low-cost. The reality was

that every district was spending far more than that. It was a pretty meaningless

way to target the money.

What we've

done is we've said that we're going to take away the illusion that somehow we as

government are funding for the number of students that you have in low-cost,

high-incidence because it was really just an illusion. School districts were

spending far more than the government ever provided.

MacPhail: The minister said funding for special needs, the $24 million….

Is that after you deduct high-incidence, low-cost funding?

Hon. C.

Clark: The three categories that we provide funding for special needs —

level 1, level 2 and level 3 — are all low-incidence, high-cost categories.

[ Page 5525 ]

MacPhail: Yeah, okay. My understanding now, and maybe I'm wrong, is that

high-incidence, low-cost special needs funding is no longer a special category.

There is no specific targeted funding or any calculation of funding for it.

Hon. C.

Clark: We detargeted that money simply because, previously, when government

pretended to provide funding for it, government didn't meet anywhere near the

cost that districts were bearing. It was really an illusion to suggest that that

money was going to fund the number of kids who were in those categories, because

government never has. It was capped at 4 percent. School districts in every case

spent more than the 4 percent that was provided from government. It was just a

much more honest and transparent way of providing that money to districts and

saying: "Look, we know you're spending more than that anyway. Go out there

and make sure you're providing for the needs of the students in your school

district." It's a more honest and transparent way of doing that. We have

redefined level 1, level 2 and level 3. Those are all low-incidence, high-cost

students, and the funding for those categories has increased.

MacPhail: Yes, but I suppose a much more honest, transparent formula that

leads to a reduction in funding would be less welcome. That's what I'm trying to

get at here. The $24 million that the minister claims…. Let me just be clear.

The 4 percent that used to be funded for low-cost, high-incidence special needs

funding is now where?

[1640]

Hon. C.

Clark: The money did not get cut. The money remains in the budget, and it's

been rolled into the per-pupil funding that goes out to districts. They decide

how they want to provide those services to kids.

MacPhail: Did the ministry just give an overall 4 percent increase in the

per-pupil rate?

Hon. C.

Clark: It's just a different way of distributing it. That money is still

there. It's still distributed to school districts. It's just that it's not

categorized and targeted specifically, the way it was before, in recognition of

the fact that it wasn't meeting anywhere near the real cost that school

districts had because government has never funded the number of students that

were in the high-incidence, low-cost area. That money is still in their budgets,

and school districts have welcomed that change.

MacPhail: Well, I'm trying to figure out how they've welcomed it. There's

been a decline of 8.2 percent in identifying the high-incidence, low-cost

category of children. It's hard for me to go from saying, "Oh, they were

never fully funded at a 4 percent level," and now there's been a decline

that's four times the level of enrolment decline. Maybe we need to investigate

this. If the minister is so sure that the previous system didn't work, how is it

that once you roll exactly the same amount of money into the base budgeting, all

of a sudden there's a quadrupling of the decline in students identified in that

way?

Hon. C.

Clark: We are investigating it. We suspect that what school districts used

to do was drive their reporting based on the cap that government put in place

for special needs. What they would do is at least make sure they declared enough

kids to make sure they met that cap, and then they would go out and spend more

anyway. What we're doing is saying: "Look, it's not a productive exercise

to go through." It's not just me saying this; it's school districts saying

this.

What

they're saying is that they were spending far more money anyway, and we suspect

they're probably reporting these differently to us because it's no longer driven

by the same kind of rules and regulations in the ministry. Most districts were

spending 6, 7, 8 percent of their budget on special needs when the government

only funded it 4 percent. It didn't make any difference that the government said

it was 4 percent. In most districts it wouldn't have made any difference if the

government raised the cap to 5 percent. It wouldn't have made one iota of

difference in their funding, and it hasn't made one iota of difference in the

funding today.

MacPhail: That's absolute bafflegab — what the minister has just said to

me. She's somehow suggesting that the previous cap of 4 percent on

high-incidence, low-cost didn't in any way meet the real need and, therefore, it

was unrealistic and, therefore, they removed that and rolled it into the base

budget funding of school boards. One would assume that school boards would now

be identifying the real number of high-incidence, low-cost students that

previously the minister says weren't funded. Instead, I'm asking her to explain

why there's been a substantial decline in identifying those students, quadruple

the decline in the enrolment. The minister gets up and says, "Oh well, they

were probably just arbitrarily saying there was 4 percent of the student

population, and it didn't mean anything" — kind of then, I guess,

challenging the boards that they weren't accurately reporting. She uses that as

an explanation for why there is now a decline of a full 8 percentage points.

Maybe the minister would like to try again.

Hon. C.

Clark: Yeah, I'd be happy to try and get this point through to the member.

We didn't remove the money; we removed the label on the money. I want to be

clear about that, because I think the member is confusing those two issues. The

money is still there. It doesn't have a label on it anymore.

We suspect

— and we're investigating the reason for this, and of course it bears

investigation — that school districts, because they no longer are required to

meet a certain standard of proof that they've got a certain number of special

needs children, just aren't doing the same kind of paperwork in reporting to the

ministry anymore.

[ Page 5526 ]

[1645]

What we've

done is reduced dramatically the amount of paperwork that school districts are

required to do, as we have across government, as a general principle of good

governance. We suspect — and we don't know this yet because we're still

investigating it — that school districts have just decided that if the

paperwork isn't required of them anymore to get the money and they can get the

money without doing the paperwork…. They're choosing to save the time and not

do the paperwork, because they're getting the money anyway.

MacPhail: Well, where are parents supposed to go to find out the truth,

then? The minister has directed me, and through me the parents, that they're

supposed to go to the school boards. Now the minister is saying that school

boards aren't reporting it.

Hon. C.

Clark: School districts aren't reporting it to the ministry is what I said.

That doesn't mean that school districts aren't keeping track of that

information. Of course they are. It's part of their basic school-level planning.

When they organize their classes, principals think about those issues. There's a

range of special needs in any given class. Some of them are very acute. Some of

them are not so acute but still require attention. That's a basic part of school

district planning. They continue to have that information. All I simply said was

that they don't continue necessarily to report that to the ministry as

consistently as they did.

Without

question, school districts want to lighten up on their paperwork. If the

paperwork isn't required by the ministry, they won't necessarily report it to

us, but that information is still there at the school district level for parents

to be able to access.

MacPhail: I'm not sure whether the minister thought I got this statistic

from the ministry. I didn't. I asked for this statistic earlier, and the

minister said she didn't have it. This is information gleaned from school

boards. I'm not sure where the minister sort of leaped over to think that I'm

dealing with ministry statistics. I've been asking her for them. She hasn't

given them. This decline is based on school board reporting.

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes, and we suspect — and I said "we suspect" because

we're still investigating this — that school districts are reporting, in some

cases, the number of special needs children they have differently because

they're no longer driven by heavy, onerous paperwork requirements that

ultimately didn't result in any new money for them, which meant they were

reporting consistently and in the same way across districts. We suspect they are

beginning to report it differently because they aren't driven by the same kind

of imperatives to fill out the kind of paperwork that the previous government

required of them.

MacPhail: I can't imagine how any parent of a special needs student would be

able to understand what the minister is saying, let alone be comforted by what

she's saying. Earlier today, in a very calm discussion, the minister, through

me, referred parents to go to school boards to find out about special needs

programs, special needs delivery of services to school boards. I just told the

minister that there's been a quadrupling in the decline of services to special

needs students that are high-incidence, low-cost — gleaned from school boards.

It doesn't have anything to do with previous reporting. It's got nothing to do

with the past. It's the current situation, and it's where the minister directed

me to, to find out the information.

I feel a

bit disappointed that the discussion on this has to end up in this way, because

there's been zero information given to parents in terms of how they can actually

find out what's really going on in terms of special needs funding. We'll keep

going around. We'll keep going around in a circle and trying to find it.

I am

advised, as a result of the debate earlier this morning…. I don't in any way

suggest that these numbers are statistically accurate, because they're gleaned

from sources that I had to find myself. I was asking the government about form

1530 in trying to find out how many people are working in the system. I will

tell the minister that it is my information — these are the only statistics

that I can find, and this is going through the website — that there are 162.39

fewer teacher-librarians this year. There are 70.68 fewer counsellors this year,

and there are 205.37 fewer ESL teachers in the system.

[1650]

That is

going to the sources of information that the minister offered me. Clearly, if

the minister doesn't have her own statistics to provide me with…. I went to

the sources that the minister suggested, and that's the information I put on the

record.

I'm moving

to the service plan now. I'm working from the 2003/04-2005/06 Service Plan ,

page 5. There's what I think is an omission from last year's plan, but I leave

it up to the minister to tell me whether this is accurate or not. In the second

paragraph, second sentence, it says: "To support this goal, the ministry is

committed to local autonomy for school boards, strong accountability measures

and a broader range of choice for students and parents." Last year in the

service plan there was a mention of staff in exactly the same statement. Why

that omission?

Hon. C.

Clark: Not any kind of intentional slight intended — just a rewriting of

it.

MacPhail: Did the minister note it, or is this the first time it's been

brought to her attention? This is the point about how the very important

role…. It's the whole issue about student achievement and the overarching

goal. The paragraph begins with: "Improving student achievement is the

overarching goal in the ministry and in all parts of the education system."

So the overarching goal makes a fairly serious omission. Is this on the website,

and can it be changed?

[ Page 5527 ]

Hon. C.

Clark: It's on the website. It won't be changed for this year. The reference

is to a broader range of choice for students and parents. Generally, we think of

choice being provided to those two