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 6, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

International Women's Day

E. Brenzinger

S. Brice

French immersion

R. Stewart

Oral Questions

Impact of gasoline tax increase on public transit

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Tolls on inland ferries

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

School closings and education funding

R. Stewart

Hon. C. Clark

Placer mining

J. Wilson

Hon. R. Neufeld

Monitoring of government photocopying

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Santori

Okanagan-Similkameen school district review

D. Chutter

Hon. C. Clark

Committee of the Whole House

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13)

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Santori

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Clark

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Page

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Coleman

J. MacPhail

[ Page 5351 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

S. Orr:

I would like to say bonjour to 23 grade 7 students that are in French

immersion in one of the schools in my riding, Doncaster Elementary. With them

they have four adults, and with them is their teacher. Her name is Miss Jensen.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I am very pleased to welcome to the House today Jason Johnson. Jason

is originally from Penticton. He's now living in the Victoria area. He's a nice

young fellow in the hospitality and tourism industry. Would the House please

make Jason very welcome.

[1405]

Brenzinger: I'm delighted to introduce to the House today two outstanding

women who, in their work, help women to reach their full potential. Janet

Fairbach is the director of the Women's Intercultural Network for Women Today,

and Lewiza Youssef is actively involved with the Arabic women's community. It is

indeed a pleasure to have them join us today. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. J.

Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of people from the Comox

Valley. John and Lynn Marinus are host parents and Rotary Club members that are

hosting some exchange students with us today. We have a German Rotary exchange

student, Thekla Zeit; we have a student from Switzerland, Ursina Hottiger; and

we have a Rotary student from Brazil, Carol Sabron. As well, we have Lindsay

McCormack, who is accompanying them today from the Comox Valley. Lindsay is the

granddaughter of John and Lynn. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

J. Kwan:

I'm particularly happy today, because some 31 years ago the Leader of the

Opposition was born on this very day. We're here today….

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

You know, in the Chinese community there is a saying, as I understand it, that

as people become wiser, they tend to lose their hair. I'd like to know, and I'd

like the Leader of the Opposition to share with members of this House what her

secret is because, as we can see, she has a full head of hair. There is no doubt

from any member of this House, I'm sure, about the level of wisdom that my

colleague has reached, so the secret is to be shared, hon. member, and I wish

that you would share it with all members. It might well enhance the scenery in

this Legislature.

Hon. G.

Bruce: With all that talk about hair, one's got to be concerned about

barbers and cosmetologists as well. I would like to wish the Leader of the

Opposition a happy birthday. I thought you and I were of the same age, but

obviously I was completely incorrect in that. I've got a good 20 years….

MacPhail: I was born in a different time zone.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, there could be truth to that too.

At any

rate, noticing how quiet it was yesterday in the House, I thought it was

important that we have a visitation from some of those great constituents of

Cowichan-Ladysmith. In the House today are the Winters brothers, Wayne, Lee, Kim

and Rob, and their mother, Lill. They're in the construction business, and they

were telling me at lunch that they are having one of the best years they ever

had in British Columbia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

Brenzinger: I am delighted to rise today to focus the attention of the

Legislature on International Women's Day. This special day provides an

opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality, to

assess the challenges facing women in contemporary society, to consider full

steps to enhance the status of women and, of course, to celebrate the gains made

in these areas.

The very

fact that we have so many women in this Legislature representing constituents

from around the province speaks volumes for how far women have come. Women have

a voice in this province. In British Columbia we have much to celebrate as women

have considerable opportunities for education, for pursuing business and

professional interests, and for raising their families in an environment of

peace and freedom. Indeed, women have come to Canada from many nations of the

world specifically because of the opportunities here.

[1410]

I am

particularly excited about this year's theme — Worldwide Women, WWW: Surfing

the Digital Divide. The advent of new information and communication technologies

has revolutionized the way people communicate, access information, create

networks and develop business opportunities. Just this week the Minister of

State for Women's Equality launched a web-based directory for women, which makes

it easier for women to access information about programs and services that can

provide them with valuable support. If knowledge is power, then the Internet

offers a wealth of information, and I believe the Internet can and, in fact,

already is empowering women and promoting equality.

This week

is a chance to celebrate and recognize those women who have played a positive

role in our lives — a teacher, a mother, a friend or a colleague. It is also a

chance to recognize those groups and leaders in each of our communities who play

an important role in supporting and encouraging women to reach their full

potential.

Brice: Like my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, I, too, rise to recognize

International Women's Week and

[ Page 5352 ]

to celebrate the achievements of women. These achievements, of course, cover

all aspects of our lives — in our families and in the workplace, in

communities, in institutions of learning, on the sporting fields and in the

legislative chambers around the world.

International

Women's Day is rooted in women's fight for the right to vote and the declaration

of women as legal persons. I think it is most appropriate that we honour both

the struggle and the achievements in the Legislature today.

The theme

for this year's International Women's Day is Worldwide Women: Surfing the

Digital Revolution. As has been acknowledged by my colleague from

Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of State for Women's Equality this week launched a

women's directory. This is an electronic directory of government services that

are available to women or are used primarily by women. The directory is a single

window to a wide range of services for women, including information on

parenting, women's safety, services for immigrant and visible minority women,

women with disabilities, housing, women's health and employment.

This is the

first time this kind of directory has been available for women's programs and

services in British Columbia, and I expect it will be well used. This initiative

will be especially useful to the women in British Columbia's heartland

communities who may be living a considerable distance away from government

services.

Women have

come a long way. I encourage all members of the House to join me in celebrating

those accomplishments this Saturday, which is International Women's Day, and

indeed throughout the year.

FRENCH IMMERSION

Stewart: It is my pleasure to announce that the government of B.C. has

proclaimed next week, March 9 to 15, as French Immersion Week. This important

program enhances the intellectual growth and career opportunities for students

and helps to strengthen the bond between communities in our French- and

British

Columbia's French immersion program continues to grow in popularity. Enrolment

is up 7 percent in the last ten years. This year 32,000 students across B.C.

were enrolled in French immersion. That's an increase of almost 1,000 over last

year. In fact, 44 school districts offer either early or late French immersion

in 228 schools throughout the province.

En tant que

Député responsable des affaires francophones, j'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer

grande culture ici en Colombie-Britannique comme tout partout d'ailleurs a

pour leurs avenirs.

[As

MLA Responsible for Francophone Affairs, it's my pleasure to announce that

French Immersion Week in B.C. will take place this year March 9-15. The French

language is a big part of our culture here in B.C., as across Canada. French

Immersion offers students the richness of the French language and culture, as

well as a unique opportunity for their futures.]

[Script

and translation provided by R. Stewart.]

I think

it's important to recognize the contribution of this program and its dedicated

teachers and staff to the French language education of young British Columbians.

As a francophone and as a parent, I am encouraged by the continued interest

shown by parents to enrol their children in French immersion. As my eldest

daughter Christina approaches graduation, it is clear to me that her French

immersion education has provided her with a world of opportunities.

[1415]

Education

is this government's top priority, and we want to provide students with the

kinds of choices that will make our education most relevant to their needs.

French immersion plays a key role in achieving this goal.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF GASOLINE TAX INCREASE

ON PUBLIC TRANSIT

MacPhail: Today TransLink is asking the government to exempt it from the 3½-cent-a-litre

tax grab. That tax is going to add at least $1.4 million to its fuel bill and

lead to even further cuts in transit service. Can the Minister of Transportation

tell us if she will entertain this request to protect public transit service in

the lower mainland?

Hon. J.

Reid: As I mentioned yesterday, the serious nature this government has with

the funding of transit services and our commitment to funding transit services

and the necessity to be able to provide transportation services all over this

province…. We just announced $209 million going into transportation around the

lower mainland. That benefits everybody. We believe in working with the

communities and in working with Transit to find the efficiencies that are going

to be delivered to provide the services people need.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: The announcement this government made in terms of choosing roads

over public transit not only harms the environment but reduces the services upon

which people have to rely for public transit.

Interjections.

MacPhail: We'll get to that in a minute.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: We'll get to the great strategy to help the interior.

[ Page 5353 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: We'll get to what this government's doing for public transit in

the interior.

So far the

only thing this government's done for public transit is raise the gas taxes or

force increased transit fees and cuts in service. It's not just the bus service

in the lower mainland that's on the chopping block because of the government's

tax grab. In Victoria the fuel tax means an increase in fuel costs of $250,000 a

year, a cut of 5,000 hours of bus service. That's on top of the already 35,000

hours cut under this government. In Kelowna they are now talking about also

cutting bus service because of this gas tax increase.

Can the

Minister of Transportation tell us why seniors in Victoria and why those great

citizens in the interior have to lose their bus service because of this

minister's tax grab?

Hon. J.

Reid: We are improving services in many ways across this province. In

transportation there's a wide network of services required. Supporting the

infrastructure is absolutely necessary as part of transportation services, and

that includes transit. There are efficiencies that need to be found in the

transit system. We are working with municipalities to find those efficiencies,

to improve the services and to move ahead, working with municipalities to find

the best funding formula to meet their needs.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: In the year 2003 this is the only government in Canada that hasn't

invested one red cent out of its pocket into public transit — the only

jurisdiction. In the lower mainland public transit is going to be cut. On the

lower Island public transit will be cut. In communities from Kelowna to Kamloops

and Prince George, transit service is being threatened, as we speak, by this

Liberal tax grab. In Nanaimo alone transit fuel costs are expected to rise by 38

percent at the end of this month. The result: service will be cut at the end of

March and again at the end of June.

[1420]

Again, can

the Minister of Transportation tell us why it is that commuters, students,

seniors and those that live in the interior and on the coast are being told that

buses just don't get any recognition from this and that there are just no buses

left to get them where they need to go?

Hon. J.

Reid: This member opposite knows that there is a commitment to rapid transit

in the lower mainland, knows that this government is working with TransLink,

with the federal government to be able to fulfil that commitment. There is

ongoing commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars to further transit

projects. So we are working with the different partners…

MacPhail: You're doing zero — zero. What are they? Just tell us what they

are. What are they?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: …on the priorities that TransLink has established and maintaining

the commitments that the government has inherited.

TOLLS ON INLAND FERRIES

J. Kwan:

In the Premier's televised infomercial, he said that there would be no tolls on

inland ferries, but it looks as though…

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Wait for the question.

…tolls

are going to be put on the McLure ferry. Can the Minister of Transportation

explain why her Premier is breaking his promise?

Hon. J.

Reid: When we first looked at the efficiency of the inland ferry system and

ways of being able to provide a cost-effective service for the people for

British Columbia, we realized that there were a number of ferry routes that had

alternate roads service. Those ferries, indeed, were only used for part of the

year. We made an announcement many, many months ago that it wasn't necessary for

the government to provide those services and that those services could be

provided by an alternate service provider, if indeed there was interest. We put

out an expression of interest to find out if there were other parties who want

to take that on. We have received expressions. We are going through an RFP

process shortly.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

The new-era definition for the Liberals: efficiency means cuts. Same thing for

ferries; same thing for transit. Let me read the Premier's words back to the

minister. He told interior residents: "There will be no tolls on inland

ferries." He didn't say: "There will be no tolls because we're

shutting your ferry down." He didn't say: "There will be no tolls

except on those that are being privatized." He said: "There will be no

tolls — period." People in McLure believed him, and now they're outraged.

They say the Premier is breaking his promise. So again to the minister: who is

right — the Premier or the citizens of McLure?

Hon. J.

Reid: As I said, this announcement was made many months ago. This is a

service where we have taken the interests of the people using it. We have

consulted with the people. There were some comments…

[ Page 5354 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Hon. J.

Reid: …and concerns about the road. Those comments and concerns are being

addressed. Again, these ferry services have good alternate road service. It

isn't necessary, and there are private ferries that operate in the interior —

in the heartlands — of this province right now.

SCHOOL CLOSINGS AND

EDUCATION FUNDING

Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last month the

Coquitlam school board voted to close three elementary schools including

Montgomery Elementary, the school that two of my children attend. There are some

people in my constituency who are blaming this decision on budget pressures,

despite the fact that these schools are not even close to being at capacity.

Montgomery, for example, is currently two-thirds empty and within a kilometre of

three other schools that also have space. In fact, Montgomery's principal urged

that the school be closed.

To the

Minister of Education: for the benefit of school boards across this province,

could she please clarify that when she asked school boards to direct more of the

money into their classrooms, she meant the classrooms with children in them?

[1425]

Hon. C.

Clark: I know it's a difficult decision for school boards to decide to shut

down a school or amalgamate a school. It's difficult because schools often feel

like they are a part of a community, no matter how close that community may be

to other communities. And that's certainly the case in Coquitlam. In Coquitlam,

though, they have an acute change in demographics, so while they're talking

about closing down three schools, we in the ministry are paying almost $9

million to build a new school for secondary students. While there are 15,000

fewer students in kindergarten than there are in grade 12, we have to recognize

that some of those secondary schools are absolutely bursting at the seams.

It's a

difficult decision for the school board, but we're encouraging school boards to

take all of the money we grant to them and focus that on student achievement.

Instead of spending the money on empty spaces, spend it on teachers, spend it on

textbooks, spend it on computers, spend it on teacher aides — spend it on

things that will really benefit students. So when we granted the Coquitlam

school board $2.7 million at the end of this fiscal year, when we granted them

$2 million at the end of last fiscal year and then when we granted them their

portion of the $100 million that will be flowing to school districts over the

next three years, we said we have one condition — that you spend this money on

improving student achievement.

PLACER MINING

Wilson: I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Earlier

this year the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced even greater

restrictions on placer mining operations in British Columbia. These new

restrictions will have devastating consequences. Placer mining, while only a

small part of mining operations in B.C., contributes greatly to the economy and

is a valuable employer for many of my constituents. Can the Minister of Energy

and Mines tell us how he intends to address this issue and how he plans to

protect the placer mining operations in our province?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The placer mining industry in British Columbia is very important to

the province, and we want to make sure it survives the onslaught of what takes

place with DFO changing the rules.

My ministry

officials met with the DFO last fall to talk to them about the setback

requirements. I recently met with the Premier of the Yukon and the minister of

mines in the Yukon and have asked to participate with them in lobbying the

federal government and DFO to relax their standards. We want to work together

with them, because placer mining is very important in the Yukon also.

I've also

met with the Cariboo Mining Association, and they have just recently forwarded

to me a number of requests on how we can actually help the placer mining

industry in British Columbia not just with DFO regulations but with some of our

own. So we're working hard to make sure that takes place in the province.

MONITORING OF

GOVERNMENT PHOTOCOPYING

MacPhail: Not only is B.C. Stats doing secret performance evaluation of

cabinet ministers, they're also working on another top secret Liberal project.

According to B.C. Stats documents, the Minister of Management Services has

contracted B.C. Stats to ferret out photocopies in government that violate

copyright. It looks like a big project. According to B.C. Stats's worksheet, its

target is to monitor every photocopy made by government.

Can the

Minister of Management Services tell the House how many staff it takes and how

much it costs to look at every photocopy made in government to make sure that no

one may be doing something illegal, like photocopying pages from the New Era

document?

Interjections.

MacPhail: How much money? Every photocopy.

[ Page 5355 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Santori: This government respects the rights of publishers, and we are

undertaking an exercise to make sure we are adhering to the rights of those

publishers and will continue to do so.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Yale-Lillooet has the floor.

OKANAGAN-SIMILKAMEEN

SCHOOL DISTRICT REVIEW

[1430]

Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Education. I understand that the

Education ministry has undertaken a new process for reviewing school districts

in order to increase accountability. The Okanagan-Similkameen school district

was one of the districts involved in the review process. Can the Minister of

Education explain the purpose of these reviews and advise us how the

Okanagan-Similkameen school district is performing?

Hon. C.

Clark: We're sending out district review teams to a third of the districts

every year to have a look at how well the districts are living up to the goals

they've set for themselves and their accountability contracts to make sure that

they're focused on student achievement and that they're spending every taxpayer

dollar as well as they can to maximize student learning in the classroom.

The results

from this district came back very positive. They talked very positively about

the leadership in the district. They talked very positively about the fact that

the district has set clear goals for its local schools. They did, though,

suggest some improvements, and perhaps some collaboration would be required to

make sure that classroom assessment is working well. Overall, this district has

done an absolutely tremendous job. The district review team membership is drawn

from across the province and from all stakeholder groups. They bring a valuable

outside eye to make sure everything in the education system is functioning as

highly as possible. The good news for this member is that his district is doing

an absolutely tremendous job.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General. In this House, I call committee stage debate of Bill 13.

[1435]

Committee

of the Whole House

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:36 p.m.

Sections

1 to 9 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is a

section that I addressed in second reading. I think by

now the minister will have received a letter from the British Columbia Civil

Liberties Association, written by John Dixon. A signatory to the letter is also

Gerry Fahey, who is with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

That letter outlines their concerns with the changes to the act made by

section

10 of this bill.

I'll take

this opportunity to acknowledge that I was remiss in not acknowledging the work

that the Civil Liberties Association and the Freedom of Information and Privacy

Association had done. Their letter assisted me in my debate at second reading,

and I was remiss in not acknowledging that. I want to put on the record today

that their direction was of great assistance to me in second reading.

Specifically,

these organizations believe that the discretionary power of a public body to

release personal information needs to be maintained, but the act has to be clear

that this authority — discretionary authority — extends to third-party

contractors engaged by the government to take on public services. I'll read into

the record what

section 10 is doing.

Section 10

is amending the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

section

33, by striking out "a public body may disclose personal

information…." It's now substituting that with: "A public body must

ensure that personal information in its custody or under its control is

disclosed." That's the change with which we are dealing.

I want to

ask the minister a couple of questions on this. At present, British Columbians

have their privacy rights protected by law. There is recourse in law if those

rights are breached. By failing to ensure that the personal privacy rights of

British Columbians are protected when the government shares or allows personal

information to be collected by non-government entities for a government-directed

purpose, the government is really saying, "Trust us. The contract we have

will protect your rights."

In other

words, by this

section 10 amendment to

section 33 of the original act, the

legislated protection is gone, and it's now back to the government — that they

will incorporate that protection through a contract. Is it the minister's view

that a contractual agreement really

[ Page 5356 ]

will be sufficient to protect the personal privacy rights of British

Columbians? Does he really believe that that will happen?

[1440]

Hon. S.

Santori: T hat's precisely what we're saying. The change that we are making,

in fact, strengthens that obligation of government to ensure that work being

done by a third party under contract will, in fact, comply with the legislation.

Also, I do

acknowledge the letter that was received by the B.C. Civil Liberties

Association. There was significant consultation. I believe our staff met a

minimum of two times with the Civil Liberties Association. We feel that we have

met the requests that were bestowed upon us, as well as through the privacy

commissioner. I believe the member has been copied with a letter from the

privacy commissioner, whereby he has no concerns or objections with respect to

the amendment that I've brought forward.

MacPhail: Well, why is the minister exempting the contractors from the same

level of scrutiny and review that previously applied to the public sector doing

exactly the same work? Why is the minister not holding the private sector to the

same code of conduct that he holds public sector delivery of services to?

Hon. S.

Santori: That is exactly what we are ensuring that we are doing. We are

making this amendment to directly ensure that third parties do in fact comply

under the same rules and regulations as we do, as government, with respect to

the freedom of information and the protection of privacy.

MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister can explain to the public how that

actually is occurring, because here's my view of what this amendment does. More

and more of government services are being outsourced, which is this government's

term. My term is "privatized" or "contracted out." Whatever

you call it, outsourced or contracted out, it's giving services that were

previously in the public sector now to the private sector. Yet in practice, and

in the view of the public, the services themselves remain public services so

that the public thinks of them as those kinds of services, regardless of who's

delivering them. In fact, the funder of those services remains government

revenue.

addition, the delivery of these services, which are often mandated by policy or

sometimes even statute, is overseen by a government authority, government

entity. As such, personal information under the control of this third-party

entity must continue to be treated as if the information was under the control

of a true public body such as a government ministry.

Let me just

give one example. What if the contract with Pacific Blue Cross in relation to

Pharmacare changes? Let's use that as an example of what we're talking about.

Pacific Blue Cross will be provided with access to a wide range of personal

information from tax returns right through to medical history, yet the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as this amendment stands, doesn't

apply to Pacific Blue Cross. They're providing a public service, and they're

using and have access to personal information collected by a public agency.

I submit

that it's vitally important that the act be very clear when it comes to who has

control of the information and the procedures that must be adhered to if it's to

be released in any way. It's got to be absolutely clear that the release of

personal information remains discretionary and used only for statutorily defined

purposes.

With that

in mind, Mr. Chair, I put forward an amendment to

section 33. I think the Table

has a copy of the amendment, and I believe the minister has a copy of the

amendment in my name.

[1445]

I'm

proposing, under

section 10 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, that

section 10 will amend

section 33 in the

following fashion:

[(

a) by striking out "A public body may disclose

personal information only" and substituting "When a public body

decides to disclose personal information, the public body must ensure that the

disclosure of personal information in its custody or under its control is

disclosed only as enumerated in (

a) to (

r) below," and

(

b) by repealing paragraph

(

m) and substituting the following: (

m) to the archives of the government of

British Columbia or the archives of a public body for archival purposes, and

(

c) by adding: "33.1 When a public body discloses personal information to

a non-public entity contracted by the public body to perform duties or

services normally done by a public body, including but not limited to, data

processing, the Act shall apply to the non-public entity as if it were a

public body."]

Section

33.1 is an expansion of my argument that currently is not addressed in the

legislation at all.

On the

amendment.

Hon. S.

Santori: I believe it's very explicit. Once again, the contractors who are

doing work on behalf of the government, which is where the material is under the

custody and control of government, will abide by the same rules as outlined in

section 33 of the act.

MacPhail: I hope the minister is going to expound upon this point of view

about why he thinks it applies directly, because my argument is exactly the

opposite — that it's been changed from permissive to mandatory in the

legislation. The minister just stands up and says it doesn't do that. Perhaps

the minister could walk the public through his explanation of why I'm

inaccurate. Then point No. 33.1 in my amendment also adds the fact that the

information will be treated as personal information when it goes from a public

body to a non-public entity contracted to perform the duties

[ Page 5357 ]

normally done by that public body, even when it includes data processing.

Hon. S.

Santori: The point I want to make here in response is that the government

does maintain control even when in the hands of a contractor.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair, my apologies. Could the minister please repeat

that?

Hon. S.

Santori: The government retains control even when the work is in the hands

of the contractor.

MacPhail: How does it maintain control? I'm actually even less clear with

that answer. If personal information is requested from the contractor, does that

request for the release of the personal information then go to the public agency

or the ministry? How does it remain in public control?

Hon. S.

Santori: In response to the member's question, the ministry will receive the

request. The ministry will respond to that request. Even though the private

contractor may have the custody and possession of that information, the request

goes to the ministry, and the information is made available by the ministry.

[1450]

Amendment

negatived on division.

Sections 10

to 20 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: I rise for the committee to report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:51 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

13, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will

be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I also seek a brief

recess while members attend in the House for that purpose.

The House

recessed from 2:52 p.m. to 3:09 p.m.

Committee of Supply

The

House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:09 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

vote 19: ministry operations, $4,859,939,000 (continued) .

[1510]

J. Kwan:

Yesterday we were discussing the general funding issues in the Ministry of

Education. I'd like to continue on with some of the questions in that area. Just

to recap a little bit, we were able to establish that there is a series of areas

for which funding would not be in place. There would be no new funding in place

in the education system for increased pressures such as the gas tax increase,

such as potential hydro rate increases, such as school buses which may be faced

with a tremendous, dramatic increase in costs as a result of, again, the gas

tax. Those kinds of increased pressures would not take place. The government

would not be providing additional funding in that area.

What we

were also able to establish was that when the minister says there's $100 million

in addition to the budget for education in '04-05, '05-06, up to $50 million

would be injected into the education system in '04-05, bringing the total to

$3.84 billion, and up to $20 million in '05-06, bringing the total to $3.86

billion. That brings us to $70 million, not $100 million. We're still short on

some of those amounts. That's what we were able to establish yesterday in

estimates with the minister.

I'd like to

actually follow with the line of questioning on this. Now that we know this

magical $143 million is not the amount of money that will be directed to the

school district grants…. In fact, it is less than that, because there's also a

significant amount that would go to adjusting the general accounting principles.

What people have been saying about the impacts of this money, in short, is that,

yes, it will help a little, but the system remains poorly funded.

I'd like to

look at another couple of articles in the Times Colonist . It talks about

a coalition here in Victoria. "Coalition Urges More for Schools," it

headlines. The

article is dated February 14, 2003.

"The

day after the Premier announced his government would inject more than $100

million into public education over the next three years, a coalition of

parents, educators and school trustees said it wouldn't be enough.

"Titled

'Public Education is Our Future,' the petition calls for the provincial

government to maintain a quality learning environment for all students, fund

both provincially mandated cost increases and inflation and maintain social

equity funding for B.C.'s most needy students and families.

"'A

hundred million dollars?' said a parent, Sher Morgan, who has a daughter in

grade 9 in Esquimalt secondary. 'That's fabulous, but we still have a

shortfall in the greater Victoria district, and I feel that we're at rock

bottom right now.'

"'What

public education desperately needs,' say members of the coalition, 'is

adequate and stable funding.'

[ Page 5358 ]

"'That

won't come through piecemeal injections into the system,' said greater

Victoria district chairwoman Charley Beresford.

"'Parents

are exhausted at reacting to cuts,' said Morgan, who has fought particularly

hard to protect the elementary strings program in the district.

"'By

any objective measure, the current funding for our schools and our kids is not

meeting the needs of our children,' said John Roche, president of the Greater

Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils."

The

article

goes on to quote him saying: "But I would like to see more stable

funding." He adds that the current practice leaves boards and parents

constantly in a reactive mode. "I would like to see a vision for

education."

The

article

goes on, but we get the thrust of what the individual is trying to say — that

the one-time injection of funding does not provide for stability. People are

feeling it in the system — school trustees, parents, teachers. Everyone who is

an advocate in education feels that. I'd like the minister to respond to this

issue of stable funding and really the lack thereof.

[1515]

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said a number of times yesterday, for the first time this

government — which is a huge departure from previous governments — is

providing stable funding. We're providing three-year planning envelopes for

school districts. That's something they begged the previous government for and

were refused. We've lived up to our commitment during the election to provide

stable funding to school districts. We intend to continue to do that.

It's

interesting to hear the member complain about a lack of vision. In fact, we

probably get more complaints about the fact that we have too much vision,

because school districts aren't always ready to undertake the kind of momentous

change that we're talking about: more parental involvement, absolutely critical

to making sure kids have a quality, sound education; more autonomy for school

districts, so they can design programs that meet the needs of their local

communities; more accountability, so everyone in the public knows how well their

money is being spent; and, of course, more choice, so students can choose and

vote with their feet and decide what education is best for them.

J. Kwan:

The issue that I raised is not just from the opposition. It's from the parents,

from people who are in the system, from school trustees, teachers and educators.

They all are saying, in spite of what the minister is saying herself — and she

may well believe it herself…. I'm simply pointing the minister's attention to

the issue — that out in the public, people do not feel there is stable

funding. There is no stability in the funding.

If the

minister actually heard what I said, the coalition of people who have come

together to advocate for better education — a coalition of parents, educators

and school trustees — says that there are problems with the way this minister

is addressing the education system and funding within the education system. They

are the ones who are saying they're exhausted from trying to reach out and to

react to cuts. They're exhausted with what this government is doing, and they

would like to see more stable funding. They have not seen that. They would like

to see a vision for education. This is a direct quote from the Greater Victoria

Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the people that this minister puts so

much emphasis on and has high regards towards, which are the parents — and

rightly so.

Yes, you

can easily just discount what they say by sloughing it off. I think that's a

shame. I hope the minister at some point in time stops and listens, because I

think that may well do our education system some good. It may well do our

parents, who are working so hard in this system, the school trustees who are

working so hard in our system and the teachers who are working so hard in our

system to enhance education for our students in the public sector.

I want to

raise another issue with the minister relating to funding in education. That is

the issue around the technology grant. Aside from the funding formula itself,

which we will get into in a little while, there remains some unanswered issues

around other funding commitments. First, it is the technology grant.

A release

from the BCSTA explains the issue. I'll just read part of the release for the

minister. The release — September 25 to October 9. BCSTA president Gordon

Comeau gives several media interviews speaking to the shortfall resulting from

non-payment of the final 30 percent of the technology grant. In the Province

clip attached to the news release and on Shaw Cable's Voice of B.C.

hosted by Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer, Comeau asks the Minister

of Education to see that this funding is forthcoming. BCSTA has not received a

response from the ministry to date. That was, of course, September 25 to October

Then on

September 12, 2002, BCSTA president Gordon Comeau writes to the Minister of

Education pointing out that no district has received the remaining 30 percent of

the tech grant due in June 2002. He asks if the ministry staff have indicated

that the funding was included in the per-pupil allocation of 2002-03. This is a

serious problem for boards as funds budgeted and spent in 2001 and 2002 must be

accounted for in a dedicated reserve for that year. These accounts now show

deficits.

[1520]

On July 23,

2002, British Columbia School District Secretary-Treasurers Association

president Joan Axford writes to the Minister of Education, drawing her attention

to the non-payment of the final 30 percent of the tech grant for '01-02. Then in

October of 2001 the minister notifies school boards that they will receive 70

percent of the funding in November 2001, with the remainder transmitted on or

before June 30, 2002. Then dating back to April 2001, the Ministry of Education

notifies school boards that they would receive $5 million in technology grants

for 2002-03.

[ Page 5359 ]

Can the

minister please explain why the ministry failed to fund the final payment of the

tech grant? Why was it cancelled?

Hon. C.

Clark: We were rolling all of the available dollars that we have into the

per-pupil funding. I think only this member would try and suggest that $42

million more last year, $50 million more this year, hopefully another dividend

at the end of next year and then $100 million would translate into a cut.

Let me just

give her a little picture of what this looks like in terms of per-student

funding. That means per-pupil funding has gone up by $109 in '02-03 — that's

last year — $51 per student in '03-04, $139 per student in '04-05 and $88 per

student in '05-06. How she characterizes those increases as a cut is absolutely

beyond me. All I can conclude is that she's deliberately trying to misrepresent

the facts to gain her own political advantage.

J. Kwan:

When the minister just wants to sit there with her eyes wide shut, she can

choose to do so, and she obviously has continued to choose to do that.

The reality

is this…. And this is not just me who's raising these concerns. The reality is

that there is a cut in the classroom for students. Make no mistake about it. How

that adds up…. I would challenge the minister to add up her numbers, and she

will know the difference. By her own admission last year, where she did not fund

fully the teachers' salary increases, that left a hole of some $16.8 million of

shortfall. That is a hole.

Then you

have increased pressures in other areas as well. You have MSP premium increases

imposed by this government — only partially funded. Then there's also the

increase of the pending gas prices that's going to be put into the system. Now

we have the tech grant that.… Even though the government actually promised —

promised after they were elected — that school boards would receive it as full

funding…. All of a sudden, you know what? That's all accounted for within the

per-pupil dollars, and there are no additional dollars. All of a sudden these

cuts started to take place.

If the

minister actually went out to the classrooms, talked to parents and saw for

herself, she would see the reduction in services that is the result of this

minister's and this government's action. Make no mistake about it. The budget

for education — the dollars — has actually remained constant. They did not

go up. Then when you have added pressures in the system, what you've got is a

reduction in education funding. That's how it adds up. It's not that difficult

to do the math.

I know the

minister had a tough time dealing with the math yesterday on the $100 million,

and I understand that, because she is still short on the 100 million bucks.

We're still short some moneys on that. I'm going to leave that, because

obviously that's where we're at. The minister sees it differently, and the

numbers add up differently. There is a math problem here that everybody else

acknowledges except for the minister.

For the

minister to sit there and say: "Hey, everything is fine. Don't worry about

it. The school board will manage everything, in spite of all these increased

pressures, without increased funding into the system…." There is a

problem. That $50 million the minister is so fond of saying…. That one-time

grant money — you know what? — actually didn't increase the education

budget. It didn't. The education budget actually stayed constant, and this year

the budget is staying constant as well.

The

minister can sit there with her eyes wide shut and say: "Everything is

fine; it is not our problem." But then everybody else, according to the

minister, is wrong, including the BCSTA, who wrote to the minister, who

contacted the minister on several occasions in spite of what the minister had

promised, and that is that the tech grant would actually be paid. All of a

sudden they have clawed back those moneys. I would say that is misleading to the

public to suggest that the tech grant was paid for when all you have done is

roll that money into the per-pupil funding, like everything else has now been

rolled into the per-pupil funding. Maybe she can explain to the BCSTA how it is

she can justify cutting the tech grant.

[1525]

Hon. C.

Clark: I want to correct some of the assumptions the member has made. In

fact, we did fund the MSP increases. We overfunded them to the tune of $3

million actually; we didn't underfund it or not fund it at all. Second, I do go

to classes. In fact, I was just in some classrooms this week. I travel to

classrooms all across the province and meet with teachers, meet with parents,

meet with students — most importantly — and meet with administrators to get

a chance to talk to them about what's going on in their schools.

I am really

fed up with the member across there running down our public education system and

trying to telegraph to the public how rotten our public education system always

is. You know what? It's not. We have a great public education system. Our

students are doing better this year than they have ever done in the past. We

have some of the most qualified, dedicated, caring teachers in the world in

British Columbia. We have some of the best leaders in the principals and

vice-principals that work in our system, some of the most committed volunteers

on our school boards, and of course we have some of the brightest, most capable,

most able students you will find anywhere on this globe. So I am fed up with

hearing that member run down our public education system.

Yes, there

are areas where we can do better. Certainly, we can make sure that more than

three out of four students graduate from high school. Certainly, we can make

sure that more than 40 percent of aboriginal students graduate from high school.

Yes, we can work on our reading and our writing and our numeracy numbers, and

improve those. But let's not forget, when we're talking about trying to do

things better — all of us in the system, from the ministry to school boards to

classroom teachers to students — to also give ourselves a collective pat on

the back, because we have one of the very, very best public education systems in

the world.

[ Page 5360 ]

J. Kwan:

I know the minister likes to mischaracterize what I said.

The issue I

take issue with is her approach to education. I take issue with this

government's approach to education. Everyone in the system is doing the best

they can. In spite of the cuts and the kinds of pressures this government has

foisted onto the education system, school trustees are doing the very best they

can. They're charged with a huge responsibility. It's this government that is

underfunding education, and they — the trustees — in turn have to go out to

explain to parents why schools are being shut down, why their ESL students are

not getting the support they need, why special needs children are not getting

the support they need, why the hallways in the school system are dirty. In some

cases, principals are required to clean up vomit from children who have not been

well.

Those are

the tough things that people in the system who are advocates of the system are

doing, not this Minister of Education. She likes to claim she is the one who's

protecting education when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The

minister is not doing her job and living up to her responsibility. She said

yesterday: "My commitment as minister, our government's commitment and our

Premier's commitment is to do all we can to try and make sure that no child in

our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks,

because that is our obligation to the next generation."

She said

that yesterday, hon. Chair, and do you know what? Children are falling through

the cracks, not because people in the system are not doing their job, but

because this minister's not giving them the tools to do the job. There are now

huge problems in the education system, and everybody seems to know it. Everybody

seems to know it except for the minister.

[1530]

I had the

pleasure of receiving a videotape from a parents group known as Save Our

Schools. It was a videotape documenting a variety of issues and challenges that

parents are now faced with. There were parents who highlighted situations where

their child was in need of special needs support, and they have had that support

reduced by half because of funding pressures. We have other parents who talked

about ESL support, which is now not there in the education system — urging the

minister to pay attention to that.

understand a copy of that tape has now gone to the Premier, and he has promised

to watch that tape. In turn, he will make sure that the minister will watch that

tape. I hope the minister has taken the time to watch that tape. It's the

hundreds of thousands of voices of the parents who are on that tape, who are

saying to this minister that she is underfunding education and that problems

exist in the education system as a result of that. I urge the minister to take a

serious look at those issues and not just simply to write them off.

I want to

get back to the technology grant. We have a case where the minister cannot, in

my view, get her act together and provide stable funding regimes for the

districts. They're always being left in the dark by the minister.

In an

article from the Province that was dated September 26, 2002, Gordon

Comeau further explains the situation. I'd like to read this

article onto the

record for the minister, so that she actually gets who is having a problem with

this minister. Yes, as the opposition, what I'm doing is bringing the voice of

the public into this Legislature, because the minister obviously is not prepared

to go out there to hear the public. I'm going to try and bring that voice into

this Legislature. Here's what the public had to say in this article. The

headline is this:

"B.C.

school board says $1.5 million grant never came. After cutting millions from

their budgets, school districts across B.C. are now battling the Education

ministry for money promised last fall to upgrade school computers. The $5

million in technology grants for school districts were supposed to arrive in

two instalments. School boards received the first payment, 70 percent of the

money, last fall. But the final $1.5 million, which was supposed to be

transferred by the end of June, never arrived. Joan Axford, president of the

B.C. School Districts Secretary-Treasurers Association, said yesterday that

the districts were told the technology grants have been cancelled and money to

upgrade school computers and materials is now included in the $53.08

per-student funding. But that doesn't account for the missing $1.5 million

from last year's grant. The association has written to the minister, but has

received no response.

"The

B.C. School Trustees Association has also sent a letter to the minister. 'The

money was already allocated. It was already spent. Now all of a sudden school

districts have another deficit,' said Gordon Comeau, president of the Trustees

Association. A ministry spokesperson confirmed a separate technology grant has

been cancelled this year but says school districts received last year's second

instalment with a one-time, $42.8 million grant from the government."

What the

government is doing is, well, actually, reneging — reneging on what they

promised. It's not me who's making this up. People from the School Trustees

Association, the secretary-treasurers, are the ones who are raising these

issues. Can the minister explain how this missing money — the fact that the

dollars for computers are now rolled into the base allocation amount — helps

students improve performance and achievement? The point is, as Mr. Comeau

illustrated, that the money was already allocated; it was already spent. Now all

of a sudden school districts have another deficit. How does that help students

in British Columbia?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said the first time the member asked this question — and I can

answer it a third time if she likes…. I could probably answer it a tenth time

if we get there too. The money that was dedicated for technology grants had the

conditions untied from it, and we disbursed it to school districts in the form

of the grants that we've provided to them: $42 million, $50 million, and then

there will be a further $100 million, which I should point out dwarfs —

absolutely dwarfs — the tiny cost outstanding from the technol-

[ Page 5361 ]

ogy grants. That was rolled into those millions of dollars. In some cases,

districts are talking about thousands of dollars — $3,500, for example, in one

district. We're not talking about big amounts of money, but what we are talking

about is a government that trusts school districts to be able to make the right

decisions.

So instead

of — and this is a big departure, I know, from the last decade — a

government that says, "We think, we know in Victoria that we can spend your

money better than you can, so we're going to make the decisions about how you

should design your local programs and tell you exactly what you should be

spending money on," we're saying to districts: "Look, you're locally

elected. Here's the money. You decide how you want to spend it within the

parameters that we set as the ministry. Make sure you meet the standards. Make

sure you live up to your accountability contracts. Make sure you're open and

transparent in the way you spend your money. But go ahead and design programs

and your money in a way that meets the needs of your local communities."

[1535]

I want to

make another point, too, while I'm up. Some schools are closing because there's

been a dramatic demographic change in British Columbia. There are 15,000 fewer

students in kindergarten this year than there are in grade 12, and district 43

in Coquitlam is an excellent example of what's happening out there. They are

talking about closing three elementary schools at the same time that we're

spending almost $10 million building a brand-new secondary school for them

because the kids are in secondary school, not in elementary schools. That's no

fault of mine. I'm doing my best to contribute to fight this demographic trend,

as I know the member opposite is. Goodness knows, people aren't having kids at

the same rate that they used to, so schools are configured differently. That's

another issue I want to raise.

I want to

point out, as well, that we've increased the funding that we spend on special

remained the same, not decreased.

Lastly, I

want to close with this. The member feels free to get up and quote people and

talk about interest groups and things like that. She talks as though I as

minister never get out there and talk to anybody. The fact is that I do. I get

out there and visit schools all the time. I've been in a whole bunch of

different schools in a whole ton of different parts of British Columbia in the

last several months, including many in my own district. I've talked to parents.

I meet with parents on a regular basis. I met with a whole broad representation

of students who advise me in my riding just last week. I meet with principals,

vice-principals and teachers.

I want to

quote from a letter that was sent from the SOS group in Vancouver, which I know

the member is fond of quoting. They put together their video before the

announcement was made on funding by the government to grant $50 million and then

a further $100 million to the education budget. Here's what she says:

"I've

just received a copy of the Premier's press release announcing an extra $100

million in education funding for the province, plus news that the funding for

inner-city and community school programs will be continued. I'm profoundly

relieved and delighted to hear this news. The extra money over three years, in

addition to the $50 million which has already been given, will allow school

boards some stability of planning over this time period. As a parent who

volunteers many hours in my children's schools, I truly believe that there is

no room for further cuts after a decade of belt-tightening. On the other hand,

we all have to be financially responsible with taxpayers' dollars. With this

funding securely in place, I feel that I can now expect my trustees to be able

to make good decisions for our school district. You've already received an

invitation to attend the premiere of our video."

I'm paraphrasing now. Many PACs participated in this.

"It

looks like this launch of our video will be something of a celebration. This

is what we've been fighting for, and this is what the new money is going to

support. I hope you can come. As you know, SOS is a grassroots organization,

and our members have many different perspectives. There may be some parents

who feel that the money isn't enough. SOS has drawn us together."

It goes on a little bit. She ends by saying:

"We

are elated with the announcement of increased funding. We will now be able to

put our energy into working with our local trustees to come up with good plans

for our city's children."

And

to her I say bravo. Well done. Your work has been worth it, and your kids are

worth it.

J. Kwan:

It is interesting to note, as well, that since that time I've also received lots

of correspondence from parents and advocates in our system who have now

deciphered some of those numbers and seen what they really meant in the school

system. In fact, many people were initially relieved, as was I, when I first

heard that the Ministry of Children and Family Development — as an example —

would be funding the social equity envelope funding for the school-based

funding. That was until we actually went through the budget book in detail and

found that — guess what — there is about $7 million cut for the social

equity envelope funding.

[1540]

Further to

that, not only is there going to be a cut, but there will be more school

districts that are going to be wanting a portion of that funding. That means

that districts across B.C. will have to fight each other for a reduced amount of

resources. As one example, I also know that since that time when everybody

thought there was an additional $50 million base injection into the education

funding — not the one-time grant funding that the minister is talking about,

but an additional $50 million base injected into the education funding this year

— and then when people find out, in fact, there isn't that $50 million….

Over the

next two years, in spite of the fact that the minister claims there's $100

million, the numbers that I've been able to add up, based on yesterday's

estimates information, are only $70 million. I want to go back to ask the

minister where the other amount is, because it's

[ Page 5362 ]

not reflected anywhere. When people find out that, in fact, there aren't

going to be new dollars on the base funding injected into the system this year,

all of a sudden the picture changes.

This

government, Mr. Chair, is very clever. I have to admit that. They are very

clever in providing information that, quite frankly, is very misleading. It

actually doesn't reflect the true picture of what it is. At the initial glance,

the initial information that you receive, you would think that some of that is

good news. All of a sudden when you get down to the details, the entire picture

changes. As I said just this morning in my correspondences — and I haven't had

time to go through all my correspondences — letters were already coming in

from people who are concerned with the education funding and who felt, quite

frankly, that they were misled by the government on what the real situation is.

What we

know, then, is this. The technology grant is not going to be funded by the

government. Money has already been spent by the school boards. They have to

simply eat that deficit somewhere, and those moneys will simply have to come out

of the per-pupil funding. That's what this government's doing. That's what this

government has done, irrespective of the fact that they have promised that

school districts would get that money in full and that that money was not to

come out of the per-pupil funding. That's the reality of it. When they actually

award a grant or say that here is a program we are funding, most people

anticipate that they would have the dollars that go with it, especially after

it's been committed. They don't anticipate after the fact that all of a sudden

they say the formula has now changed, and, by the way, that grant that we gave

you is incorporated in this amount that we said that we would. That is what this

minister is doing. There's no denying that. There's no denying that dollars will

have to come out of the classroom to fund the technology grant because money has

already been spent, in spite of the fact that the minister had promised the

money would be there, and it simply is not there at all.

I want to

just go back and touch on the $100 million for a minute because the minister

brought it up once again. The numbers, as I said, simply don't add up. For

2003-04 the budget is $3.78 billion; 2004-05 is $3.84 billion, an increase of

$50 million; 2005-06, the minister said yesterday, is at $3.86 billion, an

increase of $20 million. That's for a total of $70 million, not $100 million.

Where's the other $30 million?

Hon. C.

Clark: I went through all this yesterday in some detail, and I'm happy to go

through it again. I've been through it a number of times in the past, and I

believe the member has also been briefed on it, but I can go through it with her

again if she likes.

independent school enrolment continues at the clip that it's at, we are

anticipating — and I hope this is an overestimation — that in each of the

two years there will be $10 million that we're bound by formula, which was

adhered to even by the previous government, to go to independent schools. We're

anticipating that $10 million will need to be put aside for capital as well. I

don't need to remind the member, I'm sure, that when it's building classrooms,

it's actually going into classrooms.

appreciate that as a member of the opposition, she feels obliged to try and

reduce any good news into something bad. She tries to take $143 million and

reduce it to zero, but I think for anyone watching or anybody reading Hansard ,

it's pretty obvious that her attempts are getting increasingly desperate.

Perhaps she should move on to another subject where she might have a little more

luck in making her point.

J. Kwan:

The fact of the matter is that the numbers that the minister gave simply don't

add up. They simply don't add up. The minister likes to claim that all this

money is going to the education system, in the classroom for the students. Well,

it doesn't. The $35 million established yesterday is going to general accounting

practising principles. It doesn't go directly into the classroom.

[1545]

So, please,

Mr. Chair, the minister can pretend all she wants that somehow there's some $140

million going into the education system, into the classroom, when in reality

there isn't. People are not stupid. Please don't treat people as though they

are. People see through what this government's doing. They are trying to hold

this government accountable, and so is the opposition.

These

numbers simply don't add up. That is the reality of it. The minister can laugh

and pretend and say everything is just rosy and she's doing a great job and

everybody else is wrong. She can do that all she wants, but people know the

difference. People know the difference, and that's what these numbers are about.

They don't add up. That's the reality of it.

It's

shocking. We're in such a state of denial that the minister simply refuses to

acknowledge the problem that her government has created in the education system.

She simply refuses to acknowledge that the education system is severely

underfunded, that children are getting hurt. Parents are constantly worried.

It's funny, you know. As I mentioned earlier, I have new information, but I'll

wait for a minute before I go to that.

I want to

ask the minister this question: what is the total teachers' salary cost pressure

to the school district?

Hon. C.

Clark: Teachers' salaries make up, I think, a little bit more than 50 or 60

percent of school districts' total budgets. Their pressures from that would make

up the majority of their budgets.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister have a global number for the province? What is the total

teachers' salary cost pressure for school districts?

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't have that on a per-district basis with me, but I can provide

that to her.

[ Page 5363 ]

J. Kwan:

I would like to receive that on a per-district basis. Does the minister have a

global number for the province?

Hon. C.

Clark: It's a round number, not an exact one. It would be around $2 billion.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise that's $100 million? I'm just going to give her

the $100 million that she claims is there and not debate the point, because the

numbers don't add up. Let me ask the minister this question: does that $100

million cover the shortfall for teachers' salaries, which the minister advises

is about $2 billion?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm so delighted I finally persuaded the member that the money is

there. After a day and a half of debate, I must say I appreciate the discussion

and how the discussion's gone and the fact that we've finally come, apparently,

to some understanding about this. That's terrific.

The total

wage budget for teachers is $2 billion. The $107 million that will be available

to the education budget over the next three years, as it flows to school

districts, will be able to be spent by school districts on whatever their

priorities are. I imagine that wages will be high on their list.

J. Kwan:

I just want to correct the record. The minister suggests that I've accepted her

numbers. No, I'm giving her that in this debate so we won't belabour this,

because the numbers don't add up, as I have said. If you do the math, you can

see it for yourself. Everybody else is saying that the numbers don't add up,

except for the minister. The minister will just close her eyes and say:

"That's the way it is." That's the direction in which the debate is

going. Instead of wasting time trying to get the minister to admit where she has

gone wrong or look to see where she has gone wrong…. She's obviously not going

to do that. I don't want to waste that time and then move on. I want to be very

clear that the minister is not providing the money she says she is providing to

the education system. I want to be very clear about that. That is the truth of

the matter, as the numbers show.

[1550]

I do want

to move on in the discussion. Not to say that the minister is right, but I do

want to move on and simply say the minister is refusing to acknowledge that the

numbers don't add up. You know what? It's kind of funny. There's another number

that doesn't add up: teachers' salary pressures. Oh, the amount is $2 billion.

But hey, the minister says there's $100 million in the system, and it's paid

for. Guess what. It isn't; $100 million does not pay for a $2 billion cost

pressure. She can say, "Oh well, districts can adjust the numbers to

whatever they want," but the reality is this. When you add up all of the

pressures in the system, including the salary increases — and not just for the

teachers; there are also other staffing salary pressures — the situation is

that the per-pupil funding will decrease. Money in the classrooms will decrease.

Why is that? The per-pupil funding moneys in the classroom will have to be taken

out to pay for some of these pressures. Therefore, resources in the classrooms

will decrease.

The

minister, by her own admission…. Last year alone, there was $16.8 million

worth of shortfall in the salary increases. By her own admission…. Hansard

quotes her acknowledgment of that. Maybe she's already forgotten that, but

that's what it is. I will refer the minister to Hansard dated March 13,

2002, where she said that the funding for teacher salary pressures is about half

what this government is paying for and covering.

I want to

actually put this on record. Earlier I touched on SOS, and the minister then

read out a release from SOS. Well, since that time SOS has brought themselves

together again. As I said, this one just came recently, after people had a

chance to see what the budget numbers mean, where the cuts are and what the true

impacts are. They now have a consensus position on three points relating to

funding.

SOS has

sent a call-to-action letter to all Vancouver schools:

"Once

again we urge all Vancouver PACs to act immediately and send an urgent message

to the B.C. government before provincial budgets are finalized in

mid-February. SOS is urging the Premier and the Minister of Education to cover

the full costs of the teachers' salary increase and other increased costs that

they legislated, restore funding lost due to the new provincial education

funding formula, retain current provincial funding levels for school-based

programs.

"SOS

believes that schools and parents should not fight each other for a share of

an inadequate budget and that every child deserves the support of the entire

community."

Then it

goes on to say that at their meeting, where 25 percent of Vancouver schools sent

a representative, the group endorsed the plan. Of course, they made a video. The

video is now out, and the SOS has collected over 14,000 letters and has

delivered them to the Minister of Education and has never heard back.

Then it

goes on to say that in a letter received from the Premier, who responded to the

concerns expressed by the thousands of Vancouver parents anticipating deep cuts

in basic services for their children, he stated: "It is not appropriate for

me or for the Minister of Education to become involved in local education

matters. Therefore, we regret we are unable to meet with your

organization." Then following this date, people were quite shocked —

quite shocked, actually — that they didn't get a meeting and that the minister

refused to meet with them. The Premier says that it's inappropriate, somehow,

for the minister to meet with parents.

The issues

around concerns continue. People are talking about cuts in the libraries, cuts

in buying supplies — basic things that would make the school system workable

for their children. They're doing this because of their kids; they're not doing

it because it's fun. As I had identified earlier in other articles, people

[ Page 5364 ]

are exhausted. They're exhausted by having to react to this government's cuts

in education funding.

[1555]

I want now

to turn to the buffer grants issue. During a meeting with the ministry staff, I

was informed that districts that were negatively impacted by the Liberals'

new-era distribution system received buffer grants in an effort to assist while

they cut down their spending level to what will become lower spending levels

under the Liberal allocation system. I also understand that buffer grants are

reduced each year. What amount of buffer grants were given out in 2002-03, and

what will be given out in '03-04?

Hon. C.

Clark: I just want to be clear about the numbers. The member keeps saying

I'm obfuscating or implying I'm obfuscating or something. I want to be

absolutely clear, just in case she hasn't heard the many times I've said this. A

hundred and forty-three million dollars is referred to in the budget, and $35

million of that goes for GAAP, which won't be seen in the classroom. It's to

ensure that districts can comply with generally accepted accounting principles

without having to, through the accounting change, change their budgets. That

leaves about $108 million remaining.

Of that, we

anticipate that $10 million will be spent each year for independent schools

because we are bound by a formula which even her government complied with. We're

anticipating that $10 million will be spent actually building classrooms, which

I think can qualify, even in her mind, as spending money on classrooms. Then $70

million will go into operating budgets for school districts.

That leaves

$17 million or $18 million outstanding. That's quite correct. We hope that money

will be able to go into operating budgets, but, again, we are a prudent

government. We comply with all the principles of good planning, and because we

are doing that, we are setting aside this money in case there are interest rate

increases or some other unexpected circumstances. We want to make sure we are

protecting students, the education system and taxpayers, as we are obligated to

when we are elected.

J. Kwan:

The minister can add up the numbers in the way she wants, but the reality is

that there isn't $100 million in the classroom. There just simply isn't.

Hon. C.

Clark: I just told you how.

J. Kwan:

She told me how. But you know what? You can account for the money by saying that

you claim those moneys are going directly into the classroom when, in fact,

they're not. They are not. General accounting principles are not dollars going

into the classroom. It isn't. It doesn't take a genius to see that. You don't

have to be a brain surgeon to understand that. Those dollars don't go directly

into the classroom. When you look at the $100 million the minister talks about

that she says is going directly into the classroom….

For this

year the pressure on wages, salary increases, is $300 million. There is a

significant shortfall no matter how you look at it. Those are the numbers people

are dealing with, not selective numbers that the minister would like to look at.

In the real world the school trustees don't have that choice. They have to look

at all of the pressures associated with it. Then, when you look at that $100

million that the minister is so proud of, even though a significant portion is

not going directly into the classroom, and even what remains…. It remains a

big question mark whether any of it will actually go into the classroom, because

those are going to be paying for fixed costs, I would presume.

Just for

salary increases it's $300 million. A hundred million dollars does not cover the

shortfall of $300 million, and the minister knows that. If she doesn't, she's

just pretending, or she's just completely ignorant about it and doesn't care

about the situation. If that's the case, well, how can you argue with that? It's

the minister's prerogative. Maybe she'll order a survey with B.C. Stats and see

how satisfied her colleagues are with her performance.

I do want

to go into the buffer grant question. I asked a question about the amount of the

buffer grant given in '02-03 and '03-04.

[1600]

Hon. C.

Clark: The member quotes what's going on in Vancouver quite a bit, because I

understand it's her constituency. I just want to go through the history of

Vancouver's budget-making process, which always includes predictions of doom and

gloom. In 1997-98 they said there were $16 million worth of funding cuts. In

'98-99 they said they were going to have a $7.1 million deficit. No deficit was

incurred. No deficit was incurred, by the way, in '97-98 when they predicted it

was $16 million worth of funding cuts. In '99-2000 they predicted a deficit of

$11.8 million. They didn't incur a deficit, as I understand. In 2000-2001, a

$5.2 million deficit; no deficit came in. Last year, '02-03, $25 million; no

deficit came in.

This is

part of the budget-making process in Vancouver. It's a tried-and-true tradition

in her district. I would advise the member not to get too worked up about it at

this stage. We'll see what happens as a result of their budget-making

deliberations.

With

respect to the buffer grant, however, the buffer grant was $25 million and was

being redistributed from within the existing envelope. That will be reduced by

50 percent, and 50 percent of that will be redistributed within the system to

school districts. Next year the buffer grant will cease to exist, and that $25

million will be entirely redistributed through the per-pupil and the funding

allocation system.

We came up

with this solution based on the recommendations of school districts, who came

together from across the province — urban and rural, ones that received the

buffer grant and ones that didn't receive the buffer grant. They found some

level of consensus about how they wanted to proceed with this.

[ Page 5365 ]

J. Kwan:

I'll get into the impacts of the shortage of funds in education with the other

school districts one by one. There are tremendous pressures. I've met with

trustees both in Vancouver and in Victoria, and some elsewhere, about what their

concerns are. It's true the school trustees have not yet received their

district-by-district budget, although they have projections already in terms of

what the impacts are going to be. They are going to be significant; make no

mistake about that — again, not just in Vancouver, not just in Victoria but

elsewhere throughout the province. Articles have come out across the province

where people are seeing tremendous pressures in their school system because of

the lack of funding.

The

minister may be very proud of her record, but the sad

part is that students,

teachers, parents — people who are advocates of the system, who care about

children and their learning opportunities — don't feel the same. We will get

into the school district-by-district outcomes, but I want to finish up on the

issue around the buffer grants right now.

Prince

George, North Van, Richmond and Victoria are just four school districts that

have been hit hard by the Liberal government's underfunding. These districts

have substantial buffer grants for this current school year. We know, then, that

their buffer grants are going to be cut by half. The ministry called this cut a

gentle phasing-out. Could the minister please advise what is gentle about a 50

percent cut?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I just described, and I'm happy to describe again for the member,

the money will be redistributed through the system. The money is not being cut.

It is being plowed right back into the system. As a member of a government in

1997-98 that — according to the Vancouver school board — imposed $16 million

worth of funding cuts, I would be curious to know if at the time she might have

also referred to that as shocking, as she does the actions of this government

when we've devoted new money to the education budget. We've announced another

$100 million. This year we announced $50 million. Last year we announced $42

million. I wonder how she would contrast the government that she was a part of

when the Vancouver school district accused her government and her cabinet of

subjecting them to $16 million worth of cuts.

[1605]

J. Kwan:

The education system under the Liberal government, under the new-era regime….

What we've had so far is a budget that has been frozen and an increase in

pressures that far exceed the actual cost of what this government is paying for.

We know that we're going to run into those problems again this year as a result

of this government, this minister's direct action. By increasing gas taxes, by

increasing hydro services costs, by increasing these costs are a direct result

of this government's action…. In addition to those, this government's going

around now collecting residential school taxes as well as rural school taxes.

Those moneys are being collected now, but none of those moneys will be flowed

into the education system this year. We know that is what's happening with this

government.

The

minister can just sit there and laugh away and pretend that everything is fine,

that everything is wonderful. When everybody else tells this minister, she

insists on closing her eyes and shutting her ears so that she will not see the

reality. You know what? The proof is in the pudding. My intention is to actually

continue to hold this government, and particularly this minister, accountable

when she says: "My commitment as a minister, our government's commitment

and our Premier's commitment is to do all that we can to make sure that no child

in our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks,

because this is our obligation to the next generation."

You know

what? This minister is going to be held accountable to her own words. She can

sit there and laugh away and pretend everything is fine, but there will be

problems in the system, and her words are going to come back to haunt her. I

look forward to the day when she actually acts to make sure that her words are

held accountable. I sure don't want to see children fall through the cracks. But

at the rate at which this minister and this government are going, I am very

afraid and very concerned that children are falling through the cracks. This

government — and this minister, in particular — will be held accountable.

She'd better be ready. It is the parents who will bring these issues to the

table.

Hon. C.

Clark: Bring it on.

J. Kwan:

The minister sits there — "bring it on, bring it on" — as though

she's actually looking forward to seeing children fall through the cracks. The

accountability measures will be there.

Hon. C.

Clark: No, I meant an election.

J. Kwan:

The minister thinks that the only way to hold her accountable is through an

election. You know what? When you put out words like this, "my commitment

is to do all that we can to make sure that no child in our education system, in

our social welfare system, falls through the cracks," the judgment is not

on election day. The judgment is on the performance on a day-by-day basis of

this minister. Maybe she's nervous now. It's the commitment that she's made.

She's going to have to own up to it.

It's not

about election day. It's not about electioneering. It's not about who wins and

who doesn't. It's not about partisan politics. It's about children. It's about

the lives of children and their future, and this minister better be ready to be

held accountable for that.

I want to

also say this. The deficit situation that the minister was saying the Vancouver

school board was faced with…. As I said, we're going to go into a

district-by-district account of the budgets that school districts would be faced

with. I already have a preliminary budget from Vancouver, although they have not

yet finalized their numbers. I already have that, and I have

[ Page 5366 ]

a preliminary budget from other school districts as well. We'll go through

that in detail with the minister.

Let us not

forget the threat that this minister had put to school districts. She had

basically, in my view, threatened school districts that if they do not balance

their budget, that if they bring in a deficit budget, they would be replaced and

people would actually have to cut services. That's what this government

threatens, and that's what this minister threatens.

For her to

sort of sit back and say: "Hey, don't worry. Everything will be

fine…." People have no choice but to make cuts. I would like to remind

the minister that last year the school boards cut more deeply than they wanted

to and than they cared to. Why? Because they didn't have the funds. It wasn't

until the ninth hour that the government all of a sudden said: "Hey, guess

what. We found some money. Here's some additional one-time funding for

you."

[1610]

School

districts were coming to say: "I wish we had known that. Then we would not

have made that particular cut in the school. There would have been less impact

in the school system, but we didn't know that until the ninth hour, and then it

was too late." So much for stable funding. So much for the minister's

commitment to ensuring that children have the best education opportunities.

She's failed on both those scores.

I want to

get back to the buffer grant issue. The minister says that this is a gentle

phasing-out, a 50 percent cut for those who receive a buffer grant. She

justifies it by saying: "You know what? The money would be distributed back

into the system." The reality, of course, is that those districts that are

faced with this drastic cut will be scrambling. It is a drastic cut when you're

looking at a 50 percent cut to their buffer grant. I'd like to ask the minister:

why would this government make such drastic cuts to the school districts? Why

would the Liberals say that they are creating more equity in the system by

cutting to such an extent in these school districts? At what point will all of

the buffer grants be phased out? I presume it's next year. Will the minister

help those districts that continue to face severe adjustment problems after the

buffer grants are gone, or are they just simply on their own?

Hon. C.

Clark: You know, Mr. Chair, for years and years and years, the previous

government took the funding formula and used it like it was their own little

political slush fund. They would go in, and they would change the funding

formula to try and redirect money to the districts that they thought were

deserving. Guess what. Those districts all turned out to be in NDP communities.

They did that over the years, and they ultimately built a funding formula that

was flawed and unfair.

We ran in

the election, in our platform, on a promise that we would move to

population-based funding — that we would move to a fair, equitable,

transparent, easy-to-understand funding formula — and we did that. Now, when

we moved to the funding formula, we recognized that it would mean that some

districts were going to lose money. What we did, so that school districts could

plan around that, was build in a buffer grant so that they could have three

years to plan around phasing it out — not a sudden yanking away of the money,

not some unfair sudden change that was unexpected. School districts have been

planning around this for a couple of years, and if she would actually go and

talk to somebody out there instead of drinking her own bathwater in her office,

she'd know that people out there are prepared for this. Yes, some districts are

facing difficult decisions. There's no question about that. Some districts have

dramatically declining enrolment. There's no question about that as well. But

there is also no question about the fact that we have been open and transparent

in allowing school districts to plan around the funding formula that they're

going to be facing over the next couple of years.

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

For her to

stand up and talk about how this is for the kids, when she's prepared to resort

to the cheapest kind of politics, with her amateur theatrics, and stand up here

and talk about how the government is cutting funding for special needs, how

there's no new money in the education budget, how kids are doing badly, how our

public education system is doing a rotten job…. Well, that's just disgraceful,

you know. It's absolutely disgraceful for her to stand up here and say that

somehow this, for her, is about the kids. If it's about the kids, then let's

start having a rational discussion. Let's start having a discussion that

includes some of the facts. Let's start actually having a dialogue that includes

some opinions from people out there who want to be heard. Let's start talking

about this in a sane and rational way instead of standing up and using children

and our education system to try and further the political goals of her party. We

need to start having a rational discussion about this, and that means that we

have to put students first. It means putting the facts on the table. It means

telling the truth, and it means being up front with British Columbians rather

than putting her interests ahead of the interests of children in the classroom.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

You know, as we sit here and see the minister frothing at the mouth with her

rhetoric, you wonder who is actually engaging in theatrics and who is actually

engaged in politicking. It doesn't really take much for people to see, and

people will judge for themselves.

The reality

is this, hon. Chair. I know the truth really does hurt. It really does hurt for

the minister when the opposition rises in the House and points out to her how

underfunding of the education system is hurting children. Maybe that's a hard

fact for the minister to accept. Actually, I can see that it is a hard fact for

the minister to accept. That is the reality of what people

[ Page 5367 ]

are faced with today. She can just froth away all she wants. It doesn't

change the facts.

The

minister says, "Hey, you know what?" — that I'm just sitting in my

own office drinking my own bathwater, as she likes to claim that I'm doing. It's

funny how when I travel the province and when my colleague travels the province,

the information comes to us — the concerns people have about what's going on

in our education system. It's funny how the media reports that. Well, maybe I'm

drinking their bathwater too, because the media is reporting how the education

system is causing problems and how people are reacting to it.

Yesterday I

actually put forward a range of communities, including those in the heartlands,

who are having a tough time with the education system from this minister

underfunding education. Everyone who actually has the problems includes

Chilliwack, Hope, the interior, the Kimberley area, the North Island, the North

Shore, Kamloops, Kelowna. These are just a few selections of the news clips

where people came forward to criticize the government and to highlight, more

importantly I think, the concerns they have.

You know,

maybe the newspapers themselves are drinking their own bathwater, because they

are printing these articles and are highlighting these concerns for people. I

read them out yesterday already, so I'm not going to reread these articles onto

the system.

The

minister would like to say there are no problems. Actually, to my staff, who is

downstairs watching the debate, I would ask that you bring up the box of

material we have received — documentation from children, teachers and parents.

There's only one box that has arrived in my office. There are other boxes that

are coming — letters, testimonials, if you will, from individuals about their

concerns about the education system. I would simply like to bring it up and

perhaps point the minister's attention to the words and testimonials of not me

but the broader community on the concerns about education.

Getting

back to the buffer grant, we know the buffer grant is going to be phased out.

There is a 50 percent cut. There is nothing gentle about it. The minister says

that somehow the funding formula favoured various ridings in the previous

administration, which, of course, is false — completely false. The buffer

grant. Who are actually having a tough time here are a range of school boards

across the province.

The

question I asked the minister that I'm most interested in, because she didn't

answer any of the questions, is: will the ministry help those districts that

continue to face severe adjustment problems after the buffer grants are gone? Or

are they just going to be on their own?

The

Chair: Could I remind the members that I've heard some language this

afternoon that…. I'd ask the members to be mindful of the way in which they

use characterizations of other members in the chamber and to ensure that those

characterizations are respectful.

Hon. C.

Clark: We are continuing to help districts. We have appointed a rural task

force, a student achievement task force, who are going out and looking at ways

we can assist in making sure a quality education is available to kids across the

province no matter where they live. We're continuing to pump money into the per

student, and as I said earlier, we're pumping another $100 million in over the

next three years.

J. Kwan:

I think I'm going to give an award to this minister, who's famous for not

answering questions. The question was actually a very specific one that says:

for those districts who are going to face a severe cut with the phasing-out of

the buffer grant, who may face adjustment problems, will they actually get

assistance from the government? Again from her answer, she didn't answer the

question. One can only deduce from her answer that no, they will not receive

support from the government and simply that they will be on their own.

[1620]

I'd like to

ask the minister…. If I'm wrong, I would ask the minister to refute that, to

say: "No, there will be special assistance from the government for those

who are faced with severe adjustment problems." If I'm wrong, I'd like the

minister to correct me on that, but I suspect I'm not wrong.

I'd like to

ask the minister, then, this question. We know that the buffer grant is going to

be phased out. The minister says that the money will be redistributed back into

the education system. By the way, that doesn't mean there is a lift in the

education system in terms of the money. It's just the same money being

redirected here and there and being reallocated within the same budget. There's

not a lift to the budget. I just want to be clear about that. How will this

impact the per-pupil funding? Will it go up across the board? Across the

province? Perhaps a better question is: would the base amount actually go up?

The base amount right now is $53.08.

Hon. C.

Clark: The answer to that question is yes. My question for the member would

be this: if our plan with the buffer grant benefits the Vancouver school

district, would she still continue to oppose any change in it?

J. Kwan:

I don't think the minister has grasped the nature of estimates just yet.

Estimates is the process in which questions are put to the minister. The process

is such that it is the job of the minister to be held accountable and to answer

the questions. As I mentioned earlier, I'd be very happy to answer the questions

if I were the Minister of Education. Perhaps if the minister doesn't like

answering the questions, maybe she should step aside and let other people who

can take up the job and who want to be held accountable sit in that seat and

answer questions from the opposition.

I want to

get back to the question around the base amount of funding. How much, then, does

the minister anticipate the base funding will increase by phasing out the buffer

grant?

Hon. C.

Clark: By $22.

[ Page 5368 ]

J. Kwan:

When the minister says $22, does that go directly into the classroom, or does it

go into readjusting accounting practices or other things?

Hon. C.

Clark: It goes to districts.

J. Kwan:

As we have established in the process so far, what the government does is that,

yes, it goes into the per-pupil funding. But the reality is that, all at the

same time, what the minister is actually doing is cutting funding they have

already promised. We've established that with the technology grant, as an

example. We have already established in the areas around pressures in which the

government will increase costs. We see costs going up, but that is all to be

absorbed by the per-pupil student funding. At the end of the day, it is

questionable how much money actually goes directly into the classroom for the

benefit of the children. I suspect that the $22 the minister claims would be

there will also be part of that entire process whereby money will be siphoned

away from the classroom because of increased pressures from costs elsewhere,

which have been underfunded by this government.

Hon. C.

Clark: I didn't hear a question there.

J. Kwan:

There wasn't a question there. I simply made a statement to see whether or not

the minister wants to respond to that. I want to actually move on to….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Yes, actually. Now I'm going to continue on to ask questions. Do not worry about

that. Through the estimates process, from time to time, members have also made

statements, which I have done.

[1625]

The funding

formula. I wanted to touch on this just a little bit. Earlier I asked the

minister if she thought there was a problem with the funding formula. Here is

one view. "By any objective measure, the current funding for our schools

and our kids is not meeting the needs of our children." This is a quote

from John Walsh, president of the Greater Victoria Confederation of Parent

Advisory Councils, from the February 14 Times Colonist.

I've had a

meeting with staff on this issue. However, it is appropriate to get into it

again. Just for the record and for the people at home, could the minister

explain the funding formula?

Hon. C.

Clark: It's based on a per-pupil amount, and then there are supplementary

grants that are attached to that: ESL, special needs, aboriginal students, adult

learners, geographical considerations.

J. Kwan:

Well, here's the information that the staff has given us during our briefing. By

the way, I see that the deputy minister is here, and I'd like to thank him

personally for arranging the briefing for the opposition. We had tried to make

arrangements through the minister's office for about three weeks prior to that

and were unsuccessful, but when we phoned your office, you responded. We very

much appreciate his rapid response in arranging that. We actually got the

briefing one day before the estimates, and I appreciate the deputy minister's

response.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

It's quite obvious, actually. We requested the meeting about three weeks ago,

and we had no response from the minister's office, so we went another route.

Then we actually got a response from the deputy minister's office. There you

have it.

I'd like to

confirm….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Well, then it's good to know, you know.

The

minister is actually now saying: "Oh yes, well, the deputy minister's

office talked to my office about it." Then it's good to confirm that the

opposition had asked for a briefing from the minister three weeks in advance of

the estimates for education, to which we had no response until the day before

the estimates were to be discussed. It's good to know that the minister was

actually involved in that, in making sure that there is such advance notice for

preparation for the opposition to get ready for the estimates process. We had

less than one day of briefing before the process began.

It's good

to know. It's good to know that the minister is very interested in sharing

information, and it's good to know from the minister that this is her approach.

This is her approach in cooperation and, therefore, bringing constructive

discussion into the House.

I can only

anticipate from the minister's point of view that nobody has any right to ask

any question. You know what? Even when you request a briefing, she will do

everything she can to prevent that from happening until the last minute. That's

good to know. I'm glad that is on the record as the minister is now advising.

Let me just

get back to the funding formula, Mr. Chair. Here's the information from our

meeting with the staff a couple of days ago. I'd like to confirm this

information.

This is

just a few of the documentations, testimonials, that people have. This is only

from one school district, from Richmond — not exactly an NDP stronghold. Just

from one district, people, children…. That's kind of cute, actually. They've

put their little faces onto their testimonials with letters they have written.

This is

only some of the information we have received. Then if we have time in the

estimates process, I will read some of this on to the record. This is only about

1/10 of what's sitting in my office, only 1/10 of the testimonials that have

come in from the community with their concerns in the last week or two. I'll get

back to these when we have time, because it is a lot of in-

[ Page 5369 ]

formation that people want to bring forward, and I don't want to take time

right now to deal with them. As I said, this is only about 1/10 of what's

sitting in my office.

The

issue….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Actually, no. The minister is very excited. "Here comes a question."

So far she hasn't answered any. Notwithstanding that point….

Actually, I

just received…. You know, interestingly, this is the case, you see, Mr. Chair.

As people watch debate in the Legislature, our staff do run information in to

us, questions that the public has. People are e-mailing us and phoning us,

asking us to ask these things, and they bring it up. So, yes, we get new

questions as debate goes on.

[1630]

This,

incidentally, of course, is a letter. It's a letter from Richmond, actually —

a letter of non-confidence for the Minister of Education. It's a letter calling

for the minister's resignation, and it's from the Richmond Teachers Association.

Surprise, surprise. After all is said and done, the minister says, "I want

to thank the teachers for the great work that they're doing," and so on and

so forth. Yet God forbid, should the unions on behalf of the teachers….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

No, actually, it's a motion that's been passed by the teachers from that

particular district, and they are asking for the minister's resignation because

they have no confidence in the minister. All of a sudden that discounts

everything. All of a sudden the teachers' voice is diminished. All of a sudden

they actually have no voice at all. All of a sudden they actually have no

validity in this whole discussion. It's funny how the minister can blow and suck

at the same time. That is what the minister is doing, and it's quite shocking.

It is absolutely shocking.

The

minister will carry on the way she will; there's no doubt about that. The public

will continue to hold this government accountable; there's no doubt about that.

More particularly, in the area of education the public will hold this minister

accountable.

I want to

get back to the funding formula. I want to confirm that the total grants for

this year will be $3.79 billion — that's what we've been advised — and that

school boards will not have their final amount until around March 14. The

ministry staff did advise that they did have the enrolment figures for the

school districts. They are not yet totally finalized, but they do have them. We

did request that the minister's executive assistant, who attended the meeting,

release those numbers, even though they're not finalized, so we can get a

ballpark figure in terms of where things are at. The minister's response, in her

own swift way, to that request was a quick no. However, on the question around

receiving a briefing, it took three weeks for an answer to come about.

I'd like to

ask again, though, in this forum for the minister to release the preliminary

figures on enrolment.

The

Chair: I'd like to ask both sides, when the questions are being asked and

the answers are being given, to listen for the questions and the answers.

Hon. C.

Clark: I would be delighted to release that information. She will receive it

on March 14.

J. Kwan:

I was actually asking if we could receive it earlier than that date. As I

understand it, the unfinalized numbers are already available. There's no reason

why the minister is not releasing that. There's nothing confidential about that

information. It's simply statistics in terms of what's going on around the

province on a district-by-district basis. I would like to request the minister

to release that number prior to March 12 — in fact, to table it in this House,

instead of on March 14.

Hon. C.

Clark: I certainly wouldn't want to give the member any information that's

incorrect, and until it's finalized, we can't be sure it's correct. I also want

to make sure that school districts have the same rights that members of this

House do. We will be releasing it to school districts at the same time that we

release it to members of the opposition and members of the government.

[1635]

J. Kwan:

I understand those numbers will be preliminary numbers, and therefore they may

be subject to change. We anticipate that with preliminary numbers. Before the

final figure comes out, we're okay with receiving preliminary numbers. So it is

on that basis and with the understanding that those numbers may well change that

we're making the request for the minister to table that information now. Then it

is available for everyone. Surely the minister, if she wants to make that

available and if school districts want to have that number, can also make that

available to school districts — or anyone else, for that matter.

Hon. C.

Clark: It's important that we make sure the numbers we release are correct.

School districts make their budget planning based on these numbers. They need to

be correct, and I don't intend to show any disrespect to school districts by

making sure that the member opposite has them before they do.

J. Kwan:

That is why these numbers are known as preliminary numbers. Under that scenario,

people understand that those numbers may change. I've already stated that it is

okay to release numbers that may change. We have full understanding of that.

If it

should change, then we'll receive the changed numbers and review those at that

time. It would be very useful just to see what the pattern is and what

[ Page 5370 ]

kind of situation is happening across the province on a district-by-district

basis. I don't think it would be disrespectful to the school districts for us to

receive the number. As I said, the minister could easily remedy that by simply

making those preliminary estimate numbers also available to the school districts

and, as I said, to anybody else for that matter.

Why

wouldn't the minister release it? It's not confidential information. They're

preliminary numbers, and we know they're subject to change.

Hon. C.

Clark: Until the numbers are finalized, they may not be correct. We have an

obligation as a ministry to make sure the information that we provide to school

districts and to the public is correct.

I don't

know why the member is in such a desperate state about getting them so quickly.

March 14 is not far away, and even if she doesn't hold her breath, I'm sure she

can wait.

J. Kwan:

I know the minister takes the perspective that it's not too late to give the

opposition a briefing the day before the estimates come up. She thinks that's

not too late. I have a different opinion than that. It's my decision to

determine when it is timely and when it is not. The opposition would simply

appreciate receiving those numbers at an earlier time rather than at a later

time, with the understanding that those are preliminary numbers.

I not sure

what the minister is afraid of, but I suspect that she's not going to change her

mind, because transparency is not paramount in this government's agenda. We now

know that under the new-era agenda.

Enrolment

is forecasted at a 4,700 decline. We've been advised of that by the staff. We

know the public school averages about a 0.8 percent decline and that the private

school system is estimated to increase by about 4 percent. Increased ESL funding

is about $1,100 per pupil for five years. Aboriginal funding is the only

dedicated funding at $950 per pupil. Level 1 high incidence is $30,000 per

pupil, level 2 is about $15,000, and level 3 is at $6,000.

[1640]

That takes

us to about 80 percent of the moneys to the boards from the per-pupil grant, and

that was confirmed by the staff. I'd like to ask the minister: what is the other

20 percent? Is it transportation, salary differential, enrolment decline,

geographic…? What is the other 20 percent?

The

Chair: The Chair calls a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. C.

Clark: Perhaps the member could repeat her question.

J. Kwan:

I'm sure the minister's staff actually took note of the question that I asked,

because they were busy conferring with each other. But I will certainly repeat

it for the benefit of the minister, if she stops working on her PalmPilot — it

looks to me like — and then I don't have to repeat questions over and over

again.

The

information I've received…. Maybe I'll just wait until the minister's

attention is all there.

The

Chair: Member, would you sit down, please. This is an opportunity for

members to ask questions of the minister. If you have a question, could you

please put it to the minister.

J. Kwan:

I was just simply trying to avoid having to repeat questions over and over

again. Sometimes it's difficult to see whether or not attention is being paid.

It looks to me like the minister is busy working on some PalmPilot. I'll chance

it anyway, because I'm sure her staff will listen and provide the answer to the

minister.

The

information I have received from our meeting with the ministry staff indicates

that the total grant this year will be $3.79 billion, and that was confirmed

from the ministry staff. School boards will not have their final amount until

March 14 or so — the school-district-by-district breakdown.

The staff

did admit they have enrolment figures. They apparently are not finalized yet,

but of course the minister already established that she would not provide them.

The enrolment is forecast at a 4,700-student decline. The public school average

is a 0.8 percent decline. The private school is estimated at a 4 percent

increase — hence, the increase in the funding. ESL is at $1,100 per pupil for

five years. Aboriginal is at $950 per pupil. Level 1, which is high incidence,

is at $30,000 per pupil. Level 2 is at $15,000 per pupil. Level 3 is at $6,000.

Aboriginal funding is the only funding that is targeted, in the sense that it

must be spent for that purpose.

[1645]

Eighty

percent of the moneys of the boards from the per-pupil grant are the things I've

listed. I'd like to first of all confirm that. Second, I'd like to ask the

question: what is the other 20 percent? Is it transportation? Is it salary

differential, enrolment decline, geographic? Would the minister advise?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'll just go through it for the member. Basic funding allocation is

$3,880,831,323; home schools is $77,750; enrolment decline, $2,292,968; unique

student needs, $361,850,249; salary differential, $81,300,536; geographic,

$132,529,900; transportation and housing, $85,705,613; and the formula buffer

grant, $25,771,635.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise how these affect the different school boards?

Hon. C.

Clark: It depends on the makeup of their student population.

J. Kwan:

If the minister can give enrolment targets even with B.C. Stats, which I

understand the minister

[ Page 5371 ]

has, then we can actually figure out — right? — more precisely the

district-by-district breakdown in terms of their actual funding. Then we

actually have a better sense of the situation they are faced with. Could the

minister provide that information based on B.C. Stats?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm advised that B.C. Stats does make that information publicly

available. It's available on their website. I would, though, caution the member

that in using that information, when you break it down on a regional basis, it

becomes fairly inaccurate. But she can certainly avail herself of it if she goes

to the website.

J. Kwan:

The reason why I went into the funding formula is that there are issues around

equity in the formula that have been raised by the broader public. The new-era

funding system is based, to a great extent, on a per-pupil funding basis. In

fact, more than 80 percent of the funding is distributed based on the per-pupil

funding. All districts get the same amount per student. Is the minister

satisfied that this is the most equitable way to distribute education funds in a

large province like this when the differences in districts are also so great?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's why we provide a category for unique geographic factors.

J. Kwan:

Yet the funding for that component is a very small percentage, as I had

established earlier. Some 80 percent, at least, of the funding is based on some

other factor. Then of that remaining 20, it goes to a number of different areas

which that 20 percent is to be distributed amongst. Of course, one factor is

geographic, so a very small component of the funding formula goes to geographic

consideration. The minister, then, is saying she's satisfied with that. In spite

of the big difference from district to district, she's satisfied with the

funding formula, even though geographic consideration is only a very small

component of the overall funding formula.

[1650]

In an

article about Surrey the ministry spokesperson said that the funding formula was

under review. What has been the feedback about the formula? Who is the minister

consulting? What changes is she contemplating?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I mentioned previously, we convened a committee of people from

school districts, and they gave us advice, which we've accepted.

J. Kwan:

My question is actually more specific than the answer the minister gave. The

question is the feedback about the funding formula. Who is the minister

consulting, more specifically, and what changes is she contemplating? What

feedback did she get?

Hon. C.

Clark: The secretary-treasurers were from Nechako, Penticton and Vancouver,

and we had three superintendents: Prince George, Peace River and Surrey.

J. Kwan:

What was their feedback?

Hon. C.

Clark: We are considering their feedback right now. They've recommended some

technical changes to the way we do the funding formula, to tweak it to make it

work better. Those changes, when we bring them in, won't be effective, though,

until '05-06, because we've made a commitment to a stable funding formula.

J. Kwan:

The minister actually didn't answer the question in terms of what their feedback

is. Perhaps I'm anticipating the minister saying that that information is

confidential. If that's the case, would she just simply state that and say that

that information is confidential.

The

follow-up question: if it is not confidential, I ask the minister to share that

information in this House so that we all know what changes are being

contemplated and how people can provide input outside of the list of people that

the minister considered. There are a lot of people who are concerned about the

funding formula and will want to provide input to the minister.

The other

thing that is critical, of course, is this. Will the minister ensure that the

changes in the formula would not lead to further cuts for districts across the

province?

Hon. C.

Clark: Any changes to the formula will be intended to make the system

fairer. That's the advice we received from these people. The member will be made

aware of the changes we make when we announce them.

J. Kwan:

I've come to learn, since this government has been in office, that words such as

"fairness" and "equity" and "efficiency" mean

something else altogether. We just learned today, for example, that efficiency

really just means cuts. "Choice" and "opportunity" and

"access" really mean ability to pay. Under the new era, these words

actually ring hollow. They actually don't come with real a sense of what they

really mean. When the minister says these things, I have no confidence that it

actually would be fair. The only way to judge that is for the minister to be

forthcoming with the information. Why won't she provide that information now?

Hon. C.

Clark: Again I'd advise patience. The member will be made aware of what the

changes are when we announce them.

J. Kwan:

Here's another principle that we have now learned in the Ministry of Education

estimates: secrecy is another approach. There is no transparency; there is no

accountability. The approach the government likes to tak