Hansard -- Volume 20, Number 2 -- Thursday, June 1, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th 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, JUNE 1, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 2

[ Page 16105 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Guy Heywood, from North Vancouver-Seymour. He's also a school trustee, here to view some of the Education estimates. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to make an introduction today on behalf of the member for Nanaimo and myself. I'm delighted to introduce someone who is visiting here from Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories. She's a councillor in that town and very involved in her community. She's also the first woman instrumentation technologist in Canada and currently maintenance planner for Imperial Oil Resources. Probably most important, she is the mother of Trina Somers, who lives with my son -- who's my son's partner. So would the House please make welcome to British Columbia and to the House today Elaine Somers, who we're delighted to have with us.

L. Reid: I'd like the House to welcome this afternoon Mr. Ravi Embar, who is visiting us from the riding of Richmond East.

D. Streifel: I have visiting me and touring the precincts today somewhere around 50 or 55 students from Edwin S. Richards Elementary School in Mission. I've had a good, lively interchange with them on the front steps and in the building. I bid the members make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce again in this session my daughter Cara McGregor, who's visiting here today, as well as her friend Sean Baker. But if the House would indulge me for just a moment -- I want to be a proud mom -- Cara has been accepted to the University of Victoria into her third year. She has just newly been informed that she is a recipient of a $2,000 entrance scholarship, so would you join in congratulating her.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today are two special visitors from England who are visiting in Victoria and have decided to witness proceedings today. They are Michael and Dale Jackson from Chiswick, near London. I'd like all members to please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Oral Questions

SALE OF FAST FERRIES

D. Symons: You know, on March 13 the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries told us that the fast ferry experiment was over. The vessels would be sold. We have a copy of the request for proposal of B.C. Ferries to hire a sales consultant for the fast ferries. It shows that the minister was not telling the whole truth.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Member.

D. Symons: The RFP states that B.C. Ferries' preferences for disposing of the vessels are -- and I quote . . . .

The Speaker: Member, could you take your seat, please. I would ask the member to withdraw the comments and to rephrase his question.

[1410]

D. Symons: Well, I would withdraw anything that was offensive. I guess the minister was not entirely accurate in describing what they were trying to do.

The RFP states that B.C. Ferries' preferences for disposing of the vessels are the unconditional sale at an attractive price, sale with vendor financing or leasing vessels to operators. Will the minister tell us why she didn't tell us that her government is actually considering leasing the fast ferries, which means the B.C. taxpayer could be stuck with these lemons again in the future when the lease ends?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, our intent is to sell the B.C. fast cats.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond Centre has a supplemental question.

D. Symons: Well, it certainly seems, when we look at the request for proposal for becoming consultants for the sale of these fast cats, that they're considering something other than selling them.

Another option that they had for the disposition of the fast ferries was to sell them with financing provided, courtesy of the poor B.C. taxpayer who had to pay for these lemons in the first place.

The minister told us a few months ago that they were going to get rid of the fast ferries by selling them to the highest bidder. And now we might be going into the business of financing these fast ferry lemons. Will the minister tell us why her government now appears to be backing off from the promise to get these ferries off the backs of the B.C. taxpayer once and for all?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just a short review of Liberal history, if I might for a moment. When the auditor general's report came out on the project of building the fast ferries, the Liberal opposition slammed the government of the day for not having enough information in making decisions, for making decisions too quickly and for not taking the interest of the taxpayers into account. What we are doing . . . . [Applause.]

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: So today, hon. Speaker, they can applaud themselves all they want, but they can't have it both ways.

This government will take all of the information available about the options. The intent is to sell the fast ferries. But we are going to represent the taxpayers to the utmost in this. We will use all available information, weigh all of that information and make a firm decision in the interest of the taxpayers. And the intent now is to sell the fast ferries.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, if anything should send a shiver down the back of the taxpayers, it's to think that this government is going to stand up for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[ Page 16106 ]

Mr. Speaker, we've heard repeatedly that the government's intent is to sell them. We've heard it again from the minister today. Yet the request for proposal states clearly that the three options available for this RFP are (1) unconditional sale at an attractive price, (2) sale with vendor financing, and (3) leasing the vessels -- in which case we get them back at the end of five years, like the ferry that's sitting out there at Ogden Point.

So my question to the minister is: which is it? Are you going to sell the ferries, or are you going to lease them? What are the options for the people of British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the same question, hon. Speaker. What this opposition refuses to recognize is that the government has moved on from past practice. You may want to say that the past practice is the same as before, but it isn't. We are seeking all available information, we will review all available options, and we will make the right decision about the future of these vessels. Our best information now is to sell the vessels. That's what the board of directors recommended. The Liberal opposition failed to say that the other day.

That's what cabinet information from having independent consultants is; that's what we want to do. But we're going to do it if it makes the right decision, and all available information now is that to sell it is the right decision.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader with a supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: This is the government's document. The closing date for this RFP is May 1, 2000 -- a month ago. The closing date was a month ago. In that document . . . . This isn't two years old or three years old. This isn't the old government; this is the new government, Mr. Speaker.

It gives three options. It doesn't give one option. It doesn't say that we're going to sell them. It says that we might sell them; we might lease them; we might finance them. So will the minister tell us -- will she confirm today -- that the taxpayers of British Columbia will not be left holding these ships after a lease expires and will not have to finance the sale of these vessels?

[1415]

Hon. J. MacPhail: What our government is committed to do is represent the best interests of the taxpayer.

RESTAURANT HEALTH REGULATIONS

A. Sanders: Today we learned some unsettling details about a number of restaurants in the lower mainland. We know that health officials are frustrated as they try to shut down restaurants that have repeatedly -- repeatedly -- broken numerous health regulations, from rat infestations to filthy kitchens. Toronto health officials are able to post today recent health reports in the restaurant for all consumers to see. Will the minister responsible agree that consumers deserve to be made aware of serious infractions and places that continually make those infractions and change the regulations so that health officials can post a report in that particular restaurant for everyone to come and see?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is an extremely important question, because I don't think anyone should have to worry about the health status of a restaurant in this province, whether it's in Vancouver, whether it's in Coquitlam, whether it's in Prince George or wherever it is. We place a high priority on ensuring that health and safety regulations, as they apply to restaurants, are in place, and we are happy to work with the health authorities to do whatever it takes to ensure that that in fact is the practice in the province.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon has a supplementary question.

A. Sanders: Right now that isn't the regulation in the province. We need those new regulations, and we need them now. Vancouver does a very good job of checking its restaurants once a year. And still, even despite that, in a small number of places you've got plaster gaps, food scraps, mice scats, big rats, floor stick, grease stick, cockroach food -- to set the mood.

Does this minister wish to see "pied piper" in his legacy? Or is he going to assure consumers that every restaurant in B.C. will have a current restaurant inspection performed, knowing that most communities don't have the money to do that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm more than happy to put in place new regulations. I can think of one restaurant in particular that was closed down, in my own particular constituency, because of rat droppings -- large rat scats and a whole host of things around cockroaches. If they'd spent less time advertising Liberal campaign signs at the last election -- which were all over their front window -- and paid more attention to cleanliness, they wouldn't have had the shutdown notice that came after the election.

TAXATION REVIEW FOR NON-PROFIT

COMMUNITY REBROADCASTING SERVICES

G. Abbott: I don't think we need to take any lessons from the government on rat control. I think they'll hold their own there.

New subject, hon. Speaker. The community of Enderby has had, for well over 40 years now, a non-profit TV rebroadcasting service. Now, they don't have real lavish facilities; in fact, their one facility is an 8-by-8-foot cement block building. Despite their modest premises, they recently received a tax bill for nearly $1,000.

Two years ago we were promised a review by the then Finance minister that she'd look into this. And still the societies are receiving these ridiculous property tax notices from the Ministry of Finance. Could the current Finance minister tell us why his ministry continues to drive these non-profit volunteer community societies into the ground through these ridiculous taxes?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll take the question on notice.

[1420]

The Speaker: The member for Shuswap has a new question.

G. Abbott: This is not a new issue. We've raised this issue in the past; we've been promised action by the government.

[ Page 16107 ]

The response simply isn't good enough. There are thousands of people in the interior of British Columbia -- in fact, in all parts of British Columbia -- that depend on these rebroadcasting societies. Will the minister promise us today . . . ? Will he confirm today that his ministry will do a review of this subject and do everything they can to help these volunteer cooperative societies to do their jobs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've committed to investigating this seriously. I took the question on notice. If the member wants to do casework in question period, it's his right. But he can't expect detailed answers to specific casework in question period.

The Speaker: The member for Shuswap has a further supplemental.

G. Abbott: Can the minister advise what happened to the last review of this, which was apparently undertaken two years ago?

REGULATIONS CONCERNING STARTUP

OF ECOTOURISM COMPANY

M. Coell: The ecotourism company, Planet Explorer, recently began Canadian operations based in my riding in Sidney. Like all ecotourism companies carrying passengers, they had to undergo a tedious application process to produce a National Safety Code certificate, community support statements, their business plan and their financial statements, to post an application in the local newspapers for 21 days and then attend a government-sponsored public meeting. Can the minister responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission explain why small ecotourism companies are faced with this much red tape and regulations, just to pick up a half dozen passengers from the airport?

Hon. H. Lali: I agree with the hon. member that it is unacceptable to have the kind of delay that it has had. But the hon. member must also understand that the Motor Carrier Commission is an arm's-length agency, and I have no involvement in the day-to-day goings on of the Motor Carrier Commission's operations. He fully understands that. I know that the Motor Carrier Commission is reviewing this matter and has been in contact with both parties.

The Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands has a supplemental question.

M. Coell: Planet Explorer operates tours on six continents and in three oceans and is the kind of ecotourism company this province needs. By making their successful small businesses threatened because the Motor Carrier Commission hasn't extended their licence beyond the end of August, can the Minister of Transportation tell us if he is prepared to allow a successful, job-creating, tax revenue-producing company to leave British Columbia for good?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member across the way is obviously asking to bypass the rules. He knows full well that the Motor Carrier Commission is at arm's length from the ministers, and no interference is allowed by the minister in their day-to-day operations. Also, the hon. member must realize that the MCC wants more than anything else to make sure that safety is not compromised. The hon. member, more than anybody, should know that -- also the independence of the Motor Carrier Commission.

B.C.'S CREDIT RATING

F. Randall: My question is to the Minister of Finance. At this time of year the bond-rating agencies normally report on B.C.'s credit rating. I've seen no media reports in this regard. Has the minister heard anything from these agencies? Can he share that information with this House?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds points out, it is somewhat amazing that the usual spotlight thrown on bond rating for the province has not been there this year. I'm not quite sure why that is. I am pleased to report to the House that the Dominion Bond Rating Service confirmed our AA credit rating in early May and that Moody's Investors Service confirmed our Aa2 credit rating at the end of May, and that both of them pointed to our low debt-to-GDP ratio and what they described as a very large, sound and continually diversifying economy as one of the reasons why they confirmed these ratings.

Hon. Speaker, unlike the members opposite, they read the actual facts about B.C.'s economy. They look at a 15 percent increase in manufacturing sales this month over last year. They look at retail sales up 5.3 percent in February over last year and unemployment at 6.9 percent, the lowest level in 20 years. They see the positives of this economy; I hope the opposition sees them as well.

[1425]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The member for Prince George-Mount Robson rises.

Reports from Committees

L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, and I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

L. Boone: By leave, I move that the report be adopted.

The Speaker: On that motion, members, all in favour . . . . Oh, the member may wish to read the report, or the Clerk will read it, I guess. Thank you.

Law Clerk: Hon. Speaker:

"Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report that the

preamble of Bill Pr402, intituled The British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Lois Boone, Chair."

[ Page 16108 ]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr402 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call Committees -- plural -- of Supply. In Committee A, we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. In this chamber, Committee B, we shall be continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 24: ministry operations, $4,536,431,000 (continued).

[1430]

G. Hogg: I would to now address to the minister and her staff some issues with respect to the performance plan which we've seen come forward. Firstly, I understand that the performance plans which we've seen coming forward with each of the ministries come out of the report of the auditor general, which laid out some preconditions for success and asked that each of the ministries be involved in that, combined with former member Fred Gingell, who was very active through his committee in terms of pushing these issues forward.

So my first question with respect to this would be: the format that's laid out and the expectations contained in it -- are they consistent with the "Enhancing Accountability for Performance: A Framework and an Implementation Plan," which comes from the auditor general? Or are they based on some other set of evaluative criteria and format that are laid out within the performance plan?

Hon. P. Priddy: My understanding, member, is that this was prepared in accordance with instructions from the Ministry of Finance to be able to coincide with the recommendations that were made.

G. Hogg: So I understand that to say it is, then, consistent with the expectations that were laid out in the auditor general's report previously referenced. Can I then ask for the process that was followed in terms of the development of this plan? Who was consulted in putting it together? Whether or not it is in fact a part of the culture of the ministry, or whether or not it has been developed by the titular heads of the ministry, what process was in fact used in coming to the development of this plan and the contents therein?

Hon. P. Priddy: I was looking for Crowns for titular heads, but I wasn't sure which ones they were.

This information was put together -- because it is the Ministry of Education, it certainly reflects the culture of the ministry -- with the assistance of people who have program responsibilities in many areas across the ministry. So this wasn't only an executive committee, if you will. This involved people with direct program responsibilities and people who are regional coordinators and who are actually out working in the field on a day-to-day basis.

G. Hogg: Did it involve any of the people who work directly with the school boards, any members of the school boards or any of the partners in education? Or was this solely developed by ministry staff?

Hon. P. Priddy: It wasn't developed with school boards, because it is a ministry and not a school board document. But certainly people who have been involved in putting this together are people who work directly with school boards. Just as an example, there's the fact that Rick Connolly, as the assistant deputy minister, is here, who works on a day-to-day basis directly with school boards. So that would be the case. As well, I would say to the member that while it may not have been in consultation with school boards, it is very consistent with the K-to-12 -- the kindergarten-to-12 -- initiatives in the province followed by all school districts as a result of provincial policy.

G. Hogg: Well, I appreciate that, this being the first effort at putting together the performance plan, it's difficult to tie the words together with the budgetary dollars and resources necessary to focus specifically on the performance plan. However, has there been any specific effort to develop the performance plan and then tie the budgetary resources to the achievement of the plan, or have they been developed, this the first year, almost independently?

I ask that question because I find some places in the budget where I don't think they appear to be appropriately addressed within the performance plan. So I'm wondering if there is an expressed intent, or whether the development of the performance plan was specifically designed, to be consistent with the dollars and the resources necessary to achieve some of the outcomes which are outlined within the context of the performance plan.

[1435]

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there has been work to attach or to be able to match initiatives to dollars. I'm not sure we could do them with each and every one, but we can do them with many of them, given that it is the operational budget of the ministry and not the broader budget. Then in many cases we can answer that question.

G. Hogg: Just reading from the performance framework and looking at some of the issues which the auditor general said were crucial in terms of the evolution and development of a performance plan. Firstly, it says: "A culture shift, where results are valued over process, must occur at all levels: Cultural change must take place throughout the public sector, among legislators and all of government. Such change requires steady, ongoing leadership. Initially, the focus of leadership efforts should be in providing incentives to encourage a culture of performance . . . " in those areas where there seems to be the ability to respond and to provide those types of incentives.

Has the ministry taken any initiatives with respect to cultural shifts to move towards results rather than process

[ Page 16109 ]

orientations? Have there been any incentives or specific directions or areas within the ministry that we could reference or look at, where these cultural shifts might have started to take place? And how would we start to measure those?

Hon. P. Priddy: I wanted just to make a general comment to the member, if I might. I think always, when you're looking at this kind of work, you have to find a balance between process and outcome. So you could have . . . . You know, you might make a change in outcome with a really disrespectful process. On the other hand, you can have so much process that you don't get to outcome. I think it is always being able to find a balance. You do need good process, but in the end, of course, you do have to actually be able to demonstrate that you have outcomes as a result of that.

So yes, we are able to give some indicators of that. If you ask about cultural change, one of the things I would reference is performance indicators in the ministry. That would come under that first goal, which I think is in the performance document, of improving the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of K-to-12 education. The performance measure, the way we sort of change the culture to try and do that measurement, is with the foundation skills assessment. That would be one of the examples I would give.

G. Hogg: If I may indulge the minister for a moment, I noticed that the minister was waving up behind me. I was expecting a class from Peace Arch Elementary, and I'm wondering whether or not Jessie Lee . . . .

I will continue on.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: I like to wave at all children.

G. Hogg: That's very thoughtful of you. If you wave again . . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, members, please.

G. Hogg: I see that the Chair waves at all children as well.

I have just a few more questions on the accountability framework. We've made reference to the culture. The second one is with respect to performance measures. Part of the performance measures outlined in the report suggest that there should be a prepared phase-in timetable for the inclusion of output and outcome performance measurement information in the performance plans. I note that in the majority of issues within this plan, there are not specific time lines with respect to those. I'm wondering whether or not, as we go through it in some detail, we can ask some questions specifically about that.

Or was there an inability at this stage to put into it some of the time lines which were outlined in the auditor general's report?

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you for waving at children. It's such a good thing to do.

The Chair: I always do, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: I knew that.

I will watch for Peace Arch, hon. member.

You're right. If you look at the performance plan, you do not see those time lines. For about 70 percent of the issues you want to raise, I think we can respond with specific time lines.

[1440]

G. Hogg: Then I think I'll move quickly from the auditor general's report, because the issue is time lines, and then it's the measurement criteria that are referenced in it. It's ensuring that roles and responsibilities in terms of the achievement of those are clear. Again, it references under "reporting" that there be reporting in a timely manner and makes reference to the level of timeliness that is acceptable for the ministry to achieve those types of goals. And talking about strategic updates with respect to the performance plan . . . .

Is there any intent to have any further updates to this plan other than what happens at the estimates process, the budgeting process? Or will there be updates made available with respect to the performance plan throughout the course of the year?

Hon. P. Priddy: For a number of these, there will be. Certainly before there is an overall annual review, there will be ways to assess that at three months or six months, depending on the particular area that's in here. So there will be assessments other than waiting for a year to do the annual review.

G. Hogg: Moving just a little further into the performance plan and looking at the final issue of accountability, the auditor general made reference specifically to what we are trying to achieve. While it is laid out with respect to the mission and some of the goals, I wonder if from a conceptual point of view, the minister could outline what in fact, overall, we're trying to achieve with respect to the performance plan. As I say, the vision starts to outline that in a very succinct way, but I think there are some other things that come into it. But the first question the auditor general says we start to ask is: "What in fact is government trying to achieve?"

What are we trying to achieve? What are the challenges in doing that, and how are we going to maintain . . . ? I'd like to broadly hear, in the minister's words, through the performance plan, how that ties the . . . . What are we trying to achieve? Where are we trying to go, and what are the challenges in terms of us being able to achieve that outcome?

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me start with more of an umbrella statement, if you will, around what we are trying to achieve and using the performance plan to achieve -- because it's only a tool. Part of that is reflected in there. But if you look at all students and look at the school system, you're trying to ensure that we have a school system that is effective for all students, gives equal opportunity to be successful and provides them with the kind of intellectual challenges, career challenges and challenges in other areas of their skills and abilities to be able to achieve those kinds of successes in school.

I think we want to make sure -- this is sort of a triple E, if you will, and I think the auditor general probably uses these words as well -- that in the second part, the equity of how education is offered, not just effectiveness of how the education is offered . . . so that all students have equal opportunity regardless of the circumstances in which their lives might be conscribed or advantages they may not have that other stu-

[ Page 16110 ]

dents do. Clearly our job is to provide some equity in ensuring that it is available to everybody and not only people who come with a particular set of advantages.

Efficiency is the third E that the auditor general talks about. For the school system, that really talks about making real effort to ensure that we're focused on improving not only the success and achievement of individual students but also the conduct of the education system in general. So that's the sort of larger pieces of where this would be going.

Welcome, new Chair.

[P. Nettleton in the chair.]

G. Hogg: Hon. Chair . . . . New Chair -- perhaps that's a better adjective. Welcome, new Chair.

The performance plan that the minister, in her appending letter to the performance plan, talks about -- the three Es: effectiveness, efficiency and equity . . . . It talks about improving public confidence in and support for the K-to-12 education. We talked a little bit this morning about some of the issues that are happening, not just in British Columbia but perhaps nationally, with respect to the lack of confidence that some sectors have with respect to the educational system.

Improving public confidence. I made reference this morning to the polling which the ministry had done and some of the references to polling in June last year. Is it the intent, then, that the improving of public confidence -- because I am assuming that is to be a by-product of the plan that is coming out -- and the method by which you will assess that will be further polling? Is that a fair guess as to the intent of that portion of the minister's letter?

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly polling is one indicator, and I expect that we might do that. But that's only one indicator of people's confidence in the education system. I would just reference a few others in terms of how you either build or bring back, if that's the case, confidence in the education system.

[1445]

So let me talk for a minute, not about accreditation in terms of the details . . . . When you do accreditation, therefore you have accreditation teams that also include the public, if you will. There are parents who are represented on accreditation teams. By having a team with parents on it, who talk to other parents and talk to their next-door neighbours, and so on, go in and participate in that kind of a vehicle, that is one way in which parents have a look at the system and are able to then make an assessment about having some more confidence in how the system is doing.

A couple of other ones I would mention. One is our new performance standards. It's a way of teachers, of course, having an ability -- and I referenced it earlier this morning -- to talk with parents about exactly what the student's achievement is. It's also a way to restore confidence on the part of parents and the public, because they actually see not just a grade -- although, you know, people want a grade . . . . But they actually have an example of how their child is doing, where they've come from, where they need to go next, in very concrete ways.

It helps the parent not only to have confidence in the system but to have confidence in their ability to help their son or daughter be able to achieve those kinds of successes.

We do have people who come to British Columbia because they have chosen to do that for the school system that is in this province.

So you might do polling, the accreditation teams, the performance standards, foundation skills assessment. I think we're about to have a celebration of some larger results for students, which may be due out tomorrow. The more we celebrate those kinds of things, it helps build confidence too.

Hon. I. Waddell: I wonder if I might ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: It's very fitting that in the midst of debate on education, I am able to introduce to the House a group of students. I believe they're grade 3 from Walter Moberly School Annex in my riding. Mr. Lepper is the teacher. Would the House please make these students and their teacher very welcome.

G. Hogg: I'm just checking to see whether or not the students I was looking for from Jessie Lee have somehow vanished or been overruled.

If I may move into the business plan, specifically the introduction. In the introduction, it reads:

"That the Ministry of Education is responsible for the province's K-to-12 education system. The purpose of this performance plan is to articulate significant activities for 2000/01-2002/03, which directly support attainment of the ministry's long-term goals and objectives."

This is the area my question comes from. In the next sentence it says:

"Those ongoing, core activities of the ministry which do not pertain directly to the achievement of the ministry's long-term goals and objectives are not described in the performance plan, because the purpose of the plan is to identify those strategies and activities which specifically support the ministry's goals and objectives. Nevertheless, the ministry's ongoing, core activities are integral to fulfilment of the ministry's mission."

I'm wondering in what sense can there be a core activity which does not in fact pertain directly to the achievement of the ministry's long-term goals and objectives. It seems like a bit of a non sequitur to me. I was looking for core activities and finding that the ministry is saying that they do not pertain directly to the achievement. I have difficulty rationalizing those two statements.

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me use one example. I think it would be foolish of me, I guess, to suggest that you could not include anything under a core activity. But for instance, something that would not be listed there and could be a core activity is that we send out financial statements to school boards every month. That's part of how the ministry does its business, but we have not, certainly in this, included all of those day-to-day business activities of the ministry.

[1450]

G. Hogg: Thank you. That helps to clarify that portion of it.

Moving on to the K-to-12 education system and particularly the public school

section portion, it talks about the

[ Page 16111 ]

public school system. I'll read from the first paragraph. It says: "The public school system consists of 60 school districts responsible for operating 1,800 schools and providing an education to almost 614,000 students in classrooms and almost 17,000 students in continuing education. The government of British Columbia provides full financial support for public schools."

That, of course, has caused a number of questions and concerns from a number of people around the province when we say that in what sense . . . . The question, I guess: is in what sense can the government claim that it provides full financial support for public schools when we look at parental fundraising -- which has been well publicized at being well over $30 million annually -- which goes into and is deemed to be a part of core educational services and needs, or when we look at fees and various entrepreneurial activities which account for millions of dollars of revenue which is also spent within the core portion of the system?

The reason I'm asking that question is obviously to try and say: are we able to articulate more finally, more specifically, what in fact the public education system funding level is at? We continually hear, as I'm sure the minister continually hears, of all the other fundraising activities that go into those services that relate directly to the educational needs of students. So the full financial support question, I think, begs for further definition and articulation.

Hon. P. Priddy: In reference to the member's question about full funding, I guess we could have the discussion about what that indeed means. But in terms of the funding formula and the way that the funding formula addresses a variety of issues in both rural and urban schools -- and sometimes they're quite different, because there are many parts of the funding formula -- there is funding for all of those pieces in the funding formula.

But do parents raise additional dollars for things they believe are necessary in their school? Yes, they do. You and I might think that some of those things are not necessary, and sometimes they are things that are indeed necessary. I've actually said this about the funding formula before, but that's why we as a ministry have to keep hearing those comments and seeing if there are ways we should be moving differently in terms of the issues that the funding formula addresses.

The funding for schools that has been mentioned earlier is the second-highest in the country for provinces. It's a little bit behind Ontario's, but otherwise it's the second highest. Could we spend more? Are there things that every school district could make a list of that we, including me, would like to see funded? Yes. But in terms of the items in the funding formula, we believe that we have funded it as the formula recommends.

I would say, though, that we all know the challenges with parent fundraising. One is just doing it, and secondly, we need to pay attention to the areas that are being fundraised. The last thing we want to see is schools that have more opportunities because of the ability of parents within that school to raise funds. There are some examples of that.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: I'd like to introduce students from Jessie Lee Elementary School in Surrey -- in south Surrey -- and their teacher and parents. I had the opportunity to meet with them earlier. Their teacher is Ms. Lynda Bergstrand, who I went to elementary school with, although she was much younger than me then and continues to be much, much younger than I am today. Lynda has been recognized as one of the outstanding teachers in the Surrey school district and has received awards of excellence for that. She heads over here today with another teacher.

I believe there are 54 students -- some of them out riding on horses or being taken around on the Tally-Ho riding system. Others are here to enjoy the discussion with respect to Education debates. So I would ask that the House please make all of these students and their teachers and chaperons feel most welcome here in the precincts.

[1455]

G. Hogg: I'm trying to hook back into all of the comments that the minister made with respect to the full financial support. I know that one of the frustrating issues for me in respect to education budgeting has been in last year's estimates, when we would ask questions of the minister, and the minister would say, "Well, that's a school board responsibility," and the school boards would say: "Well, that's a ministry responsibility." We'd have that vaunted stalemate where each side is pointing at the other side, saying, "That's your responsibility, and why won't you deal with it?" and nobody ultimately taking some degree of responsibility for it.

I think what the issue of full financial support as laid out in the performance plan starts to beg for is: is there some method, is there some system, is there some process, idea or thought that may be in existence that will help us to get away from this finger-pointing and start to articulate more finely as to who in fact has accountability and responsibility for what within the confines of the funding system?

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I'd like to hope that we, in estimates, will be able to either answer the questions or be clear about why a responsibility lies in one place. I'd hate to think that we'd end up with stalemates on a whole variety of questions.

Just to sort of have a first go at this, if you will . . . . Ought the responsibilities of the provincial government have to do with providing a governance structure for education, providing funding for the system and providing leadership -- particularly in the areas of curriculum development or some of the things we talked about around anti-bullying? If you were to divide up responsibilities in that kind of larger way, then those are provincial ones. And sometimes they are school board responsibilities or ours, but I hope there won't be finger-pointing or passing the buck. Sometimes they're just real.

G. Hogg: Has the ministry had the opportunity to look at other funding formulas or other funding models in other provinces which may reflect a method that starts to articulate more finely the divisions of responsibility that exist, so that we can . . . ?

Harkening back to the auditor general's report where he's talking about the issues of accountability, of course accountability means having somebody that's clearly responsible and therefore can be held accountable. One of the big frustrations I've seen -- and I know that the former Minister

[ Page 16112 ]

of Education had as well -- was that issue of how we hold people accountable. So I'm wondering if there have been other educational systems across Canada or elsewhere that have been looked at, where there are any other more finely articulated statements with respect to who is accountable for what in the system.

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly the ministry staff has looked at how funding formulas are done across the country. One of the ways they had an opportunity to do this was . . . . Last year there was a conference of -- if I get this right -- school business officials, internationally based, that occurred in Vancouver and had people here from all over. Actually, B.C.'s funding formula was held up as a leader in funding formula. I say that just by way of comparison in terms of how other people responded to this. Yes, we've looked at other provinces.

The second point I'd make is that there always has to be some balance between accountability and the ability of a school board to make decisions as well, based on what they see as the best needs of their students in the district. I have said publicly, albeit the funding formula was held up at this conference of people who were experts in this area as one that was a leader . . . . I have said that it may be time for us to have another look at the funding formula.

[1500]

G. Hogg: Where I'm leading with this is the issue of the auditor general's report talking about getting away from process, starting to measure performances, starting to measure results and outcomes. I'm wondering whether or not that might also feed into the process by which we articulate our funding formula, whereby the ministry may be saying to a school district, "Here are the outcomes we expect," rather than saying to them: "Here is your targeted funding, here's what you must spend, and here are your limits with respect to each of these funding areas."

If we are to finally take the auditor general's report, take the performance plan and really start moving it into the financing, can we get to the point where we're starting to say to school districts: "Here are our expectations -- that you provide for the needs of our special needs students, of our gifted children, of our first nations children . . . "? So all of those are laid out in some way that gives further autonomy to the school district to carry those out.

We're laying out the expectations in terms of outcomes rather than process, rather than articulating how each of those dollars might and must be spent, so that we can start to enter into agreements that allow school boards perhaps to come back to life in terms of their ability to provide services and needs that are appropriate to the communities which they're elected to represent.

Hon. P. Priddy: This is increasingly an area, not only in education but in health care and other areas, where people or organizations are moving to. We do give -- and are beginning to give more -- some direction or guidance to school districts around outcomes not only about how you spend the money but the outcome we might want to look at. One of the areas I would reference is career program funding. We have increased those dollars significantly, actually, over the last years, but we've done that in order to be able to say to school districts: "These are the kinds of outcomes we expect." Indeed, we are seeing some of those outcomes already with career programs.

Another area I would reference would be aboriginal students and the improvement agreements, which I referenced this morning, that we have with Kamloops and that we are about to sign with Campbell River. Those are ways in which we do not just say: "This is the amount of money we've calculated that you get" but "These are the outcomes we expect as a result of it."

G. Hogg: The minister referenced starting to look at this in health care as well as in education. I'm sure the minister is well aware of the Oregon model, where they have a protocol, a regime of services in the medical health plan that says: "These are the services which will be provided." Is there anything that can be learned by this province and by outcome measurements in terms of that? The ministry may be saying to school boards: "Here are the required services that you will provide, here are some optional ones, here is the funding. We will provide full funding, as per the

preamble to the performance plan, for those core educational programs that may be on that list. Here are the optional ones, and we'll provide you funding for three of 30, or whatever the outcomes might come."

I'm struggling for ways that we can get away from the finger-pointing, get further into measuring outcomes instead of processes and say: "School boards, here's how we're going to fund. Here's what you must provide, here are the outcomes, and we're going to measure you on those outcomes. Those are the core services you must provide, and beyond that you can cater to your community's needs.

Here is the funding that you have, and you can pick one or seven or 12." So when a school board comes to a ministry and says, "We have to cut our music program because we don't have enough funding," the ministry's response might be: " Well, here are the core services that are dictated by the province; here's what you must provide. You have a choice now, and you've chosen to eliminate music and keep first nations education or phys ed."

I'm not sure that that type of model, which is borrowed from the health care system, has value in education, but perhaps it does. And perhaps it gets us into the position where school districts can actually make some sophisticated, legitimate decisions with respect to how they can best provide the educational needs of their communities and can actually make those decisions without having to point back at the ministry or the province and say, "It's the province's fault we can't afford it," where we're clearly articulating the decisions which seem to get so confused, as we heard this morning with respect to the issue of school closures.

[1505]

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry. Let me think about the point I was starting with.

Under the public school act and by regulation, we do say to school districts: "These are core areas that you must teach in order to receive funding." It indeed applies to independent schools as well. So there is a curriculum that is identified, with core areas that must be taught.

Perhaps the member is trying to move towards whether there could be more flexibility. But let me just comment on the current system. School districts have an opportunity to make decisions around the 20 percent of locally developed courses, so they have flexibility in that respect. It's not only the provincial government that might have an influence on that. If you

[ Page 16113 ]

ask many school districts or school boards, the parents in that district have very specific ideas as well about the kinds of programs that they want to see offered to their students in a particular community. And that does and should have an impact on what the school districts offer.

One of the things that we have said and that I think we need to do more work in -- and it's probably also a health care one, and we would do that if we were redoing the funding formula or looking at it -- is looking at what the benchmarks are so we actually have better ways to measure how people are delivering those services. But there are core areas; there are flexible areas.

G. Hogg: The minister accurately assesses the issue I was looking at, and that is greater flexibility at the school district level in terms of holding them accountable for the measuring of the outcomes. I guess that comes from looking at the ministry's issues around their accreditation policy and trying to apply some of the issues in the accreditation policy as it would apply to a school and taking those and applying them to the ministry, using some of the same criteria in terms of the levels and degrees of measurement that would exist from there.

Am I fair to interpret the minister as saying yes, you're interested in looking at greater flexibility, you're interested in looking at the measurement of outcomes rather than process and in giving greater authority to school districts in terms of their ability to do that?

While you've articulated that there is an expectation with respect to core and optional courses, we haven't articulated those to the degree where they're reflected in an ability to respond and put accountability back to the school boards around the funding around that. There isn't that level of understanding that exists either at the ministry or at the school district level where they could, in fact, do that -- say: "Yeah, we recognize we've made this choice, and it is our responsibility to cut the music program."

Today they're saying: "It's the ministry's fault, because the ministry hasn't given us enough money to manage that." So all I'm searching for is: how do we hold the school districts more accountable, and how do we give them legitimate authority and ability to make some of those decisions?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think some of the ways we begin to do that -- and then I want to make a comment about it, if I might, but just a point first -- are by using our own performance plan that ensures that school districts or school boards are clear about the kinds of objectives we have and the ways in which we see them being met and are able to match some of their activities to that. They therefore have a benchmark and develop very specific things that indicate whether indeed those benchmarks are being achieved.

Secondly, yes, I do support boards having flexibility. I mean, if we're going to maintain school boards -- and I actually believe that we should -- then we have to give them some ability to do their job. I guess it is the balance, though, you know, between ensuring that the core curriculum areas are taught. So maybe it's a discussion about what absolutely has to be core and what the board has some ability to move on, because at some stage you can't do it all.

There are a lot of choices available in the high school system for students, and at some stage a school district may say: "We can't fit all this into a timetable, so we're going to make some choices about that." And they should be able to do that.

G. Hogg: I'm agreeing with the minister with respect to wanting to look at that autonomy, but I'm wondering how the minister reconciles the fact that school boards . . . . To a large degree, their budgets are 92 percent locked in -- very little flexibility -- and the 8 percent which we say is discretionary is in many ways not really discretionary, because it's about whether or not we should be buying gas for our buses or whether or not we should be having admin support of some type or whether or not we should have custodial support of some kind.

So really, school boards around the province are saying: "We have no flexibility; we don't have an ability to manage. We're given expectations by the ministry, by the province. We're told: 'This is what you have to do.' It eats up all of the money that we have, and so we're not able to make many, if any, meaningful decisions about education for our community and how it should reflect the nuances and needs of local communities."

[1510]

So while I hear the words, I wonder if there's any way that we can start to reconcile those words with the reality the school boards are consistently stating. I'm sure the minister hears exactly the same thing I do with respect to that and the frustration that most school boards express, in many cases, because they are the local representative faces with respect to education in the 60 school districts around this province. They're the ones who first hear the complaints, first hear the concerns with respect to cutbacks, with respect to lack of appropriateness, with respect to programming.

They say: "We don't have the ability to respond to it, yet we're the front line." So they become, in many cases, flak-catchers for provincial policy decisions -- funding options that go to them -- yet they can't react or respond to them.

I'm sure the minister knows that many of them are feeling extremely frustrated with their roles.

So again, in terms of the process of accountability questions I was asking earlier -- about measuring outcomes, about being able to further articulate and refine and define what the expectations might be of each level -- all are looking at this: how can we meaningfully breathe life back into school boards so that they can respond to local area needs and at the same time the ministry can have a broad set of expectations and standards that are provincewide, so that we look at, articulate and understand what our roles are, stop pointing at each other and both get on with our jobs more reasonably and effectively?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is undoubtedly correct. I think the average for salaries in education is about 90 percent. There are some statistics that are a bit higher than that. I don't think we should be, necessarily, surprised by that, because education is very much about people. That is who is delivering the service to our sons and daughters or to our grandchildren. So it's not surprising that it is that.

But one of the things I think we can do that gives boards a little bit more ability . . . . They are actually able, at least in some ways, to move dollars across categories. But if the funding was more global funding -- the funding that is not wages and benefits, etc. -- then they feel a little bit more ability to actually respond to individual needs in their particular school district. And I think that would help.

G. Hogg: The minister made reference to the value and the import of the percentage . . . that we have as teachers, and

[ Page 16114 ]

certainly I fully support that. I recently was reading the Tennessee value-added assessment accountability program, where they're looking at the percentage of the impact that teachers have in terms of the overall educational experience, and certainly reading some of the stuff out of New South Wales, where they've actually taken some averages and broken down and looked at education as a value-added commodity. I don't like that word; I guess that's the word that was used. But the notion of value-added . . . .

In the New South Wales information they're saying that if we look at 100 percent of the learning experiences that children have, 50 percent comes from the indigenous qualities of the individual, the socioeconomic background of the families and the things that they bring into it in terms of home support and the parents; 10 percent of it comes from the overall school experience and what the culture of the school is, of things that happen; and the other 40 percent is the teacher and the knowledge the teacher has and the teacher's ability to convey that knowledge and excite people about it.

So I certainly support the notion that the minister has with respect to the impact and import of teachers within that. I'm wondering whether or not we have, in this province, looked at any of those issues and studies around value-added and what that might mean in terms of us being able to tie that into the performance plan -- to tie that into measurements -- and whether that is a significant issue for this ministry, around the educational performances.

[1515]

Hon. P. Priddy: I wasn't sure if the member . . . . I'm not making this introduction for him. I didn't know if the member said he was expecting another school -- because there's another school.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: You weren't. Okay. But we can wave. It's our goal today to wave at all students who come to the gallery, so we're doing so.

We have looked at some of those studies. I think that in the one you referenced around New South Wales, it was . . . . When we talk about 50 percent being sort of the indigenous pieces that children bring and the rest -- you know, 10 percent being school and the school experience and 40 percent being teachers . . . . It relates very much to what we talk about in one of the goals we have about equity. For a lot of children, the teachers will be way more than 40 percent, because they're not going to come with that 50 percent that many students come with.

So for us that's very much linked to the equity issue in terms of looking at sort of, if you will, the value of teachers in the system. For many students it's far more than the 40 percent that might be average where that was looked at.

But yes, we have looked at those. I don't think we're in the stage of getting them into the performance plan yet, but we are as it relates to equity, which is, I think . . . . You know, our concern is always: how do we provide those extra supports for students who don't come with that to begin with?

G. Hogg: I would be delighted to see the work that the ministry does with respect to that as you look at it in other areas. I guess the minister has reinforced that the selection of our teacher is very important, and perhaps our selection of parents is equally if not more important in terms of that process.

I'd like to move on through another step in the performance plan. On page 3, which is the independent school system . . . . We have had much discussion over the past months with respect to independent schools. I don't want to spend a lot of time on that, just to have the minister, for the record, reaffirm the current position of this government. And if it's longer than current, if it's able to speak longer than current with respect to its position on independent school funding . . . .

I'm assuming that the original funding, which I had received, is now $5 million more, to compensate and cover for the original inequities or historical inequities in terms of the funding levels that the independent schools had.

For the purpose of the record, I would like the minister just to respond to the position of the government with respect to independent schools, reassuring us that the $5 million is now reflected in this -- and anything else that she may wish to add regarding the role of the independent school system in terms of providing viable options for parents of children in this province.

Hon. P. Priddy: The $5 million is restored. You won't see it reflected currently in this budget, but it is indeed restored. So that is for the record.

The government does not intend to change the funding formula on which the basis of independent school dollars are calculated, if you will. I think the member knows it's 50 percent of what a student in the public school system would get in that district, if schools are not charging an amount greater than a school district in terms of tuition. You know, we have group 1 and group 2 schools. There's not an intention to change the funding formula; the $5 million is there.

As a general comment, we have a very diverse selection in British Columbia, not only within our school system. Districts like Vancouver and Surrey have probably 30 or 40 choices within their system. We have a very diverse independent school system. The range of choices for parents is quite broad, and I think that that's something parents wish to continue.

G. Hogg: Again for the record, I understand the minister is saying that the intent is that any percentage increases in the operational budget of the public school system will be reflected equally in the independent school system in the future.

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Hogg: Moving on to the next item in the performance plan, that of home schooling. The plan reports that there are 4,300 students registered as receiving their education at home and that home-schooled students and their parents have access to education services and resources. I wonder whether or not the Ministry of Education is planning to do any targeting of funding for electronically delivered education.

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to make sure that I am clear on how I represent the answer. There are two groups of students: students who are home-schoolers in the sense that you and I would understand home schooling and, secondly, students who are counted as public school students but do

[ Page 16115 ]

their education through directed electronic learning. There is not a plan to move or expand the area of directed electronic learning for home-schoolers, but we certainly do do that with those students at home who are part of the public school system.

[1520]

G. Hogg: I understand there are something like 18 electronically delivered educational programs in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could describe for me the current enrolment. I understand there's a funding cap that exists for those. If I could get a grasp of the current enrolment and the funding cap and whether or not there's any plan to review those and to open those up, given that we're moving more into an electronic age . . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: There are 2,157.5 students -- the calculation's obviously on the amount of time, so say 2,157 students -- who are part of that system. There is a review currently going on, and at the end of that review the intent would be to remove the cap.

G. Hogg: The review which is currently taking place . . . . Could the minister please advise when that review will be complete? And when the minister made reference to removing the cap and opening it wide open, would that be the funding cap, the enrolment cap or both caps?

Hon. P. Priddy: I've sort of a philosophical point, then, first. As part of that review, it is really important that we ensure that those students who are learning in that way -- through electronic delivery of learning -- are meeting the goals of education in British Columbia, that they are indeed getting the same quality of education as they would be getting if they were actually physically present in a classroom in a school in their area. I want to make that philosophical point.

The review is currently going on. The intent would be to remove both the funding cap and the numbers cap -- the per-pupil cap. We have teams going into school districts over the next few weeks to actually have a look at this. I don't have any sense that it would make a difference before fall, in terms of taking the cap off.

G. Hogg: How much money do we have in the electronically delivered education program, and is there potentially more money to go into that program as a result of the estimates we have before us?

Hon. P. Priddy: The amount that is currently in that budget is about $7.5 million. That's rounding down a bit, I guess -- but just over $7.5 million.

I need to make a correction; I thought I heard two things at once. In terms of when the cap might come off and actually be applicable to students, it's probably not till the next budget year, because it's not currently in the budget to be able to do that, as we speak.

The other thing the review will be looking at is what is . . . . It's $3,500 per student. Just out of interest, in '96-97 there were 434 students who were doing that. We've now got well over 2,000 students. It's $3,500 a student, and we're looking at whether that's the real cost -- is it more or is it less? -- as the review moves on.

[1525]

G. Hogg: So I'm assuming, then, that the report will be received sometime within the limits of this fiscal year, and then any expectations with respect to change will be reflected in the next fiscal year. Is that an accurate . . . ? And do we have an approximate date with respect to when this review might be available?

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I'm really hesitant. I spent too long in the Ministry of Health, you see, having been promised when reports would be ready. So I approach these questions with some reticence, hon. member. But the report will be ready within this fiscal year.

G. Hogg: Just broadly, then, I appreciate the fact that the ministry is doing this review. With respect to and in terms of public policy and public outcomes, just if the minister could be visionary for a moment -- not that she has not been visionary already -- with respect to what the electronically delivered educational programs may mean, particularly to some of our more rural areas in the province and also for some of the more urban areas who may want to get onto this type of system . . . .

If she could visualize where this might be able to take us five years from now, what it will mean in terms of the delivery of educational programming through electronic media and whether or not we have some specific initiatives that might be in place . . . . I probably shouldn't ask more than two questions at once.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think one of the things that this will do, particularly for smaller secondary schools, is incredibly expand the range of options or programs or courses that are available to secondary students, particularly in small rural high schools or remote high schools where you don't have the ability to offer the range that you might like to, because of the numbers. This tremendously expands their opportunity to have a more diverse course load.

I think the only thing that I worry about, partly as the Education minister and partly just as a mom or a grandmother, I suppose, is that while there's no question that direct education learning is invaluable for all kinds of students for all sorts of different reasons, we do want to make sure that we look at the piece that is about what the whole student is like. What are the skills that they're acquiring around citizenship and so on? You always have to have that balance between the academic learning and what that is doing for the whole student -- having sort of put that codicil around it.

Currently all the courses that are required for grade 12 graduation can be accessed through the directed education learning.

G. Hogg: I know that in Qualicum, I believe it is, the Qualicum high school has looked at the delivery of a number of programs electronically. As a result, I believe it has been able to have a number of grades in one classroom, with one teacher being able to provide, as the minister has pointed out, a broad range -- a much enriched and valued program -- which has allowed them to maintain their school and maintain many options which might otherwise not have been available to them.

The minister has referenced the issue of electronic-delivered education within the school system. Could you also reference what that might mean in terms of home learning, in terms of where that might take us for home-learners -- people who are not specifically attending a school, but are strictly part of a home learning program? Where might that be able to

[ Page 16116 ]

take us in terms of issues which the minister dealt with this morning, where there was discussion of the closure of some schools in some very rural areas of this province? What type of options might be provided for us as we start in this province to further articulate electronically delivered education, to start further articulating the options that are available to learning?

I guess the other part of that starts to come. Are we starting to look at education as it steps behind and out of the confines of what I've heard the deputy minister refer to as the system that is based on the old block . . . ? The factory-floor model of education, I think, was the word which the deputy used. If not, I'm sure it was very close to that. I wouldn't want to misquote the deputy minister or have him rate me lowly on one of those exams, where he rates me or I rate him. I believe it was factory models of education.

I'm sure the minister has heard many times, as I have, that if we were to transport a teacher from 100 years ago to today, there are not a lot of things which are dramatically different. They could step in and start teaching,

whereas there are very few professions in this society where we could do that.

[1530]

As we start looking at what electronically delivered education will mean, I'm starting to ask you now three or four questions all tied in at once. But the first part of that was: what does that start to mean? What does that start to mean for home-learners as we start to articulate and redefine the way we deliver education in this province? Where can we see home learning five or ten years from now, as we envision the future and the changes in terms of education?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I could just ask for some clarification on the question about whether, when you talk about home learning, you are talking about an expansion of directed electronic learning or whether you are talking about home-schoolers -- those students who are not part of that system . . . . I think the answer is a bit different.

G. Hogg: I would like the answer to both of those in terms of how, of course. Just prior to that, I understand, one of my colleagues is interested in making an introduction.

J. van Dongen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I would just like to introduce to the Legislature today a group of grade 5 and 6 students from Yarrow Elementary. They are accompanied by teachers John Letkemann and Ron O'Black. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: You know, if you look at where this could lead for students -- and I'm going to talk first about those, if you will, DEL students -- for them the opportunities are huge, not just around courses but around all of the students at home who were able to watch people climb Everest and are able to tour the Provincial Museum. It's not just coursework. It offers a variety of places to go -- literally, geographical places to go -- in a virtual way. I think that range is quite broad.

The challenge of my being about to answer your questions around home-schoolers is that we don't direct their learning. It's hard for me to say how that might affect home-schoolers, except to say -- having nothing to do with our responsibility, because they do direct their own learning -- that simply the expansion of the kind of technology that we have makes a big difference -- not that we provide it. But it is available to parents who have chosen to home-school their children. I'm sure the member knows that.

The other point I wanted to make is around electronic learning. There are increasing numbers of students with chronic illnesses in the province of British Columbia, very often respiratory problems and children who are born with very fragile medical conditions who previously we wouldn't have had the joy of having with us. As we see more of those children, it also offers an opportunity for them to keep up their schooling and not fall behind, which is what we would have seen before as they missed large chunks of school as related to their physical condition. It's making a huge difference for those students too.

[1535]

G. Hogg: We know that in this province in the last two years we've enjoyed some of the largest capital expenditure grants for improvement of our educational facilities. I'm wondering whether or not there has been any discussion within the ministry about the building of capital facilities -- the building of schools -- and whether or not there are some options available in terms of electronic models, in terms of getting away from the factory model that was referenced earlier.

Are there other models of delivering education which may allow us to focus -- perhaps through electronically delivered educational services, perhaps through other modalities -- on other ways of ensuring that we're able to focus many more of our dollars into actual services and programs to the students rather than into facilities? Is the new electronic era providing us with some opportunities in that which have been explored, looked at or examined by the ministry as we move ahead? Or are we going to continue to look at the models of delivery within the schools that we currently have?

Hon. P. Priddy: As we all support free votes, I support free thought, so "factory form of education" wouldn't be the phrase that I would choose. My deputy assures me that he didn't either, so I get to do the great part.

I'm going to go back to another point, if I can, before I answer the question. I'm not sure, if you took a teacher who was teaching in 1900 and lodged them in a year 2000 school, that they could teach. I understand the point that the member is making. But I think that if you put them in a classroom with the kind of information, the kind of technology and the challenges of students that we see today, I'm not sure that they could.

But I understand the point the member was trying to make. Your point is: is there some vision or some opportunity for school districts to move away from what you and I come from, which is Surrey, with lots and lots of schools, to move away from a very traditional school building -- I wouldn't call it a factory, but a traditional school building -- and look at other opportunities? There actually are. It's really early to know if it's going to work; we don't have enough information at this stage to even be able to assess that.

I would say to you, though, that we've had some discussions. I don't know if there was one example or not of --

[ Page 16117 ]

rather than a school -- learning centres, where you don't have to have a school in the way that we currently see it, but a learning centre where students come in and can access electronic equipment in order to access courses, do assignments, do research, etc. That's probably a sort of ministep, I guess, beyond the traditional school model. Certainly we've actually encouraged districts to have a look at that. We haven't -- I don't think, other than perhaps one discussion -- had people take us up on that at this stage.

Sorry -- did I have another point? If I did, I'll come back. I did, but I . . . .

G. Hogg: The factory model -- I was referring to the buildings. I didn't want people to suggest in any fashion that our teaching is factory-based or factory-modelled.

I would agree with the minister that there are probably many parts of the educational system where teachers from 100 years ago would be very lost moving into some of the schools today. But in some of them, I think they would feel quite comfortable. They would probably see a blackboard and students sitting in rows and desks in many schools that are very similar to what they would have seen 100 years ago. But it's substantially different in many other classrooms. I take what the minister is saying appropriately.

I guess I don't want to belabour this, but my issue is: is there a vision that says that 25 years from now we are going to be looking at . . . ? Is there any research? Has there been any reading that says: "Twenty-five years from now, here's what schooling is going to look like, given the types of changes, given the types of things that we're hearing in terms of the Internet, in terms of all types of electronically delivered programs"? Do we have a vision of anything out there? Is anything starting to distill?

Is anything starting to come into focus in terms of where we might be, in terms of being able to use those and to get away from some of the major expenditures we have with our capital expenditures in terms of building, so that we can focus more and more resources towards the student?

[1540]

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly people have done a fair bit of work around literature reviews and, you know, visioning and what people envision 20 years and 50 years from now in terms of school systems. I guess one of the steps I would mention is . . . . Again, it's sort of like learning centres; it's sort of the next step out from the traditional model. Having the PLNet, having every school in British Columbia linked electronically, as well as university and college campuses, is sort of that other step out from the traditional school model. It's very hard for me, anyway.

Can you envision a system in which students do all their learning at home? Well, you can if you thought that was a good way to learn. It's certainly physically possible that students could do all of their learning from home and almost not be required to be in a school building; that's certainly possible. We have the ability to do that.

We could discuss whether there is a desirability of that, because I think it's really hard, particularly at a younger school level, to replace a really good, sensitive teacher who responds in a really caring way to students and is able to -- and I think this is really one of the real challenges -- notice or intervene when a student needs some support, which is so important to do in the primary years. If you're doing electronic learning, it's going to be much harder for a teacher to see your learning skills, to see if you need extra support in certain areas.

So, while physically we could do it, I think we'd have to have the discussion about the desirability of how far down that road you go. Certainly with learning centres and PLN learning nets and choices for parents, we can get quite a ways down that road. But you can't replace the centrality of education and teachers for students.

G. Hogg: Certainly I would agree that the socialization issues that take place as we plug people perhaps into electronic learning . . . . There is going to be more and more a concern with respect to how we ensure that they become part of the society, that they work together. Their critical thinking skills or ability to manage themselves in the context of a social environment become more and more important -- hence a belief that perhaps as we move down that road, there will be need for a higher ratio of teachers to be involved in terms of the learning processes that take place, but perhaps not a higher need for some of the physical structures that would support that.

Has there been any exploration with respect to spending to fund the development of special education modified programs and/or curricula to be part of the distance education curriculum?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, not at this time.

G. Hogg: Will that be a part of the review that's taking place? Is there any interest? Or is that part of the terms of reference of the review that might be taking place around electronically delivered education? Is there an expansion or look at the curricula that are involved in it that may explore this area?

Hon. P. Priddy: That was not part of the criteria for the special education review. The purpose of the review that has just been completed is to try to make the system work better than it does. I think there are a significant number of ways in which it actually can work better than it currently does.

We haven't done that exploration, though, around directed-education learning and electronic learning and students with special needs; actually, I'd be interested in discussion at some stage about that. I think it would also depend on how we define special needs. If you define special needs as children who need additional learning challenges, because they've already learned whatever it is there is to learn in the classroom setting they're in, that's one thing. But for the students that you and I might think of as traditionally being students with special needs, I guess I'd have to see the research to say that was an effective method of learning for most of the students I can think of.

G. Hogg: That's exactly what I was looking at. Are we starting to push the boundaries in terms of electronically delivered education that may allow us to look at some of the other teaching modalities that may be evident there, some of the other needs the students have in the areas that we addressed? But I hear the minister saying that at this stage, that was not part of the review and is not something which is being explored.

[ Page 16118 ]

Have there been any evaluations with respect to the academic performance of EDE students -- electronically delivered education students -- compared with the more conventionally taught classroom students in the public schools? Do we have any comparative data in terms of performance or anything that could tell us about that?

[1545]

Hon. P. Priddy: During the review, people are in the process of . . . . I don't have analyzed data that I can present to you to answer your question about that in a short way. But in the review that's going on, people have collected the data. They're also analyzing that data to be able to better answer the question you've just asked.

G. Hogg: I understand that this year the schools of registration with respect to EDE were required to administer the foundation skills assessment or are required to administer that to home education students. I'm wondering how that is being funded. Are there funds to be allocated specifically for test administration to these schools of registration? Are they rolled into an overall budgetary package? How would that be reflected in this year's estimates?

Hon. P. Priddy: Every student that is part of foundation skills assessment, regardless of where they're learning, is funded per student to do that. So the school districts will have a resource based on that number, not based on where they are.

G. Hogg: Just one other comment or question with respect to home learning: I had a phone call in the last couple of days stating that there are some school districts -- I believe it's now up to four school districts in the province -- that are actually going out and trying to encourage people who have been on E-bus and different types of electronic learning to come back in and register at schools, in an effort to try to bolster some of the dollars they have within their school districts by bolstering their numbers. I'm wondering if there are.

In fact, in one case I was told that they were offering $600 to these students, and they were able to use that to go off and take piano lessons and do some other things. I'd be happy to give the minister more details and information with respect to this.

It reflected for me that the marketing of home schooling that some of the school districts are going into, in an effort to try and bolster their numbers . . . . They're feeling as though their budgets are being cut so tight that they don't have the flexibility to do some of the things they think are important. So I'm wondering if there are any regulations, policies or issues out there which would prevent schools from giving incentives to home learners to register in an electronic system or to register more formally within a school system.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we probably could regulate that. We have anticipated or at least would expect that people would be honourable enough not to necessarily be engaged in that kind of endeavour. I'd be very pleased to hear about the school districts that are doing that. I mean, I assume what they want is for people to register with the district, not actually be in the classroom. Therefore the district gets another $3,500. Well, it's a parental choice, and I don't think we pay a finder's fee in order to register children.

G. Hogg: I'll just move on from home schooling to the funding

section of the performance plan. I think we've already discussed the last line of the first paragraph under funding, which says: "The ministry will also provide $140 million to support eligible independent schools . . . . " Just for clarification, that would now read $145 million or $148 million. Is anybody on the same page as me?

Hon. P. Priddy: I missed part of the member's question. I'm sorry, I was just checking with people who were with me. All of the numbers where independent schools are reflected should have an additional $5 million on top of that.

[1550]

G. Hogg: We then move on to page 4 in the performance plan, which talks about the ministry's vision, mission and values, the first portion of that being the ministry vision. It reads: "The ministry is committed to working with school boards, educational organizations, and others to build on the strengths and successes of British Columbia's school system. To this end, the ministry's vision is: An educational system that is measurably the best in Canada."

I'm just wondering if the minister could articulate for us what the measures will be and whether or not we have some goals in terms of time frames to get us to that point of being measurably the best in Canada. Part of the background to that question comes from the fact that we have seen the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada using the student achievement indicator project as one of the baselines for that -- whether or not that will be one of the measures.

I think that, as the minister has said quite articulately, we want to ensure that our educational system is not just focused on educational outcomes but that we have a commitment in this society and in this province to ensuring that our students are also good citizens and are able to function in a society in a positive and progressive manner. So just in terms of the measurable part, I'm wondering: what are the measurements that we can look at, and what are the time frames that we would look at with respect to those measurements?

Hon. P. Priddy: I was just checking on some time lines. Let me talk first about some of the kinds of measurements, and then let me talk a little bit, if I can, about the time lines.

The first one in terms of measurability, if you will, for outcome is the foundation skills assessment; it happens on an annual basis. So if you speak to a time line, then not only does it happen annually, but we do have the ability then to look at the trend of that data and see if we're seeing an incline or a decline in certain areas. That allows us to do that on an annual basis.

We look at things like the duration. Again, another measurability point, actually, that would be certainly on an annual basis as well, is that you measure the duration of time for secondary school completion. You measure school completion.

Or you can -- we do -- measure school completion and graduation rates. We measure the rate of transition from kindergarten-to-12 to post-secondary education or to the labour force. So, I mean, almost all of our measures are . . . . There are a number of measures, and most of them are monitored on an annual basis.

We look at the difference in performance between different groups of students, if you will, and are able to make

[ Page 16119 ]

some . . . . To analyze that, sometimes it's broken down by gender. And there has been lots of discussion about girls learning and boys learning and the things we have to do to make it easier for girls to learn or easier for boys to learn. So you can break it down into that kind of subgroup. We can break it down into how aboriginal students are doing. Again, we could do that virtually on an annual basis. I could name others as well.

But I think the other measurement that's important for me is -- not because it's topical -- the accreditation one, because it just doesn't measure academic outcome. It looks at: how is the school doing? What are its strengths, and what does it need to do better? Very often a school might say: "Well, our grades are pretty good. We can do better, but they're pretty good. But we want to work on a safe school or we want to work on seeing different things in terms of student citizenship." For me, that's a really important part of the measurement, because it gets at issues other than academic ones.

G. Hogg: The things we looked at in a vision, from back in my days when I did some management consulting, were that we measured where we are today? Where do we want to be? And our strategies -- is this how are we going to get there? So I think that this vision clearly articulates where we want to be, with the exception of the measurability which you've started to talk about.

I'm wondering whether or not the ministry has articulated a sense of where we are today. I've had some discussions with the deputy minister. We agree on some areas, and we disagree on some other areas. But I think it's important as we start, for the first time in the history of this province and the Ministry of Education, having a vision and a full performance plan to put that together to say, "Here is where we are today," so that we can build on this. Next year we can say, "How have we improved from where we are today?" based on the strategies contained in the performance plan, based on the PLAP, on the FSA, on any other baseline data that we have.

Has the ministry been able to put together, or is it able to put together, a document that says: "Here's where we believe we are today; here is the baseline data in terms of where we are"? We're not measurably the best in Canada today, but that is our vision -- to be the very best in Canada. So where are we today? Are we third, fourth, fifth? Where are the areas that you want to improve? How are we going to be able to say: "Yes, we've achieved that vision; we are now measurably the best in Canada"?

So . . . . Okay, I thank you.

[1555]

Hon. P. Priddy: I wasn't trying to cut off your question.

There is not one document I could hand you and say: "Okay, so this is where we are." Could you put one together? Probably. But when we look at where we are, and if we were sitting here today putting a document together, there are a number of things we'd look at.

We do have a web site, and I'm sure you've checked the web site. A lot of the information about the goals of the school system and achievement of the school system are currently on that web site. But what would we look at? We'd look at what the current graduation rates are. we've talked about that earlier. I think it's 74 percent for non-aboriginal students and 38 percent for aboriginal students. That's where we are. So that tells us where we are currently. That's not nearly where we need to be, but it tells us what our baseline is. So we look at graduation rates. We look at the foundation skills assessment that has just been finished.

The other one that we might look at -- and this is, I think, being released tomorrow -- is what people call the SAIP results. I think it's the school achievement improvement project. Did I get it right?

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Indicators. Oh, sorry -- school achievement indicators project. There are a number of conclusions drawn about where our students currently are, and that also gives us good baseline information with which to move forward.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

If I might, I'll just give you a couple . . . . I know you don't necessarily need all of this, but I just wanted to give you a couple of indicators, because the indicators are not only the academic ones. It says that 85 percent of 13- and 16-year-olds in B.C. felt that many good jobs require the study of science. It says that 83 percent of 13-year-olds and 78 percent of 16-year-olds feel good about school. But it also has some things about the academic achievement as well, so you use all of those pieces you have as part of your baseline. Do we have it all in one document? No.

Do we have enough information to be able to baseline where we are in order to determine where we need to go? I think that academically, certainly we do. It's a little more difficult, I think, to have that kind of baseline information around acquisition of social skills and citizenship in school, but there are some things that reflect that as well.

G. Hogg: Welcome back, hon. Chair. We've missed you.

With respect to the baseline data and the direction that we're going, I've missed them, perhaps. I can only speak for myself; I've missed them. With respect to the baseline data, if we're standing here next year going through this, I want to be able to say: "Yes, we've seen some improvements; we've moved toward this vision." In order to do that, I have to have a sense of where the ministry believes it is today, so I can say, "Yes, we've made those improvements," and so that as we go through this document and these strategies and goals are talked about, we're able to say: "How do they relate to that vision?

How do they relate to where they are today?" This question kind of permeates the whole performance plan in terms of this being the baseline data.

To say 85 percent and throw out different numbers . . . . That's helpful in terms of doing that, but I wonder whether the minister is going to be able to stand up a year from now and say: "Yes, we have improved." In order to do that, we have to know where we are today in a little more refined fashion than has been stated.

And when the minister stands up and says, "We are measurably the best in Canada" -- the vision to be measured with the best in Canada -- I want to know what that is, so I can say: "Yes, we are measurably the best in Canada." But that means being able to articulate, before we get there, what that means. That's what I'm struggling with: both a more finely articulated set of baseline information, data work on where we are today and how we're going to say that we've arrived when we've arrived.

[ Page 16120 ]

We're saying in this vision that it's measurably the best. What do we mean by measurably? What are the criteria? Is it going to mean 85 percent graduation rates? What are the things that are going to show? Are other provinces keeping those so that we can compare ourselves to the nine other provinces and the territories and say we are measurably the best?

I think we need to articulate that and say: "Here's where we are today; there's where we're going; and this is what that means." That's so when you stand up and say we are measurably the best in Canada today, we can come to an agreement as to what that means and we're not the only ones saying it. Other people will say: "Yes, you are, because these are generally accepted evaluative criteria."

[1600]

The Chair: Thank you, member. In Beauchesne , sixth edition, citation 481: normally we don't mention whether members are present or absent.

Hon. P. Priddy: The former speaker was reminding me that it was not necessary for me to note when a new person took the chair. I, of course, just want to welcome people to the wonderful opportunity we have to participate in this kind of discussion, but I will certainly bear in mind that ruling from the Chair and be very careful not to welcome you back at any time when you return to the chamber.

The Chair: Thank you, member.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm struggling a bit with the way to answer this question or the way to help move this debate along a little bit. By the way, not every province does measure in the same way, so you don't always have a way to say, "We all measure the same thing, so we can do a comparison to how we fare in relation to New Brunswick or Ontario or Nova Scotia, etc.," although there are certainly some commonalties as well.

When I talked earlier about the ways that we figure out where we are now, which was the starting question, I don't know if there's a more refined way to talk about . . . . You know, we use graduation rates. We use foundation skills assessment. We use not just high school completion, but in looking at those, we look at what the difference is in gender and how special needs kids do. When I look at our performance plan, it doesn't just have the measure; it does say where we want to go -- like, what's the outcome?

That's the other part of that. I'm not sure if I can be more refined about saying: "These are all the pieces we would use to establish where we currently are." I think we have enough information to be able to do that. You can always have more; that's fair enough. What's the desired outcome? Where do you want to go next with this particular performance measure? For instance, there's school completion, if you will, where we have seen some measurable difference in terms of students successfully writing grade 12 exams to either maintain those rates or be able to improve those rates.

Now it doesn't say to move from 74 percent this year to 76 percent next year. I'm not sure if refining it down that far as what your benchmark is, or at least your benchmark for this year, that we're actually able to do that in a workable way. But to all of these pieces of performance measure, we do have a desired outcome, which then you start to look . . . . So if this is the outcome, next year when we look at, for instance, completion rates or foundation skills or other subjects, we are able to say: "Yes, we've moved from what we said was the baseline to our desired outcome, which we wanted to increase this year."

We are, I think, beginning to put that together. I don't know if I can do that in a more refined way for you. We have examples of where we've actually been able to meet those outcomes. For instance, we know that with grade 12 exams . . . . Let me give you just a couple of examples where we've actually said the desired outcome is to increase participation or increase outcome. One of them is that between '95 and '99, the proportion of students graduating with honours or higher went up by 42 percent. So you started with a certain percentage of people with honours and your desired outcome is to increase, and you've increased to 42 percent more students who are able to achieve in that category.

G. Hogg: I'm sorry if I breached one of the time-honoured protocols of this House. I want to assure the Chair that I've seen many people present who are actually absent, and I wasn't making any reference to your absence from the chamber but perhaps from the building in another fashion. It must be Thursday afternoon.

The numbers that you've started to outline are helpful in terms of establishing that baseline data to allow me to look at the measurability of those issues. It would be more helpful for me if you were to have a page or two saying these are the criteria when we talk about having the best education system in Canada -- these are the things that we're looking at. Here's where we are today. And if graduation rates is one of them, that's what our rate is today.

If it's graduation of first nations students, here's where we are today and all of the other criteria, all of the other measurements which you started to lay out. Those would be helpful, from my perspective, in saying: "Yes, here's where we are in British Columbia today. Here's where we are on the SAT testing with these grade levels. Our goal is to improve those, and when we've improved on 50 percent or passed X number within Canada, then we are measurably the best in Canada. "

[1605]

But for me, that starts to articulate exactly where we're going, exactly where we are.

We're able to say: "Yes, we've made improvements in these areas, and here are some other areas that we should be putting more resources, more time, more energy into." So then when we talk about a performance plan in subsequent years, and we talk about the budget that's tied to it, maybe we'll say: "Well, gee, yes, we did improve well in terms of the graduation rates of first nations students, but maybe we need to do some more work with ESL." So we're able to use that baseline data and reflect our budget in terms of the goals that we have, rather than feeding them into it.

That's the reason I've stayed on this subject matter a little longer than perhaps I might otherwise have done.

I'd still be interested in whether or not, somewhere within the ministry, there has been a consolidation of those types of things the minister has talked about, whether or not those could be laid out in that type of fashion. It could be with some goals or just saying that we're going to need to improve them if there's some way of saying, "Yes, now we are measurably the best," and what that means.

Hon. P. Priddy: I take the member's point, or at least what I think the message the member has given to me is. If

[ Page 16121 ]

there was a way that this was condensed, as opposed to saying, "Pull it from SAT, or pull it from FSA or pull it from graduation rates or whatever," and be able to condense that in one page or two pages -- something that is easier to read and that perhaps for the public and for parents gives a sense of momentum and where we want to move to. So I take the member's point. We'll have a look at that.

G. Hogg: While I know there are lots of concerns with respect to evaluation and how we rate evaluation -- that we want to compare to baseline, so that we're improving on where things are rather than comparing to some provincial average or some mythical rate that may exist -- I think that that also helps with the accreditation issues the minister has referred to as schools start to look at articulating their issues of accreditation. I'm sure we'll talk more about that a little later -- the issues of accreditation. I've participated in one school's accreditation.

I know that being able to say, "Here's where we are today," and comparing those to some provincial standards would have been useful for them. At least, they told me it would have been.

As well, they start setting goals locally: "Here's our baseline data. Here's the provincial baseline data. Here's where we want to be. Here's how we're going focus our energies and our strategies within this specific school to help feed our school's performance into the performance of the province overall." I would welcome that type of consolidation of data and information, and I think it would be quite helpful and useful for a number of people.

Then moving on so quickly now to page 5, with respect to the ministry's mission and values and just the minister . . . . I'm quite happy with the mission. Moving on quickly from that to the values, the minister made reference to the three Es: effectiveness, equity and efficiency.

Just with respect to the efficiency value, it reads: "Effort should be focused on improving the success and achievement of students and the conduct of education from kindergarten to grade 12." This descriptive sentence on efficiency speaks to increasing effectiveness, perhaps more so than efficiency, unless one assumes that resources allocated within the system are going to remain constant or decline. I just wonder if that is an unfair assumption or whether that's the ministry's assumption with respect to that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure I would encourage someone to read into it that this is about declining funding. I think that you could suggest that there are pieces around effectiveness in there. What it means is that there are ways in which we can deliver education in a more efficient way. We don't have to duplicate something somebody else has already done. We can learn from someone else's experience. We may be able to teach more effectively and more efficiently both. So in the use of school resources, in the use of time, all of those speak to efficiency.

[1610]

G. Hogg: Moving on to the core business, I made reference earlier to my concerns around the core business of the ministry and separating that from some of the other goals contained within it. Does core business . . . ? I just wonder how that relates to the core activities we talked about earlier on, on page 2, when we talked about core activities not per- taining directly to achievement of the ministry's long-term goals and objectives, again pulling that quote out of the statement.

So is there some difference between core business and core activities? Does the performance plan have performance standards for core business as well? Is that tied into the previously aforementioned core activities?

Hon. P. Priddy: As I think we began to comment on earlier, the core business is really about -- sorry, I can't find another word to use -- the business of doing the ministry's work. I think core activities, somewhat differently, are about the strategies that we use to be able to achieve certain kinds of goals that have been set or objectives that have been set in the ministry. So those are the core activities. It's about strategy. It's about how you achieve certain ends,

whereas core business is about those three responsibilities that are particularly related to provincial government.

G. Hogg: I think I'll move on to ministry organization. With respect to the ministry organization, the plan states that the ministry has restructured and reduced its size in recent years, and in fact, it goes on to describe the current organization. I'm wondering whether or not the ministry has any reliable, or unreliable, comparative data from other educational jurisdictions to address the question about whether or not its current organization is appropriate in size and expenditure.

The genesis of that question, I think, comes from, for example, the ministry data that indicates that B.C. school district administrative expenditures are amongst the lowest in North America. Do we have any ministry expenditures or comparisons that talk about the ministry's expenditures within that same framework?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we do have that data available to us. If you look at that data, what it says, from an efficiency perspective, is that next to Newfoundland-Labrador, we are probably the most efficient and the leanest in terms of administration of the Education ministry.

G. Hogg: Could the minister please advise me with respect to what criteria are put into that type of evaluation? What are the comparative data that are used to tell us that, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, we do have the leanest? What are the criteria? How is that basis made?

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me at least start by giving you two that are probably the most common ones, amongst others -- the two top ones that people would usually look at. If you're looking at numbers of staff, one would be the number of administrators as related to the number of students. So, if you will, it's on a per-pupil basis -- looking at the numbers of administration from that perspective. Also looking at that from a cost perspective, in terms of the amount for the administration of the ministry versus the size of the budget for the ministry . . . .

[1615]

G. Hogg: With respect to the ministry organization and the governance policy, finance, educational programs, educational support services and management services, there are some things outlined. I wonder if the minister could just highlight briefly what role each one of those areas plays in

[ Page 16122 ]

terms of the overall vision. I'm just wanting a broad and general statement with respect to the impact, the role, that each one of those divisions has in contributing to the achievement of the overall vision.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know if the member is requesting additional information. Let me just walk through those program areas, then. I'm actually doing this out of the plan. For governance policy and finance: it has responsibility, that division, for managing the block funding and the capital planning process and for providing policies, strategic planning and legislative support to the ministry.

If you move to the educational programs division, again, in a very brief way, it talks about the amount of dollars and the number of FTEs. This branch would have responsibility for education program development and liaison with the school system. It includes four areas within that branch: field services, aboriginal education, special programs and curriculum.

The educational support services division -- different from educational programs -- is responsible for services that support the conduct and evaluation of education programs. That would be data management, education technology, student assessment, etc.

And then the last one is the management services division, which would include finance and admin, human resources, information and privacy, and information management. That division actually provides the management and admin support to several ministries and provincial government agencies, including us, Advanced Education, Ministry of Labour, etc.

G. Hogg: My question was leading to whether or not each of the divisions does in fact have a performance plan, a set of goals that tie into the overall performance plan of the ministry. And do they have goals specifically towards helping the ministry achieve its overall vision contained within that, or are they simply what is reflected in this performance plan? Or do they have their own articulated sets of goals, which feed into and allow us to achieve and contribute to the overall vision of the work?

So my question is: organizationally, how are we structured? Not just in terms of what we look at, but how are we structured to ensure that the resources of each of those divisions are focused on that vision we have and that their resources are moving towards that? The people within those divisions know what those goals are, and they are focused on them on a daily basis. They have specific steps and goals and priorities that lead them towards achieving what the ministry has laid out.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, for each of those divisions, there are goals and objectives, and those goals and objectives are tied to their budgets.

G. Hogg: Are the specific goals of each of those divisions contained within those? Are those public information? Are those specific goals some things which would be, or could be, made available, or are they articulated to further only the ministry goals and objectives, which don't specifically lay out the divisions or people that are responsible for them? Are those broken down by division, saying: "Here's what your role is"? And how far down into the organization are those goals laid and set?

Hon. P. Priddy: Those goals and objectives go right down through the ministry into the branch level, and yes, that information is available.

G. Hogg: Well, I would certainly be interested in receiving those, with the thought in mind of wanting to look at how those tie into the overall goals of the ministry. As we referenced earlier, we can look at the culture and the response that the culture at each level of the ministry has to the overall vision and how each part of the ministry is contributing to the vision which the ministry has laid out.

Moving on to the ministry link to government priorities and reading from page 7:

"The Ministry of Education plays a central

part in supporting the government's 2000-2001 strategic priorities of education, health care, family and communities, the environment, and strengthening the provincial economy. Enhanced education and skill levels are positively correlated with increased independence, reduced reliance on social assistance, reduced dependence on the health care system, reduced levels of crime, increased job opportunities, higher future earnings and overall economic growth."

[1620]

I have looked at some studies that certainly reflect that. I'm wondering if the ministry does have any global performance indicators to support the positive correlations. Does it have any standards by which it would see its performance being measured in these areas?

Hon. P. Priddy: We don't have particular data about the relationship, or at least about the work and its outcome, between education and all of these, which are government priorities. But I know that the member knows, not only because of his critic's portfolio but because of his previous life work, that education does have probably a disproportionate effect on a number of the priorities that are listed here. The one that I always note, of course, is health care, because education is the single biggest indicator of what somebody's health status will be as an adult. We don't have particular data currently relating our education activities to these areas.

G. Hogg: Well, certainly I support that interdependence and the need for government links and tying those together. I have, as I said, looked at some of the longitudinal studies and some of the work that reflects the impact on social assistance, on health care and on levels of crime. I sometimes get concerned that through the process we seem to make most of our social problems, problems of our educational system. We say that the school will somehow resolve and provide the panacea for all of the issues and concerns we have in society.

I'm delighted that we're starting to articulate through the performance plan those specific areas we see ourselves focusing on and starting to measure and are able to . . . . While we must contribute and support all aspects of the individual, the Ministry of Education cannot answer all of the ills and problems that exist in our society but can certainly focus on and assist in a number of them.

Moving on to page 8, unless the minister has any further comments with respect to that.

Hon. P. Priddy: It does in some ways relate to the link, I guess, to government priorities. While we don't have this kind of longitudinal research here in British Columbia, certainly when we look at the Michigan project and look at the long-

[ Page 16123 ]

range data available and how it affects all of those areas -- not so much from education, but from early intervention and the years actually before we see them in the education system . . . . Their longitudinal study, which was probably one of the few around, says that by the time they reach 20, in the children or students who were part of that early intervention project, there were fewer teen pregnancies than in the other cohort, there were fewer encounters with the law, there was less drug and alcohol use, there was a higher graduation rate and there was higher job success.

If you actually push it back earlier into the years before school, then the longitudinal research shows that those links are really direct to all of these areas.

G. Hogg: I believe there is some research in Canada. Clyde Hertzman has been participating for some time in the longitudinal studies that have been happening and its impact with respect to health care and some other areas. I think those actually reflect exactly what the minister is referring to.

I think there's also some research being done in British Columbia with respect to the impact on social services that some of the early childhood education interventions have. It has actually reflected in some instances that we can identify that some schools have a disproportionately high number of families on B.C. Benefits. Certainly there is lots of potential and lots of temptation to look at providing, through the educational system, a response to a number of those other issues which are so important.

As we referenced earlier, some of the value-added research, saying that 50 percent of the impact in terms of educational growth and maturity comes from the home and the circumstances of the home and the indigenous qualities that an individual comes with, certainly means that there is a great temptation to step in there even further.

[1625]

I think that leads appropriately into page 8, the next page with respect to the performance plan, which talks about the environmental scan and talks about how British Columbia's schools are among the first institutions to experience the effects of societal change, which raises complex moral, social and intellectual challenges.

I think the minister has made reference to this, but just for the purposes of clarification perhaps, given what we're encountering and seeing in our schools today, what are some of the effects that we're starting to see? In terms of societal change, what are the references?

As I said, the minister made reference to some of the issues around bullying and some of the violence that's starting to occur not just in British Columbia schools but certainly across North America and other parts of the world. The public schools are in many ways the canary of the mines, which start to reflect on what happens societally. What are the things that we are starting to see in British Columbia? I guess the second part of that is: how does this plan start to respond to and reflect the societal changes which we're evidencing?

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to go back just for one minute, because the member referred to the research that Clyde Hertzman does. Actually, I'm very fortunate that in the last four portfolios, I've had the chance -- I just met with him actually yesterday -- to work with him and with Fraser Mustard, who do that linking between health and education. I think they're looking for opportunities to be able to track cohort groups over that length of time here in B.C. Actually, we're looking for some ways to be able to help them do that.

In terms of the environmental scan and what we start to see in the schools, which really are often the first indicators, I'd certainly want to look at the challenges it presents. But it also presents some positive parts as well. So it's not only that we're the first indicator of challenges, but we're also the first indicator of some progress and success.

Let me start with the challenges and move on to the progress and success. You referenced one that I had used earlier around the focus on bullying or anti-bullying in schools, the things that we can do to keep our schools safe and to teach students how to respect others, and so on. And I know that, particularly because of your former work, this will probably be clearer to you even than to me. The society in which children grow up today and the amount of violence that they see around them . . . . We could have the debate about -- I don't think you and I would have it, by the way, but we could have it with the public -- how much is too much.

If you start to add one on one, there's not one thing. We have children coming to school now who have seen however many murders it is by the time they start kindergarten, who regularly watch the WWF. And there may be people in the room who are big fans of WWF; I don't know. Please don't put your hands up; I don't want to know. So just the visual images that children have . . . . You start to see these kinds of things reflected in our schools. One of those indicators, then, is that the amount of violence and aggression in our society starts to be reflected in what we see in the behaviour of students at school.

Secondly, we see far more children in our school today -- and I think it's an indicator of a societal change in