British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, March 6, 2003

H0306pm-09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, March 6, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 12, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon.

Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon.

George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon. Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ..................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon.

Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, John (L).........................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn................................................................John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, March 6, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 5351 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 5351 International Women's Day E. Brenzinger S. Brice French immersion R.

Stewart Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5352 Impact of gasoline tax increase on public transit J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Tolls on inland ferries J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid School closings and education funding R. Stewart Hon. C. Clark Placer mining J. Wilson Hon. R. Neufeld Monitoring of government photocopying J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori Okanagan-Similkameen school district review D. Chutter Hon. C.

Clark Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5355 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13) J. MacPhail Hon. S.

Santori Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 5357 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13) Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 5357 Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) J. Kwan Hon. C.

Clark Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 5375 Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued) J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail

5351 THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members S. Orr: I would like to say bonjour to 23 grade 7 students that are in French immersion in one of the schools in my riding, Doncaster Elementary. With them they have four adults, and with them is their teacher. Her name is Miss Jensen. Would everybody please make them very welcome. Hon. R. Thorpe: I am very pleased to welcome to the House today Jason Johnson. Jason is originally from Penticton. He's now living in the Victoria area. He's a nice young fellow in the hospitality and tourism indus- try.

Would the House please make Jason very welcome. [1405] E. Brenzinger: I'm delighted to introduce to the House today two outstanding women who, in their work, help women to reach their full potential. Janet Fairbach is the director of the Women's Intercultural Network for Women Today, and Lewiza Youssef is actively involved with the Arabic women's community. I t i s i n d e e d a p l e a s u r e t o h a v e t h e m j o i n u s t o d a y . Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of people from the Comox Valley.

John and Lynn Marinus are host parents and Rotary Club members that are hosting some exchange students with us today. We have a German Rotary exchange student, Thekla Zeit; we have a student from Switzerland, Ursina Hottiger; and we have a Rotary student from Brazil, Carol Sabron. As well, we have Lindsay McCormack, who is accompanying them today from the Comox Valley. Lindsay is the granddaughter of John and Lynn. I would ask the House to make them very welcome. J. Kwan: I'm particularly happy today, because some 31 years ago the Leader of the Opposition was born on this very day. We're here today….

Interjections. J. Kwan: You know, in the Chinese community there is a saying, as I understand it, that as people be- come wiser, they tend to lose their hair. I'd like to know, and I'd like the Leader of the Opposition to share with members of this House what her secret is because, as we can see, she has a full head of hair. There is no doubt from any member of this House, I'm sure, about the level of wisdom that my colleague has reached, so the secret is to be shared, hon. member, and I wish that you would share it with all members. It might well enhance the scenery in this Legislature. Hon. G.

Bruce: With all that talk about hair, one's got to be concerned about barbers and cosmetologists as well. I would like to wish the Leader of the Opposi- tion a happy birthday. I thought you and I were of the same age, but obviously I was completely incorrect in that. I've got a good 20 years…. J. MacPhail: I was born in a different time zone. Hon. G. Bruce: Well, there could be truth to that too. At any rate, noticing how quiet it was yesterday in the House, I thought it was important that we have a visitation from some of those great constituents of Cowichan-Ladysmith.

In the House today are the Win- ters brothers, Wayne, Lee, Kim and Rob, and their mother, Lill. They're in the construction business, and they were telling me at lunch that they are having one of the best years they ever had in British Columbia. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY E. Brenzinger: I am delighted to rise today to focus the attention of the Legislature on International Women's Day. This special day provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality, to assess the challenges facing women in contemporary society, to con- sider full steps to enhance the status of women and, of course, to celebrate the gains made in these areas. T h e v e r y f a c t t h a t w e h a v e s o m a n y w o m e n i n t h i s Legislature representing constituents from around the province speaks volumes for how far women have come.

Women have a voice in this province. In British Columbia we have much to celebrate as women have considerable opportunities for education, for pursuing business and professional interests, and for raising their families in an environment of peace and freedom. Indeed, women have come to Canada from many nations of the world specifi- cally because of the opportunities here. [1410] I am particularly excited about this year's theme — Worldwide Women, WWW: Surfing the Digital Divide.

The advent of new information and communication technologies has revolutionized the way people com- municate, access information, create networks and de- velop business opportunities. Just this week the Minister of State for Women's Equality launched a web-based directory for women, which makes it easier for women to access information about programs and services that can provide them with valuable support. If knowledge is power, then the Internet offers a wealth of information, and I believe the Internet can and, in fact, already is em- powering women and promoting equality.

This week is a chance to celebrate and recognize those women who have played a positive role in our lives — a teacher, a mother, a friend or a colleague. It is also a chance to recognize those groups and leaders in each of our communities who play an important role in support- ing and encouraging women to reach their full potential. S. Brice: Like my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, I, too, rise to recognize International Women's Week and

5352 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 to celebrate the achievements of women. These achievements, of course, cover all aspects of our lives — in our families and in the workplace, in communi- ties, in institutions of learning, on the sporting fields and in the legislative chambers around the world. International Women's Day is rooted in women's fight for the right to vote and the declaration of women as legal persons. I think it is most appropriate that we honour both the struggle and the achievements in the Legislature today.

The theme for this year's International Women's Day is Worldwide Women: Surfing the Digital Revolu- tion. As has been acknowledged by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of State for Women's Equality this week launched a women's directory. This is an electronic directory of government services that are available to women or are used primarily by women. The directory is a single window to a wide range of services for women, including information on parenting, women's safety, services for immigrant and visible minority women, women with disabilities, housing, women's health and employment.

This is the first time this kind of directory has been available for women's programs and services in British Columbia, and I expect it will be well used. This initiative will be especially useful to the women in British Colum- bia's heartland communities who may be living a consid- erable distance away from government services. Women have come a long way. I encourage all members of the House to join me in celebrating those accomplishments this Saturday, which is International Women's Day, and indeed throughout the year. FRENCH IMMERSION R.

Stewart: I t i s m y p l e as u re t o anno u nc e t hat t he government of B.C. has proclaimed next week, March 9 to 15, as French Immersion Week. This important pro- gram enhances the intellectual growth and career op- portunities for students and helps to strengthen the bond between communities in our French- and English- speaking neighbourhoods. British Columbia's French immersion program con- tinues to grow in popularity. Enrolment is up 7 percent in the last ten years. This year 32,000 students across B.C. were enrolled in French immersion. That's an in- crease of almost 1,000 over last year.

In fact, 44 school districts offer either early or late French immersion in 228 schools throughout the province. En tant que Député responsable des affaires franco- phones, j'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que la semaine de l'immersion en français en Colombie-Britannique se tiendra cette année du neuf au quinze mars. La langue française fait

partie de notre grande culture ici en Colombie-Britannique comme tout partout d'ailleurs a travers le Canada. Le pro- gramme d'immersion en français offre aux étudiants la richesse de la langue et culture françaises ainsi qu'une op- portunité unique pour leurs avenirs. [As MLA Responsible for Francophone Affairs, it's my pleasure to announce that French Immersion Week in B.C. will take place this year March 9-15. The French language is a big part of our culture here in B.C., as across Canada.

French Immersion offers students the richness of the French language and culture, as well as a unique opportunity for their futures.] [Script and translation provided by R. Stewart.] I think it's important to recognize the contribution of this program and its dedicated teachers and staff to the French language education of young British Co- lumbians. As a francophone and as a parent, I am en- couraged by the continued interest shown by parents to enrol their children in French immersion.

As my eldest daughter Christina approaches graduation, it is clear to me that her French immersion education has provided her with a world of opportunities. [1415] Education is this government's top priority, and we want to provide students with the kinds of choices that will make our education most relevant to their needs. French immersion plays a key role in achieving this goal. Oral Questions IMPACT OF GASOLINE TAX INCREASE ON PUBLIC TRANSIT J. MacPhail: Today TransLink is asking the government to exempt it from the 3½-cent-a-litre tax grab.

That tax is going to add at least $1.4 million to its fuel bill and lead to even further cuts in transit service. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us if she will entertain this request to protect public transit service in the lower mainland? Hon. J. Reid: As I mentioned yesterday, the serious nature this government has with the funding of transit services and our commitment to funding transit ser- vices and the necessity to be able to provide transporta- tion services all over this province…. We just an- nounced $209 million going into transportation around the lower mainland. That benefits everybody.

We be- lieve in working with the communities and in working with Transit to find the efficiencies that are going to be delivered to provide the services people need. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: The announcement this government made in terms of choosing roads over public transit not only harms the environment but reduces the services upon which people have to rely for public transit. Interjections. J. MacPhail: We'll get to that in a minute. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. J. MacPhail: We'll get to the great strategy to help the interior.

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5353 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question. J. MacPhail: We'll get to what this government's doing for public transit in the interior. So far the only thing this government's done for public transit is raise the gas taxes or force increased transit fees and cuts in service. It's not just the bus ser- vice in the lower mainland that's on the chopping block because of the government's tax grab. In Victoria the fuel tax means an increase in fuel costs of $250,000 a year, a cut of 5,000 hours of bus service.

That's on top of the already 35,000 hours cut under this government. In Kelowna they are now talking about also cutting bus service because of this gas tax increase. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us why sen- iors in Victoria and why those great citizens in the inte- rior have to lose their bus service because of this minis- ter's tax grab? Hon. J. Reid: We are improving services in many ways across this province. In transportation there's a wide network of services required. Supporting the in- frastructure is absolutely necessary as part of transpor- tation services, and that includes transit.

There are effi- ciencies that need to be found in the transit system. We are working with municipalities to find those efficien- cies, to improve the services and to move ahead, work- ing with municipalities to find the best funding for- mula to meet their needs. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: In the year 2003 this is the only gov- ernment in Canada that hasn't invested one red cent out of its pocket into public transit — the only jurisdic- tion. In the lower mainland public transit is going to be cut. On the lower Island public transit will be cut.

In communities from Kelowna to Kamloops and Prince George, transit service is being threatened, as we speak, by this Liberal tax grab. In Nanaimo alone tran- sit fuel costs are expected to rise by 38 percent at the end of this month. The result: service will be cut at the end of March and again at the end of June. [1420] Again, can the Minister of Transportation tell us why it is that commuters, students, seniors and those that live in the interior and on the coast are being told that buses just don't get any recognition from this and that there are just no buses left to get them where they need to go? Hon. J.

Reid: This member opposite knows that there is a commitment to rapid transit in the lower mainland, knows that this government is working with TransLink, with the federal government to be able to fulfil that commitment. There is ongoing commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars to further transit projects. So we are working with the different part- ners… J. MacPhail: You're doing zero — zero. What are they? Just tell us what they are. What are they? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. J. Reid: …on the priorities that TransLink has established and maintaining the commitments that the government has inherited.

TOLLS ON INLAND FERRIES J. Kwan: In the Premier's televised infomercial, he said that there would be no tolls on inland ferries, but it looks as though… Interjections. J. Kwan: Wait for the question. …tolls are going to be put on the McLure ferry. Can the Minister of Transportation explain why her Premier is breaking his promise? Hon. J. Reid: When we first looked at the efficiency of the inland ferry system and ways of being able to provide a cost-effective service for the people for Brit- ish Columbia, we realized that there were a number of ferry routes that had alternate roads service.

Those ferries, indeed, were only used for part of the year. We made an announcement many, many months ago that it wasn't necessary for the government to provide those services and that those services could be provided by an alternate service provider, if indeed there was inter- est. We put out an expression of interest to find out if there were other parties who want to take that on. We have received expressions. We are going through an RFP process shortly. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The new-era definition for the Liberals: efficiency means cuts.

Same thing for ferries; same thing for transit. Let me read the Premier's words back to the minister. He told interior residents: "There will be no tolls on inland ferries." He didn't say: "There will b e n o t o l l s b e c a u s e w e ' r e s h u t t i n g y o u r f e r r y d o w n . " H e d i d n ' t s a y : " T h e r e w i l l b e n o t o l l s e x c e p t o n t h o s e that are being privatized." He said: "There will be no tolls — period." People in McLure believed him, and now they're outraged. They say the Premier is breaking his promise.

So again to the minister: who is right — the Premier or the citizens of McLure? Hon. J. Reid: As I said, this announcement was made many months ago. This is a service where we have taken the interests of the people using it. We have consulted with the people. There were some com- ments…

5354 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the answer. Hon. J. Reid: …and concerns about the road. Those comments and concerns are being addressed. Again, these ferry services have good alternate road service. It isn't necessary, and there are private ferries that oper- ate in the interior — in the heartlands — of this prov- ince right now. SCHOOL CLOSINGS AND EDUCATION FUNDING R. Stewart: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f Education.

Last month the Coquitlam school board voted to close three elementary schools including Montgomery Elementary, the school that two of my children attend. There are some people in my con- stituency who are blaming this decision on budget pressures, despite the fact that these schools are not even close to being at capacity. Montgomery, for example, is currently two-thirds empty and within a kilometre of three other schools that also have space. In fact, Montgomery's principal urged that the school be closed.

To the Minister of Education: for the benefit of school boards across this province, could she please clarify that when she asked school boards to direct more of the money into their classrooms, she meant the classrooms with children in them? [1425] Hon. C. Clark: I k n o w i t ' s a d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n f o r school boards to decide to shut down a school or amal- gamate a school. It's difficult because schools often feel like they are a part of a community, no matter how close that community may be to other communities. And that's certainly the case in Coquitlam.

In Coquit- lam, though, they have an acute change in demograph- ics, so while they're talking about closing down three schools, we in the ministry are paying almost $9 mil- lion to build a new school for secondary students. While there are 15,000 fewer students in kindergarten than there are in grade 12, we have to recognize that some of those secondary schools are absolutely burst- ing at the seams. It's a difficult decision for the school board, but we're encouraging school boards to take all of the money we grant to them and focus that on student achievement.

Instead of spending the money on empty spaces, spend it on teachers, spend it on text- books, spend it on computers, spend it on teacher aides — spend it on things that will really benefit stu- dents. So when we granted the Coquitlam school board $2.7 million at the end of this fiscal year, when we granted them $2 million at the end of last fiscal year and then when we granted them their portion of the $100 million that will be flowing to school districts over the next three years, we said we have one condi- tion — that you spend this money on improving stu- dent achievement. PLACER MINING J.

Wilson: I have a question for the Minister of En- ergy and Mines. Earlier this year the federal Department of Fish- eries and Oceans announced even greater restric- tions on placer mining operations in British Colum- bia. These new restrictions will have devastating consequences. Placer mining, while only a small part of mining operations in B.C., contributes greatly to the economy and is a valuable employer for many of my constituents. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us how he intends to address this issue and how he plans to protect the placer mining op- erations in our province? Hon. R.

Neufeld: The placer mining industry in British Columbia is very important to the province, and we want to make sure it survives the onslaught of what takes place with DFO changing the rules. My ministry officials met with the DFO last fall to talk to them about the setback requirements. I recently met with the Premier of the Yukon and the minister of mines in the Yukon and have asked to participate with them in lobbying the federal government and DFO to relax their standards. We want to work together with them, because placer mining is very important in the Yukon also.

I've also met with the Cariboo Mining Association, and they have just recently forwarded to me a num- ber of requests on how we can actually help the placer mining industry in British Columbia not just with DFO regulations but with some of our own. So we're working hard to make sure that takes place in the province. MONITORING OF GOVERNMENT PHOTOCOPYING J. MacPhail: Not only is B.C. Stats doing secret per- formance evaluation of cabinet ministers, they're also working on another top secret Liberal project. Accord- ing to B.C. Stats documents, the Minister of Manage- ment Services has contracted B.C.

Stats to ferret out photocopies in government that violate copyright. It looks like a big project. According to B.C. Stats's work- sheet, its target is to monitor every photocopy made by government. Can the Minister of Management Services tell the House how many staff it takes and how much it costs to look at every photocopy made in government to make sure that no one may be doing something ille- gal, like photocopying pages from the New Era docu- ment? Interjections. J. MacPhail: How much money? Every photocopy.

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5355 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. S. Santori: This government respects the rights of publishers, and we are undertaking an exer- cise to make sure we are adhering to the rights of those publishers and will continue to do so. Mr. Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Yale- Lillooet has the floor. OKANAGAN-SIMILKAMEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT REVIEW [1430] D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Edu- cation.

I understand that the Education ministry has undertaken a new process for reviewing school dis- tricts in order to increase accountability. The Okanagan-Similkameen school district was one of the districts involved in the review process. Can the Minis- ter of Education explain the purpose of these reviews and advise us how the Okanagan-Similkameen school district is performing? Hon. C.

Clark: We're sending out district review teams to a third of the districts every year to have a look at how well the districts are living up to the goals they've set for themselves and their accountability con- tracts to make sure that they're focused on student achievement and that they're spending every taxpayer dollar as well as they can to maximize student learning in the classroom. The results from this district came back very posi- tive. They talked very positively about the leadership in the district. They talked very positively about the fact that the district has set clear goals for its local schools.

They did, though, suggest some improve- ments, and perhaps some collaboration would be re- quired to make sure that classroom assessment is working well. Overall, this district has done an abso- lutely tremendous job. The district review team mem- bership is drawn from across the province and from all stakeholder groups. They bring a valuable outside eye to make sure everything in the education system is functioning as highly as possible. The good news for this member is that his district is doing an absolutely tremendous job. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In this House, I call committee stage debate of Bill 13. [1435] Committee of the Whole House FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:36 p.m. Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved. On

section 10. J. MacPhail: This is a

section that I addressed in second reading. I think by now the minister will have received a letter from the British Columbia Civil Liber- ties Association, written by John Dixon. A signatory to the letter is also Gerry Fahey, who is with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. That letter outlines their concerns with the changes to the act made by

section 10 of this bill. I'll take this opportunity to acknowledge that I was remiss in not acknowledging the work that the Civil Liberties Association and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association had done. Their letter assisted me in my debate at second reading, and I was remiss in not acknowledging that. I want to put on the record today that their direction was of great assistance to me in second reading.

Specifically, these organizations believe that the discretionary power of a public body to release per- sonal information needs to be maintained, but the act has to be clear that this authority — discretionary au- thority — extends to third-party contractors engaged by the government to take on public services. I'll read into the record what

section 10 is doing.

Section 10 is amending the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

section 33, by striking out "a public body may disclose personal informa- tion…." It's now substituting that with: "A public body must ensure that personal information in its custody or under its control is disclosed." That's the change with which we are dealing. I want to ask the minister a couple of questions on this. At present, British Columbians have their privacy rights protected by law. There is recourse in law if those rights are breached.

By failing to ensure that the personal privacy rights of British Columbians are pro- tected when the government shares or allows personal information to be collected by non-government entities for a government-directed purpose, the government is really saying, "Trust us. The contract we have will pro- tect your rights." In other words, by this

section 10 amendment to

section 33 of the original act, the legislated protection is gone, and it's now back to the government — that they will incorporate that protection through a contract. Is it the minister's view that a contractual agreement really

5356 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 will be sufficient to protect the personal privacy rights of British Columbians? Does he really believe that that will happen? [1440] Hon. S. Santori: T hat's precisely what we're saying. The change that we are making, in fact, strengthens that obligation of governme nt to ensure that work be- ing done by a third party under contract will, in fact, comply with the legislation. Also, I do acknowledge the letter that was received by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. There was sig- nificant consultation.

I believe our staff met a minimum of two times with the Civil Liberties Association. We feel that we have met the requests that were bestowed upon us, as well as through the privacy commissioner. I believe the member has been copied with a letter from the privacy commissioner, whereby he has no concerns or objections with respect to the amendment that I've brought forward. J. MacPhail: Well, why is the minister exempting the contractors from the same level of scrutiny and review that previously applied to the public sector do- ing exactly the same work?

Why is the minister not holding the private sector to the same code of conduct that he holds public sector delivery of services to? Hon. S. Santori: That is exactly what we are ensur- ing that we are doing. We are making this amendment to directly ensure that third parties do in fact comply under the same rules and regulations as we do, as gov- ernment, with respect to the freedom of information and the protection of privacy. J. MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister can explain to the public how that actually is occurring, because here's my view of what this amendment does.

More and more of government services are being out- sourced, which is this government's term. My term is "privatized" or "contracted out." Whatever you call it, outsourced or contracted out, it's giving services that were previously in the public sector now to the pri- vate sector. Yet in practice, and in the view of the public, the services themselves remain public services so that the public thinks of them as those kinds of services, regardless of who's delivering them. In fact, the funder of those services remains government revenue.

In addition, the delivery of these services, which are often mandated by policy or sometimes even stat- ute, is overseen by a government authority, govern- ment entity. As such, personal information under the control of this third-party entity must continue to be treated as if the information was under the control of a true public body such as a government ministry. Let me just give one example. What if the contract with Pacific Blue Cross in relation to Pharmacare changes? Let's use that as an example of what we're talking about.

Pacific Blue Cross will be provided with access to a wide range of personal information from tax returns right through to medical history, yet the Free- dom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as this amendment stands, doesn't apply to Pacific Blue Cross. They're providing a public service, and they're using and have access to personal information col- lected by a public agency. I submit that it's vitally important that the act be very clear when it comes to who has control of the in- formation and the procedures that must be adhered to if it's to be released in any way.

It's got to be absolutely clear that the release of personal information remains discretionary and used only for statutorily defined purposes. With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I put forward an amendment to

section 33. I think the Table has a copy of the amendment, and I believe the minister has a copy of the amendment in my name. [1445] I'm proposing, under

section 10 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, that

section 10 will amend

section 33 in the following fashion: [(

a) by striking out "A public body may disclose personal information only" and substituting "When a public body decides to disclose personal information, the public body must ensure that the disclosure of personal information in its custody or under its control is disclosed only as enumerated in (

a) to (

r) below," and (

b) by repealing paragraph (

m) and substituting the following: (

m) to the archives of the government of British Columbia or the archives of a public body for archival purposes, and (

c) by adding: "33.1 When a public body discloses personal information to a non-public entity contracted by the public body to perform duties or services normally done by a public body, including but not limited to, data processing, the Act shall apply to the non-public entity as if it were a public body."]

Section 33.1 is an expansion of my argument that currently is not addressed in the legislation at all. On the amendment. Hon. S. Santori: I believe it's very explicit. Once again, the contractors who are doing work on behalf of the government, which is where the material is under the custody and control of government, will abide by the same rules as outlined in

section 33 of the act. J. MacPhail: I hope the minister is going to ex- pound upon this point of view about why he thinks it applies directly, because my argument is exactly the opposite — t h a t i t ' s b e e n c h a n g e d f r o m p e r m i s s i v e t o mandatory in the legislation. The minister just stands up and says it doesn't do that. Perhaps the minister could walk the public through his explanation of why I'm inaccurate. Then point No. 33.1 in my amendment also adds the fact that the information will be treated as personal information when it goes from a public body to a non-public entity contracted to perform the duties

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5357 n o r m a l l y d o n e b y t h a t p u b l i c b o d y , e v e n w h e n i t i n - cludes data processing. Hon. S. Santori: The point I want to make here in response is that the government does maintain control even when in the hands of a contractor. J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair, my apologies. Could the minister please repeat that? Hon. S. Santori: The government retains control even when the work is in the hands of the contractor. J. MacPhail: How does it maintain control? I'm actually even less clear with that answer.

If personal information is requested from the contractor, does that request for the release of the personal information then go to the public agency or the ministry? How does it remain in public control? Hon. S. Santori: In response to the member's ques- tion, the ministry will receive the request. The ministry will respond to that request. Even though the private contractor may have the custody and possession of that information, the request goes to the ministry, and the information is made available by the ministry. [1450] Amendment negatived on division. Sections 10 to 20 inclusive approved. Title approved.

Hon. S. Santori: I rise for the committee to report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:51 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 13, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I also seek a brief recess while members attend in the House for that purpose.

The House recessed from 2:52 p.m. to 3:09 p.m. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:09 p.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (continued) On vote 19: ministry operations, $4,859,939,000 (continued). [1510] J. Kwan: Yesterday we were discussing the general funding issues in the Ministry of Education. I'd like to continue on with some of the questions in that area. Just to recap a little bit, we were able to establish that there is a series of areas for which funding would not be in place.

There would be no new funding in place in the education system for increased pressures such as the gas tax increase, such as potential hydro rate in- creases, such as school buses which may be faced with a tremendous, dramatic increase in costs as a result of, again, the gas tax. Those kinds of increased pressures would not take place. The government would not be providing additional funding in that area.

What we were also able to establish was that when the minister says there's $100 million in addition to the budget for education in '04-05, '05-06, up to $50 million would be injected into the education system in '04-05, bringing the total to $3.84 billion, and up to $20 million in '05-06, bringing the total to $3.86 billion. That brings us to $70 million, not $100 million. We're still short on some of those amounts. That's what we were able to establish yesterday in estimates with the minister. I'd like to actually follow with the line of question- ing on this.

Now that we know this magical $143 mil- lion is not the amount of money that will be directed to the school district grants…. In fact, it is less than that, because there's also a significant amount that would go to adjusting the general accounting principles. What people have been saying about the impacts of this money, in short, is that, yes, it will help a little, but the system remains poorly funded. I'd like to look at another couple of articles in the Times Colonist. It talks about a coalition here in Victoria. "Coalition Urges More for Schools," it headlines. The

article is dated February 14, 2003. "The day after the Premier announced his government would inject more than $100 million into public education over the next three years, a coalition of parents, educators and school trustees said it wouldn't be enough. "Titled 'Public Education is Our Future,' the petition calls for the provincial government to maintain a quality learning environment for all students, fund both provincially mandated cost increases and inflation and maintain social equity funding for B.C.'s most needy students and families.

"'A hundred million dollars?' said a parent, Sher Morgan, who has a daughter in grade 9 in Esquimalt secondary. 'That's fabulous, but we still have a shortfall in the greater Victoria district, and I feel that we're at rock bottom right now.' "'What public education desperately needs,' say members of the coalition, 'is adequate and stable funding.'

5358 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 "'That won't come through piecemeal injections into the system,' said greater Victoria district chairwoman Charley Beresford. "'Parents are exhausted at reacting to cuts,' said Morgan, who has fought particularly hard to protect the elementary strings program in the district. "'By any objective measure, the current funding for our schools and our kids is not meeting the needs of our children,' said John Roche, president of the Greater Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils." The

article goes on to quote him saying: "But I would like to see more stable funding." He adds that the current practice leaves boards and parents con- stantly in a reactive mode. "I would like to see a vision for education." The

article goes on, but we get the thrust of what the individual is trying to say — that the one-time in- jection of funding does not provide for stability. People are feeling it in the system — school trustees, parents, teachers. Everyone who is an advocate in education feels that. I'd like the minister to respond to this issue of stable funding and really the lack thereof. [1515] Hon. C. Clark: As I said a number of times yester- day, for the first time this government — which is a huge departure from previous governments — is pro- viding stable funding.

We're providing three-year planning envelopes for school districts. That's some- thing they begged the previous government for and were refused. We've lived up to our commitment dur- ing the election to provide stable funding to school districts. We intend to continue to do that. It's interesting to hear the member complain about a lack of vision.

In fact, we probably get more com- plaints about the fact that we have too much vision, because school districts aren't always ready to under- take the kind of momentous change that we're talking about: more parental involvement, absolutely critical to making sure kids have a quality, sound education; more autonomy for school districts, so they can design programs that meet the needs of their local communi- ties; more accountability, so everyone in the public knows how well their money is being spent; and, of course, more choice, so students can choose and vote with their feet and decide what education is best for them.

J. Kwan: The issue that I raised is not just from the opposition. It's from the parents, from people who are in the system, from school trustees, teachers and educa- tors. They all are saying, in spite of what the minister is saying herself — and she may well believe it herself…. I'm simply pointing the minister's attention to the issue — that out in the public, people do not feel there is stable funding. There is no stability in the funding.

If the minister actually heard what I said, the coali- tion of people who have come together to advocate for better education — a coalition of parents, educators and school trustees — says that there are problems with the way this minister is addressing the education system and funding within the education system. They are the ones who are saying they're exhausted from trying to reach out and to react to cuts. They're ex- hausted with what this government is doing, and they would like to see more stable funding. They have not seen that. They would like to see a vision for education.

This is a direct quote from the Greater Victoria Confed- eration of Parent Advisory Councils, the people that t hi s m i ni s t e r p u t s s o m u c h e m p has i s o n a nd h as hi g h regards towards, which are the parents — and rightly so. Yes, you can easily just discount what they say by sloughing it off. I think that's a shame. I hope the min- ister at some point in time stops and listens, because I think that may well do our education system some good.

It may well do our parents, who are working so hard in this system, the school trustees who are work- ing so hard in our system and the teachers who are working so hard in our system to enhance education for our students in the public sector. I want to raise another issue with the minister relat- ing to funding in education. That is the issue around the technology grant. Aside from the funding formula itself, which we will get into in a little while, there re- mains some unanswered issues around other funding commitments. First, it is the technology grant. A release from the BCSTA explains the issue.

I'll just read part of the release for the minister. The release — September 25 to October 9. BCSTA president Gordon Comeau gives several media interviews speak- ing to the shortfall resulting from non-payment of the final 30 percent of the technology grant. In the Province clip attached to the news release and on Shaw Cable's Voice of B.C. hosted by Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer, Comeau asks the Minister of Educa- tion to see that this funding is forthcoming. BCSTA has not received a response from the ministry to date. That was, of course, September 25 to October 9.

Then on September 12, 2002, BCSTA president Gordon Comeau writes to the Minister of Education pointing out that no district has received the remaining 30 percent of the tech grant due in June 2002. He asks if the ministry staff have indicated that the funding was included in the per-pupil allocation of 2002-03. This is a serious problem for boards as funds budgeted and spent in 2001 and 2002 must be accounted for in a dedicated reserve for that year.

These accounts now show deficits. [1520] On July 23, 2002, British Columbia School District Secretary-Treasurers Association president Joan Ax- ford writes to the Minister of Education, drawing her attention to the non-payment of the final 30 percent of the tech grant for '01-02. Then in October of 2001 the minister notifies school boards that they will receive 70 percent of the funding in November 2001, with the remainder transmitted on or before June 30, 2002. Then dating back to April 2001, the Ministry of Education notifies school boards that they would receive $5 mil- lion in technology grants for 2002-03.

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5359 Can the minister please explain why the ministry failed to fund the final payment of the tech grant? Why was it cancelled? Hon. C. Clark: We were rolling all of the available dollars that we have into the per-pupil funding. I think only this member would try and suggest that $42 mil- lion more last year, $50 million more this year, hope- fully another dividend at the end of next year and then $100 million would translate into a cut. Let me just give her a little picture of what this looks like in terms of per-student funding.

That means per-pupil funding has gone up by $109 in '02-03 — that's last year — $51 per student in '03-04, $139 per student in '04-05 and $88 per student in '05-06. How she characterizes those increases as a cut is absolutely beyond me. All I can conclude is that she's deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts to gain her own politi- cal advantage. J. Kwan: When the minister just wants to sit there with her eyes wide shut, she can choose to do so, and she obviously has continued to choose to do that. The reality is this…. And this is not just me who's raising these concerns.

The reality is that there is a cut in the classroom for students. Make no mistake about it. How that adds up…. I would challenge the minister to add up her numbers, and she will know the differ- ence. By her own admission last year, where she did not fund fully the teachers' salary increases, that left a hole of some $16.8 million of shortfall. That is a hole. Then you have increased pressures in other areas as well. You have MSP premium increases imposed by this government — only partially funded. Then there's also the increase of the pending gas prices that's going to be put into the system.

Now we have the tech grant that.… Even though the government actually promised — promised after they were elected — that school boards would receive it as full funding…. All of a sud- den, you know what? That's all accounted for within the per-pupil dollars, and there are no additional dol- lars. All of a sudden these cuts started to take place. If the minister actually went out to the classrooms, talked to parents and saw for herself, she would see the reduction in services that is the result of this minister's and this government's action. Make no mistake about it.

The budget for education — the dollars — has actu- ally remained constant. They did not go up. Then when you have added pressures in the system, what you've got is a reduction in education funding. That's how it adds up. It's not that difficult to do the math. I know the minister had a tough time dealing with the math yesterday on the $100 million, and I under- stand that, because she is still short on the 100 million bucks. We're still short some moneys on that. I'm going to leave that, because obviously that's where we're at. The minister sees it differently, and the numbers add up differently.

There is a math problem here that everybody else acknowledges except for the minister. For the minister to sit there and say: "Hey, every- thing is fine. Don't worry about it. The school board will manage everything, in spite of all these increased pressures, without increased funding into the sys- tem…." There is a problem. That $50 million the minis- ter is so fond of say ing…. T hat one-time grant money — you know what? — actually didn't increase the edu- cation budget. It didn't. The education budget actually stayed constant, and this year the budget is staying constant as well.

The minister can sit there with her eyes wide shut and say: "Everything is fine; it is not our problem." But then everybody else, according to the minister, is wrong, including the BCSTA, who wrote to the minis- ter, who contacted the minister on several occasions in spite of what the minister had promised, and that is that the tech grant would actually be paid. All of a sudden they have clawed back those moneys.

I would say that is misleading to the public to suggest that the tech grant was paid for when all you have done is roll that money into the per-pupil funding, like everything else has now been rolled into the per-pupil funding. Maybe she can explain to the BCSTA how it is she can justify cutting the tech grant. [1525] Hon. C. Clark: I w a n t t o c o r r e c t s o m e o f t h e a s - sumptions the member has made. In fact, we did fund the MSP increases. We overfunded them to the tune of $3 million actually; we didn't underfund it or not fund it at all. Second, I do go to classes.

In fact, I was just in some classrooms this week. I travel to classrooms all across the province and meet with teachers, meet with parents, meet with students — most importantly — and meet with administrators to get a chance to talk to them about what's going on in their schools. I am really fed up with the member across there running down our public education system and trying to telegraph to the public how rotten our public educa- t i o n s y s t e m a l w a y s i s . Y o u k n o w w h a t ? I t ' s n o t . W e have a great public education system.

Our students are doing better this year than they have ever done in the past. We have some of the most qualified, dedicated, caring teachers in the world in British Columbia. We have some of the best leaders in the principals and vice-principals that work in our system, some of the most committed volunteers on our school boards, and of course we have some of the brightest, most capable, m o s t a b l e s t u d e n t s y o u w i l l f i n d a n y w h e r e o n t h i s globe. So I am fed up with hearing that member run down our public education system. Yes, there are areas where we can do better.

Cer- tainly, we can make sure that more than three out of four students graduate from high school. Certainly, we can make sure that more than 40 percent of aboriginal students graduate from high school. Yes, we can work on our reading and our writing and our numeracy numbers, and improve those. But let's not forget, when we're talking about trying to do things better — all of us in the system, from the ministry to school boards to classroom teachers to students — to also give ourselves a collective pat on the back, because we have one of the very, very best public education systems in the world.

5360 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 J. Kwan: I know the minister likes to mischaracter- ize what I said. The issue I take issue with is her approach to edu- cation. I take issue with this government's approach to education. Everyone in the system is doing the best they can. In spite of the cuts and the kinds of pressures this government has foisted onto the education system, school trustees are doing the very best they can. They're charged with a huge responsibility.

It's this government that is underfunding education, and they — the trustees — in turn have to go out to explain to parents why schools are being shut down, why their ESL students are not getting the support they need, why special needs children are not getting the support they need, why the hallways in the school system are dirty. In some cases, principals are required to clean up vomit from children who have not been well. Those are the tough things that people in the sys- tem who are advocates of the system are doing, not this Minister of Education.

She likes to claim she is the one who's protecting education when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The minister is not doing her job and living up to her responsibility. She said yesterday: "My commitment as minister, our gov- ernment's commitment and our Premier's commitment is to do all we can to try and make sure that no child in our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks, because that is our obligation to the next generation." She said that yesterday, hon. Chair, and do you know what?

Children are falling through the cracks, not because people in the system are not doing their job, but because this minister's not giving them the tools to do the job. There are now huge problems in the education system, and everybody seems to know it. Everybody seems to know it except for the minister. [1530] I had the pleasure of receiving a videotape from a parents group known as Save Our Schools. It was a videotape documenting a variety of issues and chal- lenges that parents are now faced with.

There were parents who highlighted situations where their child was in need of special needs support, and they have had that support reduced by half because of funding pressures. We have other parents who talked about ESL support, which is now not there in the education system — urging the minister to pay attention to that. I understand a copy of that tape has now gone to the Premier, and he has promised to watch that tape. In turn, he will make sure that the minister will watch that tape. I hope the minister has taken the time to watch that tape.

It's the hundreds of thousands of voices of the parents who are on that tape, who are saying to this minister that she is underfunding educa- tion and that problems exist in the education system as a result of that. I urge the minister to take a serious look at those issues and not just simply to write them off. I want to get back to the technology grant. We have a case where the minister cannot, in my view, get her act together and provide stable funding regimes for the districts. They're always being left in the dark by the minister. In an

article from the Province that was dated Sep- tember 26, 2002, Gordon Comeau further explains the situation. I'd like to read this

article onto the record for the minister, so that she actually gets who is having a problem with this minister. Yes, as the opposition, what I'm doing is bringing the voice of the public into this Legislature, because the minister obviously is not prepared to go out there to hear the public. I'm going to try and bring that voice into this Legislature. Here's what the public had to say in this article. The headline is this: "B.C. school board says $1.5 million grant never came.

After cutting millions from their budgets, school districts across B.C. are now battling the Education ministry for money promised last fall to upgrade school computers. The $5 million in technology grants for school districts were supposed to arrive in two instalments. School boards received the first payment, 70 percent of the money, last fall. But the final $1.5 million, which was supposed to be transferred by the end of June, never arrived. Joan Axford, president of the B.C.

School Districts Secretary-Treasurers Association, said yesterday that the districts were told the technology grants have been cancelled and money to upgrade school computers and materials is now included in the $53.08 per-student funding. But that doesn't account for the missing $1.5 million from last year's grant. The association has written to the minister, but has received no response. "The B.C. School Trustees Association has also sent a letter to the minister. 'The money was already allocated. It was already spent.

Now all of a sudden school districts have another deficit,' said Gordon Comeau, president of the Trustees Association. A ministry spokesperson confirmed a separate technology grant has been cancelled this year but says school districts received last year's second instalment with a one-time, $42.8 million grant from the government." What the government is doing is, well, actually, reneging — r e n e g i n g o n w h a t t h e y p r o m i s e d . I t ' s n o t me who's making this up. People from the School Trus- tees Association, the secretary-treasurers, are the ones who are raising these issues.

Can the minister explain how this missing money — the fact that the dollars for computers are now rolled into the base allocation amount — helps students improve performance and achievement? The point is, as Mr. Comeau illustrated, that the money was already allocated; it was already spent. Now all of a sudden school districts have an- other deficit. How does that help students in British Columbia? Hon. C. Clark: As I said the first time the member asked this question — and I can answer it a third time if she likes…. I could probably answer it a tenth time if we get there too.

The money that was dedicated for technology grants had the conditions untied from it, and we disbursed it to school districts in the form of the grants that we've provided to them: $42 million, $50 million, and then there will be a further $100 mil- lion, which I should point out dwarfs — absolutely dwarfs — the tiny cost outstanding from the technol-

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5361 ogy grants. That was rolled into those millions of dol- lars. In some cases, districts are talking about thou- sands of dollars — $3,500, for example, in one district. We're not talking about big amounts of money, but what we are talking about is a government that trusts school districts to be able to make the right decisions.

So instead of — and this is a big departure, I know, from the last decade — a government that says, "We t h i n k , w e k n o w i n V i c t o r i a t h a t w e c a n s p e n d y o u r money better than you can, so we're going to make the decisions about how you should design your local pro- grams and tell you exactly what you should be spend- ing money on," we're saying to districts: "Look, you're locally elected. Here's the money. You decide how you want to spend it within the parameters that we set as the ministry. Make sure you meet the standards. Make sure you live up to your accountability contracts.

Make sure you're open and transparent in the way you spend your money. But go ahead and design programs and your money in a way that meets the needs of your local communities." [1535] I w a n t t o m a k e a n o t h e r p o i n t , t o o , w h i l e I ' m u p . Some schools are closing because there's been a dra- matic demographic change in British Columbia. There are 15,000 fewer students in kindergarten this year than there are in grade 12, and district 43 in Coquitlam is an excellent example of what's happening out there.

They are talking about closing three elementary schools at the same time that we're spending almost $10 million building a brand-new secondary school for them be- cause the kids are in secondary school, not in elemen- tary schools. That's no fault of mine. I'm doing my best to contribute to fight this demographic trend, as I know the member opposite is. Goodness knows, people aren't having kids at the same rate that they used to, so schools are configured differently. That's another issue I want to raise.

I want to point out, as well, that we've increased the funding that we spend on special needs, not decreased it. Our funding for English as a second language has remained the same, not decreased. Lastly, I want to close with this. The member feels free to get up and quote people and talk about interest groups and things like that. She talks as though I as minister never get out there and talk to anybody. The fact is that I do. I get out there and visit schools all the time.

I've been in a whole bunch of different schools in a whole ton of different parts of British Columbia in the last several months, including many in my own dis- trict. I've talked to parents. I meet with parents on a regular basis. I met with a whole broad representation of students who advise me in my riding just last week. I meet with principals, vice-principals and teachers. I want to quote from a letter that was sent from the SOS group in Vancouver, which I know the member is fond of quoting.

They put together their video before the announcement was made on funding by the gov- ernment to grant $50 million and then a further $100 million to the education budget. Here's what she says: "I've just received a copy of the Premier's press release announcing an extra $100 million in education funding for the province, plus news that the funding for inner-city and community school programs will be continued. I'm profoundly relieved and delighted to hear this news.

The extra money over three years, in addition to the $50 million which has already been given, will allow school boards some stability of planning over this time period. As a parent who volunteers many hours in my children's schools, I truly believe that there is no room for further cuts after a decade of belt-tightening. On the other hand, we all have to be financially responsible with taxpayers' dollars. With this funding securely in place, I feel that I can now expect my trustees to be able to make good decisions for our school district.

You've already received an invitation to attend the premiere of our video." I'm paraphrasing now. Many PACs participated in this. "It looks like this launch of our video will be something of a celebration. This is what we've been fighting for, and this is what the new money is going to support. I hope you can come. As you know, SOS is a grassroots organization, and our members have many different perspectives. There may be some parents who feel that the money isn't enough. SOS has drawn us together." It goes on a little bit. She ends by saying: "We are elated with the announcement of increased funding.

We will now be able to put our energy into working with our local trustees to come up with good plans for our city's children." And to her I say bravo. Well done. Your work has been worth it, and your kids are worth it. J. Kwan: It is interesting to note, as well, that since that time I've also received lots of correspondence from parents and advocates in our system who have now deciphered some of those numbers and seen what they really meant in the school system.

In fact, many people were initially relieved, as was I, when I first heard that the Ministry of Children and Family Development — as an example — would be funding the social equity envelope funding for the school-based funding. That was until we actually went through the budget book in detail and found that — guess what — there is about $7 million cut for the social equity envelope funding. [1540] Further to that, not only is there going to be a cut, but there will be more school districts that are going to be wanting a portion of that funding.

That means that districts across B.C. will have to fight each other for a reduced amount of resources. As one example, I also know that since that time when everybody thought there was an additional $50 million base injection into the education funding — not the one-time grant fund- ing that the minister is talking about, but an additional $50 million base injected into the education funding this year — a n d t h e n w h e n p e o p l e f i n d o u t , i n f a c t , there isn't that $50 million….

Over the next two years, in spite of the fact that the minister claims there's $100 million, the numbers that I've been able to add up, based on yesterday's estimates information, are only $70 million. I want to go back to ask the minister where the other amount is, because it's

5362 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 not reflected anywhere. When people find out that, in fact, there aren't going to be new dollars on the base funding injected into the system this year, all of a sud- den the picture changes. This government, Mr. Chair, is very clever. I have to admit that. They are very clever in providing infor- mation that, quite frankly, is very misleading. It actu- ally doesn't reflect the true picture of what it is. At the initial glance, the initial information that you receive, you would think that some of that is good news.

All of a sudden when you get down to the details, the entire picture changes. As I said just this morning in my cor- respondences — and I haven't had time to go through all my correspondences — letters were already coming in from people who are concerned with the education funding and who felt, quite frankly, that they were misled by the government on what the real situation is. What we know, then, is this. The technology grant is not going to be funded by the government. Money has already been spent by the school boards.

They have to simply eat that deficit somewhere, and those moneys will simply have to come out of the per-pupil funding. That's what this government's doing. That's what this government has done, irrespective of the fact that they have promised that school districts would get that money in full and that that money was not to come out of the per-pupil funding. That's the reality of it. When they actually award a grant or say that here is a program we are funding, most people anticipate that they would have the dollars that go with it, especially after it's been committed.

They don't anticipate after the fact that all of a sudden they say the formula has now changed, and, by the way, that grant that we gave you is incorporated in this amount that we said that we would. That is what this minister is doing. There's no denying that. There's no denying that dollars will have to come out of the classroom to fund the technology grant because money has already been spent, in spite of the fact that the minister had promised the money would be there, and it simply is not there at all.

I want to just go back and touch on the $100 million for a minute because the minister brought it up once again. The numbers, as I said, simply don't add up. For 2003-04 the budget is $3.78 billion; 2004-05 is $3.84 bil- lion, an increase of $50 million; 2005-06, the minister said yesterday, is at $3.86 billion, an increase of $20 million. That's for a total of $70 million, not $100 mil- lion. Where's the other $30 million? Hon. C. Clark: I went through all this yesterday in some detail, and I'm happy to go through it again.

I've been through it a number of times in the past, and I believe the member has also been briefed on it, but I can go through it with her again if she likes. If independent school enrolment continues at the clip that it's at, we are anticipating — and I hope this is an overestimation — that in each of the two years there will be $10 million that we're bound by formula, which was adhered to even by the previous government, to go to independent schools. We're anticipating that $10 million will need to be put aside for capital as well.

I don't need to remind the member, I'm sure, that when it's building classrooms, it's actually going into class- rooms. I appreciate that as a member of the opposition, she feels obliged to try and reduce any good news into something bad. She tries to take $143 million and re- duce it to zero, but I think for anyone watching or any- body reading Hansard, it's pretty obvious that her at- tempts are getting increasingly desperate. Perhaps she should move on to another subject where she might have a little more luck in making her point. J.

Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the numbers that the minister gave simply don't add up. They sim- ply don't add up. The minister likes to claim that all this money is going to the education system, in the classroom for the students. Well, it doesn't. The $35 million established yesterday is going to general ac- counting practising principles. It doesn't go directly into the classroom. [1545] So, please, Mr. Chair, the minister can pretend all she wants that somehow there's some $140 million going into the education system, into the classroom, when in reality there isn't. People are not stupid.

Please don't treat people as though they are. People see through what this government's doing. They are trying to hold this government accountable, and so is the opposition. These numbers simply don't add up. That is the reality of it. The minister can laugh and pretend and say everything is just rosy and she's doing a great job and everybody else is wrong. She can do that all she wants, but people know the difference. People know the difference, and that's what these numbers are about. They don't add up. That's the reality of it. It's shocking.

We're in such a state of denial that the minister simply refuses to acknowledge the prob- lem that her government has created in the education system. She simply refuses to acknowledge that the education system is severely underfunded, that chil- dren are getting hurt. Parents are constantly worried. It's funny, you know. As I mentioned earlier, I have new information, but I'll wait for a minute before I go to that. I want to ask the minister this question: what is the total teachers' salary cost pressure to the school dis- trict? Hon. C.

Clark: Teachers' salaries make up, I think, a little bit more than 50 or 60 percent of school districts' total budgets. Their pressures from that would make up the majority of their budgets. J. Kwan: Does the minister have a global number for the province? What is the total teachers' salary cost pressure for school districts? Hon. C. Clark: I don't have that on a per-district basis with me, but I can provide that to her.

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5363 J. Kwan: I would like to receive that on a per- district basis. Does the minister have a global number for the province? Hon. C. Clark: It's a round number, not an exact one. It would be around $2 billion. J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise that's $100 million? I'm just going to give her the $100 million that she claims is there and not debate the point, be- cause the numbers don't add up. Let me ask the minis- ter this question: does that $100 million cover the short- fall for teachers' salaries, which the minister advises is about $2 billion? Hon. C.

Clark: I'm so delighted I finally persuaded the member that the money is there. After a day and a half of debate, I must say I appreciate the discussion and how the discussion's gone and the fact that we've finally come, apparently, to some understanding about this. That's terrific. The total wage budget for teachers is $2 billion. The $107 million that will be available to the education budget over the next three years, as it flows to school districts, will be able to be spent by school districts on whatever their priorities are. I imagine that wages will be high on their list. J.

Kwan: I just want to correct the record. The min- ister suggests that I've accepted her numbers. No, I'm giving her that in this debate so we won't belabour this, because the numbers don't add up, as I have said. If you do the math, you can see it for yourself. Everybody else is saying that the numbers don't add up, except for the minister. The minister will just close her eyes and say: "That's the way it is." That's the direction in which the debate is going. Instead of wasting time trying to get the minister to admit where she has gone wrong or look to see where she has gone wrong….

She's obvi- ously not going to do that. I don't want to waste that time and then move on. I want to be very clear that the minister is not providing the money she says she is providing to the education system. I want to be very clear about that. That is the truth of the matter, as the numbers show. [1550] I do want to move on in the discussion. Not to say that the minister is right, but I do want to move on and simply say the minister is refusing to acknowledge that the numbers don't add up. You know what? It's kind of funny. There's another number that doesn't add up: teachers' salary pressures.

Oh, the amount is $2 bil- lion. But hey, the minister says there's $100 million in the system, and it's paid for. Guess what. It isn't; $100 million does not pay for a $2 billion cost pressure. She can say, "Oh well, districts can adjust the numbers to whatever they want," but the reality is this. When you add up all of the pressures in the system, including the salary increases — and not just for the teachers; there are also other staffing salary pressures — the situation is that the per-pupil funding will decrease. Money in the classrooms will decrease. Why is that?

The per-pupil funding moneys in the classroom will have to be taken out to pay for some of these pres- sures. Therefore, resources in the classrooms will de- crease. The minister, by her own admission…. Last year alone, there was $16.8 million worth of shortfall in the salary increases. By her own admission…. Hansard quotes her acknowledgment of that. Maybe she's al- ready forgotten that, but that's what it is. I will refer the minister to Hansard dated March 13, 2002, where she said that the funding for teacher salary pressures is about half what this government is paying for and cov- ering.

I want to actually put this on record. Earlier I touched on SOS, and the minister then read out a re- lease from SOS. Well, since that time SOS has brought themselves together again. As I said, this one just came recently, after people had a chance to see what the budget numbers mean, where the cuts are and what the true impacts are. They now have a consensus posi- tion on three points relating to funding.

SOS has sent a call-to-action letter to all Vancouver schools: "Once again we urge all Vancouver PACs to act immediately and send an urgent message to the B.C. government before provincial budgets are finalized in mid-February. SOS is urging the Premier and the Minister of Education to cover the full costs of the teachers' salary increase and other increased costs that they legislated, restore funding lost due to the new provincial education funding formula, retain current provincial funding levels for school-based programs.

"SOS believes that schools and parents should not fight each other for a share of an inadequate budget and that every child deserves the support of the entire community." Then it goes on to say that at their meeting, where 25 percent of Vancouver schools sent a representative, the group endorsed the plan. Of course, they made a video. The video is now out, and the SOS has collected over 14,000 letters and has delivered them to the Minis- ter of Education and has never heard back.

Then it goes on to say that in a letter received from the Premier, who responded to the concerns expressed by the thousands of Vancouver parents anticipating deep cuts in basic services for their chil- dren, he stated: "It is not appropriate for me or for the Minister of Education to become involved in local education matters. Therefore, we regret we are unable to meet with your organization." Then following this date, people were quite shocked — quite shocked, actually — that they didn't get a meeting and that the minister refused to meet with them.

The Premier says that it's inappropriate, somehow, for the minister to meet with parents. The issues around concerns continue. People are talking about cuts in the libraries, cuts in buying sup- plies — basic things that would make the school sys- tem workable for their children. They're doing this because of their kids; they're not doing it because it's fun. As I had identified earlier in other articles, people

5364 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 are exhausted. They're exhausted by having to react to this government's cuts in education funding. [1555] I want now to turn to the buffer grants issue. Dur- ing a meeting with the ministry staff, I was informed that districts that were negatively impacted by the Lib- erals' new-era distribution system received buffer grants in an effort to assist while they cut down their spending level to what will become lower spending levels under the Liberal allocation system. I also under- stand that buffer grants are reduced each year.

What amount of buffer grants were given out in 2002-03, and what will be given out in '03-04? Hon. C. Clark: I just want to be clear about the numbers. The member keeps saying I'm obfuscating or implying I'm obfuscating or something. I want to be absolutely clear, just in case she hasn't heard the many times I've said this. A hundred and forty-three million dollars is referred to in the budget, and $35 million of that goes for GAAP, which won't be seen in the class- room.

It's to ensure that districts can comply with gen- erally accepted accounting principles without having to, through the accounting change, change their budg- ets. That leaves about $108 million remaining. Of that, we anticipate that $10 million will be spent each year for independent schools because we are bound by a formula which even her government com- plied with. We're anticipating that $10 million will be spent actually building classrooms, which I think can qualify, even in her mind, as spending money on class- rooms. Then $70 million will go into operating budgets for school districts.

That leaves $17 million or $18 million outstanding. That's quite correct. We hope that money will be able to go into operating budgets, but, again, we are a prudent government. We comply with all the principles of good planning, and because we are doing that, we are setting aside this money in case there are interest rate increases or some other unexpected circumstances. We want to make sure we are protecting students, the education system and taxpayers, as we are obligated to when we are elected. J.

Kwan: The minister can add up the numbers in the way she wants, but the reality is that there isn't $100 million in the classroom. There just simply isn't. Hon. C. Clark: I just told you how. J. Kwan: She told me how. But you know what? You can account for the money by saying that you claim those moneys are going directly into the class- room when, in fact, they're not. They are not. General accounting principles are not dollars going into the classroom. It isn't. It doesn't take a genius to see that. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand that. Those dollars don't go directly into the classroom.

When you look at the $100 million the minister talks about that she says is going directly into the class- room…. For this year the pressure on wages, salary in- creases, is $300 million. There is a significant shortfall no matter how you look at it. Those are the numbers people are dealing with, not selective numbers that the minister would like to look at. In the real world the school trustees don't have that choice. They have to look at all of the pressures associated with it.

Then, when you look at that $100 million that the minister is so proud of, even though a significant portion is not going directly into the classroom, and even what re- mains…. It remains a big question mark whether any of it will actually go into the classroom, because those are going to be paying for fixed costs, I would pre- sume. Just for salary increases it's $300 million. A hundred million dollars does not cover the shortfall of $300 mil- lion, and the minister knows that. If she doesn't, she's just pretending, or she's just completely ignorant about it and doesn't care about the situation.

If that's the case, well, how can you argue with that? It's the minister's prerogative. Maybe she'll order a survey with B.C. Stats and see how satisfied her colleagues are with her per- formance. I do want to go into the buffer grant question. I asked a question about the amount of the buffer grant given in '02-03 and '03-04. [1600] Hon. C. Clark: The member quotes what's going on in Vancouver quite a bit, because I understand it's her constituency. I just want to go through the history of Vancouver's budget-making process, which always includes predictions of doom and gloom.

In 1997-98 they said there were $16 million worth of funding cuts. In '98-99 they said they were going to have a $7.1 mil- lion deficit. No deficit was incurred. No deficit was incurred, by the way, in '97-98 when they predicted it was $16 million worth of funding cuts. In '99-2000 they predicted a deficit of $11.8 million. They didn't incur a deficit, as I understand. In 2000-2001, a $5.2 million deficit; no deficit came in. Last year, '02-03, $25 million; no deficit came in. This is part of the budget-making process in Van- couver. It's a tried-and-true tradition in her district.

I would advise the member not to get too worked up about it at this stage. We'll see what happens as a result of their budget-making deliberations. With respect to the buffer grant, however, the buffer grant was $25 million and was being redistrib- uted from within the existing envelope. That will be r e d u c e d b y 5 0 p e r c e n t , a n d 5 0 p e r c e n t o f t h a t w i l l b e redistributed within the system to school districts. Next year the buffer grant will cease to exist, and that $25 million will be entirely redistributed through the per- pupil and the funding allocation system.

We came up with this solution based on the rec- ommendations of school districts, who came together from across the province — urban and rural, ones that received the buffer grant and ones that didn't receive the buffer grant. They found some level of consensus about how they wanted to proceed with this.

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5365 J. Kwan: I'll get into the impacts of the shortage of funds in education with the other school districts one by one. There are tremendous pressures. I've met with trustees both in Vancouver and in Victoria, and some elsewhere, about what their concerns are. It's true the school trustees have not yet received their district-by- district budget, although they have projections already in terms of what the impacts are going to be.

They are going to be significant; make no mistake about that — again, not just in Vancouver, not just in Victoria but elsewhere throughout the province. Articles have come out across the province where people are seeing tre- mendous pressures in their school system because of the lack of funding. The minister may be very proud of her record, but the sad

part is that students, teachers, parents — peo- ple who are advocates of the system, who care about children and their learning opportunities — don't feel the same. We will get into the school district-by-district outcomes, but I want to finish up on the issue around the buffer grants right now. Prince George, North Van, Richmond and Victoria are just four school districts that have been hit hard by the Liberal government's underfunding. These districts have substantial buffer grants for this current school year. We know, then, that their buffer grants are going to be cut by half.

The ministry called this cut a gentle phasing-out. Could the minister please advise what is gentle about a 50 percent cut? Hon. C. Clark: As I just described, and I'm happy to describe again for the member, the money will be redistributed through the system. The money is not being cut. It is being plowed right back into the system.

As a member of a government in 1997-98 that — ac- cording to the Vancouver school board — imposed $16 million worth of funding cuts, I would be curious to know if at the time she might have also referred to that as shocking, as she does the actions of this government when we've devoted new money to the education budget. We've announced another $100 million. This year we announced $50 million. Last year we an- nounced $42 million.

I wonder how she would contrast the government that she was a part of when the Van- couver school district accused her government and her cabinet of subjecting them to $16 million worth of cuts. [1605] J. Kwan: The education system under the Liberal government, under the new-era regime…. What we've had so far is a budget that has been frozen and an in- crease in pressures that far exceed the actual cost of w h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t i s p a y i n g f o r . W e k n o w t h a t we're going to run into those problems again this year as a result of this government, this minister's direct action.

By increasing gas taxes, by increasing hydro services costs, by increasing these costs are a direct result of this government's action…. In addition to those, this government's going around now collecting residential school taxes as well as rural school taxes. Those moneys are being collected now, but none of those moneys will be flowed into the education system this year. We know that is what's happening with this government. The minister can just sit there and laugh away and pretend that everything is fine, that everything is won- derful.

When everybody else tells this minister, she insists on closing her eyes and shutting her ears so that she will not see the reality. You know what? The proof is in the pudding. My intention is to actually continue to hold this government, and particularly this minister, accountable when she says: "My commitment as a min- ister, our government's commitment and our Premier's commitment is to do all that we can to make sure that no child in our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks, because this is our obligation to the next generation." You know what?

This minister is going to be held accountable to her own words. She can sit there and laugh away and pretend everything is fine, but there will be problems in the system, and her words are going to come back to haunt her. I look forward to the day when she actually acts to make sure that her words are held ac- countable. I sure don't want to see children fall through the cracks. But at the rate at which this minister and this government are going, I am very afraid and very con- cerned that children are falling through the cracks. This government — and this minister, in particular — will be held accountable.

She'd better be ready. It is the parents who will bring these issues to the table. Hon. C. Clark: Bring it on. J. Kwan: The minister sits there — " b r i n g i t o n , bring it on" — as though she's actually looking forward to seeing children fall through the cracks. The account- ability measures will be there. Hon. C. Clark: No, I meant an election. J. Kwan: The minister thinks that the only way to hold her accountable is through an election. You know what?

When you put out words like this, "my com- mitment is to do all that we can to make sure that no child in our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks," the judgment is not on election day. The judgment is on the performance on a day-by-day basis of this minister. Maybe she's nervous now. It's the commitment that she's made. She's going to have to own up to it. It's not about election day. It's not about electioneer- ing. It's not about who wins and who doesn't. It's not about partisan politics. It's about children.

It's about the lives of children and their future, and this minister better be ready to be held accountable for that. I want to also say this. The deficit situation that the minister was saying the Vancouver school board was faced with…. As I said, we're going to go into a dis- trict-by-district account of the budgets that school dis- tricts would be faced with. I already have a preliminary budget from Vancouver, although they have not yet finalized their numbers. I already have that, and I have

5366 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 a preliminary budget from other school districts as well. We'll go through that in detail with the minister. Let us not forget the threat that this minister had put to school districts. She had basically, in my view, threatened school districts that if they do not balance their budget, that if they bring in a deficit budget, they would be replaced and people would actually have to cut services. That's what this government threatens, and that's what this minister threatens. For her to sort of sit back and say: "Hey, don't worry.

Everything will be fine…." People have no choice but to make cuts. I would like to remind the minister that last year the school boards cut more deeply than they wanted to and than they cared to. Why? Because they didn't have the funds. It wasn't until the ninth hour that the government all of a sud- den said: "Hey, guess what. We found some money. Here's some additional one-time funding for you." [1610] School districts were coming to say: "I wish we had known that. Then we would not have made that par- ticular cut in the school.

There would have been less impact in the school system, but we didn't know that until the ninth hour, and then it was too late." So much for stable funding. So much for the minister's commit- ment to ensuring that children have the best education opportunities. She's failed on both those scores. I want to get back to the buffer grant issue. The minister says that this is a gentle phasing-out, a 50 per- cent cut for those who receive a buffer grant. She justi- fies it by s ayi ng: "You k now what?

The money would be distributed back into the system." The reality, of course, is that those districts that are faced with this drastic cut will be scrambling. It is a drastic cut when you're looking at a 50 percent cut to their buffer grant. I'd like to ask the minister: why would this government make such drastic cuts to the school districts? Why would the Liberals say that they are creating more eq- uity in the system by cutting to such an extent in these school districts? At what point will all of the buffer grants be phased out? I presume it's next year.

Will the minister help those districts that continue to face severe adjustment problems after the buffer grants are gone, or are they just simply on their own? Hon. C. Clark: You know, Mr. Chair, for years and years and years, the previous government took the fund- ing formula and used it like it was their own little politi- cal slush fund. They would go in, and they would change the funding formula to try and redirect money to the districts that they thought were deserving. Guess what. Those districts all turned out to be in NDP com- munities.

They did that over the years, and they ulti- mately built a funding formula that was flawed and unfair. We ran in the election, in our platform, on a prom- ise that we would move to population-based funding — that we would move to a fair, equitable, transparent, easy-to-understand funding formula — and we did that. Now, when we moved to the funding formula, we recognized that it would mean that some districts were going to lose money.

What we did, so that school dis- tricts could plan around that, was build in a buffer grant so that they could have three years to plan around phasing it out — not a sudden yanking away of the money, not some unfair sudden change that was unexpected. School districts have been planning around this for a couple of years, and if she would ac- tually go and talk to somebody out there instead of drinking her own bathwater in her office, she'd know that people out there are prepared for this. Yes, some districts are facing difficult decisions. There's no ques- tion about that.

Some districts have dramatically de- clining enrolment. There's no question about that as well. But there is also no question about the fact that we have been open and transparent in allowing school dis- tricts to plan around the funding formula that they're going to be facing over the next couple of years. [R.

Stewart in the chair.] For her to stand up and talk about how this is for the kids, when she's prepared to resort to the cheapest kind of politics, with her amateur theat- rics, and stand up here and talk about how the gov- ernment is cutting funding for special needs, how there's no new money in the education budget, how kids are doing badly, how our public education sys- tem is doing a rotten job…. Well, that's just dis- graceful, you know. It's absolutely disgraceful for her to stand up here and say that somehow this, for her, is about the kids.

If it's about the kids, then let's start having a rational discussion. Let's start having a discussion that includes some of the facts. Let's start actually having a dialogue that includes some opinions from people out there who want to be heard. Let's start talking about this in a sane and rational way instead of standing up and using chil- dren and our education system to try and further t h e p o l i t i c a l g o a l s o f h e r p a r t y . W e n e e d t o s t a r t having a rational discussion about this, and that means that we have to put students first. It means putting the facts on the table.

It means telling the truth, and it means being up front with British Co- lumbians rather than putting her interests ahead of the interests of children in the classroom. [1615] J. Kwan: You know, as we sit here and see the min- ister frothing at the mouth with her rhetoric, you won- der who is actually engaging in theatrics and who is actually engaged in politicking. It doesn't really take much for people to see, and people will judge for themselves. The reality is this, hon. Chair. I know the truth really does hurt.

It really does hurt for the minister when the opposition rises in the House and points out to her how underfunding of the education system is hurting children. Maybe that's a hard fact for the minis- ter to accept. Actually, I can see that it is a hard fact for the minister to accept. That is the reality of what people

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5367 are faced with today. She can just froth away all she wants. It doesn't change the facts. The minister says, "Hey, you know what?" — that I'm just sitting in my own office drinking my own bath- water, as she likes to claim that I'm doing. It's funny how when I travel the province and when my colleague trav- els the province, the information comes to us — the con- cerns people have about what's going on in our educa- tion system. It's funny how the media reports that.

Well, maybe I'm drinking their bathwater too, because the media is reporting how the education system is causing problems and how people are reacting to it. Yesterday I actually put forward a range of com- munities, including those in the heartlands, who are having a tough time with the education system from this minister underfunding education. Everyone who actually has the problems includes Chilliwack, Hope, the interior, the Kimberley area, the North Island, the North Shore, Kamloops, Kelowna.

These are just a few selections of the news clips where people came for- ward to criticize the government and to highlight, more importantly I think, the concerns they have. You know, maybe the newspapers themselves are drinking their own bathwater, because they are print- ing these articles and are highlighting these concerns for people. I read them out yesterday already, so I'm not going to reread these articles onto the system. The minister would like to say there are no prob- lems.

Actually, to my staff, who is downstairs watching the debate, I would ask that you bring up the box of material we have received — documentation from children, teachers and parents. There's only one box that has arrived in my office. There are other boxes that are coming — letters, testimonials, if you will, from individuals about their concerns about

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0306pm-09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0306pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	43e5778a098a076ce02a2b0e9c2b3c009da143c7

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).