Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, June 25, 2020

Afternoon Meeting

Issue No. 2

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

S. Bond

D. Ashton

D. Barnett

J. Thornthwaite

S. Furstenau

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2020

The committee met at 1:32 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $6,657,927,000

(continued) .

The Chair: If we can proceed, I will give it over to the Minister of

Education to resume progress on the Ministry of

Education.

Hon. R. Fleming: May I just say that your robes look exceedingly good this

afternoon. Thank you for supporting phase 2 of the restart plan and the

dry-cleaning industry. It looks great.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Unless there are any opening remarks, I will go to the

minister once more.

Hon. R. Fleming: For the purpose of the record and also to the critic and those

participating in Committee of Supply this afternoon, I wanted to do some

introductions of Ministry of Education personnel who are supporting me

through this process and are here to answer members’

questions.

I have with me Scott MacDonald, deputy minister; Reg Bawa,

assistant deputy minister, resource and management division; Jennifer

McCrea, the assistant deputy minister of the learning division; Melanie

Stewart, who is the ADM of the education programs division; Eleanor

Liddy, the acting ADM for services and technology; Keith Godin is here,

ADM for governance and analytics; Cloe Nicholls, executive director who

is leading up the COVID-19 response in the education system; Tamara

McLeod, executive director and chief financial officer for the ministry;

and Joel Palmer, executive director of the capital branch.

[1:35 p.m.]

D. Davies: I was going to ask the minister earlier on about who he had there

for staff — glad to know.

Hello to the staff, and thank you for your participation today as

well.

I would like to go back to a question I asked the minister just

before my last couple of colleagues were on there around David

Livingstone Elementary again. Over the lunch break, I grabbed some

documents on my question so that I can now have the numbers here in

front of me. The Vancouver school board has budgeted, for their 2019-20

school year, $26.8 million in capital spending for that

school.

I guess the question comes up as there was a government news

release done right at the end of January. I’m not going to read the

whole news release, but the number part of it is: “The government of

B.C. is providing up to $17.3 million for seismic upgrades at David

Livingstone Elementary.” My question earlier was just basically on the

discrepancy between the two costs that we’re looking at. It seems like

there’s a bit of a shortfall of about $9 million. Have things changed on

that school?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s very difficult for

me to offer an explanation. It could be anything, from the VSB posting

the wrong figure on their website…. Clearly, the award and the costs for

the seismic upgrade at David Livingstone are $17.3 million to complete

the upgrade.

D. Davies: Okay. I guess we’ll have to do some follow-up on that as well.

Just another, regarding some school project announcements in Surrey —

Sunnyside Heights, Morgan Elementary, White Rock Elementary — the

projects seem to be $13 million more than what was budgeted nine months

ago. I’m just wondering if that can be explained exactly. What’s gone on

with those three schools in Surrey? It’s about a 16 percent budget

increase on those projects.

Hon. R. Fleming: The correct number is the one that has the approval. That was

released from the ministry about three weeks ago, when we made that

announcement. Anything before that is a high-level estimate or a figure

that was used, perhaps, in the planning stage. The correct final figure

which will be used in the bidding and the construction stage of the

project is the one that is approved.

D. Davies: Can the minister tell us what the percentage of the school

district capital projects that meet their approved

schedule and budget

is forecast to be this year?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member’s question, there had been a period of cost

escalation pre-COVID. We talked this morning about some of the cost and

timeline pressures of projects that are underway in the COVID-​19

period and where we’re landing on some of those and that the impact,

fortunately, was much less than had been anticipated.

[1:45 p.m.]

As the member will recall, prior to COVID we had cost escalations

on projects of every kind, both private and public. So about a year and

a half ago, January 2019, in the ministry, we updated our unit rates.

That better reflected the current market conditions at the time to keep

project estimates more accurate as to what final costs would look like.

That change that we made, that update in unit rates, produced good

results. We, of course, have three major project offices. Surrey,

Richmond and Vancouver all have project offices funded by the ministry

that are using the updated unit rates, as are other

districts.

I think I have, perhaps, an answer to the member’s prior question

about David Livingstone. Something just came in. What I think he’s

referring to is perhaps the 2019-20 VSB, Vancouver school board, capital

plan. A submission at that time…. There was a cost estimate — a

placeholder, in other words — in their capital plan that was not based

on a business case but just a placeholder cost estimate of $26.8

million. That was well in the preapproval phase. When it was finally

costed, it came in at $17.3 million, and that’s what was

approved.

The Chair: Just to remind members, if they want to have the floor, please

raise your blue hand.

D. Davies: I’m not sure…. I’ll be asking questions the whole time,

Chair.

The Chair: Okay, thank you, critic. I certainly will endeavour to just

acknowledge you as the main holder of the floor. However, just to

note that if there are others who want to ask questions, I will, of

course, watch for the blue hand, as it is your right.

D. Davies: Great. We’ll try. I certainly appreciate that, Chair. I will have

other colleagues that will be coming in a little bit later, and we’ll

definitely utilize that then as well.

To the minister also…. This might be a similar case as the

Livingstone school as well. Vedder Elementary School in Chilliwack

budgeted $11.8 million for 240 seats, and in May 2019 the school

district estimated $15 million for 250 seats. Again, I’m not too sure if

that’s a similar situation. If the minister could clarify

that.

Hon. R. Fleming: For the member’s benefit, this is the same kind of scenario as the

Livingstone example, although winding up the other way. Again, that was

a placeholder figure before the final business case was done and then

approved. The project, to fit the scope that was decided upon, came in

at $15 million.

D. Davies: Great. Thank you for that, Minister.

Does the minister have targeted performance rates — I know we

talked about this a little bit in the portables — for capital projects

to meet their approved

schedule and budget throughout 2020? If the

minister could share those rates with us.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m recalling this question from March, so I think it’s similar,

but maybe the member is interested in whether that has changed

post-COVID.

The targeted performance rates are for every project to be on time

and on budget. That isn’t always the case, but one of the pressures we

faced two years, 2½ years, three years ago was cost escalation of about

1 percent per month. So the problem we encountered there prior to

updating the unit rates, which I discussed in the previous

question-and-answer from the member, was that no sooner had approvals

been made that when we went out to tendering, they weren’t aligning

well.

We’re now in a period where, having adjusted those unit rates in

January of 2019 to be much more contemporary and reflective of the

market, the project approvals, the budget, is meeting the tendering that

we’re getting from contractors. So we have made a lot of good progress

on that.

Of course, the member will know that the school districts manage

the budget for a project that is approved by the ministry. It’s the

school district that manages the design, the procurement and the

delivery of the project, and ultimately they’re accountable for the

project budget.

D. Davies: Just a question — and I did ask this question back in March; I

just wondered if there’s been any change on it — regarding community

benefits agreements. Are any community benefits agreements on any of the

construction projects in the province right now, or plan to

be?

Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, thank you. I do remember that question as well. The answer is

the same as back in March. It’s no on the first question, and no on the

second. It doesn’t meet the CBA threshold of government.

D. Davies: Just a couple other questions here. The third-quarter capital

update shows that school districts didn’t spend $8 million of their

capital budget. Just wondering if there’s an explanation for

this.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The figure that I think the member was quoting related to

third-quarter slippage, if you will — capital that was budgeted that

wasn’t or couldn’t be spent. It’s important to understand that that

money doesn’t disappear. It just means that it can’t be spent in the

current fiscal year. It moves forward to be spent in the following

fiscal year.

He mentioned $8 million in the third quarter. You have to bear in

mind that we’re on track to spend over $700 million in the ’19-20 fiscal

year on school capital. This will represent by far the highest rate of

capital investment in 20 years, and significantly so. The next best

year, if you will, would be in the low 400s of millions.

In other words, 2019-20 is a very good example of a year where our

government, having increased capital budgets immediately upon taking

office, was starting to see the spending be possible — projects breaking

ground, money being spent and invested. Of course, the utilization was

very high, which is a good thing. It means that government was, in

effect, meeting its timelines, meeting its budget estimates and building

the schools and projects that are part of our capital plan.

D. Davies: Kind of along the same path, and just looking at table 4.3 here.

Over the next three years of the budget, it shows K-to-12 capital

spending is actually decreased here. I’m just wondering if the minister

can explain that, following his last comments as well.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, what Budget 2020 has is a significant increase over

the previous budget, tabled in 2019, and all three budgets introduced by

our government since we took office.

In the ’19-20 year, the budget that we discussed at estimates last

year, we had $788 million budgeted as our capital expenditure for this

fiscal year. For Budget 2020, which is tabled, the numbers are $880

million for the ’20-21 fiscal year, then it rises again to $885 million

in the year ’21-22. The member is correct that in year 3, which is the

out-year, it’s positioned at $705 million. That’s the ’22-23 fiscal

year.

To put that in context, though, these are three years built on top

of a previous year — four years, if you will — of record levels of

capital investment in school projects in British Columbia. There might

be a difference in terms of how things are spaced in the three-year

capital plan. But when you aggregate the investment at $2.8 billion,

this is a staggering increase from where we were in the 2013-2017 period

of time, for example.

It’s all good momentum. It’s all vastly increased investment that

will help us sustain the momentum that we talked about earlier today in

the estimates, which is good.

A final point I would make, too, is that Budget 2021 allows us an

opportunity, as every budget year does, to update the third year, or the

out-year, of the current budget that we’re debating today. So I would

suggest to him that the 2022-23 figure of $705 million can change and is

certainly likely to change.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Also, to the minister and for staff, that

actually does conclude the capital questions that we had. I thought we’d

have a few more, but you kind of covered some of them in your answers —

other ones. So we’ll move on to some operational questions now for the

remainder of the time.

Minister, I’m going to start off with…. I did have an opportunity

to ask a question yesterday in question period around IDL, independent

distributed learning. Of course, I want to go back to this letter here

we have from the Premier, who wrote the Federation of Independent School

Associations and very, very explicitly said: “We do not have any plans

to change the existing funding for independent schools, nor the

legislation that governs them.”

This has been said in a number of different statements. The

Premier also said, in 2017: “B.C.’s New Democrats fully support a

parent’s right to choose the education stream for their children,

whether it be in independent, faith based or public schools. We

recognize each family has different needs and believe they have the

right to choose the school that best suits those needs.”

[2:05 p.m.]

My very direct question to the minister is: does the minister,

then, consider this a broken promise?

Hon. R. Fleming: I most certainly do not. In fact, I would point to the significant

new investment that has been made in independent schooling in British

Columbia since we took office. It’s $145 million higher annually, across

all independent schooling categories, in the prov­ince of

B.C.

If we broke our promise, it was because we didn’t actually

specifically promise that we would raise, for example, special education

funding, of which IDL students get to keep 100 percent. We raised it by

35 percent.

We’ve actually seen independent distributed learning funding grow

from $64 million annually, during the last year of the previous

government, to $80.9 million in the 2019-20 year. As I mentioned in

question period the other day, the funding for the IDL sector is not

going down next year; it’s going up again by 4 percent.

The supports we put in place for complex learners in either school

system have been significant. I’m sure the member will join me in

applauding that — long overdue. Certainly, it was a priority to support

vulnerable students, no matter where they study, in the public or

independent system. Therefore, when you read the Premier’s letter again

and you look at the numbers around investment in independent schooling,

I think you’ll see that this promise wasn’t broken. It was

exceeded.

D. Davies: There are 16 independent distributed learning schools. The

organization representing these independent schools, FISA, 10,000

students and many more thousands of parents would completely disagree

with the minister on this statement. It is absolutely deceitful — the

comments being made that the independent distributed learning students’

education was not cut when, indeed, it has been.

They were told, point-blank, that there would be a $12 million

shortfall, effective July 1 of this year. These independent distributed

learning schools have been scrambling to make up for this budget

shortfall in the coming year, now having to charge extra tuition for

many parents that are single parents.

Many children, again, have diverse needs. I appreciate the

minister for the special ed funding. The fact remains that while there

is still this pot over here that they would receive anyway, this pot

over here that was taken from is still contributing to each of these

individual students’ needs to allow the parent to educate them in their

own way.

I just don’t understand how the minister can state that 20,000

people in B.C. have read this all wrong. The fact remains that $12

million has been cut from independent distributed learning.

Again, I go back to the question: why was the $12 million cut from

independent distributed learning right at the start of the next budget

cycle?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Undoubtedly this won’t be the last question the member asks about

this. Let me give as thorough an answer as I can to his

question.

First of all, the rate change that was made was done in terms of

trying to have some kind of equity and rationale in the independent

learning system, in the independent school system. As the member knows,

we have two historic categories: group 1 and group 2 schools.

Group 1 schools typically represent recognizable independent

school systems like Montessori, Catholic, Anglican, Sikh, the Jewish

schools that we have in Vancouver and other parts of the province. All

of those would be funded at 50 percent of the public rate. Group 2, at

35 percent, bricks-and-mortar schools, would mostly represent what we

call university prep schools, so St. George’s, St. Michaels University

and Shawnigan Lake and those sorts of schools.

That has been consistent for a number of decades. I can get the

precise origin of that policy if the member likes, but I think it dates

back to somewhere around 1977. Perhaps it was the early 1980s. I can’t

quite recall.

There have been slight adjustments to independent distributed

learning over the years. The member’s party, when they were in

government, included a number of them. They put a cap on financial

supports that were given to students registered in the IDL system. That

was capped. The previous government also put a freeze in place, in 2012,

on certifying IDL schools. So there has been some concern about

inequities between bricks-and-mortar independent schools and independent

distributed learning for some time.

Again, I would dispute some of the numbers the member has used

there. This is not a $12 million cut. Next year, and in Budget 2020, we

are forecasting a 4 percent, nearly $4 million, increase to IDL schools

— those 16 schools that the member cited. So funding continues to go up

for IDL as well as to independent education more broadly.

[2:15 p.m.]

I guess it’s a public policy discussion that we may end up having

a difference of opinion on. That’s fine. But the fact of the matter is

that the independent school system does not expect and, to my knowledge,

does not even advocate that government pay 100 percent of their

operating costs. I’ve never heard St. Patrick’s and some of the schools

that I’m familiar with in my region demand that. It’s never been the

case. There has always been an expectation that there is tuition and

that there is some revenue generated internally to run the

school.

Bricks-and-mortar schools, the member will understand, obviously

have higher operating costs than something delivered electronically. So

it becomes very funny that the rate, which was at 63 percent — not 61,

not 67 but 63 percent, however that was arbitrarily picked — has been

out of alignment with what the rest of the independent school system has

been used to and has received consistently, across governments of all

stripes, for a very long period of time.

In terms of, again, the equity argument, it is bricks-and-mortar

independent schools that have higher operating costs — all of those

costs associated with heating and maintaining a building and operating a

school that actually has a footprint and a property and assets, versus

those that deliver services electronically — that somehow received a

lower rate.

I would put the question, really, back to the member, if he thinks

it’s fair that independent schools that have higher operating costs are

on an inequitable footing with electronic versions of these

schools.

D. Davies: A lot to digest there. A lot of it was quite off topic. I’m going

to pick through a couple of things.

I see that you’ve now started admitting that it is indeed a cut

and a reduction….

The Chair: If I might, Member. The only “you” in this room is the Chair,

and I’ve admitted no such thing, as I’m just chairing the meeting.

Thank you.

Back to the member for Peace River North.

D. Davies: Thank you, Chair.

The minister has admitted now that this is indeed a cut. I’ll also

make reference to…. I find it quite humorous, actually, to say it any

other way. It was initially sought out by the minister to say that this

wasn’t a cut. My math is wrong, and the math of the 16 IDL schools and

10,000 students and parents and everyone else is wrong.

We even go back to the minister’s letter, which he wrote to the

schools, that was initially announcing this. It was one of the final

sentences. This is one of the questions I also have for later, but this

fits in here now. “There are no further cuts planned at this time.” That

was the final sentence. That was the minister’s letter.

Obviously, the minister is admitting that this is a cut in his

letter. He also just mentioned, a few moments ago, that this is indeed a

cut to the independent distributed learning. We go back to the Premier’s

letter here, who said that there are no plans for this. So I’m a little

baffled.

I know that there are lots of parents and teachers that are

watching these debates right now that would love to really understand

why you’re singling out…. I don’t for a second…. You made a comparison

between the university prep schools and….

The Chair: If I might just remind the member again, through the Chair to

the minister. Thank you.

D. Davies: Sorry.

The minister mentioned the university prep schools and made a

comparison with IDL. That’s comparing watermelons and dump trucks. It’s

not a comparable.

Again, I know the minister has received many of the same letters

that I have. I’m sure he has received the phone calls. These are

single-parent families that have had their kids…. Most all of them have

tried it in the public school system.

I think it’s important to understand that this is not a…. Nobody

is out there…. I can speak from personal experience. I come out of the

public school system, as a student as well as a school teacher. This is

nothing about bashing the public school system.

[2:20 p.m.]

Most of these parents’ children have tried the public school

system. They’ve tried public DL. It does not work. This is a choice that

they have made. Many of them have sacrificed an unbelievable amount of

their own personal time — given up jobs, given up one of the partners’

careers — and the incredible amount of out-of-pocket money that is not

covered, to do what is best for their child.

I would say that 100 percent…. Of the 400 or 500 letters that I’ve

got, every one of them is a unique success story. I could sit here and

read, for the next eight hours, those letters. I know that you have

those letters, Minister, because you were cc’d on them, the minister’s

address. My question again goes back to you. Parents are expecting an

answer as to why the minister made these cuts. I would be really…. We’ve

already got the…. It’s been admitted just now by the minister, as well

as in the letter, where he said it was a cut.

Why is this cut happening to IDL students? And especially, why

now, right at the very start of the next budget year? IDL schools are,

pardon the term, caught with their pants down, not being able to make

plans for September, which is already an incredibly unstable environment

that we’re moving into with all kids’ education. It doesn’t matter what

you’re in. I’ll ask that question of the minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: A couple things are problematic. One is that the member keeps

quoting a figure about a $12 million cut, which is totally inaccurate.

He’s going to have to revise that number. That’s just not accurate. He

also quoted a letter inaccurately. The letter that I wrote did not say

government isn’t contemplating any other cuts to the independent

schools. It talked about funding changes not being envisioned to be

changed at all. It would be better to quote letters accurately and

figures accurately.

The reality of the matter is — as I’ve said, I think, two or three

times now, and probably will say again this afternoon: independent

distributed learning as a funding category is scheduled to go up in

Budget 2020, 4 percent in the next fiscal year. When funding and revenue

are growing and not being reduced, that is not a cut. That is a growth

in revenue and funding overall.

Again, we can have some philosophical differences about the rate

adjustment. Perhaps the member can even enlighten me on how it went from

50 to 63 percent in first place. I know that it wasn’t under his watch.

It was under Marc Dalton, I think, who was around at that time. Look,

the independent distributed learning sector remains well resourced. It

remains better resourced under this government than under the previous

government.

Every time we raise the investment to the school system writ large

— to the public school system, in which this member used to work — it

benefits the independent school system. When you have a government that

inherits an underfunded school system, which is exactly the situation

that we had in British Columbia in 2017, and that begins to offer,

develop and sustain, over the three years we’ve been in office, the most

significant funding increases we’ve seen in public education in decades

— four times the rate of investment in the school system that we’ve seen

in other provinces — it raises all boats, if you will.

There have been significant benefits to independent schools under

this government — both bricks-and-mortar and distributed learning —

which would have never happened under the previous government because

they’d held down the level of per-pupil, per-student public education

funding previously for so many years. I’m happy to say that Budget 2020

adds an additional $2 billion, over 2 billion new operating dollars in

the public school system. As he well knows, given the formula, that will

be of benefit to students, parents and administrators in both school

systems.

[2:25 p.m.]

D. Davies: Well, the minister is correct that this is probably a

philosophical discussion on many aspects. But the minister alludes, just

moments ago, that this was a cut, reducing funding to bring it in line.

It doesn’t matter how you slice it or how you cut it; it’s a cut. It

just amazes me that the minister can continue to tell everybody who has

written him letters, and all these schools: “No, things are rosy, you’re

all wrong.” It’s absolutely mind-boggling for myself and, I can imagine,

infuriating for many, many people across the province.

I touched a second ago on timing of this cut. To say that IDL

schools were blindsided by this cut would be an absolute understatement.

We’re only a couple months away now from the new school year. So

staffing has been put in place, and all these budgetary decisions have

been put in place. Can the minister tell me what kind of consultation

was done with IDL schools prior to this?

Hon. R. Fleming: Just a couple things to respond to. The member keeps calling it a

cut. Again, I will refer to Budget 2020. It is scheduled to be a 4

percent increase.

Let’s go back to the last year his party was in office.

Independent distributed learning funding was at $64 million. In Budget

2019, which we debated last year, independent distributed learning

funding was $80.9 million. So that is a massive increase in resources

going into IDL that likely would never have been seen if government

hadn’t changed and hadn’t begun investing hundreds of millions of

dollars more in education for K-to-12 school-aged children and the

school system — both school systems — provincewide.

It is not going down next year. The 16 IDL companies or schools

that he refers to are going to see a 4 percent funding increase. An

increase is an increase is an increase. It is going up, and yes, it’s

helped by a 35 percent increase to special education. Parents in both

systems get to keep 100 percent of those new resources that our

government has supported. That, I think, is probably worth correcting on

the record in Hansard . It’s not a $12 million cut; it’s a 4

percent funding increase for IDL next year.

I think that there have been a number of other numbers that have

been erroneous as well, including the numbers of students. I am advised

by one of my ADMs, as well, that the idea that most IDL students come

from the public school system is also not correct. Only about one in ten

do. In other words, nine in ten IDL-registered students have never been

involved in the public school system.

It’s a small portion, and that is what choice is about, which is

good. Parents who have not had a positive experience in the public

school system can continue to choose the IDL system if they want to.

They can do so knowing that funding in that sector is going to increase

4 percent again next year, having gone up by about $16 million since we

formed government in September 2017.

D. Davies: We’ll return to IDL schools here shortly. I know that I have a

couple of colleagues that have queued up online here for some questions.

Once they are done, I will return to my questioning.

Chair, with that, I’d like to turn it over to Prince

George–Valemount.

[2:30 p.m.]

S. Bond: I really appreciate the opportunity. Again, good afternoon to the

minister, and thank you to the critic. I have a couple topics that are

related to the operational side.

This morning we had a chance to chat briefly about infrastructure.

A number of years ago, funding was allocated for the shoulder tapper

program in northern British Columbia. There is a decided need for us to

mentor and encourage young people to consider a career in the skilled

trades. The program has been incredibly successful. Funding is currently

being dealt with through a partnership with Northern Development

Initiative Trust. Today I’d like to ask the minister if he’s prepared to

commit to continuing the funding for the shoulder tapper

program.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I will endeavour to get

some additional information on the shoulder tapper program,

specifically.

[2:35 p.m.]

What I would offer by way of comment on strategies to successfully

transition more K-to-12 students into trades programs and post-secondary

education more broadly is that it’s exactly what has been driving the

government to begin retooling a comprehensive career strategy. We

engaged the business community in every part of the province,

post-secondary institutions, of course, and those who work in the

K-to-12 system specifically on things like dual-credit programs and

partnerships.

We have convened a number of meetings and received great feedback

from employers, organizations and others and organized labour on what a

more successful career strategy might look like. Additionally, our focus

on student outcomes, which has been at the centre of our strategic

planning as a government and as a ministry, has really put an emphasis

on what strategies we can take to increase graduation rates — and within

those student outcomes, specific groups of students who have

historically had much lower graduation rates than other

students.

We are reviewing best practices of programs that are in existence

in different parts of the province as part of our career strategy

overall. We are using that to make decisions as a government for new and

continuing investment, both for our own ministry and in partnership with

the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

We have seen some good progress that suggests good momentum in the

school system overall. In other words, the adults in the school system

are doing a really good job mentoring kids, I suppose, in the spirit of

the shoulder tapper program itself. We have also hired hundreds of new

school counsellors that help kids look at their opportunities, plan

their graduation strategy, get in touch with some of the unique

partnerships and programs that are out there.

The transition right now to public post-secondary education within

five years of graduation is 75 percent in the province of B.C., which is

a very good number and showing continuous improvement.

Again, I’ll thank the member for the question and endeavour to get

some more specific information about the Northern Development Initiative

Trust program.

S. Bond: I thank the minister. I know his staff that he has with him would

be well aware of this program. I believe, eventually, that 15 school

districts were engaged — a significant program. The government provided

the money. It was in a partnership with Northern Development Initiative

Trust. I know it’s an important component. So I’m hopeful that as there

is a discussion about best practice, certainly, this will be one of the

programs that the minister and the staff consider.

My next question relates to…. I wanted to talk a little bit about

the impact of COVID-19 on rural school districts. I’m wondering how the

ministry is monitoring or looking at the unique impacts that might be

felt in school districts that have connectivity issues, that have

smaller schools trying to manage those issues. So a little bit about

what attention is being paid to rural school districts in light of the

hybrid model.

Related to that, I know that today the minister announced a

steering committee that will deal with preparation for September — what

schools will look like and what will happen for our families. I’m

wondering if he could assure me that there are members…. I looked

diligently to try to find the names. There were sort of categories of

who might be on the committee. I would like to be reassured that there

are rural representatives on that steering committee. Our situation is

unique and very different.

[2:40 p.m.]

I would like those two questions on rural and sort of

COVID-related issues, connectivity — how is it working; were there

unique challenges? Secondly, do we have rural representation on the

steering committee that was announced today?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Two good questions packed into one large question. I’ll do my best

to answer it.

The steering committee which has been struck is a representational

committee of all of the major stakeholder organizations in the K-to-12

education system. I’m pleased to say that our discussions with the

partner organizations, in terms of who they’re going to have represent

them, are very, very mindful and interested in making sure that rural

representation is part of who represents the provincial

association.

I’ve heard that directly, for example, from the B.C. School

Trustees Association. I know that the B.C. Teachers Federation, as well,

is going to want to see the remote learning experience in rural B.C. and

the technological challenges — that perspective — be delivered by one of

their executive members or one of their leadership members who comes

from a part of the province where that’s a reality. Similarly with the

B.C. School Superintendents Association — they want to have large and

small districts represented. And I know BCCPAC will want parent voices

from rural communities as well as urban.

Additionally, this was brought to our attention throughout the

pandemic by a couple of organizations that will be represented on the

steering committee, namely, the First Nations Education Steering

Committee and the First Nations Schools Association.

What I would expect will happen when the steering committee begins

to contemplate all the things it will be busily working on this summer

is the possibility to have a number of sort of ad hoc working groups

underneath the umbrella of the steering committee. I would expect that

the issue around COVID-19 impacts on rural and remote communities might

be one of the areas of work that they break off to do a number of

thinking and recommendations and action items on.

Hopefully, that answers question one to some extent.

On the issue around connectivity, existing digital gaps and

deficits in rural and remote communities in B.C., it’s one of those

things that really came to a head during the need for bandwidth to stay

connected during the lockdown period — during the period when in-class

instruction was suspended. To this end, we loaned out about 23,000

devices — computers and others — through school district lending

programs.

I’m not familiar with district 57 specifically, if that’s one that

the member is interested in. I am very pleased to see that the

attendance in June, under the limited part-time return to school, in

district 57, which of course includes some remote communities, was

higher than the provincial average at about 35½ percent of all students.

That’s K to 12. This is a very good thing and suggests that those

schools got their transportation networks up and running and made an

effort to have both Prince George and smaller communities make them

available to parents who chose to return to school.

Ongoing work, though, that the pandemic, I think, has accelerated

is around the NetWork B.C. program and, for us, the NGN. That will be

work undertaken by the Ministry of Education but also led by Citizens’

Services and the Jobs Ministry.

[2:50 p.m.]

We did see some great examples from Internet service providers

like Telus and Shaw, where they were alerted to the fact that some kids

had really poor Wi-Fi connectivity. We saw some partnerships on First

Nations reserves, for example, where they made investments and were able

to create learning centres on reserves and in some remote communities. I

know that Citizens’ Services and the Jobs Ministry will be continuing to

work with those large providers.

The last thing I would say, too, is that when we had an

all-of-B.C. approach to stage 3, the restart plan for schools on June 1

— which will be completed tomorrow, on the last day of school — we

worked with a number of small districts that have a very different

reality than the cities.

You have some schools in B.C. that have ten or 15 kids across many

grade levels. Often their schools are built for 100 kids, so they didn’t

have a student density problem around physical distancing. We allowed

for exemptions where remote communities could ask if all of their

students, for example, could return and have a modified schedule. We

worked with local teachers associations to make sure that they were good

with that, and there were a number of exemptions that were passed to

make it fit the reality of rural and remote communities.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that. I’m very encouraged to hear

that the stakeholder groups are considering the importance of rural and

other — a more diverse steering committee that reflects the province

that we have to work for and serve. Districts, as I know firsthand, are

very different.

Thank you to the minister for letting me sort of bundle questions.

I’m very aware of the look of the critic. He has given us a time limit.

So I’m going to bundle my last questions, and hopefully, the minister

can just give us some sort of short, snapper answers, if at all

possible.

There are going to be ongoing budget challenges for districts in

the province. I wanted to raise the issue of international student

revenue — which will, obviously, impact our district and many others. I

know that our critic is going to cover that off in a more fulsome way,

but I did want to raise it. Then two other issues, I think, are making a

difference for school districts, some challenges. I know that they

appreciate the fact that support staff increases are being covered. The

issue is benefits and whether or not there’s going to be additional

funding to cover off…. Are benefit costs going to be covered? You know,

we increased wages; we need to think about the benefit side.

My last comment. I know that the minister can address the

international student issue when he deals with the critic, but my last

issue is around compression when it comes to wages and salaries in

school districts. We continue to see and I recognize the importance of

increasing wages to unionized staff. I think that there is an ongoing

issue — it’s not a short-term issue; it has been building up over the

years — of compression for principals and vice-principals. We continue

to see those wages below them increased. We expect them to do extra work

and be educational leaders. If the minister could just address whether

or not that is on his radar screen.

So two things — benefit costs and the compression issue for exempt

staff.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Valemount. Another good

question. Probably not a short, snapper one. I’ll do my best.

I also would direct her to the estimates for the Ministry of

Finance, because, of course, the short answer that I could give her is

that PSEC sets all public sector senior management compensation. That is

in their mandate, and of course, they report to the Minister of Finance.

That includes principals and vice-principals.

But to her specific point around some past problems where benefits

were starting to become inferior for principals and vice-principals, to

manage compression, and really becoming a bit of a barrier on

recruitment and retention for school leadership positions, we did

address that on a couple of fronts.

The salary grid did increase. I believe that was in 2018. That had

been held down for a long time. I can’t remember if it was six or eight

years. We issued guidelines to local districts that had a salary grid

increase at that time.

Also, there was an issue that the B.C. principals and

vice-principals brought to my attention as a relatively new minister,

which was the issue I spoke about a moment ago. A lot of teachers who

wished to become vice-principals, for example, knew that they had to

make a choice, in taking on that leadership position, of having

inferior, for example, health and dental benefits than they did as a

unionized teacher.

So we linked the benefit package available to exempt principals

and vice-principals to the one that is available for those in the B.C.

Teachers Federation bargaining unit. There is no discrepancy anymore.

Their benefits have seen improvements.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: Mr. Chair, thank you very much. You’re greatly

appreciated.

To the member from Peace River, thank you for the

opportunity.

Minister, always a pleasure to see you. Thank you, again, for

allowing me a quick question.

[3:00 p.m.]

Minister, two schools in the area that I represent, school

district 67, were proposed to close a few years ago. And you, sir, to my

gratitude, were very adamant and very vocal about why they should not

close. With the government of the day, rural funding was put through. I

think it was called REEF at the time, if I remember correctly. However,

that is due to expire in about a year, if not towards the end of this

year.

What I would ask is if the opportunity for review could take

place. It’s also my understanding that there are no schools to be closed

in the ’20-21 year in school district 67. However, a school district

elected official was quoted. “There are nearly 2,000 fewer

full-time-equivalent students in school district 67 today than there

were two decades ago, and that means it’s time to consider facility

closures again, says one of the trustees who went through the process

just four years ago.” That’s a quote out of the Penticton

Herald .

I would just ask that, if at all possible, you would make notes of

this, have a good look at it and work in conjunction with school

district 67, because the West Bench School is a small school that serves

not only residents from West Bench but also from the Penticton Indian

band. What they are after is a designation of a rural school. I know the

importance of the school in Trout Creek. To be fair, I live in Trout

Creek, but I’ve seen, actually, a demographic change here over the last

two years, with lots and lots of young, young children now, with new

homes in the subdivided areas of Trout Creek, coming in.

All I would ask is that an opportunity for a good discussion take

place with the ministry and the school district before any schools would

be considered to be closed in this area. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s good to see him

again. Also, I do regret that he was on other parliamentary business

when I had the occasion before the pandemic hit to visit his

constituency and see the Penticton school district create a very good

partnership with the francophone school district, a good partnership

that put money into the pocket of his school district — which of course,

has had some financial difficulties, transitions in recent years — and

that also helped our government meet its commitments to the

francophone-language minority.

[3:05 p.m.]

It’s very exciting, in his district — where he’s correct,

enrolment had been on the decline but there’s a growth in enrolment —

for francophone rights-holders to have education services in that

community.

Anyway, the long story short is that we hope the Penticton example

is instructive to school districts like Vancouver and Victoria. This

morning we talked to Sea to Sky as well. We want majority districts to

negotiate and work with the francophone school district to fulfil their

Charter, their constitutional rights.

In terms of rural or remote school funding, let me just give you

the broad strokes of what we’ve done as a government over the last three

years. When we came into office, the unique geographic supplements that

had been built up as a program or part of the funding formula stood at

$322 million per annum. That was not enough in many communities, as he

knows, to stop the threat of school closures, although really that was

more related towards funding that didn’t adequately increase for many,

many years.

Just on this supplement alone, though, it has gone up $50 million

since we have formed government. So it’s an 18 percent increase. That

should help districts like Penticton and, really, all over British

Columbia where that supplements category of funding can recognize unique

schools.

As for the REEF program, it was very complicated. Well, not

complicated. It was a little bit cumbersome, if I could put it that way,

in terms of how you applied for it. You had to basically say, “We are

going to close the school,” put the community into turmoil — you know,

petition campaigns, backlash, fight back — and then if the district

decided not to close it, they could apply for REEF funding. This was a

lot of process for what is only a $4½ million annual fund.

We haven’t cancelled the REEF program. What we’ve done is taken

the historic high of the REEF funding, which was about $4½ million, and

rolled it into the block funding. It continues to exist as money that’s

transferred to school districts. It just doesn’t have a whole set of

rules to access it. It’s distributed to the districts.

D. Ashton: Again, to the minister, thank you. I, too, am sorry that I didn’t

have the opportunity. I really would like to say thanks on behalf of the

community, about the sale of McNicoll school and that money being

attributed to the school board, with the creation of a francophone

school and the money from the sale being diverted through the school

board to Summerland Secondary to replace a gym that was old when I

graduated from there in the early ’70s.

I know that there’s a huge community thrust behind it for the new

gym, but also, in conjunction with the school board, Interior Health and

the municipality all working together, there is an opportunity to expand

just beyond the existing property — of where the gym is currently

located — to the west for additional support services for the city of

Summerland.

I sure hope that the government will take a look at the requests

that Summerland has asked to be looked at. I know the government is, at

this point in time, working with the district of Summerland and school

district 67 and, hopefully, Interior Health, because there is a great

opportunity for Summerland Secondary.

Again, Minister, thank you very much for the attention paid to

this. These are just flags on the field for the future. I would just ask

you to keep it in mind and to keep it front and centre for this area. I

greatly appreciate the opportunity for the question.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for his comments and for his advocacy for

Summerland Secondary School. I will commit to him that, as I receive

information — including from his school district’s capital plan

submission, which we expect to receive no later than the end of July — I

will have occasion to update him.

Thank you, again, for your comments. I hope that the answer to

this and the previous question are helpful.

[3:10 p.m.]

D. Barnett: I have a couple questions for the minister. Thank you to our

critic for allowing us this time, and thank you to the

minister.

My colleague from Prince George–Valemount hit on a couple of my

questions. I would just like to maybe expand on those. One is broadband

for rural and remote communities.

Has the minister received any extra funding from the COVID funding

to help with more expanded broadband for rural and remote

communities?

Hon. R. Fleming: Yeah. We’ve had some discussions in estimates with the critic and

one of her colleagues about broadband and how critically important that

was during the period of remote distance learning when schools were

suspended.

The Ministry of Education has a program, which I suspect the

member knows quite a lot about, called the next-generation network. I

was very pleased, as minister, to have had the honour to complete that

network — in other words, to ensure that all 1,500 B.C. public schools

had broadband access of a certain speed and a good standard — a couple

of years ago. The next-gen network is supported annually by about $22

million from the ministry and another $16 million from school districts

to continue operating.

Our responsibility, as a ministry, is for K to 12. It’s for the

schools themselves. It is Citizens’ Services…. I might direct her to

that set of estimates. I think it’s coming up, and she has an

opportunity to ask the same question there. They run the NetWork B.C.

program, which covers broadband for communities like the one that she

represents. So I would suggest, respectfully, to maybe make note of the

schedule of estimates and ask those questions to the Minister of

Citizens’ Services.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister. I had planned on doing that. I was just

wanting to double-check to see if there was any other COVID money that

had been put into the ministry.

If I may, another question that I have is open learning,

independent learning and the benefit it is to our rural and remote

communities and what a great asset it was during the closure of our

schools, the pandemic. It was amazing how these children were able to

carry on and learn so much.

I know that the funding has been cut, but I must ask, on behalf of

my constituents…. I have a lot of them, Minister, who are very concerned

about their future. Will the funding be re-established for the

independent learning schools?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. I will say that the critic and I have

canvassed this quite extensively — and perhaps we’re not done yet —

during this set of estimates.

As I explained to him earlier, the independent distributed

learning sector has been very well supported since we took office. In

fact, funding has increased by over $15 million annually. I know that

the opposition is characterizing the rate change as a cut, but I would

think maybe the point that I left off with, with the critic…. I don’t

think we agreed on this.

My characterization of it is that independent distributed learning

is projected to increase by 4 percent next year. It’s pretty healthy

funding there. It has gone up significantly since we formed government,

growing from about $65 million a year to over $80 million as a sector,

with enrolment being pretty much unchanged.

The independent distributed learning sector has benefited from

investments in the education system that we have developed and sustained

and enhanced ever since we formed government. When you put an extra

billion plus a year in operating dollars for the school system, it lifts

all boats, if you will, both independent and public, because the

formulas are linked.

That is our record as a government and, going back to Budget 2020,

is what the funding looks like for next year. IDL schools — and there

are only 16 of them — can expect to share a 4 percent overall funding

increase.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for his response. I know it’s only 4

percent, but it’s a huge 4 percent in rural British Columbia.

I do have another question, if I may, to the minister. A great,

huge issue in my particular riding — it’s brought to me very often — is

the shortage of special needs assistants and educators. In this budget,

is there extra funding for special needs workers and teachers in British

Columbia, particularly in rural B.C., where there seems to be a real

lack of this profession?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I know she represents

school district 27. I could endeavour to get her a specific breakdown of

the new teaching positions that have been added in her district, both

from the memorandum of agreement with the B.C. Teachers Federation, as

well as the successful renewal of the new collective agreement, without

any strike or disruption, that preserves that funding.

As she’ll probably recall, we’ve hired an additional 4,500

teachers, approximately, throughout the school system. For district 27,

I’ll try and get exact numbers of what that might mean. But of the 4,500

new teachers, new positions provincially, 700 of them were special

education teachers, so those types of specialist teachers that I think

she’s interested in. We have 200 more teacher-psychologists in the

school system today as well. So each district can expect a share of

those new positions.

As I mentioned just a moment ago to her colleague from Penticton,

who was asking about some smaller schools there in his district that

have been at risk, five or six years ago, of closure because of budget

pressures, we have increased something…. I think this will be of

interest to the member.

There is a funding supplement in the overall funding formula for

the school districts called unique geographic supplements. School

district 27, because it represents a number of unique schools, rural and

remote communities, would get a significant portion of that, relative

perhaps to urban districts, of course. That unique geographic supplement

was about $322 million when we came into office, and it’s grown by $50

million over the last three years — in other words, an 18 percent

increase since 2016-17.

That’s money where there are no strings attached. It helps

stabilize rural and remote communities, recognizing they have a higher

cost structure of delivering education. It can be used to hire special

education teachers. It can also be used to hire additional educational

assistants.

Lastly, I would note that as a result, again, of the Supreme Court

ruling but also our own funding initiatives, we have about 1,200

additional educational assistant FTEs in the school system

today.

D. Barnett: I would appreciate that information. It would certainly help me

answer some questions when my door gets knocked on.

I have one last question. My colleague the member for Prince

George–Valemount brought up the topic of this committee that you’re

putting together. And you assured us that we would have rural and remote

representation on this committee, which is great. Thank you very much.

But I would also ask…. I hope you will have some open learning and some

parents, because I think it’s vital that we’re all in this together,

that we are inclusive of parents and the open learning institutions

also.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. We are pushing for all

the K-to-12 stakeholder organizations to make sure that they have a

well-represented rural perspective when they determine who they would

like to represent their organization on the steering

committee.

The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, representing

most parent organizations in the school system around B.C., is actually

one of the organizations that absolutely wants to make sure that rural

voices are there at the table.

Finally, to the member’s question around remote learning and

technology, we have the opportunity to put in some well-recognized

experts who have been doing a number of studies about what is effective

in terms of engaging learners in a pandemic scenario where people have

to remain isolated to be safe and rely on technology to deliver

education services remotely. We will be involving that kind of expertise

on the steering committee as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much, Minister, for taking my questions. I’ve got

about four or five, almost all of them to do with mental health in the

schools.

Last year there was a wait-list for psycho-educational assessment,

which was about two years, and an 18-month wait-list for a

neurodevelopment assessments. What are the wait-lists this

year?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. Knowing that she has, as

she said, four or five questions, the answers are only going to improve

as we get through them and as my assistant deputy minister for the

learning division arrives. Sorry. We had intended to transition from

capital to operations to specific areas like this, but the member’s

timing is good.

With regards to the psych-ed assessments in the school district,

every school district has their own practices and policies regarding how

those are applied for and delivered and how they determine the ordering

of psych-ed assessments. So it’s very difficult to get an aggregate of

waiting-list times.

I would note that the Ministry of Health has put additional

targeted resource money for kids on the autism spectrum to get these

assessments done, and that’s reflected in the various regional health

authority budgets. She may wish to pursue some additional information

from the Minister of Health when his turn on the estimates roster comes

up.

In terms of broad parameters around funding for kids with complex

learning needs, we’ve talked a little bit about this in estimates so

far. I’ll repeat some of it for the member’s benefit.

The operating grant numbers for special education in Budget 2020,

which we’re debating today, stand at $627.4 million for that specialized

area of funding. That’s up 35 percent since 2016-2017.

I’m very pleased to say, too, in terms of a group of students who

have historically been underserved, to put it mildly, by the school

system — I’m referring to Indigenous learners — the ability for

districts to have dynamic, innovative Aboriginal education programs that

help kids stay connected to school, feel more comfortable in school, be

successful in school and be represented in terms of graduation and

transition to post-secondary education, we’ve also increased Indigenous

education funding by 34 percent since we formed government. That is

money that allows for the innovation I’ve spoken of.

I am aware that last year for the CommunityLINK funding program,

about 64 percent of the budget — roughly $34 million — was expended on

staffing for positions such as youth workers and counsellors who work

with kids and support the social and emotional well-being of students.

Those are really, really valuable positions in the school system, and

that program helps make sure that they’re funded and in place in the

districts around the province.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Chair: The member with a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: I will endeavour to ask my question, then, to the Ministry of

Health.

I’m going to ask you a series of questions based on the situation

that occurred to one of my constituents. Not only did she write me, but

her daughter also wrote me to tell me what happened to her when she fell

through the cracks.

This is a situation where she was identified as a behavioural

problem in the school, and the mom reached out to the teachers to get

help. She was bounced around from counsellor to counsellor. They got a

psychologist in there, and a psychiatrist. Then she was put on the wrong

meds. She was misdiagnosed. She ended up in the hospital three times and

was borderline suicidal.

It wasn’t until another psychiatrist spent the time that was

required that she was properly diagnosed, and now this kid is doing

really, really well in school. But if it wasn’t for the advocacy of that

mom, this kid could have been one of those kids that shows up on the

street.

The first line of defence for kids is often the schools. So this

mom asked me to find out what we can do to improve this situation in

schools. I’m going to read what she said: “All of the teachers….” I did

ask her how old the teachers were, because I wanted to see whether or

not they were new teachers coming out of school or ones that had been

around for a while with more experience. She said most of them were

under 30.

“All of them toed the politically correct line. ‘We do not like to

compare children.’ When I asked about my child and what was going on,

this was the standard answer when trying to figure out her intelligence

as well as her anger.” This is her daughter. “This needs to change.

There needs to be better education for teachers in the areas of mental

health so that they can recognize early what’s going on.”

My question to the minister is: what is being done to educate

teachers on mental health literacy? I’m not suggesting that they become

counsellors or psychologists but be able to refer the children to a

specialist who would be able to determine. What is being done to educate

teachers on mental health literacy so that they know that this kid is

having problems and needs help? Stop telling the parent that we don’t

compare kids.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for her questions. I know that she has

been able to participate in some of the big conversations we’ve been

helping to drive in the K-to-12 school system around mental health

awareness. We planned and organized the first-ever all K-to-12

educational mental health conference. I think she was there at the first

and then the second one.

Typically…. I think that conference actually grew to about 600

front-line people that are connected to mental health and mental

well-being in the school system. It included social workers, educators,

school leaders, pediatricians, counsellors, safe schools coordinators —

all of those folks that play a

part in increasing and developing the

mental health literacy that the member speaks of and that will help the

constituent that she described and people like her who encounter

difficulties from people and who just don’t know what to do in the right

situation.

I think she’s right to speak about it. We’ve already talked, in

this set of estimates, about the number of teacher-psychologists that

we’ve added to the school system. That’s very good. But I think this

member’s point about having…. The more generalists, if you will, who are

aware and literate on mental health issues, are familiar with

social-emotional learning techniques and are able to represent

trauma-informed practices and to implement those with their colleagues

and their peers in the school system, the better.

That’s really the sort of cultural shift that we’re trying to

drive throughout the school system, and we have put some targeted

dollars in place to help build capacity and to have that training and

professional development that the member speaks of. I announced an $8.8

million grant, a fund for school districts,to do exactly that — to build

up that kind of capacity.

We’ve got a really great team here in the Ministry of Education

that’s been working with the school districts, pursuing ideas that

flowed out of some of our mental health conferences. We have sent some

fact-finders to New Brunswick, which has a really interesting integrated

service delivery model for mental health, partnered with the school

system. On the basis of understanding more about New Brunswick, we came

back and created some partnerships with two school districts — soon to

be five — that have an on-the-ground integrated service delivery model.

We announced the one in Comox and in Maple Ridge, and there are three

more districts coming forward shortly.

Those, I think, are some of the kinds of initiatives that we’re

taking to be able to do a better job at having more people, more

qualified adults, in the school system. It’s the responsibility of every

adult who works in the school system to be mindful of the kids — to know

where to go, to know how to put kids in touch with the right resources,

to be able to give them that education.

I would also say, just as a last point, that those teachers who

will be coming into the school system through teacher education programs

at our universities…. We have heard, and we have involved the deans of

education and others in the faculties of education at B.C. universities

in making sure that the teacher licence — the bachelor of education

degree or specialized degree — has a much more significant component

around social-emotional learning, trauma-informed practice and mental

health literacy.

J. Thornthwaite: Going on in that vein, the other question I wanted to ask is: what

is being done to better educate parents, again, in the school system, so

that parents know what to look for in their children and how to access

resources, how to interact with teachers to become a team in helping

their children?

[3:45 p.m.]

This comment was: “I see on many parent forums that parents view

teachers as the enemy and fight against the system as well. This needs

to change. If teachers were well educated in this area, then parents

might learn to trust teachers better as well.” Again, what is being done

to better educate parents?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for another good question around how

parents get connected to identify more things where their kids may be

experiencing mental health and stresses in their lives that are creating

anxiety. This is obviously a huge topic in British Columbia, across

Canada and in many, many parts of the world.

We have had some partnerships with the B.C. Confederation of

Parent Advisory Councils and others to include parents in

sessions delivered to…. I know it’s thousands of parents. I’m going to

say over 5,000 parents, something like that, since 2017. I can get the

member an exact note later.

That’s ongoing. Those kinds of resources remain constant. They’re

in Budget 2020, which is good. I think the SOGI collaborative process

also has had a very positive impact, because a lot of LGBTQ students

disproportionately report the impacts of bullying and very, very

stressful situations in their lives that can lead to mental health

issues.

[3:50 p.m.]

The SOGI 123 website is very, very well utilized by parents as

well as educators. I think we have had something like 260,000 unique

visitors to the SOGI 123 resource website. That partnership with the ARC

Foundation remains in place. It’s a very, very strong

partnership.

Then lastly — I think we talked about this a little bit more — the

number of teacher-counsellors we have, which has increased, is a very

positive resource that can work individually with students in schools.

It’s increased from 740 in 2017 to 867 positions in 2019. So there are

more counsellors available for students.

Maybe the last item I would mention, Mr. Chair, with your

indulgence, is the Foundry centres — not directly funded by our

ministry, of course, but they serve young people and adolescents aged 12

to 24. There are now 19 Foundries in communities across British

Columbia, and were we able to hold the mental health conference this

year before we had to cancel it due to COVID-19, I know that Foundry

centres were going to be one of the spotlighted resources.

We want to continue to drive more connectedness between the

counselling — the free counselling resources — the drug, alcohol and

substance abuse resources, and the mental health resources that are

offered by Foundry centres to young people. We want to make that

connection even stronger with the school system so that it’s about

getting them the help they need but also keeping them engaged in school

and being successful there.

J. Thornthwaite: My last question, relating to this mom and this child, is about

better education for kids on counselling and seeking help so that they

can self-recognize and come to understand — if they have a problem, to

reach out. She says: “Currently our school has a counsellor, and both of

my kids view it as shameful going to see her. Seeing a counsellor, a

psychologist or a psychiatrist needs to be viewed as being as normal as

seeing a GP. Nobody is embarrassed by seeing a GP.” So her question, I

guess, is: what is being done to better educate children on mental

health literacy?

Because the minister had mentioned Foundry, I’ll bundle that

question. Last year when I asked a question in estimates, it was

specific to North Vancouver. I’m not making a statement specific to

Foundry, but to Foundry in North Van. There was a lack of communication.

Some kids were falling through the cracks and having to leave Foundry

because their issues were not getting dealt with, with the Foundry

counsellors.

My question is: what mechanism is in place to ensure that if a

child turns up at Foundry and is seen, this information is passed on to

the school counsellor or the school district so that the kid doesn’t

fall through the cracks and so that there is a sharing of information so

that the kid doesn’t have to tell the same story over and over again and

is getting consistent help from the system as opposed to having

disjointed systems that don’t talk to each other?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you again to the member for this conversation this

afternoon. I think that, in terms of avoiding the situation that you

described, where there are a lot of young people who feel the stigma of

asking for help and therefore don’t ask — they feel there’s a certain

shame in it — that’s long been identified as one of the problems, not

just for kids but for society at large, adults as well. In recognition

of that, the ministry has spent a lot of time with all of our partners

mental health and mental well-being topics at a much, much earlier

age.

For example, when you look at the physical and health education

curriculum that’s mandatory for K to 10 students, it teaches kids at a

very young age how to recognize stress and anxiety in themselves and

recognize that one of the ways to help manage that is to talk to people

about it. Of course, that’s reinforced with even more complicated

emotions as the students get older.

But there are a number of curricular inclusions now that are good,

that are strong. I mentioned earlier the participation rate around

workshops that are available with our partners and will continue. We

created a pandemic partnership with the WE organization to create a new

mental health online tool and resource that was rolled out here in April

in British Columbia, and we are very proud of that

partnership.

In terms of Foundry centres…. We started to talk about that as

well and the member’s experience around perhaps not the best experience

for one of her constituents in the North Vancouver Foundry centre. It

might be of interest for her to talk to the Minister of Mental Health

and Addictions during that set of estimates just to talk about

information-sharing protocols.

What I would say as a general comment, though, is that the

Ministry of Education typically meets with Foundry centre

representatives in the regions around British Columbia about every four

to six weeks to constantly assess and share information on what their

caseload is like, what some of the issues are that they’re dealing with,

what their referrals and in-house supports are, and their integration

with other service providers and the school system

specifically.

This is the thing: we’re in the early days, in some parts of the

province, of driving towards an integrated model. An integrated model

means that counsellors and clinicians involved with kids who are

experiencing significant issues in their lives and are registered

students in a school district or a school…. The grownups, if you will,

in the school system and the Foundry hub centres talk to one another and

look out for the well-being of that child and share information that

would be relevant to one another.

The Chair: We’re just going to have a little bit of a shift change here

for the Chair, so I thought it might be appropriate to ask if we can

take a five-minute recess — give everybody a chance to freshen up.

We’ll be back shortly. We’ll be back in approximately five minutes.

Thank you, everybody. This committee is now in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

[S. Malcolmson in the chair.]

J. Thornthwaite: I just have one more question for the minister. It’s to do with

sexual assault policy in schools.

The minister was kind enough to meet with me and two of my young

friends, who had some very good advice for the ministry on how they can

improve the education on preventing sexual assaults in the schools or

around the schools with young people. One of the recommendations was to

implement consent policies in elementary school, grade 6. I’m wondering

how that is going. If the minister could give me an update.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Nice to see you again, Committee Chair.

To the member’s question, I want to begin just by thanking her for

bringing those two pretty remarkable and impressive young women to a

meeting that we had in downtown Vancouver. It was some time ago now, but

I am pleased to say that as a result of that meeting, we were able to

take some of their suggestions and others we got from different student

forums that are interested in healthy relationships, sexual education

and issues around consent. They were able to give very valuable

information to the ministry that helped us develop a guide called

Supporting Student Health .

The guide was developed for both elementary and high school

teachers. It focuses primarily on sexual health and mental health. It

includes topics around consent and safer sex. Indeed, I think there was

a gap in the physical and health education curriculum that needed to be

addressed. Also, teachers were also requesting the kinds of things that

are in the Supporting Student Health guide to be more effective

at addressing those parts of the curriculum in PHE.

We’ve also, in continuing that, looked at additional opportunities

for older kids. This was a point I took from those two young women who I

met with, along with yourself, around mandatory PE class, as we used to

call it. PHE class ends in grade 10. We’re looking at career life

education to help also add some content that will reach grade 11 and 12

students.

I know that there’s been a significant debate and some really good

leadership amongst post-secondary college and university presidents with

their student support teams, where they had some very terrible incidents

that put a spotlight on how healthy relationships…. Issues around

consent with partners were leading towards things like sexual assaults

and unacceptable behaviours on campuses and off campus. So that’s an

area for ongoing further development in grades 11 and 12.

That Supporting Student Health guide, if the member

hasn’t had an opportunity to see it, is something that we could

certainly, outside of estimates, send to her attention.

S. Furstenau: It’s great to be here in Education estimates. I want to pick up

where the last question left off, but before I do that, I want to just

really commend the Minister of Education, the school districts,

principals and teachers, who have really stepped up in this time and

done the very best they can in these really difficult conditions of

COVID-19. From our experience in our valley, the school district has

just been remarkably responsive, first in dealing with issues like

ensuring that children and families are getting meals and food and then

really meeting the educational needs of students in this time. I want to

just say thank you to all of the people that made that

happen.

[4:15 p.m.]

Following up on the member for North Vancouver–Seymour’s question,

there’s a video that’s making the rounds. It’s a public service

advertisement from New Zealand. Iit’s focusing on the risk of young

children accessing pornography, without the kind of parental discussions

around expectations of what are healthy sexual relationships and

consent, as the minister was just talking about.

I think that in this era of Internet culture, studies are showing

that…. One Swedish study shows that 98 percent of all 16-year-old boys

and 54 percent of 16-year-old girls have seen pornography and that the

sexualized content in pornography is often quite violent, particularly

towards women.

Here in B.C., we had a consultation with an expert in this field,

and he says that research shows that children refrain from speaking

about pornography with their parents. Parents are unaware that their

children are exposed to it. As more and more of our work and learning

moves online, we see increases in domestic violence.

So my question. To follow up on the previous question to the

minister, are there specific efforts or specific work being done on

teaching children about sexual relationships but with the recognition of

the access to really explicit digital content that children are probably

seeing right now? What’s being done to address that in

particular?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. She may have caught the

discussion with the member for North Van–Seymour. We talked about a

resource that was very recently developed and made available to both

elementary and secondary school teachers, the Supporting Student

Health guide, which fills in a lot of gaps in topical areas

around consensual relationships, healthy relationships, online safety

and cyberbullying, as well as safe sex practices.

I think the emphasis now that’s in the physical and health

education on healthy relationships is a good emphasis to have in the

school system. There is specific content about the responsible use of

technology by students in the physical and health education curriculum

now. As I’ve mentioned, it does deal with topics like sexting and other

related topics.

I know in practice that schools often have a relationship with

organizations that are community based and that come in and specifically

do workshops and speak to students about some of the issues she raised

with pornography and violence and how that affects students’ mental

health and the perceptions of healthy relationships and those sorts of

through a number of programs in the ministry that I think has been

really been valuable.

Maybe if I could take something away from the member’s question,

it would be, as I regularly speak with the B.C. Confederation of Parent

Advisory Councils and know their president very well, to see if this

might be an area of focus that they would wish to develop further with

the ministry. I think she raises a very good point.

We also engaged young people who helped us write and develop the

curriculum. We would probably look to engage young people again around

the readily available scourge of pornography through digital devices and

how that is impacting the mental health of students and the safety of,

in particular, female students at school and see if young folks that

advise the ministry on a regular basis and BCCPAC would like to work

with us on putting an additional emphasis there.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that response.

As you point out, there are PACs that are doing great work at

bringing in some really terrific educators. Kerri Isham up in Cowichan

Valley is an excellent example. I think that, hopefully, the goal would

a consistency across all the districts — that students would be getting

that level of really high-quality education on this front.

I really appreciate his response and the steps he’s talking about

taking. It’s really great.

I’m going to switch gears and kind of go back to umbrella

questions here. Apologies if these have been touched on by the official

opposition critics. We’re doing our best to kind of stay on top of

things, but with a caucus of two, it can be a bit tricky.

Clearly, this pandemic has had deep and significant impacts on

education in B.C. We know that teachers have done a great job under very

trying circumstances, but there are a lot of concerns. I’m aware that

the BCTF and the province are talking about approaches to the fall and

how to ensure that teachers aren’t stretched so thin trying to juggle

both the in-class and the online learning that we might be facing again

in the fall.

[4:25 p.m.]

I guess my first question is: does the province intend to hire

more staff to accommodate for both the in-person and online learning? If

so, how many more teachers and other staff?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member from Cowichan. I think there are a lot of

elements to her question there. At first glance, it was straightforward

enough. But things have become very complex, and we have learned very

well on the fly. I appreciate her remarks earlier thanking all the

herculean efforts from teachers, support staff and administrators —

principals and vice-principals — to keep families and kids safe, to

successfully reopen schools on a part-time, limited basis for the last

four weeks, which has been, I think, fantastic and a testament to their

commitment, their energy and their caring to be able to do

so.

I would say that in terms of staffing levels and COVID response,

what we’ve asked districts to do is to make a note of any additional

COVID-related expenses that they have encountered in terms of operating

under this pandemic, as well as savings. Because, of course, some

expenses were reduced for services that were suspended.

We don’t obviously direct school districts to directly hire.

They’re the employer. Some of them have made shifts in their employment

practices.

[4:30 p.m.]

What we did do though, as a ministry, is we did direct every

school district to work in close consultation and collaboration with

local teachers associations on the issue of workload. So I think the

member was getting at this idea of trying to sustain both an in-person

teaching practice as well as continuing to serve the remote distance

learners.

We’re at the stage right now where we’re learning everything that

we experienced in June to have a stronger restart in September. Of

course, we’re on track, through the incredible leadership of Dr. Bonnie

Henry and the provincial health office, to have a much stronger restart

in September. I think we will benefit immeasurably from having gone into

what we call stage 3, as I said, for the last four weeks of the school

year. The aim is to have as many kids back safely as possible after

Labour Day. September 8 is the first day of school next school

year.

The science of the epidemic will inform what we’re able to do.

Districts are planning for a number of contingencies that will fit the

assessment of where we’re at in terms of community transmission and how

well the pandemic is being managed.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that answer. Questions always tend to

be more complicated than they seem on the surface, I guess.

Further to that, can the minister let us know what he thinks the

expected changes to the ministry’s budget will be to COVID-19? Will

there be more money in order to accommodate the additional resources

needed to ensure, for example, equity for at-home

instruction?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The most succinct answer

I could probably give this afternoon is that all school districts are

working within the Budget 2020 $6.7 billion allocation out there into

the field. They’re part of the estimates today. We’re working with the

B.C. Association of School Board Officials, the secretary-treasurers and

other administrators, on tracking costs, as I mentioned earlier —

additional costs related to the pandemic for supplies, for other

modifications.

Districts are tracking those right now. I wouldn’t say we have a

consistent idea of whether there are additional upside costs at this

point yet. We also know that those would be offset, to some extent, by

potential savings from services that were suspended — transportation,

for example, and those sorts of things.

Once we continue to work in this fiscal year with the BCASBO, who

represent the school districts, on what it all looks like, we would, on

that basis, have a discussion with the Ministry of Finance — look at

additional opportunities, for example, for the Ministry of Education to

play a role in the economic recovery of British Columbia overall. I can

say that some of those discussions are happening, proposals being

developed currently, where our ministry will, in fact, play a role in

that regard.

It’s probably an ongoing conversation that I’m certainly willing

to have with the member in the months ahead.

[4:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Yeah, it’s an important and ongoing conversation. Of course,

education is so essential in a time like this when we are going to have

to learn a lot of new skills, new ways of doing things. That learning

very much starts in our education system.

On the COVID topic, in a related way…. There’s an intersection of

a particular type of student, a student who may be vulnerable and may

have health or disability issues that mean that as long as we’re in this

pandemic, that student is maybe not safe or comfortable to go into an

in-class learning environment but at the same time may not have the

resources to really effectively further their education at

home.

It might be a lack of access to high speed. I know other members

have asked about this high-speed Internet or lack of access to

materials. I do know that school districts have stepped up in this time,

but I’m just wondering if there’s a bit of a longer plan — given that we

don’t know how long we’re going to be in this pandemic situation — for

the ministry to be really focusing on promoting inclusion for these

particularly vulnerable students who will be working from

home.

Hon. R. Fleming: Just to go back to the previous question, I did want to say

something about the budget and one of the signals we sent that was most

important. I mentioned that we telegraphed out to districts that the

$6.7 billion in Budget 2020, knowing that the world had changed to a

significant degree after we’d tabled that in February 2020, would remain

constant.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think that stands in pretty stark contrast to some other

jurisdictions in Canada. It’s not to pick on anyone in particular, but

Alberta, next door to us, removed about $150 million from school

district funding envelopes at the very outset of the pandemic. Nothing

of the sort occurred in B.C. We wanted to give that guarantee and that

stability to the school system.

In terms of the member’s question around vulnerable students who

may not be in a position, or whose family deems it’s not a good, safe

idea for them, to return to school in September, for example — I’d

imagine that could include immunocompromised kids, or a family situation

where that’s an issue — there will be accommodations made, as there have

been already.

We’ve heard pretty clearly the commitment from school districts

that if there’s a child with an individual education plan that calls for

certain resources and strategies for them to be successful learners,

those need to be adapted if they’re not physically coming into school

for in-class instruction. I know that’s easier said that done, but there

are ways to do it, as we’ve learned. It can be remote learning. It can

be formal online learning programs. It can involve, maybe, teachers the

child hasn’t worked with who are non-enrolling teachers, or who do

regularly work with or are involved in supporting a child remotely, not

just the classroom teacher.

I would note that one of the positive takeaways from June was that

kids with complex learning needs who were specifically invited to come

back, not on a part-time but on a full-time basis, for the month of June

and prior — along with the children of designated essential workers —

did in fact return to the school system at a much higher rate than kids

who don’t fall under one of those categories. That’s positive. We made

that outreach. We directed school districts to survey those families

specifically, and they did return in greater numbers.

We talk about pandemic discoveries that have to be digested and

that can lead to innovations or change of practice. We did find that

some parents of kids with complex needs or very specific mental health

conditions actually thrived working and studying from home. That’s been

confirmed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. That’s interesting. That did

occur during the pandemic reduction in in-class instruction. That might

be a preference for some of those families going forward as we begin a

new school year.

S. Furstenau: That actually segues right into a very specific question I have,

raised by some constituents of mine, with a situation that connects to

what the minister was just talking about.

These constituents are both qualified teachers, certified

teachers, and also parents of a profoundly disabled child. That child

had been getting at-home instruction through a contracted service. When

the isolation orders came in, all of the contracted services were

stopped, as well as additional supports through MCFD and before- and

after-school-hours care.

These parents reached out to the ministry to request, since they

were in fact meeting all of the needs of the child under his IEP, that

they be contracted and in some way compensated for being the instructors

and meeting his IEP. There’s an understandable clause about not

contracting parents to teach their own children. However, as we know, in

bricks-and-mortar schools, it’s not unusual that a child may well find

themselves inside a parent’s classroom. That does happen.

I’m just wondering. Given the circumstances of this pandemic and

the uncertainty that may lie ahead, would the minister be considering

revisiting some of those policies in consideration of some of these, I

would expect, rare but not completely impossible situations that parents

might be facing — where they become not only the primary caregivers but

the primary instructors of their children, to ensure that they’re

meeting their IEPs?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. Obviously, a lot of

parents learned a great deal about their kids through the pandemic and

played a much bigger role, I think, in most cases, than they normally

would in supplementing the efforts of their teachers, engaging them and

keeping them focused on learning.

We tried to make that effort easier by putting a number of

resources together. The Keep Learning B.C. website was just one that was

very successful — hundreds of thousands of visits there, with a pretty

wide variety of good suggested content and learning resources that are

available and internationally recognized for excellence. We will

continue to update that.

Specifically to…. I should say that we also funded Shelley Moore.

I know that the member is familiar with her excellent, humorous and

effective communication skills. We contracted with her to put together

videos — I think a couple per week — on how to recognize your child’s

learning style and help them be successful during the lockdown remote

learning period and keep them interested in learning and how to be of

assistance to make their learning experience more [audio interrupted]

really, really well received and widely circulated. That was a good,

little mid-pandemic partnership that we might revisit.

I would direct the member to maybe formulate some questions for

the Minister of Children and Family Development during her estimates.

She rolled out a program during the pandemic to support families, an

emergency relief support fund, $225 per month, to families that incurred

additional costs related to helping their kids be successful. I know

that the number of ordinarily eligible families for this type of funding

increased by about 50 percent. My understanding is that that program was

widely subscribed and has been extended until September at this

time.

[4:50 p.m.]

I don’t have too many further details, but she may wish to talk to

my colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development.

The other thing — last point — would be that on an ongoing basis

and in considerable earnest right now, school districts are developing

at-home learning plans continuously and looking at, again, lessons

learned from May to June, working on a peer-to-peer basis with other

school districts to make sure that they’re all looking at a better

remote learning experience based on the feedback they got during the

early stages of the pandemic.

S. Furstenau: I think we’ll follow up through my constituency office, which I

believe is already on this particular file, but the specific question is

about parents being able to be contracted if they are certified teachers

for providing educational instruction for their children at home when

others had been contracted to do that but couldn’t during the isolation

part of the pandemic. But I’ll follow that up directly through our

constituency office.

The last little set of questions here.

A lot of my constituents, and I know constituents around the

province, were reaching out to their MLAs about the changes in funding

to the independent distributed learning schools. In question period the

other day, the minister spoke about the specific supports for more

vulnerable students and children with special learning needs, and it

would be really helpful if he could elaborate on that.

That’s one of the biggest concerns that I’ve heard from parents.

Parents of children with special needs feel very distressed about losing

access to programs that have been very successful for their children

when other programs or schools have not served the needs of their

children.

Then just a question about…. In approaching that decision, was the

Federation of Independent Schools consulted? Were they aware of the

changes that were coming before they were announced? If not, why

not?

So those two questions on the changes to the independent

distributed learning schools. Thank you.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, and I see Minister Mark has joined us. Good to see

you.

To the member from Cowichan: I appreciate your question. Let me

try and make this as simple as possible. We have canvassed this

extensively with the Education critic earlier today.

We did adjust the rate back to where it was for many, many years,

which is 50 percent of the public distributed-learning rate. That’s very

consistent with the funding groups that have been in place for many

decades, as it relates to group 1 and group 2 schools and how they’re

funded in relation to their public school district

counterparts.

[4:55 p.m.]

That category, for the vast majority of independent schools — be

they Catholic, Anglican, Sikh, Montessori, etc. — is 50 percent of the

per-pupil rate for the public schools. When all is said and done in

Budget 2020, independent distributed learning is going to see a 4

percent increase. There’s not a cut. It is an increase in funding next

year.

While we’ve adjusted the rate on IDL as relates to its public

counterpart, what parents of special education students who enrol in IDL

schools have particularly benefited from is a significant new rate of

investment for special education students across all funded categories.

Of course, as the member knows, they keep 100 percent of that funding.

There is no distinction between public and independent as it relates to

special education funding categories. So 35 percent more funding since

we formed government for special education categories of all

kinds.

What it actually means is that the last year the previous

government was in office, the IDL sector in total, both special

education and their funding rate, was at about $64 million. In the

2019-20 fiscal year, that funding, under our government, had risen to

$80.9 million. As I mentioned, it will increase again next year by 4

percent or about $3½ million to $4 million again.

I think the other part of your question was really around how we

worked with FISA. I think it would be absolutely fair to say — it’s

certainly something I’ve made a priority for myself — that we have had

very good relations with the Federation of Independent Schools in B.C.

and meet fairly regularly with their executive director and their

president. We’ve included them, for example, on all of our COVID-19

responses. They were advised quite regularly during our funding model

review that I’ve had the privilege of briefing the member from Cowichan

on. So that working relationship is strong.

Of course, there will be some disagreements with this decision. I

understand that. But we did notify the 16 IDL schools in May. Sure, they

probably would have preferred more notice in terms of their

budget-making. It’s very difficult to share information that, in some

cases, has a degree of cabinet confidentiality until it’s able to be

released publicly. But I can assure the member that as soon as we had

cleared that hurdle, we were very transparent and met directly with the

IDL schools to explain the change and to work with them on the new

rate.

D. Davies: Thanks to my colleagues that took the time to ask the questions.

What an incredible segue the member for Cowichan Valley provided me to

go back to my IDL questions that I had mentioned to the

minister.

Just a couple of things here. I keep hearing the minister mention

about this 4 percent increase that is coming. The reality is that 4

percent increase of overall funding to these schools is purely based

upon increased enrolment numbers. So if we look at the per-pupil number,

I think that is where we have to keep looking, because that is what the

parents are going to be feeling at the end of the day — that per-student

funding number.

I do have a couple of quick questions here, if the minister could

tell me what the per-student funding rate for IDL students was in the

2017-2018 year, please.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll give the member some of the numbers that I think he’s

interested in here that explain how it is that IDL funding will, in

fact, increase by 4 percent more in the 2020-21 fiscal year. It’s not

very related to enrolment growth. In fact, IDL enrolment growth since

2014-15 to the current school year has been about 3.2 percent. So

divided over six years, that’s much lower than overall student enrolment

growth in the school system writ large. So it has been very modest

around enrolment growth.

What has grown tremendously in the last three years is the special

education funding that is accessed and utilized by the 16 IDL companies

that the member is talking about. That’s grown from $29.7 million

annually to $44.2 million in 2019-20. That’s about a $15 million

increase for IDL schools that enrol special education

students.

Annual funding also has increased on the operating side. But it’s

been pretty flat going all the way back to 2014-15. That year had a

slight spike, definitely related to the five-week disruption caused by

the strike and labour dispute with the BCTF, because we saw independent

enrolment go up in bricks and mortar and IDL programs that year. But

since that significant labour disruption, it’s receded again and is

stable but not growing tremendously, and not growing at the same pace as

kids in all school systems — the public school system, in

particular.

[5:05 p.m.]

As I say, at the end of the day, the projection for overall IDL

funding is scheduled to increase by 4 percent next year.

D. Davies: Okay. Just so I can get it on the record here — I just want the

minister’s response — I’m looking for the per-pupil, per-student funding

amount for IDL students for the 2017-2018 school year,

please.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member’s question, the per-pupil amount in independent

distributed learning in 2017-18 for special education and non–special

education students was an average of $7,491 per pupil.

D. Davies: What was the per-pupil funding for students without the special

needs?

Hon. R. Fleming: I mentioned the blended rate was $7,491 per pupil. The base rate

in 2017-18 was $3,843 per pupil. That would be based on a 63 percent IDL

rate.

D. Davies: Great. Thank you, Minister.

Can you also, then, give us the per-pupil rate without the special

needs piece, the lift, for 2018-19 and 2019-20, please?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll say some of these numbers slowly because I know that the

member will want to create a table, perhaps, or write them down. He has

asked me for a number of figures here.

Let’s go back to 2017-2018. We may have covered this already. The

blended rate for special education and base for IDL is $7,491 per pupil.

The base within that $7,491 is $3,843 per pupil.

For 2018-2019, the blended amount for special ed — the per-pupil

rate is $7,874, of which the base rate is, again, $3,843 per

student.

In 2019-2020, the blended rate goes up again, this time by close

to $600, to $8,523 per pupil, of which the base IDL is

$3,843.

The projected number for 2020-2021 will see the blended rate

increase — again, by 4 percent, as I mentioned earlier — to $8,864 per

pupil, of which the base amount will be $3,050.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for those numbers.

I just want to bring up a couple of things. If we look at the base

rate — which is, again, what the majority of IDL students are utilizing

— it’s $3,843 from 2017-18 right through to 2019-20. Then, in the

proposal moving forward, it has now dropped to $3,050.

If we look at this in any other way…. I’ll even read a dictionary

reference to what a budget cut means. It’s a reduction in the amount

that a department within a company or government may spend over a given

time. Budget cuts often result from reduced revenues, sometimes

prioritizations and other sources.

This has been a reduction. There is no other way to put it.

Per-student funding was $3,843 from 2017 through until 2020. It is now

$3,050 per-student funding for the majority of IDL students.

I know the minister has said this isn’t a cut. I’ve got my math

wrong. My numbers are wrong. I know the minister has said that there is

going to be a 4 percent increase, which is a blend between some of the

students that have special needs as well as enrolment

numbers.

[5:20 p.m.]

The per-student funding on most of the students…. These parents

are going to see a $793 reduction in the money that they are using to

educate their children. I don’t know what more to say. A budget cut is a

budget cut is a budget cut. This is a cut in funding —

period.

Hon. R. Fleming: I guess I have a different definition of a cut than the member,

when funding goes up, as it has significantly under our government — you

can thank us for that — in the IDL sector. This seems to be forming the

majority of your questions on the entire estimates for the entire

education system.

When that goes up significantly, as it has under our government —

and it will continue to go up next year, by 4 percent — this member’s

argument is that even though funding is increasing for 16 organizations

that will split $3 million to $4 million more next year than this year,

it would have gone up even more. So that’s a cut?

Funding is going up, Member. That is the reality. You can continue

to dedicate…. I don’t want to tell the opposition how to do their job; I

never would. You can continue to ask questions about this, as is your

purview, but I’ve given you the numbers. I’ve shown you how the funding

is in fact increasing in the IDL sector.

I mean, how about a question on how our government has

systematically worked to fix the damage caused by 16 years of

underfunding of the public education system? How about that? When you

were quietly raising the rates for IDL, you were telling the school

districts that there was low-hanging fruit — I think that was a term

coined by Christy Clark — and she ripped $50 million out of the public

school system.

Look, we have worked to address hundreds of millions of unfunded,

downloaded costs that are the legacy of the previous government. We have

worked to increase compensation for support staff and teachers who have

long deserved to be much closer to the Canadian average for

compensation, and we’ve done that. We have raised the funding for

students in British Columbia — which was getting close to $2,000 below

the Canadian average — by $1,400 per student. So we’re getting closer to

the Canadian average. We have undone a lot of damage by the previous

government, from their underinvestment in education, in just three short

years.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I’ll encourage you to speak through the

Chair, as opposed to “you” statements. Thank you for your response

to that, which was not actually a question.

We’ll return to the member for Peace River North for his next

question.

D. Davies: Chair, I’m not here to pat the minister’s back on the budget. I am

an opposition critic, and my job is here to critique the budget. Looking

forward, I’m looking at today’s budget that’s in front of me, and that’s

exactly what I’m doing. On the minister’s comment that I’m spending the

majority of the time on this, I find that quite interesting, as we’ve

got about six hours under our belt at multiple areas of the budget. We

have, roughly, spent maybe an hour on independent distributed learning,

and I’m not going to spend much more time on it, because we obviously

have much different opinions on what a budget cut is.

Again, I know that the minister has received the hundreds of

letters that I’ve received, not only from parents — I could hold up the

stack, and I could read them out — but from independent distributed

learning schools that have reached out to me and the minister. All of

these organizations will be feeling this cut of $793. There is no other

way to split it, and it absolutely baffles me that the minister sees

this differently.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’ll even read a…. This is from the budget consultation for 2021

here, in one of the presentations done by Heritage Christian Online —

which is, I think, one of the largest IDL schools in the province:

“We’re thankful for how the province has funded diversity and

inclusivity in the education model up to this point. However, on May 4,

we were notified that funding to IDL schools was being cut by 21

percent, effective July 1.” This is just that one school.

Is the minister, then, saying all of these schools are lying about

this? Are they being incorrect? I would like to know what the minister

has to say to the independent distributed learning schools out there —

and the parents — that are going to be feeling this very serious impact

to their students, their child’s learning.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say to these

students, the schools and the parents.

Hon. R. Fleming: Listen, I’ll just go over the numbers that I think tell the tale

that really belies the story that the member opposite is trying to tell

here, and that’s how funding has increased for independent distributed

learning since we formed government. Yes, in large part, thanks to our

progressive special education funding increases that were long overdue,

that had been held down for way too long, and which support the majority

of parents who I am receiving letters from about this funding rate

category.

I’m not sure that the IDL school administrators are telling them

that we have increased special education funding for their child by an

average of 35 percent across categories. I don’t know. But I will say

this, for the benefit of Hansard and the record. In 2017-2018,

IDL funding went up 4.47 percent. In 2018-19, it went up 8.87 percent.

This current fiscal year it has gone up 10.48 percent, and next year —

the year that this member says there are cuts to IDL funding — it will

go up 4 percent. That’s a 28 percent gain over four years.

I have a hard time believing that IDL schools, whose enrolment, as

we discussed earlier in these estimates, is growing very, very modestly

— certainly at a slower rate than every other part of the school system

— and have 28 percent more revenue to operate their schools…. They use

100 percent of government resources to cover 100 percent of their

operating costs. There is no other branch of independent education in

the province of British Columbia that does this.

I think if the member is interested in equity, he should go tell

the Sikh, Jewish, Anglican, Catholic, Montessori schools why this very

small sector should get a higher rate than they do as it relates to the

funding formula that they enjoy for public education. But when all is

said and done, as I’ve said so many times during this session of

estimates, funding for independent distributed learning — after all the

bluster from the member opposite — is going up another 4 percent next

year under our government. So there you have it.

[5:30 p.m.]

D. Davies: Well, a far cry from bluster, but we will not follow that comment.

I’m not going to dwell on this point. Obviously, we’re not going to move

beyond what a definition of a cut means.

There are bigger comparisons to make when we compare the public

school system amounts versus the independent schools, brick-and-mortar

amounts. As is, there are huge differences between the online public DL

versus the online independent distributed learning. Like I say, we

cannot compare apples to apples, because there are quite different

funding levels. Independent schools are funded greatly less than public

schools, and IDL schools are funded at greatly less amounts than the

public distributed learning schools.

Moving on to another question. I do have a few more on this. I

think the Green Party member spoke earlier regarding notification and

letting FISA know and letting the IDL schools know about this at the

time. My question’s kind of around whether there were any discussions

with FISA directly leading up to this, I guess. Was FISA offered a seat

during the funding review that recently took place?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think my answer would be exactly the same as when the member for

Cowichan asked this question not terribly long ago. And that was that —

well, two parts here. With regards to the funding model review, we

absolutely, as a ministry, kept FISA very well informed and apprised of

the comprehensive funding model review that was conducted.

As this question relates to this decision around the rate

adjustment, we sat down with FISA and the 16 IDL schools in May. We

transparently shared information about the adjustments and answered all

of their questions with as much notice as we could give. They probably

would have preferred more. There’s no doubt about that. But that was the

timeline that we were afforded.

[5:35 p.m.]

Don’t forget that we were in the middle of the pandemic. We were

attending to lots of very urgent issues in a $6.7 billion education

system. This is a small but important component. I understand that. We

did have our staff engage with the 16 independent distributed learning

schools in as timely a manner as possible.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister.

You said FISA was kept apprised of the funding review. Why were

they not offered a seat on the funding review?

Hon. R. Fleming: The member will probably recall the terms of reference for the

funding model review. It was explicitly about public education, but we

kept FISA apprised of both the structure and the content of the report.

He’ll recall that the funding model review was done in a number of

phases.

We had an expert review, then we had a series of working groups

that took the major sets of recommendations and grouped them. We did

advise and brief FISA along the way. Of their own initiative — and I

think this was appreciated — they did their own sort of funding model

review for their own sector and submitted it to the ministry. I’ll offer

that just as an example of how closely we work with FISA.

I certainly, as a minister, have taken every opportunity I can to

have a very strong relationship with them. I have to thank both their

executive director and their president, in particular, for being very

valuable partners during the entire pandemic in terms of closing schools

to in-class instruction way back on March 17 and then working for about

six to eight weeks, coming up with the stages document and working with

WorkSafeBC and the public health officer to allow for a gradual staged

reopening on June 1. They performed admirably.

We never made a distinction between public and independent when it

came to pandemic response. They worked well with the education partners

in both school systems.

D. Davies: Was the…? I’m going to call it a cut. I know you use a different

word. I don’t know why, but anyway, we won’t go there. Was this as a

result of the funding model review — these changes to the independent

distributed learning?

Hon. R. Fleming: First of all, I call a 4 percent in­crease a funding

increase. And the answer to the specific question is no.

D. Davies: In a letter, there was a response that was sent out to parents and

others as they wrote — quite an impersonal response, I might add. We

have children and parents writing their hearts out — letters to

ministers and MLAs across the province — who are absolutely scared about

what their future of education looks like, and they got a “Dear

recipient” letter.

There’s a piece in here that…. I mentioned it earlier. Again, I

used the word “cut,” but we won’t go into what that definition is.

There’s a sentence here that says: “No other funding changes are

envisioned at this time.” If I were hearing from someone who used the

words “at this time,” to me — with any question, I might add…. You know,

if my mom says, “You’re not in trouble at this time,” I know that

something’s coming down the tube. I think there are a lot of people that

are looking at that open-ended sentence: “There are no funding changes

proposed at this time.”

Will the minister go on the record right now and say that there

will be no further changes to funding to IDL schools?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The critic is quoting a very good letter from one of my assistant

deputy ministers. I recognize the precise, accurate, clear language that

comes from somebody who has studied public administration and works in

public service. That’s how a letter should be written to those who

inquire about things.

I have had conversations with FISA’s executive director and

president, and said to them explicitly that we have no other funding

changes contemplated at this time. I don’t think anybody says forever in

government, but as I have said during this set of estimates, I respect

that the 50 percents, the group 1 rate — which I’m most familiar with in

my constituency that is used to calculate funds for the Catholic,

Anglican, Sikh, Montessori and other denominational schools — has been

around for a long time. Certainly as minister I have maintained that,

and we committed to do so as a government. I know those feelings are

shared by the Premier as well.

So that’s what it means: no other funding changes are envisioned

at this time. I suspect when his mother was not upset with him at this

time, that that could have meant two years, five years, ten years. But

sooner or later, I’m sure the member did have his mother get upset with

him. But I could be wrong. But I think what he can take away from this

letter is that at this time there is a commitment that FISA has heard

from me directly, and I think they’re quite comfortable with

that.

D. Davies: Well, I can let the minister know that it was pretty quick after

my mom said that.

Moving on to some further questions here. I’m just also being

aware of the time as well.

Funding around COVID. I know it’s been touched on by a couple of

my colleagues and such. Just looking at how funding — if there are

numbers associated with how the budget is directly changed on funding

increases that have been put out to school districts as a result of

COVID-19, if the minister has that number.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think we have covered this one fairly well, but I’ll just go

over the broad strokes of my response.

What the Ministry of Education did very early, as it was clear

that we were going to see a significant disruption to school services,

facing a very frightening and uncertain pandemic with a lot of social

restrictions coming into being that also included the school system, as

we announced on March 17, was we sent out the signal to the school

districts who had just become aware that they were going to benefit from

a record $6.7 billion operating budget in February. When we tabled that

budget, just prior to the pandemic, we told them that that money was

there for certain.

Obviously, school districts here look at other jurisdictions

across Canada, most notably our neighbour next door in Alberta, which

immediately stripped out, I think, $150 million to $200 million and

issued tens of thousands of layoffs to education staff and made it clear

pretty early on that they didn’t intend to support continuous learning

for many of their students, at least not with a full complement of

staff.

[5:45 p.m.]

We took a different course, and as I have said earlier in this set

of estimates, we have worked with school districts and sent them

instructions to their secretary-treasurers