2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 1
[ Page 16081 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be the debating the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. In Committee B, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
On vote 24: ministry operations, $4,536,431,000.
Hon. P. Priddy: I am pleased today to present the 2000-2001 budget estimates of the Ministry of Education. I would like to introduce the staff members who are here with me today to help respond to the questions. To my right is Dr. Charles Ungerleider, who's the Deputy Minister of Education; to my left, Rick Connolly, who's the assistant deputy minister for governance, policy and finance; and Keith Miller, who's the director of capital planning. We will have other staff come into the House as the opposition members require.
Our government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to improving educational opportunities for students of this province from kindergarten through grade 12. We've done this for an important reason: we know the importance of education in providing students with the foundations necessary to succeed as adults. We know that the British Columbia school system is responsible for enabling all learners to develop their individual potential and acquire the knowledge, skills and the attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy.
Again this year we've demonstrated our commitment by providing funding necessary for programs that have been established, and in many cases for strengthening those programs. None of this would be possible without the cooperation and support of our partners in education: school boards, educational organizations, and parents and teachers who share the knowledge and implement initiatives that further our priorities in education and enable us to fulfil our joint vision for education in British Columbia.
[1010]
Our vision for education in this province is, I think, a bold one and one that keeps focused on what the needs of children and students are. It's a vision that we're so certain of and committed to that we have recorded it all in our education performance plan, which I'm sure that my colleagues will want to ask about today. The vision is to achieve an education system that is measurably the best in Canada. We know we can achieve that vision, because we know that the public school system in British Columbia is indeed already one of the best. And we know that British Columbia schools are achieving success in meeting their intellectual, career, human and social development goals for students.
We know it because British Columbia students consistently rank high among the provinces and amongst industrialized countries participating in national and international student assessments and academic competitions in math and science. And we know, as well, that our students show satisfactory or better performance compared to students in the rest of Canada in terms of literacy, which is so important no matter what a student is going to choose to do.
British Columbia continues to make gains in the retention of students in grades 8 through 12. I'm pleased to report that between '95-96 and '99-2000, the number of grades 11 and 12 students enrolled in career programs increased from almost 32,000 to 50,700 students. That's a 56 percent increase over the past four years of students being able to choose programs in which they have an interest and which they want to pursue.
Over that same time period, the proportion of students enrolled in co-op education programs has increased, and secondary school apprenticeships have also increased. Between 1994-95 and '98-99, the proportion of students graduating with honours -- that is, a grade point average of 3.0 or higher -- has increased by 42 percent, from 13,000 to almost 19,000.
So this is what I mean when I say that the government of B.C. has built a solid educational foundation for our students, for all of our children, and that is why we face the future with confidence and with a bold vision. We know we can achieve this vision, because we're prepared to work to find the resources to make it happen.
As I speak of funding, between 1991-92 and the year 2000 the block funding in British Columbia has increased by about 30 percent, and the growth of students in the province has been on average just over 13 percent. So with 13 percent growth there's been almost a 30 percent increase in the block funding. The average that we see now is $6,219 per student, up $227 from last year. So in fact within Canada, B.C.'s total public school expenditures per student have increased every year since 1991 and are well above the Canadian average.
I'm also proud to say that British Columbia has steadily increased its investment to education -- in contrast to other jurisdictions, which, frankly, have been engaged in cutting funds to education. If you look at British Columbia on a national scale, we spend more per student on average than any other country in the OECD and more than any G-7 country, with the exception of the United States. So it does speak to the importance that this government places on education.
That's part of the story. But let me tell you the other part, or another part, of the story: that is, about the fact that this year we're investing almost a half a billion dollars -- $450 million dollars -- in repairing and replacing our older schools as well as adding more space and building new schools. Our capital plan this year provides a total of 21,325 new spaces, ten new schools, ten replacement schools and 95 additions to existing schools. And it lets us get 400 more portables off of school grounds throughout the province. It also includes $139 million in minor renovations and some money for seismic upgrading. Those are all things which parents are certainly concerned about.
[1015]
I just want to do a little bit of a historical look at this. Since '91-92 the government has provided more than $4 billion for B.C.'s school construction plan: 134,000 new spaces, 171 new schools and 5,363 new classrooms. In 1998 we began a port-
[ Page 16082 ]
able reduction initiative that will see us having cut portables in half in this province by 2003. So we're well on our way to achieving that goal.
That's what I mean when I say the government believes in education. It demonstrates its belief through solid and sustained action that produces results, as I said earlier, that make our schools system and our schools measurably the best in Canada.
But let's talk about how we look at success and the successes of our students. We can also demonstrate success by talking about the innovative kinds of programs we have developed to meet the needs of today's students and the students of tomorrow. There are programs like reducing class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 and increasing the number of teachers, so that every student will have the kind of individual attention that she or he needs in those very, very important early years. We also know that by reducing class size for those students who have special education needs, they're more likely to be successful the earlier we are able to provide that additional support. This allows us to begin to do that work.
I want to talk just for a moment, if I can, about some of the other challenges and programs that we are engaged in in the province. It would be foolish to suggest that there aren't challenges; there are huge challenges. But this ministry, this minister and this government will not rest until we meet the challenges and until we can state with certainty -- and it is a big challenge -- that every child in this province has the opportunity for an education that enables them to succeed in school and in life itself.
One of those things that you need for success, particularly in this day and age, is access to new technology. I'm proud to say that we are providing access to the new technology our students need. As of July of this year -- a month from now -- the provincial learning network, which some people call PLNet, will connect over 1,800 schools and 130 campuses in this province. I think this is an extraordinary initiative on behalf of students, because it means that all of our students will have access to that learning net wherever they are in the province. It is the most extensive telecommunications network undertaking in Canada. And we're doing that here, on behalf of students in British Columbia.
I'd like to talk about one innovative program just for minute, because it's a new one, and it's beginning to
We have career technical centres, which offer career-related education and training. Students in grade 11 and 12 can access programs and earn dual credit through integrated secondary school and first-year post-secondary career-oriented programs. These career technical centres also allow grade 11 and 12 students to prepare for direct entry to the workforce upon graduation, if that's what they wish to do, and earn credits at a post-secondary institution.
What do these new career centres do? They provide opportunities for our students. They increase the completion rates of secondary school students -- something that is a goal of every education partner. They give secondary school students a chance to graduate with skills that are relevant and current to the market demands of communities and regions in the province, and they provide opportunities for the communities in which they are located.
We do have to also look at the challenges. One of the biggest challenges, I think, that we face and that we read about on a continuous basis is the amount of violence or bullying or aggressive behaviour that we see around us in our lives, on television, in movies, in advertisements and sometimes, unfortunately, in our schools.
It should be the right of every child to study and learn in a safe and healthy environment -- that the school hours are ones in which students are nurtured and supported in every possible way. We know we have a leadership role to play, along with the other education partners, in creating safe schools. The Ministry of Education has developed an array of resources to help take forward this initiative. Working with our partner the Attorney General, we've established the Safe School Centre located in Burnaby, which is a resource centre for the whole province in terms of programs and information materials that can assist all schools to prevent bullying and violence.
[1020]
We have a safe school network, with contacts in each school district. We have information for principals and vice-principals and secretary-treasurers that they've produced called: "Keeping Schools Safe: A Guide for School Administrators." We've launched Focus on Bullying, a violence prevention program for elementary schools, along with the BCTF and principals and vice-principals. This year we'll launch a similar program for secondary schools. We've also worked with others to develop "Missing," which is actually a CD-ROM that addresses Internet safety for uses in grades 8 and 9, and we're providing all parents with a fact sheet on Internet safety.
We've worked very hard to develop resources that can be used by schools, because we see it as our role to do that. I'm sure that people may have seen some of the ads on television on Live Violence Free, which is a cross-government initiative with the B.C. Association of Broadcasters, who've been incredibly supporting.
I do have to mention one. It's sort of like the other side of bullying. We talk about bullying or anti-bullying, but we don't talk about what are often the positive things that children can do, or we can do. There's a program called B.C. Kids: Right From the Heart, where every grade 5 student in this province -- 45,000 students, if I'm correct -- is going to write a story or a poem about an act of kindness. It seems to me that if 45,000 students can write about an act of kindness, then, as one grade 5 student told me, we can actually also do more acts of kindness. Maybe that goes even further than the anti-violence and bullying resources that we see later on. It's also clearly an opportunity for those children to have reading and writing and research skills. It's quite an exciting piece of work.
I do want to talk about an area in which I think we still have a very large challenge -- and all of our partners acknowledge that. Many aboriginal students continue to find our public system inhospitable and unable to meet their needs. Our public system doesn't necessarily enable them to achieve an education that gives them the foundation necessary for success in life -- however we define success.
Aboriginal students' school completion rates are lower. They're at about 38 percent -- and that varies a bit between
[ Page 16083 ]
districts. For non-aboriginal students, high school completion rate is 78 percent. Although I will say that aboriginal student completion rates are rising -- they've gone up, I think, about 7 percent in the last few years -- there's still a lot of work to do with local school districts. We actually have one with Kamloops -- an improvement agreement pilot project. We're just about to sign one with Campbell River -- innovative ways to help aboriginal students achieve the success they want and their families want for them, while respecting their heritage and their language.
Just to speak to one more piece here, two years ago the ministry announced it would assess reading, writing and numeracy -- like math -- on an annual basis. This has been referred to as the Foundation Skills Assessment. This year we've committed to providing these results to families, as well as to the school and school district. What this Foundation Skills Assessment does is measure students' skills, as I said, in reading and writing and numeracy, in relation to provincial standards, So it gives us information about where we're doing really well and where it is that we can do better and help students achieve greater success.
Accreditation, which has indeed been in the news recently, is also one of the tools that we use in the ministry to improve not only student success but school success. That accreditation, and people may have read that recently, lets a school's community -- parents, teachers, students at secondary, administrative and support staff -- take stock of what the school has done, what it has accomplished and what it does really well. Then what are the things they still want to work on, to be able to establish a plan for school improvement? So it is about another process for ensuring quality. I believe that the recent refinements in accreditation will make it a better process, and that process will indeed continue.
[1025]
I think I'll speak to just one more initiative. We just had the privilege of watching a resource called Performance Standards, which has been developed by teachers to use when they evaluate the performance of students in their class. What it does is look at what are the provincial standards for what student learning looks like at certain grades. What is the standard at which students should be working? What is it that looks like satisfactory achievement for writing in grade 1? What does it look like for students who still have a ways to go? What does it look like for students who are writing, for instance, above their grade level? This is a really wonderful tool, not only for teachers but to help a parent understand how their child is doing -- because they really want to help; they want to do everything they can. So this is an extraordinary resource for parents, and we've had great support from teachers throughout the province.
I do want to mention the important role that parents play in the school system. I mean, I often say to people that the reason that I do what I do is because I have children, and I was involved in their school. I know how important it is for children to see their parents at the school level. And so as my children are now far past the school level and my grandson is about to start school, I'm excited about that. I'm excited about the opportunities that will be there for him.
So I'll just close now. I will have a chance, I think, during questioning to talk about things like early intervention, which I haven't included here but is particularly important. So I will look forward to hearing the questions from my hon. colleagues and to being able to discuss some of these issues.
G. Hogg: Thank you to the minister for those comments. I'd like to start with my little act of kindness, as she referenced acts of kindness, and that is that I believe the briefing we had from the minister's staff was certainly one of the best briefings I've participated in. A lot of the technical information which might normally come to the floor of the House was dealt with within the confines of that briefing. They certainly assisted us in resolving and looking at a number of the issues which we were concerned about. My thanks to the minister's staff for providing that information to the opposition.
We recognize and support the notion that education is not just an economic generator but is perhaps the last vestige of hope in Canada to ensure that we do have some sense of social equity and tolerance within our society.
The minister made reference to the OECD countries, and as I've looked at the rating of Canada within the 28 OECD countries, I think Canada rates somewhere in the 14 to 16 range. It's very much middle of the road. I certainly support the notion that we must really work at education in Canada to ensure that our students will be able to achieve in a borderless world, in an international world, in a world where they'll want to realize their dreams, their visions, their hopes. The opportunity to do that is certainly going to be based on education.
In Canada we certainly have to work at improving our academic competitiveness with the rest of the world and within the confines of Canada. As well, as we look at the student achievement indicator projects which evaluate educational performance across Canada, we perform well in some subject matters, and in others we do not. And probably on the average we rank somewhere in third, fourth -- in that range. Certainly there's a need for us to focus on and look at that.
The minister made reference to the number of dollars we spend per capita in B.C. with respect to education. I think we were number one for a number of years and have now fallen into second position behind Ontario, but we still are putting a number of dollars into it and are looking at improvements. I certainly support the vision which is put forward, which is to measurably have the best educational system in Canada.
Our education policy with respect to grades K-to-12 presents an initial and exciting challenge for us if we're going to look at shaping our public education policy to focus on that goal, that vision of having measurably the best system of education in Canada. Clearly that's a daunting challenge.
[1030]
One of the reports which I've read recently
"The danger is the special interest groups in the education field will obfuscate the need for systemic decentralization, and the provincial education systems will continue to cost taxpayers more while in fact providing students, their families, their future employers and communities with less than they need and want. If the international evidence is ignored, it seems probable that Canadian education will continue to yield less and cost more, not merely in terms of the educational dollars spent but also, more importantly, in terms of years students will waste."
This is entitled "The Case for School Choice" -- it's about models in a number of countries
[ Page 16084 ]
"Education, like medicine, must be tested scientifically, applied sympathetically and held rigorously to account. The children must come first, not the system, the employees of the system, or a deficient conception of public education."
And it's summarized by saying:
"Only then will the Canadian public have a responsive, dynamic, accountable and efficient system for schooling."
I certainly think some of the sentiments reflected in that statement are also reflected in the Viewpoints Research polling, which was done by the ministry and completed in June of 1999. Certainly there are some sentiments reflected within that.
I think this quote also reflects a sentiment that I hear from many school boards as I go around the province. They have the sense that
We're seeing school boards, this year, in efforts to balance their budgets -- and we've actually seen
Boards often feel they have become "flak-catchers", I guess perhaps the right word might be, for some of the policies and practices that are imposed upon them. Yet they don't have the authority or the resources to respond to them. I think the real, vibrant, full meaning and role of boards must be found and life must be breathed back into them if we are going to be effective in achieving that goal of having the best education system in Canada. So looking at a sense of where we are in education, looking at a sense of where we want to be five or ten years from now, I think the strategies that we talk about now are the strategies that we'll utilize in terms of being able to achieve that goal.
The minister made reference to some excellence that we have with respect to students who achieve very well. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 percent of our graduates move on to university education. The minister made reference to aboriginal education and our need to look at and focus on some of those who are less fortunate or less successful within the educational system. It's clear to me that we must focus more of our energies and attentions onto that area as well.
We have to look at apprenticeship programs which are apprenticeship programs for the new economy, not the traditional skills of the old economy, where much of our training still tends to be focused. And I think we must use performance and a performance plan to explore how we're going to move in those focused directions.
The strategies that we look at through this budget, the words that the resources of this budget empower, are going to be the ones which will help us to become successful. I think some of the components of a successful school system include: ensuring that we do have a performance-based system, one in which students, teachers, schools, districts, ministries and ministers are evaluated and held accountable for the results and the goals that they set out; some sense of autonomous schools, where principals and teachers and parents have some authority and some support and some ability to make decisions which are relevant to them and the educational needs that happen locally; some alternative choice, so that parents do have some choice in terms of the learning environments that they're moving to; incentives for innovation to help teachers and administrators who have high performance and productivity and efficiency in terms of learning; and, truly, an investment to build professional development, build school capacity by continuous learning for teachers and administrators, focusing on improving teaching and learning and school management, and support for them.
[1035]
Clearly, again referencing those students who have traditionally not done as well, certainly the research is clear in terms of the serious gap which exists between richer and poorer students. We must work harder at eliminating that gap by ensuring that we're serving disadvantaged and at-risk students with the attention which they deserve, which may in some cases mean a shifting of some of the priorities and dollars that do that.
As we explore this budget and how it reflects the directions and the focus that this government has put forward, I think we must look at these variables and how they reflect upon our ability to achieve the goals that we have. I see the performance plan as a focal point, and I'm delighted to see that the ministry has been able to put in some specific goals and a vision.
We've talked about this for a number of years in terms of being able to say: "Where do we want to go, and how are we going to get there?" So for the first time we have a piece of paper that starts to lay out that process, that procedure, and the goals that are a part of that. I look forward to discussing and questioning those issues with respect to how we are going to get there and what this performance plan means in terms of strategies.
Before I get into that, my colleague from Cariboo North has some questions he would like to put to
J. Wilson: Yesterday the minister made a decision to close a school in school district 27, which is in my riding. It's the McLeese Lake Elementary School.
There are a lot of people unhappy about this decision. I take it that in making her decision, the minister did exercise due diligence, because the choice to close the school is entirely her decision. I would like to know just exactly how the minister arrived at the decision to shut down this elementary school, which is the hub of a small community in McLeese Lake. It's critical in that community for events and everything that goes on there; it's a focal point in that community. So could the minister explain to me -- and perhaps I can relay it to my constituents -- just exactly what process she went through to arrive at this decision?
[ Page 16085 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: I wonder if it worries staff when you stand up and you don't have the piece of paper yet.
Let me say first that I would not have made this decision, or be in the position of making this decision, unless their duly elected school board had not asked -- in point of fact, asked incredibly vehemently -- to close actually five schools in their school district. I think this is incredibly difficult for school districts with declining enrolment; there's no question. Those of us in urban areas who worry that we have too many portables often don't understand the incredible difficulties that people go through in small districts where there is declining enrolment. But this school board did not need to close any schools in order to balance its budget, in the estimation of the ministry staff that has done the analysis for this.
[1040]
So what this board chose to do was to put forward a request to close these schools based on school closure policy, which has a variety of criteria that must be met. If those criteria are met, then under the act I have no choice but to agree that they may close the school. I don't have the sort of flexibility to say: "No, no, you still can't." There is a judicial review, and the act says that I have that responsibility to allow the request.
Let me speak, if you will, to the pieces around McLeese Lake School, which is the one that you have asked about. In the end, just as a note for the member, although I know that McLeese Lake is the only school in his riding of the five schools that the board was very anxious to close, two schools will close. I'm hoping
I do need to say
So I think this has been difficult for the board. But it's been extraordinarily difficult for parents there, because we're all very attached to our schools -- and in rural areas even more so, when indeed they are often the heart of a community, particularly if there's no community hall or other kind of gathering place.
So the school closure policy as stated in the act asks a board to look at a variety of areas in order to justify a request to close a school. I'll speak to McLeese, but I'll tell you the conditions first: building conditions, capacity and enrolment -- so how many students can the school have a capacity for, and how many they actually have -- capital implications, operating savings, bussing, public consultation, aboriginal issues and aboriginal consultation.
So let me just speak for a moment, then, for McLeese Lake. If I could speak to the capacity one, this is a school that has a capacity of 84 or 85 students. They're operating at about 45 percent capacity; there are 37 students in that school. So that's certainly below 50 percent capacity. There is some bus travel time increase from 25 to 45 minutes, so that's an extra 20 minutes. The median time in this school district for students riding a bus, because it's a huge district, is 60 minutes. So some students are on a bus 80 minutes and some somewhat less.
In terms of public consultation, the board held two public meetings at the school, on February 14 and on March 16, and there was discussion at three board meetings. In terms of aboriginal students, the eight aboriginal students who attend the school aren't affiliated with a particular band. Therefore, for the aboriginal bands in that area, they did not take a particular position on this one.
So those are the issues that we ask anybody to look at. These are the issues as they apply to McLeese Lake. And as I say, if the school had not asked, I wouldn't be in the position of having to make a decision.
J. Wilson: My ears must be playing tricks on me. The minister, I believe, said that when her staff did an analysis on the numbers, they felt there was no need to close any schools. Did I hear that correctly?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is correct. What the ministry staff have said
[1045]
J. Wilson: It would appear, then, that instead of exercising due diligence in this process -- and it is the minister's decision -- she simply rubber-stamped the recommendations put forward by the school board. Is that not the case?
[J. Cashore in the chair.]
Hon. P. Priddy: The board did indeed not need to close schools in order to balance their budget. I realized that there are a number of statements in articles and things that have been said at meetings where it has been stated that the board was taking this initiative in order to balance this year's budget. My staff's analysis says that they don't need to do that for this year's budget. They may need to do some other kinds of things to retire their deficit but not to balance the budget this year.
Therefore, they have made their request to close these schools based on the school closure policy. Given that they met the criteria for McLeese Lake, I don't have a choice but to say that they could do that. They could have done this in September or October or anytime throughout the year, based on the school closure policy. I don't think that this is in any way a rubber stamp.
I think there was a comment in a local paper by someone saying that they were going to get to close five schools. The minister was just going to rubber-stamp it anyway, and it didn't matter. Well, hon. Chair, it does matter, and indeed they have made the argument around two schools. There are three schools for which they did not make a school closure argument, and those schools will remain open.
J. Wilson: Had the minister considered the education of these students -- quality or lifestyle or whatever -- she may not have just approved this closure. What it means is that we have children who will be waiting for a bus on the side of a
[ Page 16086 ]
road where you've got truck traffic going by and no lighting. They'll be out there at 6:35 to 6:45 in the morning. They will get on a bus. The 45 minutes that the minister came up with for a bus ride
I know students that are living in the Macalister area. If they get in a vehicle and drive at 100 kilometres per hour, it will still take them 45 to 50 minutes to get to school. A bus doesn't travel at that speed; they stop quite frequently. We're looking at a minimum of an hour and a half in good road conditions to get to school. They're elementary students. They go to school, they get out at two or 2:30, and then they wait for a bus -- because there's only one bus travelling -- to pick up the secondary school students, who get out at three or later. They have an hour to kill before they get a bus ride home, and they get home, probably, at 5 o'clock at night. If it's in the winter months, it's dark in the morning when they leave, and it's dark in the evening when they arrive home. That's a ten and a half hour day. For a six- or seven-year-old child, that is a ten and a half hour day under good road conditions and if everything goes the way it should.
[1050]
If the minister feels that that is the way children can best spend their time, when theycould have taken that three-hour bus ride and been at home safe with their families doing constructive things, instead of standing around waiting for a school bus and sitting on the school bus
Has the minister considered the effect on the families and on these children of this excessive busing -- these long, long days, the conditions they have to wait for school buses under, all of these things? Has she taken this into consideration when she says that the best thing is just to go ahead and close this school because it did meet the requirements for a school closure policy?
Hon. P. Priddy: Welcome, new Chair.
Let me respond to two or three of the points that the member has raised. Let's first look at the travel time. As somebody who has a kindergarten grandchild, I don't particularly like the idea of long rides to school or standing by the side of the road waiting for the bus. But with the greatest of respect, these students do that now. These are not students that are not already in the position of having bus travel time; they are already waiting for the bus. This does not change that circumstance.
I will give the member the information that has been submitted by the school board in terms of the busing and the routes that they will use. I don't know if the member is suggesting that the board, either on purpose or not, submitted inaccurate information to the ministry. But let me tell you -- because you will obviously know these circumstances better than I -- that the information submitted to the ministry by the board around the routes that would be used is that there would be two different routes.
On the Robertson Road route, the children would be picked up at 7:20 and arrive at school at 8:05, which is a total of 37 kilometres. On the way home, they would leave at 2:05 and arrive at 3:10. On the second route, the pickup time for children would be at 7:20 and arrival at 8:05. The return trip would be from 2:05 to 3:05. This is the information that the school district, through their staff and their own analysis, has submitted to us.
I do again need to make the point, if I might
J. Wilson: Well, I don't know if the minister has the pickup and drop-off points or if it's a situation where the bus goes down the highway and picks up children every few kilometres. Is this point-to-point pickup and delivery we're talking about here? Or is it a bus route where the bus stops at frequent intervals?
Hon. P. Priddy: Let me provide some information. If it's not what the member was looking for, I'm sure he will let us know that. The information that I have and that the board provided
[1055]
J. Wilson: What criteria does a school board use to
Hon. P. Priddy: There is not a specific number that is applicable in every school situation, where if you drop below this number the school would be able to close, should the board wish it. It is looked at in the context of the other criteria around school closures. Some of the things, additional things, that people would have to look at around threshold, if you will, are
J. Wilson: One of the reasons that our enrolment is down here is that the copper mine at Gibraltar was closed. There is a very good chance that this mine will reopen in the next year or so, as soon as copper prices stabilize; if they come up to 83 cents, I believe the mine will reopen. If this is the case, and there is a very good possibility this will happen, then that would throw the minister's argument right out the window, because here we have an opportunity for increased enrolment in the near future. That argument doesn't seem to hold.
Hon. P. Priddy: I think one of the points -- if not points, then position -- the member may be taking is that the board,
[ Page 16087 ]
based on his information, should rescind their request to close this particular school. If they did that, then that would be fine. We would certainly agree to that. That would not be a difficulty.
I do need to state again that without a board decision to do this, we wouldn't be in the position of making a recommendation at all. But if the member believes that there will be an increased enrolment based on the mine opening again, then the board
J. Wilson: Should the board decide to keep the school open or recommend that the school be kept open, is the minister willing to provide some type of
Hon. P. Priddy: The actual amount saved in year one is $137,000. I mean, it's still not a lot, but I at least wish to make the figure clear. Having said that the board does not need to close this school to balance their budget, then there would not be a need provide them with another $137,000 to keep the school open.
The board has been very clear. I've been a school trustee and a school board chair, and we all want to do program enhancements. The board has been clear with us that they would close those schools and that the money would be used to provide new and expanded programs for students in district 27. That is, I guess, something that we would all wish to do if we had that ability. But in order to keep this school open, they do not require additional dollars.
[1100]
J. Wilson: Let's look at these numbers. What is the actual cost of running that school this year?
Hon. P. Priddy: I don't have all of the costing with me, but we'd be very pleased to do a full costing and provide that to the member. We have the information; it's just not here.
J. Wilson: The school board has done considerable work there, and I'm sure they've supplied the ministry with all those figures -- probably more than once.
The $137,000 that they would save this year -- that, I believe, is a reduced amount. It's a pay-out; it's sort of a carrot to close schools. It's a bonus. If you close a school, we'll give you more money for three years, and then after that it's back to where it was.
When the actual numbers are worked out, there's a saving of something like $28,000 to bus these children into Williams Lake rather than leave them in their school -- where they want to be, where they want to be educated, where their parents want them to be educated. It seems like such a small amount of money that couldn't be found somewhere, where the ministry couldn't provide it. To say that they will save $137,000 and perhaps $70,000 next year and maybe $40,000 the year after that
In this school district there is a disbursement, I believe, for schools, the number of schools and the distance. There's an amount that the ministry allocates to each school. Does the minister have that amount?
Hon. P. Priddy: Let me go back to the other question first, the first one, around whether this provides an incentive for boards to close schools and the fact that they continue to get funding for three years after a school has closed.
Are there circumstances in which it might? I suppose so. But I think we have to believe that people who are elected as school trustees are not going to try and close schools only to "be a money-saver." They will do so either for educational reasons or reasons of programs that they feel they need to deliver.
The reason that there is three-year, although reduced, funding -- continuing reduced funding over three years -- is that the School Trustees Association, two or three years ago now, asked for this. It's difficult for a district to suddenly, in one year, have a certain amount of money not there. This was intended to get at least a little bit of stability of funding. Although it reduced money, it provided for reducing amounts of money for the next three years.
In terms of the dispersion dollars which the member is asking about, the total amount for that school district that recognizes the dispersion that you've spoken of
[1105]
J. Wilson: What would that amount to for each school?
Hon. P. Priddy: I cannot provide that answer for the member. This is not done on a school-by-school basis; it's done on a global funding amount. I don't know if we can break it down school by school. What you could do is take the number of schools in school district 27 and divide it in, which would give you the amount per school. But I'm not sure it would be the actual reflection of that school. It would simply be a per-school if you divide it into
J. Wilson: I have a news release here; it's from May 11, and it was on board recommendations to the ministry. It says: "Elimination of $663,000 from school surplus in response to ministry directives." When were those directives issued?
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure it was a directive from the ministry, but what we did say to them was: "In calculating your budget, obviously you have to consider all of the assets that your school district has, and those surpluses in school accounts are part of the surpluses which need to be taken into consideration." I've been in conversations where that's been
[ Page 16088 ]
said to the board. I don't think it was a directive, if you will, but anybody would have to consider all of their assets when doing their budget.
I'm wondering, while I'm on my feet, if I might ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Priddy: There are, I think, 29 visitors to the Legislature this morning. These are grade 5 students from a school in my riding, the Surrey Traditional School -- right?
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: Cool. All right.
They are here with their
J. Wilson: Things are little confusing here, in some cases. I don't think the school board would have made the statement if the ministry had not given that directive. I also have a letter to a PAC member at 150 Mile House, March 23. This is from the school board and says: "The amount of $663,000 was used by the district to deal with a deficit at the end of June 1999."
Now, it seems odd that these two figures would be exactly the same and that one is still sitting there being recommended to be used to balance the budget, when the other one states that it was used to balance the budget last year.
Anyway, I've got a report here. It's a report from the efficiency advisory team, November 1999. It's only a few months ago. What was the cost to the ministry of this report?
[1110]
Hon. P. Priddy: The information isn't here, but the staff person responsible for that, who does many of these, thinks, without having the information in front of him, that it was probably about $20,000.
J. Wilson: I couldn't quite catch that.
Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry. It's probably about $20,000. The figures aren't here, but because the staff who is here does a number of them, he believes that would be close.
J. Wilson: There were several recommendations made in this report to the ministry on things that they should address, and some of them are quite critical. How many of these recommendations has the ministry acted on?
Hon. P. Priddy: We don't have this particular EATS report in front of us, but the report provides both recommendations to the ministry and recommendations to the school district. One of the recommendations was to look at disbursement. We've had a committee of peers do that twice. They've said that the amount of dollars for disbursement was satisfactory. That's the one example of a recommendation followed through that I can think of. But as I say, these recommendations are both for the ministry and for the school district. I don't have the report in front of me; the member does. If you want us to have a look at that and report back to you this afternoon about them, we're happy to do so.
J. Wilson: I find it
I would just like to read some of the recommendations to the minister. I'm going to try and speed this up. I would like to read some of the recommendations that this advisory team made to the ministry and perhaps point out the areas where the ministry is at fault, where the ministry could be providing funding to this school district, and they're not.
There's one: "That the Ministry of Education move quickly to extend the opportunity for distance education satellite support programs to districts." That is an important one. We have an electronic busing system in the Nechako Lakes school district. The ministry has probably not thought about this. If they close this school, there are enough unhappy parents there that they may just decide to use this. If 20 of those students from McLeese Lake were to go on this busing program, any money would then go to the Nechako school district, because they're using their program. School district 27 would lose $100,000 rather than saving $27,000. If you make these parents angry enough, you can expect them to retaliate. That's something that needs to be addressed.
Teacherages. It was recommended that BCBC take over the teacherages in the school district. It's a big cost to the educational system. That needs to be done; it would reduce the burden on them.
New buses. When a new bus is purchased, you get a stock model. It is not safe to use on the roads in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It costs the school district $20,000 to bring their buses up to a safety standard so that they can use them. That funding is not provided for in your funding program. That needs to be addressed. Had the ministry been funding these buses at a level where they should have been, even for the last five years, this school district could have put that money somewhere else. They could have moved it over, found other uses for it, and they wouldn't be in this situation.
[1115]
Health and safety issues raised by the necessity for bare-bones maintenance of aging facilities were recommended. Has the maintenance budget been increased? No, not to the point where it's going to take care of the problem.
Another recommendation: "That the Ministry of Education seriously consider a service level of funding for small elementary schools similar to that in place for small secondary schools." Recommendation 57: "That the Ministry of Education consider the application of restructuring an efficiency adjustment for school district 27, because the district circumstances closely resemble those in many amalgamated districts."
[ Page 16089 ]
The next one: "Take steps to ensure that the district maintains their facilities to an acceptable standard before the condition of the infrastructure reaches crisis proportion."
There is a big problem out there with maintenance, and it's not being addressed. This panel recognized it; the ministry ignores it. "That the Ministry of Education review the dispersion allowance for geographically larger districts so as to ensure adequate funding." This team of experts that your ministry hired to go in and tell you what needed to be done recognized that there was not adequate funding. Yet you chose to look at that one recommendation and say: "We don't think you're right."
I am going to close on this. I've got a lot of other questions I could ask the minister, but I'm running out of time. It would be greatly appreciated if the minister would go back and exercise due diligence, review some of these things and find a way of keeping this school open. It is her choice; she can override the school board's decision. She has that option; she can do that. She's already said that she feels the money is there, that they don't have to close the school. Perhaps the minister could make it work for the school board by providing some additional funding in any one of these areas where they really do need it. I guess that's where I will close, and I hope that the minister will reconsider this. It is crucially important to the people in McLeese Lake to keep that school open.
Hon. P. Priddy: I take the comments that the member has put forward, but I do need to say that it may be that the member could assist as well, by asking the school board to rescind their request to close the school.
The only way, hon. Chair, that I have an ability to say to a school board, "You can not close this school," if they've met the criteria, is if somehow they've been derelict in their duties. If the member has information or believes that this board has been derelict in its duties, then I'm happy to have the member bring that forward. But that is the only way I have an ability to refuse the school board the right to close the school.
R. Masi: It's my privilege today to look at a different topic here, the curriculum area of education. It's my belief, of course, that after students, teachers and parents, curriculum is an extremely important component. It's probably the basic foundation of learning. The development of curriculum and what we teach is of prime importance to our society. When we ask the question, "What kind of a country, what kind of a province, will we have or do we want?" it falls back to what we teach our young, to how we teach our young and where we want our young to be in the scope of the national and world setting.
[1120]
Today I'd like to go through a few general areas -- to range through the science area, and specifically physics; the arts and music, and perhaps some questions on French -- and how well we're doing on completion rates. Maybe I'll look at career education, adult basic education and where we have been in history and social studies -- and perhaps where we're going. We'll take a quick look at certification of students -- not teachers but students -- and perhaps a couple of questions on school organization.
To begin, I'd like first of all to
I'm just jumping around this letter; I'm not quoting directly, necessarily. As a result, unless there have been changes made that I'm unaware of, British Columbia has probably the only senior secondary physics course in any jurisdiction which is restricted to physics developed prior to the year 1900. That's what we have: a physics course that was developed prior to 1900, with no quantum physics in it -- the most successful theory of modern physics, responsible for so much of our new technologies.
I wonder if the minister could comment on this letter and indicate just what kind of physics we are offering at the grade 12 level. Is it in fact true that we are still teaching essentially a curriculum based on 1900 knowledge?
Hon. P. Priddy: Just while staff try and pull out indices, if you will, or at least something that would let me reply in part to the member's questions more specifically about the course content
I will comment generally, and then I will move on to more prescribed learning outcomes, which may help a little bit. Students in British Columbia, actually, in both math and physics, do distinguish themselves at a post-secondary level. I think it's tomorrow that the Euclid awards are being presented to B.C. students who have done very well in math and physics at a post-secondary level.
Perhaps, in terms of the issues that the member spoke to, if I could just give you a couple of the learning outcomes, that may be helpful. It is expected
I don't think you probably need me to read all of the student expectations under that. But there's also nuclear fission and fusion: It's expected students will demonstrate an understanding of the implication of using nuclear processes; they will compare and contrast fusion and fission reactions and supply examples, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using nuclear energy and compare and contrast different types of nuclear reactors.
I don't know if that's some assistance, perhaps, to the member in some of the concerns he had.
[1125]
R. Masi: My assumption here is that
[ Page 16090 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: My deputy is doing double duty as curriculum person today; the actual curriculum coordinator isn't here. It is my understanding that in physics classes in British Columbia, indeed we are teaching quantum physics.
R. Masi: We go from the very specific here to the general in terms of music and arts. I think we all understand that to be well educated is
In terms of the BCTF position that music in particular should not be taught by specialists at the elementary level, is this a position that the ministry accepts and supports?
Hon. P. Priddy: If I've understood the member's question correctly
If I understand the member's question, it's that BCTF says there should be a fine arts specialist in the elementary level in every school district. Did I
R. Masi: No, it's the other way around. The BCTF position is in fact that it should be done by a generalist, not a specialist.
[1130]
Hon. P. Priddy: I think that in general we do expect, particularly at an elementary school level, teachers to have a fairly broad array of skills to offer and to give to their students, and for the most part, that often works for people. I do know -- and this is certainly an individual school district decision -- that there are some school districts who have made a conscious decision to hire a fine arts specialist or a phys ed specialist for the elementary level. They've done that for reasons that they think best meet the needs of students in that district. But we do expect our elementary teachers to have a fairly broad perspective.
R. Masi: I'm not sure exactly what the position of the minister and the ministry is regarding specialists in elementary schools. To combine that with the second part of the question, the minister indicated that in fact there was an increase in fine arts enrolment. Would that be at the elementary or secondary level?
Hon. P. Priddy: The last question first, if I might: that's at the secondary level. To go back to the specialist question, that is up to the local school district. We do not have somewhere in the funding formula something that says there will be a physical education specialist or fine arts specialists or whatever in every school district. If the school district chooses to hire someone to meet those needs because they think it's important for the student population they have, then that's what they get to do. But that's not part of the ministry's funding formula.
R. Masi: Well, looking further into the music curriculum, there seems to be some indication now that it is time that the secondary music curriculum is updated. What steps have been taken by the ministry in terms of meeting those demands?
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. P. Priddy: I guess we begin this answer by saying that we sing.
I know that the member knows this, but all curricula are revised and updated on a regular cycle. For some subjects it's a longer cycle than others. It is the belief of people who are with me at the moment that it has been about three years since the secondary music curricula have been revised.
R. Masi: Specifically, I'm looking at vocal music 11 and 12 and instrumental music 11 and 12. Could the minister tell me when the last revision and upgrading of these two courses took place?
Hon. P. Priddy: No, I cannot. But we will have it for you this afternoon.
R. Masi: I think it's probably high time. When demands come from the field, it's probably high time for the curriculum department to take a hard look at where they're going in terms of these courses. As we say, if the fine arts enrolment is increasing, then we should be current.
We spent quite a long time at the beginning of the session here discussing a rural situation. Just a question in terms of rural education concerns: what steps is the ministry actually looking at in terms of integration of materials, areas of study -- the whole field of virtual education -- in rural communities in British Columbia?
[1135]
Hon. P. Priddy: Two or three particular points come to mind when you ask about rural education. I think that for the most part it is about how you deliver it and how you have access, because rural students are learning, for the most part, similar curriculum to what urban students would be learning.
One of the things that has been most important in moving this forward is the completion next month
The PLNet, which will be complete by July 1, then links 1,800 schools in this province. For rural schools in particular, the completion of the PLNet is a huge opportunity to be able to be linked around the province and to have access in a small rural school to different kinds of information. So that's the first one.
Distance education, which your colleague this morning asked about
[ Page 16091 ]
and distance education in the province is currently under review. As it pertains to rural students in particular, though -- and the member, of course, in his experience knows this -- there are locally developed courses which are about the needs or the interests of a particular community.
Let me give you an example from a more rural area. In Quesnel the secondary school offers a locally developed course on the manufacture of secondary wood products -- so that's very much about that particular community. There's also that opportunity, with the 20 percent developed local courses, to be able to respond to the needs of students in particular rural areas.
R. Masi: Well, I'm glad to see that the ministry is moving into this area. I think it's probably one of the fundamental problems that we have in British Columbia today, this whole rural-urban problem of communication and balance in terms of how we deliver. It's unfortunate. When we hear about small schools going under, it's certainly not something that anyone wants to see happen. But perhaps with some move into the technological field, these things can be overcome and balanced. Students are students, no matter where they are in British Columbia.
In terms of languages in British Columbia, we have an interesting situation in the examination of French. As the minister well knows, we have the French immersion programs, the Programme Cadre and of course the core French programs going. There's a concern expressed here by the teachers of the core French programs that because of the examination system as it now stands, they're at somewhat of a disadvantage. Does the minister feel that in fact the core French students should be writing the same exams as the students who take special areas in French?
Hon. P. Priddy: If I could, one point of clarification. When you refer to core French versus early immersion or late immersion or Cadre, are you talking about French being taught as a subject at a primarily secondary level? I just want to make sure I'm
[1140]
It is my understanding that you are correct. Students who've taken core French do write the same examinations as students who've taken French immersion. There is enough concern, or at least enough comment, about whether these students are disadvantaged or not that we are actually looking at it here. Alberta has just finished a study looking at that as well. They were trying to look at whether core French students are disadvantaged in their exam results. We'd need to check that they actually found they were not disadvantaged in terms of exam results. But I'm not going to simply take the word of another province that's done that. We are actually looking at that here, so the member raises a good point.
R. Masi: I wouldn't hesitate to investigate what Alberta has to say on a number of issues, actually.
In terms of the examinations here, looking at some information I've received -- the marking of the exams and then the results
Looking at some results here, the provincial average in French was 76 percent. In comparison to English, it's 67; in math, it's 66; chemistry is at 67. So we're looking at a very high level here. It's the opinion of a number of teachers of French that in fact the reason for these high marks is the students that take the special area. Therefore the core kids who are being measured are at a disadvantage here. Is there a ministerial position on this?
Hon. P. Priddy: Just to go back to a previous comment, I'm more than pleased to look at the work Alberta does. But I know the member would agree that we should also look at what that means in British Columbia, for British Columbia students. But it is the reason that I referenced the Alberta one -- so that we could use it.
I cannot provide an answer from either the minister or the ministry that says we have a position. But as I stated earlier, there has been enough comment and concern raised that core students may be disadvantaged by immersion students writing the exam, that we indeed are beginning to have a look at that. There is merit in the points that the member has raised and that have been raised by others. The ministry is beginning to look at this.
R. Masi: I appreciate the answer. In terms of completion rates -- and this is always interesting -- I would like to ask the minister what percentage of grade 8 students in fact actually graduate from grade 12.
Hon. P. Priddy: There are two pieces that affect what we would use as a completion rate percentage of grade 12. If you look at only the cohort group -- all those people that you started school with or are in the same age range with -- then I think the percentage we use currently is 78 percent. But in 1998 it was 74.5 percent as a percentage of those grade 12 students.
If you add to that, though, those students between, say, 15 and 20-to-25 who are finishing grade 12
[1145]
R. Masi: I guess my question was more specifically
Hon. P. Priddy: That number is based on the number of students, who started in grade 8 and finished in grade 12 -- I think within six years, actually. But it is based on the number of students who started in grade 8.
R. Masi: Is this an upward trend over the last, perhaps, ten years or five years or anything to that
Hon. P. Priddy: My eagerness to provide this information to the member who asks his questions so articulately
[ Page 16092 ]
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: That's right. It significantly is an upward grade, if you will. If you would like, just for a moment
R. Masi: Are these percentages broken down district by district?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they are.
R. Masi: Does the minister have the school districts, and can the minister indicate to me the school districts that are at a below-average completion rate?
Hon. P. Priddy: We can certainly provide that to the member. I mean, what I have is
R. Masi: In terms of these districts
Hon. P. Priddy: The first point I would make is that there are a number of specific initiatives for aboriginal students. I'm not trying to single out particular school districts. But if we accept that -- not accept it as being all right but accept the data -- aboriginal students' completion rate of grade 12 is about 38 percent on a provincial average, then those high schools or those districts that have a high number of aboriginal students are going to see that reflected in their completion rates.
So we have a number of initiatives, particularly for people who work with aboriginal students and aboriginal students in larger numbers. The one example I would use is the improvement agreement we have in Kamloops between the school district, ourselves and the Kamloops Indian band. We're about to do one next week in Campbell River, which lays out a number of steps and provides, I think, some support to actually start to move up the completion rate for aboriginal students -- which has gone up, I think, about 7 percent in the last few years. But it has a long way to go.
[1150]
So we do that. And we also -- because that isn't the only reason that you would see decreased graduation rates or a lower percentage of graduation rate, certainly
The aboriginal one
R. Masi: Can I assume, then, from the minister's answers that it's generally a rural problem rather than an urban problem?
Hon. P. Priddy: No, one would not assume that. Maybe I can just complete the answer, then. No, I don't think it is, because if you look at what some people would call inner-city schools -- although they're not inner-city in the way that we used to think of it as being in the middle of a city
R. Masi: Further to talking here about percentages, what percentage of students that complete grade 12 continue on to a post-secondary institution in an academic stream?
Hon. P. Priddy: Noting the hour, I'm wondering if the member would
R. Masi: Well, I guess that's an important component of those who go on, but I'm more interested in those who don't go on. In the minister's opening remarks she alluded to the career education generally. What I would like to know in terms of career education is the funding level for cooperative education programs and career prep programs in general in the schools in British Columbia. Has that increased over the last, say, three years, or has it decreased?
The Chair: Minister, noting the time.
Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
[1155]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Bowbrick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
[ Page 16093 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
ECONOMIC SECURITY
On vote 45: ministry operations, $2,026,375,000.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm honoured to present the first annual budget of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. Let me begin, of course, by introducing my staff. To my right is Deputy Minister Sharon Mason Singer; behind me to my left is Chris Haynes, ADM, employment and benefits division; and behind me to my right is ADM of the policy and research division, Andrew Wharton.
Hon. Chair, these three people lead a team of more than 3,000 dedicated and capable staff throughout the ministry. The staff, of course, have come from several former ministries. They've brought with them a record of innovation and accomplishment, and they continue to shine in their new setting. In a very real way, the most important resources that we in this ministry can offer the public are the skills, knowledge, experience and compassion of the people who work in this ministry. They very much serve as the links to opportunities for success and economic security for thousands of people across the province. I think it's appropriate, then, that I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to each and every one of them for the very good work they do every day in this ministry, frequently in very difficult circumstances.
Before I talk about the accomplishments of this ministry and the directions for this ministry, I want to place our mandate in a little bit broader context. I think, when you're speaking about poverty -- which is what this ministry is about: addressing poverty -- it's important that we put that in context.
It's clear to me, and I expect it's clear to both sides of the House, that economic security is closely linked to social development. This government believes that economic security for thousands of low-income British Columbians can be enhanced by sound, cost-effective investments in social development across the province; that belief in our commitment is obviously reflected in the name of the ministry.
[1015]
Our mission statement, appropriately, is linking people with opportunities for success. This statement accurately reflects the work that is being done in over 200 offices in communities across the province. It reflects our aims and goals for this fiscal year, as we offer to British Columbians a range of tools and services that they can use to build economic security for themselves and their families. That range includes various income supports; it includes employment services; it includes transition to work benefits; it includes child care and housing.
On this side of the House we believe that all British Columbians must have the opportunity to share in our expanding, diversifying economy. In the past the response of various governments to poverty issues was very narrowly focused on basic income assistance programs. But today in British Columbia, we're taking a much more comprehensive approach across government to combatting poverty.
Today British Columbia's approach recognizes the need for accessible, affordable child care for families. It recognizes the need for quality, stable, affordable housing for those at risk of homelessness. And it recognizes the need for training and educational opportunities that assist people to succeed in jobs in the new economy.
This ministry has a central role in delivering these services to British Columbia. We've benefited from the dedication of thousands of individuals and organizations in this province who devote their time and resources to the same goals every day. All of these people are part of a move to grow and strengthen civil society in British Columbia, and their effort and dedication provide enormous leverage to this ministry's efforts. This ministry has partnerships with many of these organizations, ranging from community-based trainers to labour organizations, to housing societies and cooperatives, to street-level service agencies and to the business community through such things as the B.C. Chamber of Commerce or the Council of Tourism Associations.
Everywhere I recognize increasing concern -- and we should have increasing concern -- about issues of poverty and, in particular, child poverty and the growing income gap between the wealthy and the poor in our communities. In British Columbia, just as in the rest of Canada, when we look to the year ahead, we see some serious challenges, but we also see some real opportunities. Many resource-based communities, here as elsewhere, are still in transition to a new, diversified economic future. They will need support at many levels to make this transition successfully, and much of it will be provided by this ministry.
Increasingly, this ministry is being called upon to meet diverse needs of individuals and communities, to tailor our services to build on the often unique talents, skills and experiences of the people and communities we serve.
A range of options -- a toolkit of services, if you like -- must be available through our offices. For example, the demand for better child care options is strong in British Columbia, as elsewhere, and is growing. Over the past 20 years economic changes have placed enormous stresses on families and children. More than three-quarters of two-parent families with kids under the age of six are now led by two working parents. Similarly, the need for affordable housing exists throughout British Columbia. That will grow and become more complex as our population ages.
These are some of the challenges we face in British Columbia. They are significant challenges, but there are opportunities as well. For example, the province's economy is growing. It's improving; it's diversifying. We've gained some 400,000 jobs in B.C. in the last decade -- 25 percent of all the jobs created in this country -- and the pace is picking up. Unemployment is now less than 7 percent. That is a 19-year low in this province.
Along with the steady growth in jobs, B.C. has also led the country in the creation of small businesses, which now account for more than 60 percent of the province's private sector employment. The new economy -- things like film, tourism, high-tech -- is booming, as our resource-based economy is stabilizing, modernizing and moving to a sustainable basis. These opportunities mean that with the help of new programs such as jobs partnership, and the continued success of other labour market and training strategies such as workplace-based training and others, we expect to continue to be able to reduce the number of people who require B.C. Benefits in British Columbia.
The new ministry gives us a more dynamic, better integrated grouping of people, programs and resources, which
[ Page 16094 ]
gives us a better opportunity to innovate and to find better integrated responses to the problems of poverty. We've made considerable progress in this province, but it's clear that here, as elsewhere, much remains to be done.
I expect members of this House will recall the recent report of the Canadian Council on Social Development that analyzed the growth in poverty, especially in Canada's largest cities. The report found that poverty in Canada's larger urban areas increased by more than a third between 1990 and 1995. Happily, a lot has since changed for the better in British Columbia. In 1996 this government introduced a number of programs, including the B.C. family benefits and the B.C. family bonus, which were aimed squarely at the growing problem the CCSD report describes.
Our statistics in this province for the years since 1996 demonstrate a significant achievement, although, again, much more remains to be done. We believe we're on the right track to making a real difference in the lives of many low-income people in our province. The trend shows that these programs have helped to reverse the growth in poverty levels that marked the first half of the 1990s and certainly the 1980s.
[1020]
But the progress we can make in British Columbia is being constantly eroded by national and international economic trends. At that broader level, we come face to face with one of the most serious failures of today's market economy: a grotesquely unequal division of income. It's a growing problem throughout the world and one that reflects badly upon Canada's economic system.
In recent months some of this country's leaders have been seen waving a copy of the United Nations human development index, which places Canada at the top of its international scale. The United Nations says Canada is the best country in the world. That's the mantra we hear. In fact, that's partly true. Since World War II, Canadians have done a remarkable job of making this nation the best place in the world to live and to raise families. Those are the years of the social contract. We are justifiably proud of our accomplishments. But millions of people at the lower end of Canada's economy will tell you that they are losing ground, and they have been for 20 years. They are losing hope.
The same UN report looked at the earnings gap between the poorest 20 percent of the population and the richest 20 percent. In Canada the richest group earns 14 times more than the poorest group. That's the income gap, and that's bad. How bad is it? It's worse than Norway, Sweden, Belgium and Japan. How bad? It's worse than Spain. It's worse than Slovakia. It's worse than Hungary. It's worse than Uzbekistan. How bad? It's worse than Indonesia or Egypt or India or Pakistan. The market economy no longer provides a living for people at the low end of the spectrum. That is one of the root causes of poverty.
In British Columbia and in Canada we can do some things. In British Columbia we are doing some things, but the problem of income distribution in this country is out of this government's control. We recognize the flaws in the free market system and that shapes our approach to combatting poverty.
Governments in Canada approach poverty in one of two ways, generally. One way is punitive and authoritarian. It assumes that people are poor by choice. It denies the value of human worth; it denies human aspirations and human dreams. It isolates people and it shuns them.
This government is taking a different approach. Its goal is social inclusion. Our approach recognizes that anyone in today's economy, anywhere in this country, can become poor and marginalized. It can result from age, it can result from inexperience, it can result from corporate downsizing, it can result from market decisions made on the other side of the world. Poverty can be the result of being female, and it often is. It can result from having dark skin, it can result from illness, it can result from accident, it can result from lack of education. In fact, if a person shares any two of the following attributes -- youth, disability, single parenthood or aboriginal background -- then the odds are more than 2-to-1 that she or he will be living in poverty.
This government has chosen to support people in their desire not to be shut out from their full potential. We do that across many ministries with programs that work towards pay and employment equity, human rights protection, fair labour laws and a decent minimum wage. That concept of social inclusion underpins the government's policies in education, health, community and regional development, and many other areas. And, of course, it shapes the programs in my ministry that link people with opportunities for success.
I want to turn now to the performance plan for this ministry for the year 2000-2001. For this fiscal year my ministry's performance plan sets the goals and objectives that will drive our activities for the next 12 months. The members opposite have received the plan, and they've been briefed on its contents, so I will limit my comments at this time to a few highlights.
[1025]
One key ministry objective is to support the efforts of British Columbians to achieve and maintain economic security. It's been four years, hon. Chair, since the B.C. Benefits welfare reforms were introduced. The new benefits system began to concentrate on people's abilities and their talents rather than their disabilities or deficiencies. In the past four years many tens of thousands of individuals and families have successfully made the move from welfare to success in the workplace.
As a result, we passed an important milestone last fall when the percentage of British Columbia's population receiving welfare dropped lower than any equivalent month since 1982. Many of those people made that move from welfare to success on their own, using their own skills, determination and connections. But many others were supported by the skills, development and training programs that are such an important part of B.C. Benefits. In the coming year we will streamline procedures and create new participant access centres to make these programs more accessible to more people than before.
Our drive for innovation has led to the jobs partnership pilot, which is an agreement with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the B.C. Council of Tourism Associations. This program is already moving people directly from B.C. Benefits into full-time jobs for which they're already qualified. In some cases we're doing that and entirely avoiding the need for income assistance. These are good jobs, hon. Chair. A JPP job has wages that range up to $27.50 an hour, with the average entry wage at $9.79 an hour. For workplace-based training, which is an approach designed for people who need a little extra training or experience or assistance to be able to move fully into the labour market, the average placement wage is $9.46 an hour.
[ Page 16095 ]
We will also implement pilot projects to assist displaced or at-risk older workers to become re-employed. We intend to develop and begin at least one partnership pilot aimed at linking long-term B.C. Benefits participants to the labour market.
Hon. Chair, that leads me to the second strategic objective, which is to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to participate in communities and the economy. Within the overall B.C. Benefits caseload decline there's one component alone that's growing, and that is disability benefits. The number of people using disability benefits is growing, in part because British Columbia has the country's broadest legal definition of disability and in part because the designation is lifelong.
People with disabilities want to live to their fullest potential, just like anyone else. They want to use their frequently considerable abilities and skills for the benefit of themselves, their families and their communities. The ability to do that is growing as advances in medical science open more opportunities for more people to achieve success through employment. At the same time, improvements in labour standards and human rights provisions are slashing the unnecessary barriers that have all too often stood between people with disabilities and the labour market.
Within this new ministry we can now offer people with disabilities more than basic income support. We offer, for example, vocational rehab services and supports, and supports to employment programs to link people with opportunities for fulfilling lives in the context of their communities, mostly through employment but frequently through volunteering.
I'm pleased that the office for disability issues resources for coordinating policy in this area across government now reports through my ministry. A senior staff person, an assistant deputy minister, has been appointed to help identify labour market opportunities and initiatives for people with disabilities. We will continue to work throughout this ministry to ensure that every aspect -- our premises, our communications and our staff, with appropriate training -- is accessible to people who have special needs.
I want to turn now to the deferred strategic objective, and that is to work towards a comprehensive child care system for British Columbia. I would hope that there is no disagreement in this House over the wisdom of a social investment in child care. The benefits are clear beyond debate. Every dollar invested in quality child care saves $2 in the long term. But for high-risk children, that return is $7 for every one invested.
[1030]
Not only is investment in child care wise, it's what the people of British Columbia have said clearly that they want. We asked them last fall, and our child care discussion paper received something like 10,000 responses. Ninety-four percent of the respondents see child care as an urgent issue -- not something to do later, dependent on some other criteria at another time, but an urgent issue, something that needs to happen now. The support for this government's commitment to more affordable, accessible, high-quality child care is strong. Families also want child care options that reflect their communities, their cultures, their backgrounds, and their social and family beliefs.
In the coming year we're going to take the first step to create a comprehensive, publicly funded child care system in British Columbia. That first step is to deal with Grade 1 to age 12 children who attend before and after school care in group licensed care. We're going to pull part of the system into a publicly funded system at a cost to parents of $7 a day.
We will also increase the number of spaces available on school sites for this kind of child care. At the same time, we're working with families, with child care providers and with communities to improve quality and accessibility and reduce parent costs for child care for younger children. Six years from now we will be able to say in British Columbia that we have a comprehensive, publicly funded child care system for children at all age levels and from all backgrounds, and this will be the second such system in North America.
When this kind of quality child care is enhanced by the transition-to-work programs built into B.C. Benefits, parents have the tools they need to forge the kind of links they need to be successful in employment. There is no question: the evidence on outcomes shows clearly that quality child care links children to happier, more productive adult lives.
Finally, the last strategic objective I want to address today is to improve access and support for adequate, affordable and appropriate housing. Housing is another key component of this government's commitment to combat and reduce poverty in British Columbia. When the federal government walked away from its two-thirds support for social housing in this province in 1994, most of the other provinces walked with it. British Columbia and Quebec are the only provincial governments that are still determined to provide their citizens with affordable, acceptable housing. Affordable social housing provides families the stability they need to link to success in the workforce and to provide their children with a stable, secure environment in which to grow and flourish.
This government is not only maintaining social housing programs in British Columbia, we're expanding them. The responsibility for housing policy has been placed within this ministry, and the agency most responsible for social housing itself -- the B.C. Housing Management Commission -- reports through me. In this way government is best positioned to link social housing opportunities to those people most at risk of being homeless in our communities.
Because of the very real need for affordable housing, our government doubled its funding commitment last year to develop 2,400 new social housing units through the Homes B.C. program in 1999 and 2000. The program was also expanded in 1999 to include supportive seniors housing, allowing seniors to continue to live independently in their homes as they age.
This $294 million capital infusion will create 5,000 jobs in the construction operation of the housing units, stimulating regional economies across the province. Approximately 1,500 units, which have received provisional approval from B.C. Housing, have already been announced, and more will be announced in the coming months.
These are just a few of the highlights of what's happening in this ministry and what we intend to do in what looks like a very busy year for all of us in the ministry. We know that the problem of poverty in this country and this province is complex. We know, therefore, that the solutions must be equally complex and diverse. It's a big challenge; I know this ministry is up to it. I look forward to the coming year, as I look forward to the questions from the members of this House.
[ Page 16096 ]
C. Clark: Well, we're in an era where money's tight for the provincial government and every dollar certainly counts. I want to explore, very briefly, some of the costs that are associated with the labour contracts that have been signed by the government, particularly their impact on this ministry. Can the minister give us a quick outline of the total cost impacts that labour agreements that have been signed in the last year will have on her ministry?
Hon. J. Pullinger: That figure is $8.68 million.
[1035]
C. Clark: Does that include the cost of accords that have been signed as well?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't believe we have any accords that affect us in that way.
C. Clark: If the minister says there are no monetary costs attached to the accords, could the minister outline for us what kinds of accords have been signed that affect her ministry?
Hon. J. Pullinger: As I expected, the only accord that affects this ministry is the college accord, and that adds no costs.
C. Clark: Does the ministry have funding partners in the Community Social Services Employers Association?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, and that's where the $8.68 million is found.
C. Clark: Is the $8.68 million that the minister talks about entirely money that the ministry is going to flow through its members in the Community Social Services Employers Association directly? Is that a cost just for this year?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, that's the cost. The $8.68 million is for this year.
C. Clark: Sorry, I asked two questions at once there, and I know that never works. So I'll ask the first one again, which is: is all of that $8.68 million going to be flowing through directly to the funding partners the ministry has who are members of the Community Social Services Employers Association?
Hon. J. Pullinger: There are a few within the ministry, such as child care, but the bulk of it does flow through.
C. Clark: And what is going to be the impact on the child care sector when we portion that out of the total cost?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Low wage redress is $2.6 million and $2.3 million for compensation increases -- that's flow-through money.
C. Clark: Does this current budget anticipate any of the increases that will be coming in future years? I appreciate that future budgets aren't part of the discussion of this year's estimates, but I suspect that there would be some preparation that goes into this budget, to look forward to future costs for future enhancements that are contained in the current contract. Can the minister expand on that a little for us?
Hon. J. Pullinger: When an increase of any kind is considered to the base of the ministry's budget, the standard practice is to then annualize that and know that that will be an ongoing cost.
C. Clark: Yeah, I understand that. My point was really, though: what about increasing costs that will kick in in certain years that are already drawn out in the contract? For example, if there's an increase anticipated in the contract in 2003, that's in addition to the base funding that would already be accounted for today. Is the minister anticipating those kinds of increases, and when are they likely to happen?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me see if I can come at it a little more clearly. When a contract is signed or a service is initiated, it has several years, as the member is referring to, and there is implementation over, say, three years, just off the top of my head. That is calculated, and it is determined that those are the costs out ahead. So that effectively becomes part of the base budget of the ministry.
[1040]
C. Clark: Will the ministry be funding 100 percent of the new costs that are incurred by its funded partners in the community social services sector as a result of the contracts that have been signed by PSEC?
Hon. J. Pullinger: What this ministry does is negotiate contracts, most of them through RFPs, but certainly there are ongoing service providers and other processes as well. But those contracts are negotiated, and we pay the amount negotiated.
C. Clark: Yes. The contracts, though, have a lot of different costs in addition to wages and things that have impacts on the employers -- you know, the funding partners. I'm just curious whether 100 percent of those costs that have been negotiated on those employers' behalf by PSEC are going to be funded out of this ministry's budget. I don't hear that from the minister yet.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Maybe the member can differentiate. It sounds like the member is talking about the union wage increases negotiated by PSEC. If that's the case, then whatever effect that has on our ministry, we pay for. But I would like to differentiate between that and the contracts we sign with various community organizations of a wide range. Those are simply negotiated contracts, usually on an annual basis, and we pay what's in the contract for those.
C. Clark: But PSEC negotiates a whole bunch of different contractual arrangements on behalf of
Hon. J. Pullinger: All of the costs incurred through this ministry are contained in the figure that I gave the member -- the $8.68 million.
[ Page 16097 ]
C. Clark: I guess where we're not connecting is
What I'm after here is some kind of confirmation that the government has looked at the entirety of the costs that will be incurred as a result of this agreement. Does that $8.6 million include the impacts of things like the health benefits trust, or does it just include the impact of low-wage redress and other wage-related settlements that the government's entered into?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Just let me see if I can be clear. In this ministry we have $8.68 million worth of costs, and that covers the costs of the settlements that affect this ministry. For the broader question, I would direct the member to the appropriate minister, the minister responsible for PSEC.
C. Clark: Okay. I'm going to try maybe from another direction, because I may not be being very clear in the way I'm asking my questions.
How did the ministry come to the number of $8.68 million, and what does that include? Does that include just low-wage redress? Does that include just general increases? Does that include just the cost of recategorizing some employees? What components go into that $8.68 million?
[1045]
Hon. J. Pullinger: It includes all of the costs; they're all listed there. Perhaps the best way to resolve this -- because we're getting into the ether here, in terms of detail -- would be for me to offer the member a detailed briefing so that she can ask some of the questions and have a dialogue. I think that would be better to get at what it is she's looking for. What I can say very clearly is that we have identified all of the costs and that we have the funding in our budget for all of those costs that are affected by this ministry.
C. Clark: And when is that money going to flow through to the funding partners?
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's not entirely one way. Generally, they'll flow through at about mid-year. It may be useful for the member to know that the budget is in this ministry, but the Ministry for Children and Families, because of the relatedness between the two ministries, is actually the paymaster, if you like. For the finer detail, we can certainly provide that to the member. I'd be happy to set up a briefing on the detail.
C. Clark: How will the money be disbursed? Who will be deciding who gets what?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I would expect that
C. Clark: If the ministry is still calculating the total amount that this is going to cost, how did they arrive at the $8.68 million number?
Hon. J. Pullinger: These are simply the details. Obviously we have huge numbers of contractors and programs, so it's just simply hammering down the last little pieces. But we know that it'll be $8.68 million. That's what was negotiated, that's what we have in our budget, and that's what we will pay out.
C. Clark: So what kinds of
[1050]
Hon. J. Pullinger: We have a very large number of contractors. We have to know the aggregate. My understanding is that the aggregate is negotiated at the PSEC table, and then we need to determine precisely who is where in which contracts, in order to distribute it. So the amount at the big table is based on their negotiations, and I would presume that both sides -- and particularly the employee side -- will know precisely how many there are. But when we're doing both increases and low-wage redress, we then need to apportion it out to the over 1,000 contractors who get the benefit of that funding. When you have that many contracts, you have to figure out who is where, and exactly what level of increase their employees might get; they're not all entirely uniform.
So there is some work to be done. Once you've done it at the broad level, then you have to figure out which of the 1,000 contractors and which of their employees get which amount, and make sure that it's allocated appropriately. The amount allocated is based on those negotiations. There's a lot of expertise and a lot of work that goes into those tables. We have our appropriate allocation, and that will be allocated at the appropriate time.
C. Clark: And does the ministry's calculation, when they're distributing this money, include a calculation of the costs that the health benefits trust will incur on the funding partners?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Again, I will confirm that all of the costs negotiated are contained within the $8.68 million.
C. Clark: And what percentage of that cost is the health benefits trust?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't have that figure, but I'd be happy to, if we can
C. Clark: I understand that the CSSEA is having some second thoughts about whether they'll be able to actually have the staff and the resources to be able to do this background
[ Page 16098 ]
work on behalf of the government -- to figure out who's where and what the costs will be. They're hopeful that they might
Hon. J. Pullinger: MCF is taking the lead on this kind of issue, and we're working with them. They are taking the lead in terms of liaising with CSSEA, so I don't have that kind of detail. Again, I'm sure we'll be able to provide that for the member at an appropriate time.
J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions for the minister on disability programs, level 1 and level 2. I've got a few general questions, and I want to then just ask a few questions on behalf of a constituent, Cindy Milligan. I know that the minister has received some correspondence and had some discussions with people. I think there was a meeting on May 19 -- the Vancouver poverty group that the minister met with
I'm interested in the total cost to the budget of people on level 1 disability and the number of people involved.
Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't differentiate between
[1055]
J. van Dongen: Just so I can understand, then. Is that figure of $307.5 million the incremental cost for people who qualify for level 1 and qualify for level 2?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Actually, I want to correct the disability benefits number I gave. I've just had a correction from staff. That $307.5 million is actually disability 2. DB-1, because they're temporarily not able to get employment, is in the larger income assistance budget amount, which also includes the hardship amount, and is over $800 million.
J. van Dongen: Just one more general question. There's always been a concern, I think, from people who are disabled, about being lumped in with income assistance. Has the government considered, particularly in the reconfiguration of the ministry, separating those two streams of assistance?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We do have separate legislation. In some cases we have specialized offices, and in many cases we have specialized workers, and there are certainly separate rates for people who have disabilities.
J. van Dongen: The minister's answer certainly triggered a little bit of feedback for the minister in terms of the separation of offices. There were a lot of changes made in our region in the last three or four months, or maybe longer. I think they were good changes because they did separate some of these different assistance streams. But I think the specialization and the management changes have been very positive. I've reported that to the regional people. Almost to the day that the changes were made, we started receiving fewer calls in our constituency office. It was critical that changes be made. We have been providing feedback to staff for a long time that there were some real difficulties in how things were handled. So that's positive.
I wondering if the minister could tell us how many people are on disability level 2.
Hon. J. Pullinger: There are 36,637 people.
J. van Dongen: Well, I want to just cite the case of Cindy Milligan. Cindy is confined to a wheelchair. She's 30 years old. She suffers from spina bifida, scoliosis and hydrocephalis, and she is on level 2. I think she has done an absolutely admirable job of becoming independent. She lives in her own apartment. She's even got herself set up so that she can get around, and she is living on $771 a month -- completely independent.
There's been some review in our health care region in terms of the home care program. For people that are not getting any health care, they've eliminated any support for housekeeping. She was actually getting two hours a week. She's asking for and only needs two hours every two weeks. So we've gone through a lot of effort to try and get her that extra assistance. We've even tried to find volunteers. In the past she has had situations where she was taken advantage of by potential employees, so she's very concerned about security and safety. So we haven't been able to find volunteer help either.
[1100]
But in reviewing the act, there is a provision in section 47 for short-term assistance, but nothing for long-term housekeeping assistance of the nature that she needs. As I said, she has done
So I'm wondering if the minister could comment. I'll reference a letter dated May 17 from our legal services office, signed by Chris Maddock, and a meeting on May 19 with the minister with a working group on poverty in Vancouver. That will give you some of the background to this individual.
But I want to just encourage the minister to take a serious look at that. The fear is -- and I want to put on the record the concern by the advocates for Cindy Milligan and others like her -- that in reviewing the act and what's perceived to be an inequity in the act or a human rights inequity, maybe section 47 will be eliminated. Certainly I hope that doesn't happen. I wonder if the minister could just provide us some feedback on how she assesses this situation.
Hon. J. Pullinger: First of all, I don't know why the member would say that that section
Secondly, I of course will not discuss any individual, because that would be inappropriate, as this is a public debate. However, I can say that what this ministry does is provide emergency health care services. Anything that is ongoing would be the responsibility of Health. I'm aware of this issue. I have, as the member points out, met with
[ Page 16099 ]
So the issue is known. Certainly we're concerned about it. But I would simply offer that this is one of a large number of very real pressures on services and that this government is endeavouring to maintain and improve services where at all possible. I know the members opposite have a different view of the overall budget. If we're going to start giving massive tax breaks, as the members on the other side want -- $1.5 billion -- that means cuts to all of these services.
So I appreciate the member's very real concern for his constituent, and I appreciate the very real concern of the groups that are coming forward with this. But we do run into the larger picture, and that is that we cannot as a society continue to say that we want smaller government -- which means fewer employees, fewer services -- and cut taxes at one end and services at the other and continue to increase them.
The result of this direction in which we will be going, as a country, is that services are drying up for people at the low end. People at the high end are benefiting most from the tax cuts. That's creating the poverty gap, in large measure. It's also drying up services at the other end.
We're doing our very best to fight back in British Columbia. We just have not been willing to do the kind of cutting of services that we've seen in other provinces such as Alberta and Ontario. But there are huge demands on services, and we're simply doing the very best we can with inadequate resources. I know the staff in Abbotsford will work hard to do the best they can for the individual and any others.
I appreciate the member's comments about the outcome of our quality service review that I initiated a couple of years ago now, which is finally starting to be visible on the ground and is starting to integrate services and open them up and connect offices with the public.
It's also a huge number of changes for staff. I appreciate the fact that they are entering into those changes usually with a great deal of enthusiasm, even though I know they are problematic for staff. I'm very grateful both to the Abbotsford staff and to all of the staff who are making those very necessary and extremely positive changes. All of us do the best we can with the money that we've got available to us.
[1105]
J. van Dongen: I'm not going to get drawn into the bigger political debate here, other than to say that we think -- and certainly I think -- that in the context of that bigger debate and the economic and financial pressures, we have to be much more focused and selective about how we do apportion funds. That's what I think is the fundamental issue here.
In terms of the concern about section 47, it's not an accusation of any kind. It's not triggered by anything that anyone has said or done. It's a concern expressed by the people that are making the submission to you looking ahead as to what the possible outcomes of their submission may be. I just want to allay any fears; that's not an accusation.
As I said, there is a real need for careful assessment and greater focus. This is not a health care expense, and I think that's a legitimate response by the Ministry of Health. It's strictly housekeeping. If I thought that it was a Health issue, I would be talking to them. In studying the issue, I am confident and convinced that it's an issue that is appropriate to this ministry and its mandate.
In looking at the act and some of the preamble to the act -- it's the very first item in the preamble -- it talks about "preserving a social safety net that is responsive to changing social and economic circumstances." That's really why I think this issue is here. In our health region there were about 300 people getting strictly housekeeping services who no longer get that service.
A number of health regions have gone through this process. Some of them went through it earlier than others. I would ask the minister and her staff to analyze it from the perspective of the ultimate cost. If you take that 300, for example, and extrapolate it across British Columbia, and if you look at something like two hours every two weeks at whatever the cost is -- $40 an hour, the total cost -- what is that number? I don't think it's a big number.
When I look at that in terms of the total budget and all of the things that the government puts money into, I think that's very, very critical. When you look at where we put money into, then I think it stands up well in terms of a legitimate allocation of funds for people who have no options, who have very serious disabilities and in this case have done a tremendous job of saving us the taxpayer a lot of money by being proactive on their own.
That's really my submission to the minister, and I don't expect a quick answer. I'm not making representation here just on behalf of Cindy; she's an example. I simply ask the minister to take a look at this issue very carefully and appreciate whatever the outcome is.
Hon. J. Pullinger: As I said earlier, I have met with the groups. I'm aware of the concern, and the Minister of Health is as well.
Perhaps it would be useful for the member if I made it clear how this ministry functions. We don't provide any of those services. The decision about whether or not those services are to be provided is a Ministry of Health decision. We are providing income support, and that includes income support for some emergency health care services. And emergency services
[1110]
But the decision of whether or not the services are required is a health care decision, not a decision of this ministry. It should not be a decision of this ministry. We're about providing economic security for people, and we don't have the expertise to begin to make health care decisions. So while I appreciate the point, I would suggest that this kind of issue is a big-picture issue. It is about overall funding and the squeeze on funding that happened when the federal government went from 50 cents on the dollar to 15 cents on the dollar for health care in this province and elsewhere.
Things like homelessness, because housing was cut, things like this issue and many, many others equally as serious in the health care system
[ Page 16100 ]
On the more specific issue, if we were to do what the member suggests in Abbotsford, that would be $1.24 million annually. If we were to do it for the entire province, which is what we would have to do, it would be more like $15 million annually. The difficulty with this ministry is
The reality of this ministry is that things that look very doable when you're talking about one individual or one family or even one community
Finally, I would like to ask the members -- there are three members from the opposition across
J. van Dongen: I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but I'm disappointed that the minister raised the bigger-picture argument again. I think she's very incorrect in her suggestion that the reason that budgets are tight is because of tax cuts, particularly federally. That is absolutely incorrect.
I would say that the really significant reason that there are tight budgets, both federally and provincially, is massive deficit spending for many years by the federal government and, in the last ten years, by this provincial government. If you want a contrast to the $15 million that the minister suggests would be the provincial cost of what we're asking for here, then contrast that to the $2.8 billion a year that we're spending on interest costs in this province -- which is about double what it was ten years ago. That $2.8 billion translates to $7.5 million a day.
If the figure that the minister's talking about is $15 million a year for the province, then that's two days' worth of interest costs. That, I submit, is the concern that this side of the House has about deficit spending. What it does is start sucking up dollars that should be going into programs to support people like Cindy Milligan. I resent the suggestion that this side of the House is only concerned about economics and people who pay taxes and not concerned about the lower-income part of our society. I really resent that suggestion.
[1115]
Hon. J. Pullinger: I didn't speak about what the members opposite are concerned about or not. But the member is correct, and we share that concern about deficit costs. However, I would point out a couple of things. First, ours is one of the lowest debt-servicing costs in the country. Secondly, in order to do what the member suggests
The Chair: Order. Order, minister, for a moment, please.
I hesitate to intervene in the debate at this time, but the rules of debate in estimates, as the minister should know and the member should know, would require strict relevancy to the administrative capacity of the minister's office. I let the early flow go on this question to see if it would come back to the administrative capacity of the minister's office. I don't believe it has. I would ask the minister to bring the answers under the administrative capacity of the minister's office. I would then expect the members opposite to ask questions that are strictly relevant to the administrative capacity of the minister's office.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was simply trying to address the allocation issue and put out that our government isn't willing to make the kind of damaging cuts to the young, the poor and the sick that it takes to do overnight what he suggests. But I do appreciate
Since 1994 we have seen a 25 percent decline in transfer payments to this province. That has provided significant stress to the people of this province. We in this ministry are trying to deal with it through a variety of very innovative programs that we brought forward -- things such as the B.C. family bonus, which is the first new social program in 30 years, I believe, in Canada. We took that to the federal government; it became the national child benefit.
We're now looking at -- we are implementing -- North America's second publicly funded child care system. It will be an enormous benefit to all families and all children -- certainly to lower-income families and children particularly, and particularly to single parents -- to try to close that income gap and provide more support at the lower end. The whole range of things from raising minimum wage to employment standards to better labour laws serve that same end, but those are other ministries. I won't address those.
I would simply just reiterate that if the members opposite can realistically offer me advice on where to reallocate the funds within this ministry, I welcome that advice.
L. Stephens: I want to talk about Langley and some of the issues that we have there. The ministry did a pilot project in Langley, with a new Langley pilot office. I wonder if the minister could update the committee on what has happened there and what kind of progress has been made on that pilot project.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to tell the member
[1120]
What this is, is an outcome of the quality service review project that we initiated a couple of years ago, as I mentioned earlier. The Langley pilot consolidates a couple of existing employment and benefit centre offices, as well as an employment services centre. It also provides room for many other related community groups to co-locate.
This is the visible evidence of two years of work starting to come to fruition in the member's riding, as elsewhere. I appreciate the comments I've heard from the members opposite. We've worked very hard in this government to try
[ Page 16101 ]
to figure out ways to do two things. One is to provide better services, which we continue to innovate, and to provide more services -- I think the evidence is clear that they are working -- and secondly, to try to provide them in a much more respectful manner. It used to cause me great concern, when we were in opposition, to see the kind of isolating, marginalizing, targeting and poor-bashing that went on with a fairly narrow welfare program that we had in those days.
So it's taken us an enormous amount of work and thought over a fairly long period of time to come to this point. But what we have now around the province are offices that are connecting with communities on an ongoing basis. They're integrating services within this ministry and -- as I'm sure the member is aware, in this case -- trying to integrate with the community services as well. It changes the look of the offices significantly. When you come into some of the new offices
I am very pleased with what the ministry and the staff have done to carry out the desire of this government to make services more accessible, more integrated and better -- but above all, more respectful -- and to get rid of the stigma that has for so long dogged people who find themselves in a place where they need to use an income support system. They find that they get a whole lot of poor-bashing with it, which is unacceptable.
So people now can use these new offices, one of which is in the member's riding. The public does come in and out of them. They can find their way back into the labour market with a whole range of supports that are available in that office. I hope the member is as pleased as I am with the new look, the new feel and the very different way of providing a much more integrated service that's happening in those offices.
L. Stephens: The skills development office was one of those that was being moved into the new building. There was a lot of confusion as to who was going to go where and when it was going to happen. I wonder if the minister could confirm that about $150,000 on leasehold expenses were made for the HRDC building that the ministry decided to not use after all.
Hon. J. Pullinger: The one-time cost was $66,000, roughly, to break the lease, if you like. Obviously, integrating a whole range of offices, as the member clearly understands, is very difficult for everyone, and there are some small costs. In the grand scheme of things, that's a very small cost. If the alternative is to not do it or to delay it for a long time, then I would argue that's money very well spent.
The difference in services for the people of British Columbia who require services from this ministry is phenomenal. It's just amazing to go into a new office and see how dramatically different and dramatically better it is, both for workers -- I would hope, and I can't imagine it not being, once you've made the adjustment -- and definitely for the community and people who use it. So yes, there's a $66,000 cost, but I think that's low in the grand scheme of things.
[1125]
L. Stephens: Well, I wasn't asking about the lease, the five-year lease. But thank you very much for that number. The one that I'm asking about is the leasehold improvements, and that does not include escaping from a lease. I'm talking about the leasehold improvements that were made to the HRDC building to the tune of about $150,000. That building was never used for those purposes.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm happy to confirm that the $66,000 is the total cost of the move. I should also point out, and I am remiss in not pointing out, that there's also a $49,000 savings, for making that move, in the total leasehold costs.
L. Stephens: Could the minister tell us what it cost to pay out the lease for the skills development office to the end of June?
Hon. J. Pullinger: It was $16,242.
L. Stephens: Now the building that they all currently operate from is on Glover Road, which is half a block from my office. That building was gutted to make room for the new staff. Could the minister tell me what the cost is for that?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member has been asking about the skills office, which is the $66,000 minus $49,000, which nets out to not much. And the costs for the consolidated office are paid through the lease over five years; they're part of a lease, which is very frequently the case. If you were to take it out, it would be just over $300,000 for the five years for the whole new building.
L. Stephens: So the cost of leasehold improvements for the new building, which is included in your lease payments, is $300,000 in total. Could the minister provide me with the amount of money that was spent on the new equipment that went into the new office?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Twenty-eight new workstations, five new interview rooms and two meeting rooms came at a cost of $98,000. If the member wants the exact figure for the last one, it's $338,000, I believe.
L. Stephens: I just want to get one thing straight here. I think the minister said that the skills development office cost $66,000 to break the lease minus the 40 whatever it was.
[1130]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Sorry, I'm wrong, Lynn. Let me try to clarify.
L. Stephens: Yes, let's. We're talking about two different facilities here. There's the skills development office. Their lease has been extended to the end of June. So how much did it cost to get out of that lease?
And the second issue is the HRDC building that the ministry initially thought they were going to bring everyone into, and they made some significant leasehold improvements to that, and it had a five-year lease as well.
Now the ministry has decided to use the old office on Glover Road, and that's the one that we were talking about
[ Page 16102 ]
a little bit earlier that's costing over $300,000 in the lease- hold improvements. So we've got sort of three building issues here.
Hon. J. Pullinger: My staff are a little bit mystified at some of this, the HRDC's particularly. But the lease-breaking costs were $66,000. The new lease -- the building occupancy cost -- saves us overall $49,000, just to be clear. So it's not the same one.
L. Stephens: Because you own the building.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's $49,000 cheaper overall for the new one; that's right. The staff has just clarified that the $66,000 was the cost of the HRDC.
L. Stephens: So what was the cost of getting out of the skills development office lease?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The six months was $16,000. That's the number I gave the member earlier. It's part of the $66,000.
L. Stephens: One of the complaints that we're hearing from the new office is that the training consultants are working in cubicles, and they're very concerned about the confidentiality issue. Has that been raised with the minister? And what does she intend to do about it?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Of course that is a big concern to me and to my staff. That's why there are private offices for interviewing. Participants are given the choice always to use them if they want confidentiality. The feedback that we're getting from participants is extremely positive. Certainly concerns and issues that are raised by staff are dealt with on an ongoing basis. But the participants really like what's happening here. As with any change, there are always concerns and issues that come up, and those are being dealt with.
L. Stephens: Well, I've just done a little bit of quick accounting here, and it looks like it costs about almost $500,000 to set up that one office in Langley. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not she thinks that's an appropriate use of ministry funding when there are so many other pressures on the system, as the minister talked about earlier -- so many people that do require services -- and whether or not this move to this new office was handled in a way that was as cost-effective as it could possibly have been.
[1135]
[J. van Dongen in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pullinger: First of all, it's closer to $350,000, not $500,000. Secondly, there would be occupancy costs and renovation costs in any case, whether we stayed fragmented or not. Thirdly, there is a net savings by bringing all of these offices together.
There was intensive work, and absolutely, it was done in the most cost-effective way possible. My ministry is superb in its fiscal management. We come in very close to our targets on an ongoing basis and have a reputation for that within government. It has been done well. It's been done in concert with BCBC. It's created a prototype, really, of how to do this.
I think what gets lost in these debates, so far, is the people. This is about people. This is about poor people that previously had to run back and forth and up and down trying to find different services in different places -- in not very pleasant offices -- in many cases. Now there is a beautiful office that's very welcoming, very user-friendly and very community-friendly, that has a whole diverse range of services in it for British Columbians who need those services.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Most of all, they can receive those services in dignity. I think that's tremendously important, and I would hope the member does as well. There is no huge outlay here; it's a net savings to government. It was done effectively and efficiently. Those costs would have been incurred in any case; it just would have been more expensive to leave a fragmented, unfriendly kind of service in place. I don't know how one can argue against what we've done on any front, whether it's on a human front or an efficiency front or a fiscal front.
L. Stephens: Well, I'm afraid I do disagree with the minister. Quite frankly, I guess she doesn't know how to add. You know, $300,000 for the renovations alone, $98,000 for the new equipment, $66,000 to get out of the lease -- they're her own numbers. All we're saying is that this ministry has been wasting money that the opposition side believes could be used to help those people that the minister seems to care so much about; that's what we're talking about. What are they doing with the money? The member for Abbotsford talked about deficit financing. There are all kinds of issues around spending priorities that the government likes to talk about. Here's another example of wasted money.
There are a couple of issues with the Human Resources offices that are still coming forward. This particular one is a young girl. She's 17 and has left home; she's a runaway from home. The ministry has told her that she can receive income assistance. The parents have been told that they're going to charge the parents for the amount of money that they are paying this particular girl for her support. Could the minister comment on that, please?
Hon. J. Pullinger: On the first part of the member's comments, at the end of the day there are savings in that office. You do have to have equipment, you do have to have offices, and you do have to have improvements wherever the offices are. By putting them all together and doing it the way we have done it, there is a net savings; I want to underscore that. I know that the members opposite like to pretend that there's some sort of huge government waste here, but it's simply not true.
The answer to the second question is no. I would not comment about anyone's personal circumstances in a public forum.
L. Stephens: Could the minister comment on ministry policy? Is this ministry policy?
[1140]
Hon. J. Pullinger: We work with the Ministry for Children and Families for kids, essentially, which is what we're talking about when they're under-age. Decisions are made with the best interests of the children in mind.
[ Page 16103 ]
But there is a principle that we as parents -- I think probably all of us in this room here, at this table anyway, are parents -- are responsible for our children. Just as we have family maintenance enforcement, there are circumstances in which it's appropriate for the parents to pay for the upkeep of their children, even though a government ministry -- or ministries -- is involved in trying to find the best way to assist a family, an individual within a family or a child. There are circumstances
L. Stephens: Again I will ask the minister: is it ministry policy that parents of runaway children are charged for the services that the Human Resources ministry delivers?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The decisions about family maintenance, however it happens, are made by the courts. We provide a service that helps pursue the family maintenance. That is government policy, and I certainly stand solidly behind it. The decision about whether maintenance is paid and how much is one that is made by the courts.
L. Stephens: Could the minister just clarify what circumstances would arise for her ministry to enforce that particular policy?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The policy is that where the family has the resources, where the parents have the resources, they should use their resources to pay for their dependent children. Through the family maintenance enforcement, we will pursue that option on behalf of the child or a single parent or whatever. But the court makes the decision.
Kids under 19 who are living on their own, not with a relative
L. Stephens: Could the minister explain the circumstances how this would happen? We have here a 17-year-old -- let's just say a hypothetical 17-year-old -- who has run away. Could the minister explain what is going to happen? I'm presuming that MCF would do an investigation as to whether or not there were issues of abuse or any of these kinds of things. Could the minister explain to me how this particular individual gets to court, to have a court order for her ministry to do whatever it is they decide to do?
[1145]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Maybe I can be a little clearer for the member on how it works. If an under-age person comes to the ministry looking for support, the normal process of determining whether they're eligible for support will take place. High at the top of the list is to determine whether there are any child protection concerns. We work closely, as I say, with Children and Families on this. If that's the case, then the child is referred to the Ministry for Children and Families. If that's not the case, then the parents are contacted to see if they can pay. Then we take it from there.
L. Stephens: If the parents can pay, what is the process from then on?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Then what happens is that we try to reach an agreement with the parents, if indeed they have the resources to support their child. Failing that, the family maintenance enforcement route would be taken, and the judge would decide. If we can't reach an agreement, then we go through the family maintenance enforcement vehicle, and the courts would decide what should be paid or who should pay.
L. Stephens: Just to be clear, the government would take the parents to court under the family maintenance enforcement program and have the court order the family to pay X amount of dollars for these children. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pullinger: We try to reach an agreement first. If that fails, then yes, we go through the family maintenance enforcement program. The judge decides.
L. Stephens: The government takes the parents to court; it's what the minister is saying. Thank you for the clarification.
There's another issue that has come up that affects a large number of people. One of those is the lump sum that some people receive for their child tax benefit. It used to be the baby bonus; it's now the child tax benefit. People file their income tax, and they get their refund. If they get their payment monthly, it's not considered income; but if they get it in a lump sum, it is. The ministry will deduct that amount, dollar for dollar, from their income assistance money each month. There are instances where people receive a lump sum payment, and they then end up with no income assistance for the one month or two months. In this particular case it was $2,000, and every cent of it was deducted from their income assistance.
My question is: if this amount of money that is paid monthly is not deductible, why is the lump sum amount considered income?
[1150]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me first outline the basic policy for the member, because it is a very complicated system. The basic way that income assistance works is
One of the difficulties
There are some concerns with the federal government. As I say, they're threefold: one is that they're very slow to pay;
[ Page 16104 ]
secondly, we pay in advance, and they pay in arrears; and thirdly, people frequently don't notify the ministry when changes are made in terms of a child being with one parent or the other, so it does create a problem. There are certainly some difficulties in there. We're working with the federal government, trying to figure out a way to make that work more smoothly, as we've done on some other issues of this kind.
So the member's correct: there are some problems there. But I hope that's helpful in terms of how the system works.
The Chair: Member, minding the time.
L. Stephens: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I was just having a look myself. I'd just like to ask a couple of questions about the crisis grant. That continues to be a huge issue and a very big problem all around the province, not just in Langley. They're turned down regularly, and I mean regularly. It seems that in some parts of the province, and Langley is one of them, the initial response is no. So I'd like the minister to comment on what kind of new policies have been put in place regarding crisis grants. Or how is she dealing with this?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The number of crisis grants has been constant over three years. At the same time, the caseload has been dropping pretty dramatically. So you could argue that the per-case amount of hardship benefits or crisis grants has gone up.
The policy hasn't changed. Again, if we had all the money in the world, it would be very nice. I would love to have more money for a whole range of things in this ministry, but unfortunately that's not the case.
The Chair: Member, I would draw your attention to the clock.
L. Stephens: Thank you, hon. Chair. Noticing the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada