Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 2 -- Monday, March 11, 2002

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		1697

Tributes		1697
	Hon. L. Reid R. Hawes Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1697
	Dairy industry in B.C. J. Les Lifesaving society R. Lee Volunteers in community services R. Hawes

Oral Questions		1698
	Funding for Delta Hospital J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail Review of funding for affordable housing projects T. Christensen Hon. G. Abbott Compensation for physicians R. Hawes Hon. C. Hansen Government policy on nuclear presence in Nanoose Bay J. Kwan Hon. G. Campbell Affordable child care E. Brenzinger Hon. L. Stephens

Speaker's Statement		1701
	Commonwealth Day

Motions without Notice		1702
	Message to Queen Elizabeth II Hon. G. Campbell

Committee of Supply		1702
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins J. Kwan

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1744
	Estimates: Ministry of Education Hon. C. Clark J. Kwan R. Masi S. Brice D. Jarvis R. Lee S. Orr P. Wong K. Manhas

Hon. G. Plant: I'm informed that visiting us in the gallery today is Mr. David Tilson, one of Her Majesty's counsel, learned in the law, and his son Greg. I'm told that Mr. Tilson is a member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and for both of those reasons I would ask members to please make both of them very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to recognize in the House today seven legislative interns who started, on March 4 of this year, working full-time for the government caucus. They will remain working with the government caucus until the end of June. I'm sure you know, Mr. Speaker, that the legislative intern program in British Columbia is well regarded across the country. I'm very pleased to have such quality individuals serving with our government caucus: Jacqueline Eaton, who is at the University of Northern British Columbia; Terri Giesbrecht, University of Northern British Columbia; Tara Marsden, University of Northern British Columbia; Scott Morishita, University of British Columbia; Milan Pavlic, Simon Fraser University; Eldon Sala from Simon Fraser University; and Shawna Towriss as well. I hope we'll make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: We'd like to match our interns with their interns, if I may, and welcome our interns, as well, to the legislative chamber. I must say that we are being extremely well served by this group of incredibly intelligent young people. Both those factors make me very annoyed. [Laughter.]

Audrey Ackah from the University of British Columbia, Richard Overgaard from the University of British Columbia, Daphne Powell from the University of Victoria, thank you very much for all of your assistance.

S. Orr: I'm very pleased to introduce today to the House 40 extremely bright grade 11 students from St. Michaels University School, which is in my riding, and with them their teacher, Mr. Jack Shergold, and his wife, Mrs. Shergold. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a pleasure for me to introduce seven members of a management team of Shaw Communications, a very prominent Canadian firm, visiting Victoria today and talking about the future of opportunities here in British Columbia. Here today are Peter Bissonnette, Ken Stein, Terry Med, Colin Paterson, Peter Nielson, Alex Park and Chris Ewuznik. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I would ask the House to please join with me in a moment of remembrance. Born November 13, 1913, Marie Ash passed away March 7, 2002. This was a woman of incredible warmth and great, great spirit. When she and I first met many years ago, she said she hoped to live long enough to see a Liberal elected. That was prior to the 1991 election. Her husband served this House for many years as an MLA more than 50 years ago.

Following our election in 1991 she said, "I just want to live long enough to see a Liberal government" — so success on both counts. Marie, you will be missed. I would ask the Speaker to please send a letter of condolence to her family.

R. Hawes: This last weekend Mission's Heritage Park Highlanders won the provincial girls AAA basketball championship. That's the third year in a row, this year under coach Frank Chan. At the same time this weekend the SFU Clan won the Canadian college championship for our province. The thing that connects the two is that Bruce Langford, the coach of the Clan this year, was for the previous two years the coach of Mission's Heritage Park Highlanders. Mr. Langford is an outstanding coach and educator in this province, and I'd like to ask all members to salute both of these teams of women athletes and in particular Coach Langford for his outstanding service.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Last week the House was advised on March 6 that it was the birthday of the member for Comox Valley. Unfortunately, it wasn't his birthday last week. In fact, it's his birthday today. It's his sixty-second birthday, and apparently he's taking it very hard, because he's home ill today. I wish the House would extend their best wishes to the member for Comox Valley that he's feeling better.

J. Les: I would like to briefly discuss the dairy farming industry this afternoon. Dairy farming has been an economic mainstay in British Columbia and particularly in my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas for many years. Often our area has been referred to as the milk bucket of British Columbia. Our province is home to some of the most advanced and modern dairy farms in the world. Leading-edge technology and nutrition, together with modern genetics, have combined to pro-

duce some of the highest-production herds and some of the most efficient management practices in the world. Dairy farming in British Columbia is a world-class industry and a real credit to the dairy farmers of this province. They supply a first-class product to the consumers of British Columbia.

Until recently the majority of B.C. milk was processed and marketed by a cooperative known as Dairyworld. Previously known as the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Cooperative Association, this cooperative had its origins in my riding in the early twentieth century. In early 2001 the co-op was purchased by Saputo Group Inc., based in Montreal. Saputo was the largest dairy processor in Canada and one of the leading cheese producers in North America.

A dynamic, world-class company, Saputo today employs over 7,100 people. The company's shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Recently the Saputo executive team, including chairman and CEO Mr. Lino Saputo, toured the lower mainland and met with dairy producers as well as government officials. They were extremely impressed not only to see the first-class dairy operations that I referred to earlier but also with the much-improved business environment now apparent in British Columbia.

I'd like to thank the various cabinet members who met with the Saputo team — in particular the Minister of Agriculture, who spent some considerable time with them. I am optimistic that as a result of these meetings and with the calibre of B.C.'s dairy farmers, the future of B.C.'s dairy industry has never been brighter and that more investment in both production and processing will follow. That's no bull.

R. Lee: The day before yesterday I had the honour to participate in the ninetieth annual Commonwealth honour and rescue awards ceremony of the Lifesaving Society of Canada, B.C. and Yukon Branch. The Lifesaving Society was formed in England in 1891 to reduce the number of drownings prevalent in the United Kingdom.

In 1911 the British Columbia branch was formed, and in 1971 it became the B.C. and Yukon Branch. The Lifesaving Society is a non-profit voluntary organization dedicated to preventing accidents and saving lives in an aquatic environment. It has been teaching swimmers to be life-savers, lifeguards and instructors since 1896, when the first life-saving class was taught in Canada.

The awards ceremony was a very special day for many of the volunteers who have spent their time promoting aquatic safety for the benefit of the entire community. It's also a special day to honour those who, through their individual acts of bravery, have saved the lives of so many.

Many heart-touching stories were told at the ceremony. We heard the story of a ten-year-old boy, Justin Zutter of Surrey, who pulled a woman out of Hathaway Lake near 100 Mile House. We heard about the heroic rescue performed by Kevin Brown of Nanaimo, who desperately tried again and again to open the door of a car floating in the Fraser River to get the driver out. We heard the story of Charlene Comeau, Per Humle, Jessica Kerr, Gerry Langdon and Jill Witowich, who had prior skills and knowledge gained through the society programs to aid victims of aquatic emergencies.

To the many brave men, women, boys and girls who go out to meet the challenges in an emergency, I salute you.

R. Hawes: March 22 marks Volunteer Appreciation Night in the district of Mission. This is an annual event that takes place in Mission and is put on by the city council and by the chamber of commerce in Mission. Each year the award recipients include the sports volunteer of the year, the service volunteer of the year, business of the year, citizen of the year and a lifetime achievement award.

Today I just want to take a moment to remind all of us that volunteers actually are the backbone of every community. They touch every facet of community life from minor sports, disease control, youth development, public safety…. Our hospitals don't run without volunteers. I want to particularly salute today the volunteers that work in our CPAC offices and community policing and in our volunteer fire departments across the province.

On behalf of all of us, I want to salute the volunteers not just in the district of Mission but right across the province. They deserve our thanks, and I urge all of us to give them that.

J. Kwan: Will the Minister of Health Planning provide an assurance to the residents of Delta that a formal consultation process will proceed before the Fraser health authority cuts funding to the Delta Hospital?

Hon. C. Hansen: Each of the health authorities in the province has been undergoing a review of the most effective way to deliver patient care in their respective areas. Those plans are going to be coming to government sometime in the near future, and we'll be reviewing them when we receive them.

J. Kwan: The residents of Delta had an assurance that there would be consultation on the cuts to the Delta Hospital, but the opposition has learned that the consultation process which was promised has been

axed. The minister said last week in estimates that she would hold regions accountable for consultation.

Again, to the Minister of Health Planning: the Fraser health region is not consulting. What are you going to do about that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Each of the health authorities has had ongoing discussions. There have been discussions with medical staff and community leaders. They've been looking at the best way of actually meeting the needs of patients in these communities, not focusing first of all on the bricks and mortar but on the needs of individual residents in accessing the care they need in the most effective manner. Every region is doing that; every region is at different stages in the development of their plans. Nothing will be finalized until such time as those plans are reviewed by government.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? Perhaps the Minister of Health Services should actually let the Minister of Health Planning answer the questions for which she's responsible.

In a letter to staff that we obtained, the chief operating officer of the Fraser health authority says that plans are moving forward to implement the cuts, including those to Delta Hospital. Needless to say, the Delta Hospital Foundation is very upset. The Minister of Health Services probably doesn't know what's going on. I don't blame him; not very many people tell him what's going on.

To the Minister of Health Planning. If the minister won't answer my colleague's question, perhaps she will answer the same question that was put in writing to the health authority's CEO by the Delta Health Foundation. Why is the health authority being allowed to proceed with the cost-cutting recommendations without consultation with the community and the Delta Hospital Foundation, as was promised?

Hon. C. Hansen: Each of the health authorities is putting their proposals together for the redesign of the health care system to actually make it start working for patients for a change — unlike the last ten years, where we saw the health care system deteriorate.

There are not cuts in health care in British Columbia. An additional billion dollars has been put into the health care budget by this government, and we want to make sure that every dollar spent in the health budget is spent in a way that meets the needs of patients. The health authorities are now trying to come up with their design for the health care system so that we can actually get on with the change and get on with meeting the needs of individual British Columbians in every community throughout this province.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister should try to catch up with what's really going on out there in the real world.

Six billion dollars is being handed over to unaccountable — completely unaccountable — health authorities, and the government, including these two ministers, is just washing its hands of any responsibilities. Hospital closures are coming in every region in the province, but last week the Minister of Health Planning said that, oh, it's not her responsibility and passed the buck to the regions.

The regions make promises to the public to consult, and then they break them just as easily as the Minister of Health Planning did. British Columbians are consigned to watching this bureaucratic game of buck-passing and butt-covering like we've never seen before, all as the government dismantles health services.

Again, to the Minister of Health Planning: will the minister order the Fraser health authority, which she created and appointed the chair, to undertake, as they promised, a consultation process before any decisions are made to cut vital health services to Delta as outlined in this correspondence?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm actually quite surprised this member doesn't realize that the health authorities fall under the Ministry of Health Services. As a result, I'll be pleased to try to answer.

This is the first time in B.C. history that we've actually put in place accountability measures for the health authorities — the first time — instead of the approach that was taken by the previous government, where they continued to pump more and more money into the health care system without results. In fact, we saw the health care system deteriorate at a time when they were pumping…

Hon. C. Hansen: …more and more money into it. The health authorities are engaged in consultations throughout the province. They're sitting down with community leaders; they're sitting down with health care professionals; they're getting the advice of doctors on the front line and nurses on the front line. They're going to be coming forward with their plans to redesign the system. At the end of the day the accountability for those decisions will rest here with this government, because we're going to get on with fixing the health care system.

T. Christensen: Last October the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services announced a freeze on approximately 1,700 proposed housing units while his ministry was to conduct a review of all the projects and the ability of the province to pay for them. Those projects are around the province. One of

them is in my riding. Can the minister give us an update on the status of that review?

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the challenges we inherited from the former government was a budget expenditure line for B.C. Housing that rose from $126 million in the last fiscal year to $170 million in '04-05.

Hon. G. Abbott: That clearly is not a sustainable budget line, even among spendthrifts like the former government. That produced the very difficult decision to put the projects under review. I'm very pleased to say that after a lot of work at B.C. Housing and within the ministry, we have now reached a sustainable budget line. We do that through strengthened partnerships with the federal government, local governments, health authorities, the non-profit sector. That has allowed us to be in a position where, hopefully, later this week we will be announcing about 700 units that will proceed. About a thousand, unfortunately, won't be able to proceed, at least at this time.

T. Christensen: Given the financial constraints the province does face and that, as the minister has indicated, all the units won't be able to go ahead, can the minister outline the criteria used in the review and the type of project that will be proceeding?

Hon. G. Abbott: …with respect to our review of the projects was around whether the projects were in fact targeted to those who are most vulnerable in our society: the frail elderly, the homeless, the physically and mentally disabled or ill. Those projects that we'll be announcing are all certainly targeted in that direction. The other thing about them is that they are all very strongly partnered. In fact, these 20 projects….

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't blame the opposition for being consumed by the bad news that eats them up each and every day. Those 20 projects bring $49 million in partnership equity to the table. I think that's a remarkable achievement.

We believe some of the remaining projects will be able to proceed. Certainly, we're going to challenge them to bring more to the table — whether it's land, the servicing to the land…

Hon. G. Abbott: …and other aspects of it. I'm sure, knowing British Columbians — now that they've recovered from the legacy of the former government — they'll rise to that challenge.

R. Hawes: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. This past weekend the minister met with the BCMA in Vancouver. Health care is uppermost in the minds of most British Columbians, and there seem to be conflicting messages that have come out of this meeting. Can the minister please tell us what he hoped to accomplish at this meeting?

Hon. C. Hansen: I did meet with the executive of the BCMA for about two hours on Saturday. We have put $390 million on the table for the coming year and each of the subsequent years to deal with physician compensation. That's an average increase of $50,000 per doctor in British Columbia. My goal in meeting with the BCMA was to follow up on a letter from the president of the BCMA urging us to get on with sorting out the details, so those cheques can actually flow to doctors as soon as possible.

We're anxious to sit down with the B.C. Medical Association as soon as possible to deal with some of the outstanding issues, so physicians in this province can start to realize the cheques that flow as a result of that $392 million increase.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has a supplementary question.

R. Hawes: I know there's been a number of physicians corresponding and speaking with each other about this issue over the last few days. Specifically, I know they've had a number of discussions around their pay increase, etc. There's a lot of confusion around this. I wonder: could the minister tell us exactly what settlement the doctors in this province are going to get? Can you clear up the confusion?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a 6.2 percent increase across the board on fee-for-service, which is retroactive to last April 1. Those cheques should start to flow within the next few weeks. There is an additional 5.1 percent increase that takes effect retroactive to November 1, and again we're trying to get those dollars to flow as soon as possible. Annualized, that means an increase in physician remuneration of $180 million for fee-for-service.

There's an additional $80 million increase for on-call payments for physicians throughout the province.

On top of that, there is $127 million to deal with issues around increases for salaried and sessional physicians, increases in the remuneration for rural doctors

in the province — increases there to make sure we cover growth in population and the increased utilization. It is a very generous comprehensive package there to assist in making sure we can retain and recruit the physicians we need to meet the needs of British Columbians in the years ahead.

J. Kwan: Last week the Federal Court of Canada overturned the federal government's expropriation of Nanoose Bay. In 1999 the now Premier stated he supported the no-nukes policy in Nanoose Bay. Last week the Premier backed away from that commitment, breaking yet another promise. To the Premier, on the course of agreeing with the former government's decision on Nanoose Bay — that it is the property of British Columbia: why is the Premier breaking his commitment and allowing nuclear weapons in British Columbia waters?

Hon. G. Campbell: Actually, the member opposite does not recollect what our position was. We said it was wrong for the federal government to expropriate that land. During the campaign we said we would ask the federal government to repatriate that land. We continue to pursue that policy. We're going to continue to ask the federal government of Canada to meet the needs of coastal communities up and down this coast and to live up to the terms of a lease which says that coastal communities come first.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Surrey-Whalley has the floor.

E. Brenzinger: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Child care remains a priority for many British Columbians. A number of my constituents have been asking me what our government's plans are to provide affordable child care. Can the Minister of State for Women's Equality tell us what her plans are to make child care in B.C. more accessible?

Hon. L. Stephens: This is a very important question. It certainly is for all of the working families in British Columbia and for the single moms around the province. We are undergoing a new direction for child care.

In the fall I did a consultation around the province. We touched 12 communities and sent out 20,000 surveys. What we are developing now is a child care plan that is partnership-driven, community-focused, fiscally sustainable and directed to target families who need it the most, and to increase and expand the number of child care spaces in British Columbia.

This new targeted system will reduce administrative costs for providers and make more effective use of our limited resources and will provide predictability…

Hon. L. Stephens: …and stability to families of British Columbia and to child care providers.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, today is Commonwealth Day. In legislatures in Commonwealth nations throughout the world a common thread is shared by a special Commonwealth Day message provided by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Canada and head of the Commonwealth. As members of the British Columbia branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and through you to the people of British Columbia, it is my honour to convey, on behalf of Her Majesty, the Queen's Commonwealth Day message celebrating diversity.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, thank you for conveying Her Majesty's Commonwealth Day message to Members of the Legislative Assembly and the people of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd like to move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, that the following message be forwarded to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada and head of the Commonwealth:

Hon. Speaker, believe it or not, I can still remember when Her Majesty's coronation took place. I remember it because it was actually the first television my family ever had. It was rented, it was huge, and it took up most of the room, but the family stood around and watched that ceremony — incredible for all of us in the Commonwealth.

Her Majesty has led us through incredible times of change. She has always been a symbol of stability, a symbol of integrity, a symbol of grace and a symbol of the greatness that we have in the Commonwealth, where we have a constitutional democracy and democracies that are thriving, that have spread around the world and, in fact, that have been an example to everyone. I am pleased to stand on behalf of this Assembly to celebrate Her Majesty's jubilee year.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House I call Committee of Supply as well, and for the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Health Planning.

J. MacPhail: I note from the general responsibilities under health planning that the Minister of Health Planning is responsible for seniors', women's and aboriginal health. I checked that out at the beginning of estimates, and the Minister of Health Planning acknowledged that. My questions today are going to be about aboriginal health.

I have correspondence from the director of aboriginal services. Perhaps the Minister of Health Planning could review for me aboriginal health services as they stand today.

Hon. S. Hawkins: What we've done with aboriginal health is devolve the funding for the contracts down to the health authorities. What we've kept in the ministry is the strategic planning aspect. That is how we've delineated it. We've got a smaller office, but we're going to focus on strategic planning for aboriginal health.

J. MacPhail: If the minister has a sore throat, I totally understand it; but if not, I'm having trouble hearing her. Perhaps just lean closer to the mike. I understand about having a sore throat, believe you me, and I wish her better health.

What is the change, then? If you've devolved aboriginal health, what is the change?

We've moved the funding for the contracts to the health authorities. We are expecting the health authorities to create health plans for the aboriginal communities. We want them to develop the relationship with the health communities. We will be monitoring aboriginal health on a higher level, a more strategic level. That's the relationship. They will look after funding. We expect them to put plans in place. I think most of the

health authorities are pretty well on the way to having their aboriginal plans in place. With the provincial health officer, we will be monitoring the health of that population.

J. MacPhail: There was a provincial Aboriginal Health Advisory Council in place. What's happened to that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The provincial aboriginal health organization or council is still in place, and they will be helping us develop a provincial aboriginal health services strategy.

J. MacPhail: So the advisory council is still in place. Could I have the membership of that, please?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The steering committee includes representatives from political organizations such as the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Métis Provincial Council and the Aboriginal Peoples Council. It has provincial health organizations — Community Health Associates of B.C. is the rep — and provincial advocacy organizations such as the B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, the Council of Aboriginal Women of B.C. and Red Road HIV-AIDS Network.

J. MacPhail: When did they last meet, and what has been the meeting schedule under this government?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm not sure if they met last month or two months ago, but they are meeting on Thursday of this week.

J. MacPhail: Under the provincial health goals, particularly goal No. 5, which identifies aboriginal health as a priority, the Minister of Health Planning and I discussed this in her last set of estimates last August. At that time the minister said she was committed to all of the provincial health goals. What has she done in the last…? What discussion has occurred between the B.C. Aboriginal Health Council and this minister, particularly with regard to goal No. 5?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm trying to remember the groups I met with over the last few months. I'm trying to get that clear. I met with aboriginal governors from the different health authorities. That was a couple of months ago. They were working on the health plans for the health authorities. I also met with the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the health committee. We will be meeting with them again this week.

We are very committed to looking at the health status of the aboriginal population. It's an area of great concern. We've identified that there are issues we can work on together. We'll be meeting with the first nations health committee representatives this week and starting to work on specific issues to address to get us to the health goals so they match the general population. We know that the health status of the aboriginal population is well below that of the general population.

J. MacPhail: Does the part of the Ministry of Health Planning that's still responsible for aboriginal health, and that hasn't been devolved to the health authorities, continue to be called the aboriginal health division? What is it called? How many staff are there? What is the reporting mechanism?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The new department is the special adviser, aboriginal health. There are 2.5 staff in that office. They report directly to the provincial director general, population health and wellness.

J. MacPhail: There's a special adviser on aboriginal health. Who is that, please?

J. MacPhail: She reports to the provincial health officer, as I thought I heard?

Hon. S. Hawkins: She reports to the provincial director general, population health and wellness unit. That's Andy Hazlewood.

J. MacPhail: We have 2.5 people looking after policy around aboriginal health. The minister refers to the fact that the aboriginal health plans are moving forward. I have correspondence received at the beginning of this year from aboriginal people wondering what was happening with the health plans. How are aboriginal health plans proceeding at the regional level? Perhaps the minister could take one regional authority and describe to me how it's happening, because certainly not every aboriginal group knows this is happening out here. Just take one.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The health plans were started when there were 52 health authorities. We've restructured and now have six health authorities, so we've got five regional health authorities. Those health authorities are taking the health plans that were started by the 52. If you went into the interior health region, they would be taking the health plans that were within their region. We have extended the deadlines for them to work on those plans; I believe we've extended them to this fall. They will be responsible for showing us they have worked with their aboriginal community and come up with some health plan around what they were working on initially with the 52 governors. We expect them to have a more comprehensive view of what is required, because they are in a bigger population base now.

Those health plans are very valuable. I know, when I met with the governors, that the 52 different regions were at different stages of working on those health

plans. In fact, if I'm correct, I think the interior and some of the rural areas were further ahead in developing their health plans. We have now extended that to this fall, and we expect the health authorities to come back to us with a framework for an aboriginal health plan.

J. MacPhail: Will aboriginal health programs be delivered through the health authorities as part of the $6 billion, or is there any targeted funding listed? I couldn't find any targeted funding in the estimates book.

Hon. S. Hawkins: If I could just go back for a minute, I should clarify those health plans. The health plans must address improved access to service and increased aboriginal involvement in decision-making and planning for their population, and they must show the establishment of a meaningful working relationship between the aboriginal communities and the health service providers, the health authorities and the province. That's what we're expecting in the health plans. My understanding is that $9.5 million is in the budget for the Ministry of Health Services for planning, service delivery and contracts for aboriginal health.

J. MacPhail: When one says "meaningful consultation," perhaps…. Is there going to be sign-off from first nations aboriginal groups on the health plan?

Hon. S. Hawkins: No, we haven't asked for sign-off for today. We're going to hold the health authorities accountable for ensuring that they have had meaningful discussion with their aboriginal population, that there has been consultation and that they have engaged them in the planning, in the decision-making.

There are four policy tables that we are engaged in insofar as helping with health planning. I listed them before. That was the First Nations Summit, and that's representing the first nations engaged in the B.C. Treaty Commission treaty-making process; the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; the Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia; and the Aboriginal Peoples Council. At a ministry level, we are engaged in those at a policy table. At the health authority level, we expect them to make sure they have engaged their aboriginal communities. We'll be holding them accountable for that.

J. MacPhail: What role, if any, will aboriginal people be playing in the health authority governance?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand that there has been interest and that people have come forward and names have been put forward for people of aboriginal descent who would like to serve. There is no requirement per se. How can I put it? There's no select spot on a board for a representative, but I understand that there have been names put forward.

J. MacPhail: Well, there used to be a designated spot for first nations on health boards. I gather what the minister is trying to say is that that seat for governance is no longer there for aboriginal first nations people.

Let me just ask a very specific question in terms of the health plan. There was a publication called Healing Ways which talked about aboriginal health in this province. Is the minister familiar with it, and is it forming any part of the planning process for aboriginal health plans?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm familiar with a document that…. There are several, actually, that are titled similarly. Can she give me more information on the one she's talking about?

J. MacPhail: It was a document that was published by aboriginal communities throughout the province, called Healing Ways. It was just about how aboriginal health had to be all-encompassing in terms of the services provided and the different nature of health services required by aboriginal people. It concentrated as much on urban aboriginal health requirements as on non-urban aboriginal health requirements. The document did very much concentrate on the different needs of aboriginal communities in terms of alternative therapies.

I noted with interest the relationship between Healing Ways and the government's recent changing of the legalities of practising alternative health in this province. Has the minister had any discussion with…? I'm thinking specifically of naturopaths. The previous government had introduced legislation allowing for that kind of practice of medicine without penalty for a physician. That was removed — repealed — by this current government so that it's now an open-ended question about whether physicians can practise alternative methods without penalty. Has the minister or the aboriginal health advisory council had any further discussions about alternative methods of health delivery for aboriginal communities?

Hon. S. Hawkins: No, we haven't had any specific discussions, but I just want to make it clear to the member that we didn't take away any rights. We did not remove any. There are no impediments to practitioners practising complementary medicine. They're going to be held to the same standards that every other physician that is registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons is going to be held to.

As far as physicians out there practising complementary medicine, we did not say there was going to be a penalty for them practising. We removed some pretty interesting pieces of legislation — I don't want to get into it here — in estimates. We brought everyone back to the same standards that the College of Physicians and Surgeons holds for all of its members.

J. MacPhail: Those are not my words; those are the words of the medical practitioners who practise complementary medicine about the government's removal of their right to do so without consequence.

Well, for the minister's information — and perhaps she can discuss this when she meets with her aboriginal health advisory council — there has been much work done by off-reserve aboriginal people, particularly the need for urban aboriginal health services. It is my understanding that the majority of those services are at threat now due to the lack of targeted funding, and no longer will the government be providing targeted funding for aboriginal health services. They will be competing along with heart surgery and knee surgery within the various health authorities.

I actually don't think that lives up to provincial health goal No. 5. My constituency and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's constituency together form the largest off-reserve aboriginal population in all of Canada. In meeting with our aboriginal constituents, our first nations constituents, their two highest concerns about achieving economic equality are lack of proper health care and lack of proper education.

It's true. For the last ten years we tried very hard to change those numbers, and we were changing them. But we did it through targeted funding, both targeted funding in the education system and targeted funding in the health system. I think all of that is at risk now. I know very well how difficult it is to compete for valuable health dollars when you have a small alternative type of health care delivery that a specific part of society uses. Frankly, aboriginal peoples in this province need more love and care and health attention than the vast majority of the rest of us.

One of the reasons why I brought Healing Ways to the attention of the minister is because all of these questions are addressed in that document and were leading to some solutions. One of the solutions that was put forward was a healing centre that would serve the off-reserve, urban aboriginal population.

The last correspondence I had on that issue…. There was silence from the government. Can the minister, in terms of health planning for aboriginal health, give me the status of where the aboriginal healing centre for the lower mainland stands?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me say, first of all, that we are developing a closer relationship with the aboriginal communities. We met for the first time — all of cabinet — with the first nations. I myself and the Minister of Health Services have met with the first nations health committee.

I've met with different representatives from health authorities around the province, the past governors that were working on the health plans. I believe the provincial health officer is releasing a report this spring on the health status of our aboriginal population in B.C. There's quite a bit of work being done around this.

I want to make sure the member realizes there's not a cut to that funding. It's $9.5 million. It's going to continue. It is targeted for three years. That's my understanding from the deputy minister. It will continue to be targeted for three years. In those three years we're asking the regions to consult with the health authorities, particularly with respect to general access issues around the continuum of care and specifically around mental health and addictions. Those are the two areas we're asking the health authorities to work on with the aboriginal communities.

I can tell you that I share the member's frustration with the disparity between urban aboriginal health and, shall we say, reserve aboriginal health. We know there's a funding disparity. We've certainly discussed that with the First Nations Summit and other groups. I've also spoken to the federal minister about it. It's something we're all going to work on together, because we recognize that the federal government gives so much funding for aboriginals on reserves but forgets that they do travel around. As the member rightly points out, there is a huge population in the urban areas. We need to start addressing their concerns and making sure there's funding in place that addresses their health needs as well.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why, in the last set of estimates, I asked specifically about the provincial health goals is because so many of the health goals deal with indicators of health that I don't think this government has done a very good job of paying any attention to whatsoever. Those are the socioeconomic factors that affect health outcomes in this province. I have become increasingly worried about what this means for my own constituents. Perhaps but for a couple of members from the city of Surrey, my colleague and I, the two opposition members, share the lowest-income neighbourhoods in all of British Columbia.

I am very concerned about the lack of targeted funding specifically toward off-reserve, urban aboriginals. I'm very concerned about the lack of targeted funding that affects programs for lower socioeconomic British Columbians. I think there are health programs that overlap with education programs.

I will be watching this extremely carefully, because the Premier in his estimates said there isn't a day goes by in a Premiers' conference that the issue of aboriginal health is not mentioned. It's always mentioned at the Premiers' level in the context of dollars from Ottawa. I know that because I've been there, and I heard exactly what happened at the last two Premiers' conferences, as well, from the inside. It's not about health outcomes. It's not about equality for first nations or aboriginal people. It's about more dollars from Ottawa to pay for their responsibilities — i.e., the federal aboriginal health. That was the discussion I had with the Premier, as well, in his estimates.

I will be watching extremely carefully the aboriginal health plans that come out of the health authorities. I'll be watching extremely carefully what it means by virtue of the fact that, from the minister's own briefing notes, the mandated representatives for physicians,

aboriginals and union are gone and what the consequences of that are. I'll be watching very carefully what it means to no longer have targeted funding for aboriginal health programs. We had a long discussion last week, before we left off, about the fact that all of this would be outlined in a contract between the health authorities and the government, that there would be an outline of what money was to be spent on what.

I have to tell the minister, through the Chair, that I can predict as accurately as anyone possibly can that the minute this government gets caught in a health-funding downward spiral, where there's not enough dollars, this government will ignore the contracts with health authorities to solve that crisis. If the crisis is in heart surgery wait-lists or cataract surgeries, that contract will be set aside, and the money will flow to those services at the expense of others. I also fear that, with the fact that there's so little cooperation amongst the health partners today, there will be jockeying for health dollars for various programs like we've never seen before.

I can't figure out where the accountability is. I'd love to be able to see these aboriginal health plans. I have no idea how to get my hands on them; I have no idea. That's why I wanted to go through one — to tell me exactly how it's going to come about. We used to be able to get them through the health authorities. They would be public documents — rolling documents, works in progress — through the regional health boards and the community health councils. That no longer exists.

It is not in a threatening way. It is in a way of unbelievable concern that I have for aboriginal health outcomes in this province. I worry. I worry about the kids who go to schools in my riding, the kids who…. They're first nations kids. We don't beat around the bush about it. It's not politically incorrect to say that in our inner-city schools, in my and my colleague's ridings, the majority of the kids who are ill-affected at the socioeconomic level are aboriginal kids. We admit to that.

These kids no longer have their guaranteed meal programs. These kids no longer have the guaranteed funding through their aboriginal health programs anymore, and I worry. I worry about these children like you can't even possibly imagine.

As I leave this topic, at every estimate — and if not at estimates, at every opportunity I have — I will stand up here and ask this minister what she's doing for aboriginal health services in this province.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me just say that the aboriginal health plans are being developed. They were never finished, so I don't know what the member's referring to as far as having access to them before. My understanding is that they were never completed.

We are now working with the health authorities, and we're asking them to complete the plans. They will be public documents. We've met with different aboriginal groups and asked them to help us prepare accountability measures and standards with respect to aboriginal health that we can hold our health authorities accountable for.

Let me just say this. She mentions the broad indicators of health, and she's concerned about the socioeconomic factors that affect them. Let me remind her that B.C. is now a have-not province. One of the best indicators for health is a good, thriving economy. We were elected to make sure that we got our province's fiscal health back. In good financial health we could then provide funding for the kind of social programs that she's concerned about.

You know what? This government has protected funding for health and education. In fact, we have increased funding for health. You know what? Unless we get the province's economic picture back to a good state of health, we're not going to be able to afford all the kinds of programs that she's concerned about. We are doing the best we can with the funding that we've got. We've protected health and education, and we're going to continue to do that. We're going to make sure that our health authorities are not going to function like the past ten years, the status quo, where we kept dumping money into health care and didn't measure outcomes.

She talks about looking after the crisis of the day. We're hoping to move away from that. We want to make sure that the funding we actually give to the health authorities will be used to make sure patients actually benefit from the programs set up. That's what we've asked our health authorities to do. That's how we're functioning.

Whether she believes it or not, the $9.5 million for aboriginal health is still there. It's there, and it's targeted for next three years. What we're asking them to do in the next three years is to consult with the communities to make sure they recognize the priorities, work with the health authorities and put the funding where it needs to go to make sure we have the positive outcomes for our aboriginal population as well as our general population.

J. MacPhail: My point is exactly the same as the minister makes, but from the flip side. The delegation of accountability has been put down to the health authority. It is not here with this government. They have abdicated their responsibilities to the health authorities.

If I need to find out whether the health authority money is being spent on aboriginal health services, I guess I have to go to the individual regional health authorities. That was never, ever the intent of any previous government whatsoever, and it's not right. It isn't right that an unelected one-man band in a region gets to make decisions about health care.

You can bet your boots the health crisis will come up on funding, because it happens all the time. That minister knows that, because she used to stand up here and rail against lack of services — renal dialysis services and heart surgery services. She used to do it herself. There would be funding that would go. We would

examine it carefully. We would not take away from Peter to pay Paul, but we would add funding to deal with those crises.

What this government has done is say: "No more money. You health authorities figure it out yourselves. By the way, we're actually not going to tell you in any way what the ballpark figures are for you to be spending. We're going to write up a contract with you, and we hope you live with it. By the way, we don't honour contracts anyway." This government somehow suggesting that a contract is a document of trust is absolutely laughable.

In terms of the well-being of the province in indicators of quality of life, this province is first. That minister knows it, because she sat in front of the progress board chair who reported that. In quality of life and health outcomes, this province was first. It will not in any way assist this minister — about which she knows nothing in terms of have versus have-not province discussions — to use that argument again, because it will come right back to haunt her. But she's welcome to enter the Minister of Finance estimates when we have that one.

I leave it as I did before. There seems to be an inability for the minister to understand this issue. The well-being of this province, from the point of view of socioeconomic equality, is measured in how well first nations and aboriginal people do. Progress was made in the last ten years, and I will be watching to see what happens to that with these changes made by this government.

The next area that I'd like to go to, which is the second item of general responsibilities, is capital planning for the Minister of Health Planning. In the documents we received last week — not the one just specifically for the minister herself but for the Minister for Health Services — there's much talk about capital planning. In this document it's broken down into A, B, C and D lists of capital funding. Can the minister please tell me, in her planning exercise, how the lists were determined?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I just want to go back again for a minute on accountability. She's again railing — I'll use her word — on accountability. I can tell you that the last ten years were an example of failure of accountability of the health system that just sucked in money and didn't necessarily put out good health outcomes. We know that. We've seen a health care budget that has more than doubled in ten years. Again, when you go around the province, you don't hear people saying, "Gee, the quality of the health care is twice as good," or "We've reduced the waiting lists by half." What I was angry about when I was in discussions with the minister on her crisis funding was that there was no planning for these kinds of things. Frankly, when we travelled around the province, what we heard from people was: "Get the politicians out of it. Put good people in there, and let them listen to the communities. Let them do the planning, and let them make the decisions that make the best sense for patient care and meeting patients' needs in their communities." That's what we're doing, and that is what we're going to hold the health authorities accountable for.

With respect to the projects on the list that she's talking about, again, that is Health Services. Those are decisions made with respect to the budget in Health Services. What my ministry is responsible for is a high-level plan for the next ten years. We're going to look at the needs of the province. With respect to the authorities, over the next three, five to ten years we'll be doing that in consultation with the health authorities.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister could define what high-level planning means.

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's probably something she's not at all aware of. It's long-term planning.

J. MacPhail: Could she flesh that out a bit, please? What exact actions are being taken now?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We'll be working with the health authorities to look at the needs of their communities, their changing populations and their different burdens of disease. We'll be looking at the needs for facility planning over the next three to five to ten years in consultation with them.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's already been done, so I'm not sure what the minister is saying about long-term planning. It's already here. Let me just read a list. I'll work backwards between attachments A, B, C and D in terms of the consolidated capital plan.

List D, program-related projects in planning. I assume this refers to what the Minister of Health Planning, a full-fledged minister responsible for health planning, is talking about. It says that health authorities must fund all debt service, amortization and operating costs, so that means there's no new money for any of this given to the health authorities. The planning has been done here. It says, for instance, in the Fraser — it's the top of the list — the Maple Cottage Detoxification Centre replacement facility…. If it's going to be carried forward, the health authorities must fund all debt service, amortization and operating costs. Is the minister somehow saying that this isn't the case?

J. MacPhail: What other planning would the minister be involved in? For instance, there's the interior. Earlier today I heard the member for Kamloops–North Thompson get up and say how wonderful things were going to be in his community with the election of a new government. Here it says that a $14 million project for the second-floor redevelopment of the hospital is going to be the sole responsibility of the health authority. The Nelson health campus as well, a replacement facility that was fully funded by the previous govern-

ment, now has to be paid for by the health authority completely: debt service, amortization and operating costs. Given these decisions, what is the minister working on for long-term planning?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, she knows full well that many of these were not fully funded. I would ask her to think about what kinds of decisions their government made for facility planning. Many of them were political. People across the province have asked for politicians to get out of that kind of decision-making and make sure that the money targeted for health care is actually used to meet patients' needs in the best way for patients across the province. That is what we're doing. We're working with our health authorities.

Many of the projects on this list are under review. What we're trying to do, in the long term, is look at our population needs. We know we've got a huge growing seniors population, and we know there are different ways of looking after them. We have a Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care who is looking at the needs in the long term for that population, from extended care and those kinds of facilities to perhaps assisted care and more in-home care. Those are the kinds of things we're looking at. Building monuments isn't something we're going to do in a political way.

What we've asked the health authorities to do here in the short term is identify the needs of their communities and their populations. The Minister of Health Services, I'm sure, would be happy to discuss with you how this list was drawn. In the long term we're going to be working with our health authorities to flesh out the kinds of needs their populations are going to be facing, the different diseases they expect to be facing in the next few years. The member knows full well that we're working on primary care renewal. We're looking at more integrated teams of care to look after chronic disease care populations.

Those are the kinds of plans we're putting into place as we go forward in planning for facilities and equipment. We know there are going to be equipment changes in the next ten years. We're not going to do what the previous government did, which was bulk purchasing. I might have a facility in which a certain piece of equipment is No. 1 on my list. In another facility, it's No. 30 on their list. But guess what. The province thinks they got a great deal, so they end up purchasing a whole bunch. Whether it's No. 1 on my list or No. 30, we get it. We can't afford to do that with health care dollars. We've got to be smarter. We're going to work with the health authorities, and we're going to plan for future facilities and equipment planning.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister plan on bringing the health authority CEOs and chairs in here for estimates?

J. MacPhail: Then answer my questions. If the health authority chairs are not going to be in this chamber, the minister has to answer these questions or get them in here. It's $6 billion, and this minister stands up and says we're going to have the health authorities do it. Either she has them in here and lets the taxpayers see what accountability they have of the chairs, or she answers the questions.

She is in charge of health planning, and all she does…. It is actually unusual that it's 3:30 and she hasn't brought up fast ferries. What we're looking for are answers from this minister on what she does on a regular basis. What's her job? What does she do at 8 a.m.? What does she do at noon, and what does she do on a Thursday afternoon? That's what I'm trying to find out from this minister.

Do we have to have leaked documents to find out what her briefing notes tell her to say? She's in charge of capital planning. Answer the questions. I want the specifics, not that she's going to say to the health authorities to plan for capital planning. Tell me what the interior health authority is doing about capital planning for Nelson.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I know this member is having trouble understanding this. This is long-term planning. It isn't crisis planning. It's not day-to-day planning. It's not back-of-the-napkin planning like how her ministry used to function when she was in charge of it. This is long-term planning. I didn't say the health authorities would be responsible. I said we would be consulting and working with the health authorities to develop that ten-year plan.

Right now they're going through an assessment of what the needs of their population are. We're also asking them to project, long term, on the basis of their population needs and what kinds of facilities, perhaps, or equipment or other things they might need in the long term. That is what we're going to be working with them on.

I'm having trouble understanding why this member isn't getting this through her head. If she wants to go through the list item by item, she can certainly do that with the Health Services minister. That's in the budget of his ministry. In my ministry we will be looking at what the health authorities are doing and how they're making their decisions around long-term planning. We'll work with them to make sure we are planning the kinds of facilities and equipment they need in their authorities to move ahead into a ten-year plan.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We'll be working with the health authority on that. They are in the process of developing their plans, and I'm sure they'll be consulting the community and consulting the different communities around there. In the next few months I'm sure we'll come up with plans that this member can be entitled to. Next estimates, perhaps, we'll have a long-term plan for that community.

J. MacPhail: There were 700 very concerned people out to meet with the regional health authority in Nel-

son. The town of Nelson knows what they want, so the chair has had that meeting with the town of Nelson. What is the minister's discussion with the chair of the health authority about the long-term plans for Nelson?

Hon. S. Hawkins: You know, it's really regrettable that politicians interfered in such a horrible way in that community. That member's government promised something that wasn't funded. They knew they couldn't deliver and did it in a very political way before an election. That is the kind of stuff we're trying to get away from. When we travelled around the province, people told us: "Don't do this. Get the politicians out of it."

I can't tell you how many administrators, health care providers, doctors, community people and patients said: "You make sure you get the best people to make the decisions for what's needed in our communities." That's what we're doing. We're not going to be politically interfering. We're going to let the decision-makers, the people that know about health care, the administrators, the communities as well…. We're hearing from the communities. We're going to make sure it makes sense for all the population around that area. That's what we have committed to do, and that's what we're going to do.

J. MacPhail: The meetings have taken place in Nelson with the health authority, the CEO and the chair. The community has spoken. What is the minister doing about that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: She's absolutely right. The chair has been there, and he's been there several times. He's listened to the community. He's taken their comments, and they're looking at what is required for the needs of the population around that area. You know what? This is so frustrating. It's not: "What are we going to do for this little community, this little community, this little community?" Maybe the NDP way of doing things is to be very political and say, "We'll give you this, but we won't give you this," or "We'll put that there." That is not what we're asking our health authorities to do.

We're asking our health authorities to think about what they've got for funding and think about making sure they put patients first — that patient care is a priority — and to organize health care within those health service delivery areas, within their health authorities, to make sure they're getting the best value for the dollars that they're being funded for and make sure the patients are being well served.

I'm sorry I don't have an answer for that member on what, politically, we might think of doing in that area. I don't know. We're waiting for the health authorities, who are making their plans, to come back to us and tell us what makes sense for patient care so we make sure the patients all over that region, all over that health service delivery area, get good care.

J. MacPhail: Am I to assume that this list on attachment D that says that health authorities must fund all debt service, amortizations and operating costs is wrong, then? Is that what I'm to assume — that you haven't made a decision on this list?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand that attachment A, the A list, is going ahead. The others are under review.

J. MacPhail: Well, it says here very firmly that a decision has been made, and actually, letters have gone out to the health authorities with those attachments. Has the minister recalled those letters outlining attachments A, B, C and D? Has she recalled those?

Hon. S. Hawkins: She's got the letters in front of her. None of them are being recalled. Everything's clearly laid out in the letters. The letters stand the way they are.

J. MacPhail: It doesn't say they're under review. It says — it's very specific — that these are the four categories. I am trying to find out what the long-term plan is. The Minister of Health Planning stands up. During estimates last year, this was how she described how Health Planning was taking place: "Well, we meet in the hallway, and we have some great conversations. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and I have some good conversations with the Minister of Children and Family Development. We just meet in the hallways. We don't have any formal meeting."

I was asking specifically about cabinet committee meetings. I reviewed these estimates from last year, believe you me. It was: "Oh no, we're just bonding like crazy, and we have some great conversations in the hallway."

I thought maybe Health Planning had moved on a little bit from last August. Maybe you weren't just sort of meeting in the hallways, and there was actually some sort of formal planning process going on. That's what I'm trying to figure out — what it is the minister's doing. Has she moved the discussions into some sort of formal aspect where the public actually knows what's going on, where her colleagues may know what's going on and that can be actually examined, as is required by law, in this Legislature?

All we have is a document that but for a leak would never have come to the public eye. And we have a list of four categories. The category that I'm referring to with the minister was attached to a letter sent to the interior health authority CEO saying: "You've got to pay for these yourself."

What kind of input would they get from the community of Nelson that would change their mind on, let's say, the Nelson health campus — that they might actually want to put some money into it? What is the list of questions being asked that the minister keeps to referring to, which would allow for the public to

Hon. S. Hawkins: She has the letter. If she looks at the letter, on page 4 it does say: "The next step is that the health authorities should review all capital projects for consistency with possible service delivery changes, overall priority among other local needs, alternative procurement opportunities and affordability." They've been asked to look at all of their projects and review them within the context of those criteria.

She keeps going back to the Nelson health campus — again, a political decision that was unfunded. They didn't intend to fund it. It's a pretty sad statement for a government that was on its dying breath to try and do that.

We are not going to politically interfere with the planning. We've asked professionals to go out there and tell us what is required to make sure that patients get good care within their health service delivery areas within the health authorities. That is what we've asked them to do, and that is what we're going to continue asking them to do.

They're in the process of planning. She's absolutely right. The different administrators and the chair have been out. He's met with communities. He has travelled quite a bit. I know that there have been other community meetings. Our MLAs have been out listening to community groups as well. We will take all of that into account as the health authorities develop their plans.

With respect to long-term planning, again, that's exactly what it is. I am not going to make short-term decisions. That is up to the Minister of Health Services and the health authorities. We are looking at the needs of the population over a long term. We know that there's going to be a huge impact on the health care budget if we don't get our chronic disease numbers under our belts here, if we don't get them under control. We know that we have to develop strategies for diabetes, for asthma, for heart disease, and we're working on groups to do that.

If she went through the service plan for Health Planning and looked at some of our strategies, our goals, our targets that we hope to reach, she would see that there is a lot of good work being done now in the Ministry of Health Planning. But she wants to focus on health services and the short term and some of the things that the health authorities have been assigned to do in view of the decisions that they have to make in planning over the next one to three years. That's fine; we can continue this. But if she wants to focus on health planning, maybe she wants to look at the service plan there.

We can tell her about all the good work that we have accomplished to date, like the nursing strategy. We've done a ton of work around the nursing strategy. We've actually been able to reduce nursing vacancies in this province by 20 percent. We went on a recruiting mission. We were actually able to recruit 46 specialty nurses. We were actually able to get a return-to-nursing-in-B.C. program established — and guess what. There are over 250 applicants from nurses who weren't practising in B.C., who are now coming back because of the grants we laid out that will help them to get their refresher program and licensure again.

There is a lot of good work being done. If she wants to keep being Chicken Little — fearmongering, scaring patients and doing that kind of stuff — we can continue that kind of dialogue here.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure what the Minister of Health Planning is talking about — fearmongering. I'm reading from her own document, so I'm not quite sure. It's a document, of course, that had to be leaked. It's a violation of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act that this wasn't part of the budget. It's outrageous that the Minister of Finance withheld this information from the public in violation of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. I'm not quite sure why the minister is somehow saying that I'm fearmongering. I'm reading from her own documents. They're documents that were kept secret from the public, in violation of their own legislation. All I'm doing is discussing it now. I'm not quite sure why the executive-council benches are so up in arms.

I just want to carry on with the discussion, because this minister set up the health authorities. The great plan she brought to cabinet set up the health authorities. She must have known what she was doing. I know that it took her a couple of tries to get the health plan through her cabinet, but she must have known what she was doing. She must have had some idea of what the long-term planning was going to be for each health authority.

What I'm trying to do is just discuss, to take one example. I've been trying throughout the whole thing to just walk through a case study. I asked for it on aboriginal health. We couldn't do it there, which is part of her responsibilities. I'm not making this up. It says capital planning right here. I went through this at the very beginning with the minister. Capital planning — that's all I'm trying to do.

The Nelson health campus was fully funded by the previous government. There's evidence completely to that effect. The government's trying to say it wasn't fully funded.

The Chair: Members, could we have a bit of order and allow the member to proceed with her questions?

J. MacPhail: I think, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance needs to actually read his acts and figure out what his job requirements are. To hold himself accountable to the public, he would have released this document with his budget if he'd been following the law. He broke the law, and now he's upset by the fact that he broke the law.

The Chair: Member, if we could restrict our comments…. We're dealing with the Minister of Health Planning's estimates. Could we proceed with those, please?

J. MacPhail: Yes. That's actually what I'm trying to do. I'm reading from the government's documents. I'm not quite sure why the Minister of Health Planning is so upset by that.

Let's try to take another case study, then. I'm just trying to figure out one that maybe the minister…. Let's talk the provincial health services authority, then. That was set up with great pride by the Minister of Health Planning.

She stood up in her estimates and said that for the very first time ever, we were going to set up a provincial health authority. So here we have under attachment D, the provincial health services authority…. Riverview Hospital is all going to have to be funded by the provincial health services authority: the debt servicing, the amortization and the operating costs. What was the thinking behind having Riverview Hospital entirely of its own — having to take money from Peter to pay Paul…?

Hon. S. Hawkins: She was on capital planning. I'm just wondering where she's moved on to now. She's now talking about Riverview.

If she looks there, from what I can tell, 100 percent of the capital funding is coming from the ministry. Some of it is under construction. Some of them are substantially complete. The operating will come from the provincial health services authority.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, no. I'm reading from attachment D, program-related projects in planning. Health authorities must fund all debt service, amortization and operating costs. Then you move down to the provincial health services authority, Riverview Hospital. I'm just using that as a case in point. When you set up your provincial health services, separating it out — Riverview used to be a separate board unto its own — what was the thinking of the Minister of Health Planning as she set up the provincial health services authority?

I refer to the documents that were actually made public by the government as opposed to this one, which wasn't. July 30, 2001 — I think that was the first economic update of this government. Their own documents say "Capital expenditure projects. Replacement of the Kootenay Lake regional hospital and Mount St. Francis Hospital with the Nelson health campus in Nelson" — fully funded.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm pretty proud of the fact that this government accepted, for the first time ever, a health services authority that looks after provincial programs, because I know, again, over the last ten years or so we saw patients around the province who were not very happy that they weren't getting access to equitable care. We wanted to make sure we pulled out the programs, put them into one health authority and made sure there's representation from around the province on that health authority to make sure people across the province would get equitable care.

The reason that Riverview went into that provincial health services authority is that it is a provincial resource, a provincial hospital. That's where we felt the needs of patients would be best met.

J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to find here is, in terms of health planning…. Let's just take mental health, then, for health planning. Riverview Hospital is now the major facility for people with mental illness that need long-term care. That's Riverview Hospital. There was a plan to change that. I'm looking through lists A, B and C to find out what the plan is for Riverview Hospital or regional health facilities as well — for instance, the one in Kamloops. Among the lists A, B, C and D, I'm trying to figure out what the minister's long-term planning is for people with mental illness who need chronic care attention.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We're looking at Riverview to see how it can meet the tertiary needs of patients across the province. We're also looking at different models to see how community needs can be met for patients that require mental health services.

As far as detailed planning for the mental health plan, she's certainly welcome to talk to the Minister of State for Mental Health, who is going to be delivering the $125 million mental health strategy that her government failed to deliver. In the short term, he will be doing that. He will be rolling that out. I believe he's been working very hard at that. We've been working with this minister on the long term, as I said, on how Riverview can meet the tertiary needs of mental health patients, as well as working with him to see how we can meet the needs of patients in communities.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister can understand my difficulty in finding out some information. If you go to the blue book, there's not one single line for mental health — not one. There's no money designated specifically for mental health — none — just as there's no money designated for aboriginal health. It's a big lump-sum payment and then about a hundred responsibilities under that, which are being delegated to the health authorities.

It's not like people who are advocating for a family member with mental illness can open up the blue book and figure out how much is there. The minister keeps saying $125 million. I can't find out where the $400 million went that was in the last budget. I can't find out where that went, for mental health. Right now there's zero.

This is the minister responsible for long-term planning. Mental health is a huge issue in this province. I go to the capital plan, and I'm trying to find out, in terms of long-term planning, what the idea is for resi-

dential, acute care or chronic care for people with mental illness. All I can find is a listing for Riverview Hospital saying: "Hey, provincial health services, we're giving you nothing to do anything about Riverview Hospital. If you want to do anything, it all comes out of your own pocket."

Perhaps the minister could walk through with me the long-term capital planning for mental health facilities.

Hon. S. Hawkins: There is $138 million in capital funding for mental health. This includes the facility in Kamloops, which her government failed to fund and never built. It includes the facility in Prince George, and it also includes modular facilities for moving patients out of Riverview and into communities as their needs need to be met. Again, she can talk to the Minister of State for Mental Health, who's working very hard at this.

I understand, as well, that the money for mental health has gone to the health authorities. She's certainly welcome to canvass the Minister of Health Services on how that money is going to be spent and how some of it is being targeted and some of it is being looked at as they make their plans to meet the needs of the populations within their health authorities.

J. MacPhail: I will be asking the Minister of Health Services the information that's in his area as well. This minister is responsible for capital planning. That's why I'm putting the questions here. She also admitted that the regional health authority chairs would not be available for questioning. That's why I'm asking her the questions.

In this consolidated capital plan budget I can't find a figure where it says $138 million for mental health facility capital planning. What I can find is a figure of $11.8 million for new-era commitments for capital planning for the year '02-03 and then another $23.6 million for '03-04 and another $23.6 million for '04-05. Does the minister have some paper that…? She came up with the figure of $138 million. I can't find that anywhere — leaked or public.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, that is the money that's been delegated for capital planning for mental health. Again, if she wants to question the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of State for Mental Health around that, she's welcome to do that. You know what? I can understand why she doesn't get it. She focuses on the immediate. She just doesn't seem to understand long-term planning.

If she goes into the service plans for health planning, she'll see that for the first time ever…. We've probably put out more information than we ever got from them in the last five years. I can't ever recall having the detail of information that we put out in our service plans. We actually set goals. Under those goals we actually set some objectives. Under those objectives we actually set some strategies. Then, in order to measure how well we were going to do, we actually set some targets.

As far as capital and equipment, I am responsible for the long term. We've asked our health authorities to tell us now and into the next year or two how they can best utilize the capital and equipment they've got and to identify their needs. Within the context of those kinds of discussions we will be developing a long-term capital and facilities plan for the province. In fact, our target for long-term plans for the health sector — our complete four-year capital plan; complete acute care and intermediate and long-term care facilities plan; an update on our health human resource plan; and a complete design and consultation on medical machinery, equipment and technology — is '03-04. You'll find that on page 7 of your leaked document. Actually, it was not leaked; it's public information.

J. MacPhail: No, it wasn't public information until someone other than the government made it public. Please don't in any way try to take credit for telling the public the truth.

Perhaps the minister could show me where in that document the $138 million for long-term mental health facility planning is listed. I can't find it anywhere. I read the health plan, I read the health planning service plan, and I can't find it anywhere. Just point me to it.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I am absolutely amazed that she has the gall to ask these questions. Her government, for the last four or five years, said they were going to fund a $125 million mental health strategy and didn't put one cent into it. They were forced — forced — to put money into it when they were called on it. Frankly, the Minister of State for Mental Health has been working extremely hard to implement the strategy that they started. We will have a long-term plan for mental health. It's being developed. We're working with our provincial health services authority and our regional health authorities.

Again, I can see why she's having trouble focusing on long-term planning, because she's more inclined to think of the immediate. We're inclined to think of the long term. We're asking for our health authorities to get the best information possible to identify needs, to look at planning for the next two or three years. Then we'll sit down with them to look at the needs of the population over the next five to ten years.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell me where I can find the figure of $138 million for mental health facilities, please?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That figure was given to me by the deputy, who also serves the Minister of Health Services. I told her — through you, Chair — that she is welcome to canvass those questions when the Ministry of Health Services has its estimates.

J. MacPhail: No, I'm asking for the piece of paper so that the public would be able to know about it.

Where is that piece of paper that shows the three-year planning for mental health?

The minister is saying there's a figure of $138 million. I've been through the leaked documents and the public documents, and I can't find that anywhere. Just tell me. It's just a figure. It must be a public figure, so just give it to me, please.

Hon. S. Hawkins: If she can't get it from the Minister of Health Services, I'll get it for her.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that somehow the figure that she just read out to me is not available to the public?

Let me just make it clear that if the government would actually provide information about this stuff, we could have a decent dialogue. I have a figure. Here's the figure I have of what they've got planned for mental health: capital planning — $11.8 million this year, $23.6 million next year and $23.6 million the year after that. That'll be the end of the first term.

I don't know where else I could get information. All of a sudden, popping out of nowhere, comes the figure of $138 million. The Minister of Health Planning is responsible. She gave the figure. Just send it across to me; that's all. What's the document it's in?

All right. Let me ask this, then. Here's what I'll ask. Boy, the Minister of Health Planning is so reluctant to discuss things based on facts. Here's what I had for the total capital expenditures for the consolidated capital plan until the end of this government: $324 million for last year, $328 million for '02-03, $200.9 million for '03-04 and $176.7 million for '04-05.

Could the minister break down what she has as $138 million over that same period of time and where it fits into the total capital expenditure breakdown, then?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I was trying to be helpful. She asked for a number. The deputy gave me a number. I told her I will commit to breaking it down for her. In fact, as soon as staff do it, I will get it for her. But guess what. She asked for the number. It's probably more information than I ever got when we were questioning them. They've got all our service plans, which are totally public. She's got leaked documents which have a ton of information, probably more than we ever got anywhere. I am trying to be helpful. I don't know why she can't get it through her head. The deputy said $138 million. I will break it down for her. I'll commit to doing that.

J. MacPhail: Good. Thank you very much. I hope the minister isn't surprised….

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure that the Minister of Health Planning should be trying to refer her job away to everybody else. Somebody may take her seriously that she has nothing to do. That's why I'm asking about these particular situations. I hope the minister isn't offended by the fact that, given all of the information we've managed to glean, there's no $138 million, and therefore I'm actually asking for further detail. I hope the minister isn't upset by that.

Let's go back to the context of that in the overall capital plan, because that seems to me…. Let me see. If I add that up, that would be probably more than 15 percent of the total funding for the entire capital plan for health. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I just got the figures for her. It's $118 million in capital funding over the next five years for mental health plan capital projects, plus $20 million for the facility in Kamloops.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so we've got $130 million over five years. Could the minister…?

J. MacPhail: Okay, sorry — $138 million over five years. Could the minister break that down on what's being spent this year, please — or all five years, then? The service plan is for three years, the minister may acknowledge. Actually, where is this information available publicly — like the $20 million for the Kamloops facility? Where is that in the budget documents?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, I fear that the member doesn't understand that the funding for this is actually in Health Services. The planning for this is in Health Planning. The Minister of State for Mental Health is working very hard at implementing the mental health strategy that the previous government did not fund or plan for. Frankly, my ministry officials are working with the Minister of State for Mental Health, but if she wants the breakdowns, she should rightly discuss it with the Minister of Health Services, who is funding it.

We will be working with the health authorities. Again, I'm trying to get through to her that we are long-term planning. Some of these projects are already funded. They're in the planning. They are going to be built. She can certainly discuss that with the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of State for Mental Health.

What we are going to do is work with the health authorities, work with the Minister of State for Mental Health and look at what the population needs are over the next five to ten years, look at what kinds of capital, facilities or projects — or as the literature and the studies come down and tell us this is the way we need to be moving for future treatment or community needs. That's what we're going to be looking at. We're going to meet with our experts, we're going to meet with the health authorities, and we're going to try and provide for mental health needs into the future. I hope that helps the member.

J. MacPhail: Well, I've gone through all the documents, and I can't find anywhere where it says $138

million for long-term capital planning, so I expect that the minister's fine with giving these answers in an open and transparent way. This would be first and only forum where this information is being given. That's $138 million out of a total capital plan, over that period of time, of about $900 million. Does the minister have some sort of sense, in terms of her long-term planning, whether there will be more capital funding needed?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We're going to work with our health authorities. We're going to look at what they consider are the needs of their population. We certainly have funding from the federal primary health care transition fund. We're certainly going to be looking at new ways of delivering patient care and health services. You know what? As the economy grows, we're going to look at what we need to meet patients' needs. If that means facilities in the future, we'll look at that as the economy grows and we have the funds to do it.

J. MacPhail: So there is opportunity for health authorities to lobby for future funding out of the provincial budget.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I wouldn't use the word "lobby," hon. Chair. They might be familiar with using the word "lobby," but I would say that we're going to plan, we're going to coordinate, and we're going to work with them to make sure patients' needs are met in the best way possible in the communities served by the health authorities.

J. MacPhail: I was just trying to get at what the minister meant that as the economy grows, there will be more opportunity. There are lots of discussions going on in communities right now about their future needs for health care — Nelson being one, the mental health community being another — and about what the plans are. That's what I see this ministers job is, so if she has some knowledge that as the economy grows, there will be more resources available, that's what the public needs to know. They need to understand that's available and of course that the funding won't be frozen for health care.

Also, this minister is well into a planning cycle — a major planning cycle. I'm trying to get a sense of when there will be some certainty for the communities about what dollars are available for them. That's the kind of discussion we're having. That's why I asked the minister whether she thought $138 million was, in her view — given that it's over five years — enough for mental health. That's a figure she gave. It's not one she might or might not do. That's what is available for mental health facilities capital expenditure.

In terms of her planning, what kind of contingency planning is done if pressures grow beyond that? Let me just maybe say that it's not a trick question. It's not a trick question at all. I see in the letter from the deputy minister that next steps to the health authorities would be targeted specifically at mental health facilities. Here's why. I'll try to explain this in a succinct way.

There is virtually no committed funding right now that I can tell, out of any document, for capital expenditures except the minister's word that she just gave me, but there are needs. Every regional health authority has pressure for mental health facility capital expenditure. However, as part of the next steps — the minister herself read this out — the health authorities should review all capital projects for consistency with possible service delivery changes, overall priority amongst other local needs, alternative procurement opportunities and affordability. In the minister's long-term planning, what are the pressures that may be resolved in the area of mental health amongst those options?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me say this first. For the first time ever the health authorities got their budgets on time. For the first time ever they got three-year budgets. They were told what their budgets were for three years. And you know what? It's absolutely incredible that that member can stand up and say that there's no planning done, when there's probably been more done in the last nine months than there was ever done in the ten years that they were in power. It's just amazing that she can stand there and make those comments with a straight face.

Part of the reason — maybe most of the reason — that we have a Ministry of Health Planning is to try and fix the problems that their government created. We're not going to worry about little short-term fixes, because we know that we have to work on the long term. We know we have to work on a continuum. Part of the reason we're in the mess that we are is because there was no long-term planning done and there was no strategic planning done. Frankly, what that government chose to do was look at funding crisis after crisis and not really look at why those crises were created in the first place.

When we look at pressures, we step back and say: "How come there is a pressure?" We know that there are a lot of chronic diseases out there. They are a huge burden on our system. So part of what we're doing as far as strategies is looking at how we're going to manage those chronic diseases. We're looking at perhaps putting steps in place so that we deal with those chronic diseases early, so we don't get to a stage where they've built up into a crisis and then we're dealing with them in the most expensive way possible.

Maybe they can be dealt with in a primary clinic. Maybe they can be dealt with by an integrated team of providers rather than proceeding along with gaps in their care and not really having any kind of a managed way of looking after, perhaps, a diabetic. They get to the point where they're in crisis, where we're looking after heart disease, we're looking after their kidney failure, and we're looking their gangrene and possible amputation. So that is the kind of planning that we're doing. We're looking at it in the long term. We're looking at strategies that we can employ over the long term, and we're certainly working with health authorities to do that.

J. MacPhail: I never said there wasn't any planning going on, Mr. Chair. That's what we've been discussing for the last three days. I'm just trying to get from the Minister of Health Planning what it is she's planning.

Whenever I talk about mental health, she's on to diabetes management, which is all very important, and she's on to the nursing strategy, which is all very important, but we're actually talking about mental health planning here.

I'm not quite sure what the minister's suggesting in saying that I'm suggesting there's not any health planning. I'm just trying to find out how it's moved on from last year, when they were meeting in hallways having good conversations, to what health planning is actually taking place right now.

I have documents here that don't have any…. What the minister is telling me isn't corroborated by anything in writing either from the Minister of Finance or from the Minister of Health Services. Maybe she has some health planning documents that haven't been revealed publicly yet herself. That's all.

It's good that we're having this discussion. The public now knows that somehow there's $138 million out there over the next five years. I'm sure they'll look forward to seeing how that's being allocated.

I was using the example of the provincial mental health because it's part of the provincial health services authority, Riverview Hospital. It seemed to me that this would have been at least one area — the minister has taken great pride in setting up this provincial health services authority — that she would actually know what plans are in the making.

In terms of the lists A, B, C and D from this document, the lists of C and D are ones that very clearly said that the provincial government will be providing no money for — whether for debt servicing, amortization or operating costs, for instance. So let's just look at what the minister may be considering when she wrote, through her deputy, that there could be alternative procurement opportunities. Could the minister describe those for me, please?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We have said that we're committed to making sure that patients have access to the system. We're certainly working with our health authorities, and we've encouraged them to look at ways they can meet the demands for greater access for patients. There's a variety of options out there. One of them is public-private partnerships, and the health authorities are exploring that.

J. MacPhail: I heard the minister briefly on this on the news. Was the minister making a detailed presentation on that matter, which she could share?

Hon. S. Hawkins: What I said was that my ministry is working on a policy framework for P3s, and we expect that framework to be completed in the next couple of months. I think that was what we had hoped for. As soon as we have that completed, I'll commit to getting a copy for the member.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We're hoping to have that completed in the next couple of months.

J. MacPhail: There must be more detail to it, then, in terms of public-private partnerships. The last time we were in estimates, I shared with the minister some studies that examined privatization of health care. I'm wondering, now that she's well within weeks of rolling out a plan for public-private partnership, what studies the minister has now available to show the viability of this option.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We are working on a framework. When we're ready to roll it out, we'll certainly make sure it's public, and the member will have a copy.

J. MacPhail: I had a study for the minister here. I've got it here somewhere. I'll keep going through my papers.

No, my question is not the study as it's done and completed. I would assume, given the fact that this government campaigned on being open and accountable…. There are no health authorities appointed yet. Let's just say, blue-skying it, that there are health authorities appointed by the end of this month. That leaves a few weeks before the minister plans to have her plan out on public-private partnerships. Does that mean the minister won't do anything without public consultation on this matter?

What I was looking for was something that's driving the minister in this direction — like that somehow it's good for health care, that it makes sense from a fiscal point of view. I'm trying to get what the planning process is of why we're heading in this direction at all — some substance.

Hon. S. Hawkins: There is a great need for access out there. Our health authorities have told us that, and they've asked for a framework within which to explore these options. We committed to doing that. We are working on a policy framework that will identify how the public interests will be protected when care is provided under contract. Certainly, we're going to make sure that we ensure the highest standard of care and that this is under full compliance with the Canada Health Act. When that framework is completed, I would be very willing to share it with the member.

There are studies that the ministry is looking at. If the member has other studies she wants to share, we'll look at what she's got as well.

J. MacPhail: Well, I did give the minister several studies during the last set of estimates, last August, and I have another one here now. I have actually been waiting for the minister to tell the public why this is the

right direction to go in. This will be a major change in the way health care is delivered here. Surely, given the fact that the deputy minister is asking the health authorities to consider alternative procurement opportunities and possible service delivery changes, there must be some basis for these being the chosen words, on the basis of it being better health care. I take it the minister can't provide me with any studies on that basis.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I was trying to refresh my memory. If I recall, it was her government that actually put something on their government website about public-private partnerships. Perhaps she can give me the studies that referenced that this was a good idea, because I understand it was the Fraser health authority that they were asking to go out and look for opportunities for public-private partnerships.

Let me say this: once we get the policy framework in place, we're going to ask the health authorities to make sure that it makes sense for patient care, that it makes sense for their business plans and that they're in full compliance with the Canada Health Act. All those kinds of factors will be addressed. Frankly, it's exciting. There's been some national work done on this. There's been some national interest in looking at public-private partnerships. We are exploring those options as well.

J. MacPhail: It's always wonderful to hear that this minister's defence is: "Well, you did it that way too." I notice great help from the Minister of Finance saying that. Guess what. This government, led by that Minister of Finance, promised a new era. Every time they rise here, the defence is: "Well, you did it that way too." I can just see him there. It's unbelievable. And you know what? If they had run the election on that, it probably would have been a much more interesting election. But I debated these ministers — at least a couple of them — and they said: "Oh no. That was bad." They said: "Oh no, we're going to do it an entirely different way." And now every time they stand up, it's: "Well, you did it that way."

In fact, they're not telling the truth in that area either. The fact that there was something on the website…. Public-private partnership was being considered, and none of the solutions were viable. In fact, we deliberately excluded the operation from public-private partnership. We did a school in Abbotsford. It turns out to be a modest success. There's no question about that. It was in full compliance under all of the acts. The workers on the site were involved in it. The operation is now strictly under the education authority — all of that.

Here we have this government standing up and saying: "Well, you did it too." It's just so cute how they're unable to take any responsibility for their actions, their draconian misleading of the public in what they promised they were going to do and what they're now actually doing. Here's what they're actually doing: "Possible service delivery changes." What could that mean? Could that mean privatization, like the Minister of Health Services was forced to admit about an emergency ward? Is that what that could mean?

Overall priority amongst other local needs. Here's one: "Figure out ways…overall priority amongst other local needs." Does that mean robbing Peter to pay Paul? Is that perhaps what that euphemism means? Alternative procurement opportunities — does that mean privatized, for-profit facilities? And the last one — this is a good one — is affordability. Does that mean: "Well, we ain't gonna give you any money. Can you figure out some other way to pay for it?"

The mayor of Delta is now trying to figure out whether she can raise property taxes. The mayor of Delta met with the Premier and maybe the Minister of Health Services, and said: "What we'll do is raise property taxes if you keep our hospital going, and then we'll give the money from the local citizens to the health authority." Yeah. That took place last week. That was a nice meeting. That'll be good news to Delta: "Hey, the good news is that you got your hospital; the bad news is that your property taxes are skyrocketing." Gosh, I can hardly wait for that to come out. That's the plan. Is that perhaps what the deputy minister — through the minister — means by: "There would be possible service delivery changes"? The hospital keeps going, but the city pays for it.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We don't have our heads stuck in the last century, perhaps, the way the last government did. We're looking for innovation. We're looking for creativity. We're looking at options, and we've asked our health authorities to explore those options. We're certainly setting up a framework that is going to help define what the limitations of those options are. As I said, we want to be in full compliance with the Canada Health Act. We want to make sure that if they're moving this way, it's to improve access to necessary care. We want to make sure that patient choice is enhanced, and I think I heard the previous government saying that was something to be valued.

Frankly, I'm not saying we're going to do everything the way the past government did. In fact, I'm hoping to do things much differently from the last government. When she talks about robbing Peter to pay Paul, there was a ton of that done in the last decade. Unfortunately, we robbed a lot of the next generation to pay for the mistakes that the last ten years of the NDP government made.

We want to make sure we maintain a sustainable public health care system. We want to make sure we are giving patients access, because that is a huge issue. The health authorities tell us that. We're asking the health authorities to explore whether it makes sense to engage in a P3. We are going to develop the policy framework. We're hoping that in the next couple of months we get that rolled out to give them a framework within which to work, but as I say, it's going to be done for patients. Our government believes in putting patients first, and if this is one option that will help patients get greater access to services, then we're for it.

J. MacPhail: The mayor of Delta met with the Premier last week and offered to ask council to raise property taxes to pay for the emergency ward. Is that something the minister is considering?

J. MacPhail: The meeting took place after that, so perhaps the minister could just ask. It's a question for the minister responsible for planning. Her own next steps here are alternative procurement opportunities and affordability. The mayor of Delta offered to raise property taxes in order to pay for the hospital. That would be called off-loading. Is that something the minister is considering in terms of next steps in terms of paying for health costs?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That is not something I'm able to answer. If she wants to ask the Premier about that, I'm sure she'll have ample opportunity to do it.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, no. I was asking whether, in the minister's long-term planning under these next steps, that's under consideration. It was a question for the Minister of Health Planning in her role.

J. MacPhail: What are some of the possible service delivery changes that are being considered? Perhaps the minister could walk me through an example.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We haven't engaged the health authorities in that discussion.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. It's part of the letter sent to the health authorities dated February 4.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We haven't heard back from the health authorities on that yet.

J. MacPhail: Are there documents that the minister is sharing with health authorities in terms of these planning documents? How would we know from health authority to health authority what the planning documents and the requirements are? For instance, I would assume this is the planning document that the deputy minister sent out in terms of — I don't think these words fall from the sky — possible service delivery changes.

What does the minister mean, she hasn't heard back from the health authorities yet? Let's say Kelowna decided to privatize the emergency ward. Would that be acceptable?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We've asked the health authorities to look at the needs of their populations, of the patients they serve in their areas, to make sure they put patients first, to come up with a plan that addresses patients' needs and makes sure that patients are provided the range of services that's required in their health service delivery areas across their region. Those plans have not been finalized. They have not come back. They're working on them, and that's all I can say about that right now.

J. MacPhail: I would appreciate any planning documents the minister has on sharing with the health authorities, and let me ask about a time line on this. Will the health authorities' appointments be made before any final decisions are made? Secondly, what's the community consultation plan, authority by authority, before any changes are made? That was the question I was asking in question period today and got no answer for.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The Premier did commit to having the health authority boards in place before those decisions were made.

The Chair: Members, the committee has been sitting for two hours now. Is the committee agreeable to a five-minute recess? So ordered.

J. MacPhail: I'm very concerned when I read this stuff about alternative service delivery methods, prioritizing and alternative procurement methods. Then the debate that we had around Bill 29 where the Minister of Health Services admitted that if you just step one foot away from the acute care bed, those services were eligible for privatization. I'm very concerned. I see later in a discussion that paramedical staff have had with ministry staff, even bedside care could be privatized.

I do have a study here. I'll quote it. It's my only copy, but I'd be happy to give the minister this. It's a radical journal, I must admit. My apologies. It's the New England Journal of Medicine. They come to the conclusion that both the rates of per-capita Medicare spending and the increases in spending rates were greater in areas served by for-profit hospitals than in areas served by not-for-profit hospitals.

This study was done two years ago. I thought this would be useful, given the fact I was looking for studies for the Minister of Health Planning in her long-term planning where the issue of affordability is clearly one of the factors. I listened to the Premier at the provincial congress talk about how the health care system was not sustainable. I assumed that was why the government was looking at privatizing services. This study is very current, and the conclusions are dramatic.

I would appreciate the minister providing me — I asked for this last year, and I'll ask for it again — the studies that she has available. I think I've now tabled about four or five studies in the course of the last eight or nine months on this issue of for-profit health care

and the fiscal effects of it. The minister has given me nothing and the public nothing, even as we head in this direction. I would ask the minister to do that as quickly as possible because I assume the health authorities themselves will need that information to determine what direction they're going in.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I thank the member for that study. I'm told the ministry has that one. You know, again, we're asking health authorities to explore options; we're not forcing them to do one thing or another. We're asking them to look at all kinds of innovative, creative new ways of doing things. They have to make sense for patient care; they have to make business sense. It's not something we're just embarking on, on a lark. The fearmongering the other side seems to carry on with is just counterproductive to what is really happening. What is really happening is that we are developing a policy framework, because we want to make sure there are parameters within which we explore these options.

The basic principle is putting patients first. We want to make sure we get the best value out of the public health care dollar that is spent. We want to make sure health care is sustainable. We know that at the rate we're going now and if we continue as in the past decade, it's not. Again, it's not something we're just going to march blindly into. We are exploring all different options and studies. I thank the member. If she has more, she can keep passing them this way.

J. MacPhail: I don't know what the minister means by not marching blindly into it. They're laying off 14,000 workers over the course of the next year specifically on the basis of privatization. It's not fearmongering; it's the minister's own document that says that. It says exactly on the basis of privatization that 14,000 FTEs will be laid off — fired. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's fearmongering. I think the minister has already made a decision as well, or else there's been a lot of work done for no reason — a lot of work.

If the minister has this study, let me read it into the record, then — the abstract, the background and methods:

That's a pretty detailed study. That's the kind of work I would have thought the Minister of Health Planning was doing. The conclusion they came to:

It's the kind of study the Minister of Finance should be interested in, because the direction his government is going in will put pressure on his budget, not take pressure off the budget, and health care deteriorates as well.

If the minister has this, I'm surprised she didn't bring it to my attention. I asked her for studies. I said: "What studies has she got?"

Here it is. I had to stand up and say, "Well, there's this study," and then it turns out she does have the study. It turns out that she's well aware of this. Thank God for estimates, I'll say, because this government reveals absolutely nothing that isn't along their ideologically extreme agenda. They won't give the truth about anything unless it's on their narrow little track.

Somehow the minister says that we're not doing privatization. Well, she is doing privatization. They're going to be laying off 14,000 workers. When confronted with that, the government said: "Yes, that's what we're doing. That's exactly what we're doing." Anyway, I'm glad the minister has the study. It's too bad she didn't admit to it when I asked.

The next area the minister is responsible for is Pharmacare planning. Could the minister update the public on plans for Pharmacare? What plans does she have for that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me again just go back to the study that the member outlined. Yes, we're aware of those studies. I believe the ministry has looked at that particular study. We are aware that administrative costs in the U.S. are higher than in Canada. We've looked at studies from around the world. Frankly, what we're trying to do is give our health authorities some options for creativity, innovation and flexibility.

We'll be setting out a framework. They can work within those parameters, but we're not going to constrain them to working in the old ways. We want them to think of new ways of doing things. That's something we are committed to as we move towards making sure that health care is sustainable into the future.

With respect to Pharmacare, I'm responsible for looking at the reference drug program. We appointed a panel, and I understand the panel held hearings in the last few weeks. They will be reporting to me by the end of March. That was their mandate: to submit a final report to me by March 31.

J. MacPhail: Okay, I'm pretty clear on the responsibilities here, because it's quite clear. It says the Ministry of Health Planning is responsible for Pharmacare policy, and the Minister of Health Services is responsible for Pharmacare processing. I'm pretty clear on the distinction between these two.

We have it announced that Pharmacare will become an income-tested program and that there will be $400 million of off-loading onto British Columbians. What is the ministry's review doing that hasn't already been done?

For operational, for programs, that is Health Services. That is an operational issue: looking to manage within the confines of that program, to manage the budget. That is the Minister of Health Services.

For policy, with respect to the reference drug program, I'm happy to take questions on that.

J. MacPhail: What did the minister consider before changing Pharmacare to an income-tested model? What did the minister consider, with reference to reference drug plan policies, before doing that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, the Pharmacare program rests with the Ministry of Health Services. They are trying to manage within the budget. My responsibility in Health Planning was with respect to the new-era commitment we made that we would review the reference drug program. We've done that with respect to appointing a panel that will get a report back to me by March 31. We're also, because intergovernmental affairs is in my ministry, working with the common drug review that's done on national level. That's something the Premiers all committed to. Those are the kinds of things I am responsible for. The actual Pharmacare operational funding issues and the management within that budget are the Minister of Health Services'.

J. MacPhail: If that's the minister's definition of planning, that is very bizarre. What she's saying is that the planning around Pharmacare policy is being driven by cost. That's what she's saying. The changes being made by the government are basically off-loading drug costs onto the individual to the tune of $400 million. People will now, in British Columbia, be paying $400 million out of their own pockets for drugs that used to be covered out of the public purse. Somehow the Minister of Health Planning has no input into that decision — like, none.

Is that good for health care? Will health outcomes be better by that off-loading? Does it make more sense to have people having to choose between food and prescription drugs? Is that a good health outcome? Does it make more sense to say that middle-income families now have to pay all of their drug costs, whereas it used to be covered by the public purse? What health outcomes will be improved by this fiscally driven change?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That member knows full well that the Pharmacare budget was increasing at 15 to 17 percent a year. In their budget they gave a lift of 2 percent. They knew it wasn't doable. They knew they couldn't fund it. They knew it wasn't sustainable. I can't believe she gets up and, again, speaks from both sides of her mouth. On one hand, she knows that it wasn't. They know they didn't put enough in the budget to do that. On the other hand, she wants to know why we're doing what we're doing.

We're doing what we're doing because we want to make sure there is a drug program for British Columbians that need it. We want to make sure it is sustainable. We think the way to do that is to make sure it's fair and that the costs are shared fairly.

That's why the Minister of Health Services…. You can explore this with him as he looks to manage that budget and make sure the needs of British Columbians are met within the drug groups that are being funded and other drug groups that probably will need to be funded. We have to make sure that program is sustainable and is there for patients when they need it.

J. MacPhail: To the minister: in her job now and for the next three years — her job we're talking about — there are public policy health care issues associated with changes to Pharmacare. Is the minister aware of those studies?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, I'm aware of studies that speak to policy on how Pharmacare is funded.

J. MacPhail: That's what we're discussing right now. I think that's her job: to figure out what the long-term implications are — we can go long term — to off-loading drug costs onto the individual. That's what the plan is — $400 million. What planning contingencies does the minister have when the results occur that are clearly articulated in the studies, which show how limiting therapeutic prescription health care results in greater acute care costs? What are the minister's contingency plans for that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm sure I know the same studies the members knows — that limiting costs for low-income patients will increase costs. That's why we are moving to make the Pharmacare program more sustainable. We're making sure it's equitable. It's not off-loading; it's making it more equitable. It's making sure we protect the vulnerable. It's making sure we make sure that drugs are there for patients that need them.

I don't know why this member can't understand that. They're the ones; they knew that drug costs were rising. They were funding them at 15 percent to 17 percent a year, yet in election year — gee, I wonder what planning went into that — they put a 2 percent lift into Pharmacare. They knew that wasn't enough. They knew it wasn't sustainable. We are moving to make it sustainable.

What kind of planning are we doing with respect to Pharmacare, with respect to making sure that in the long term, patients are looked after within the context of broad health planning? Again, if you go into the service plans for Health Planning, it's laid out for three years. We're looking at chronic…. I keep coming up with this example, because obviously the member hasn't read the service plan for Health Planning. She keeps going into Health Services.

We're looking at strategies like chronic disease management strategies that will look after the spectrum of health care for disease groups like diabetics, patients with heart disease, asthmatics. We'll look at studies that focus on how best we can manage those patients over a long term and make sure we've got the right drugs on the drug plan, that we can work them within the context of a chronic disease management strategy so we make sure patients are looked after and have good patient outcomes.

J. MacPhail: I am reading from the Health Planning service plan; I am. I've been working from the Health Planning service plan all afternoon. For the minister to somehow say we're outside the bounds of her own Health Planning and trying to shift responsibility, I say she does it at her peril. If she can't even answer the questions on her own performance measures and targets out of her own service plan, the Ministry of Health Planning, then there's no need for the minister.

The minister is responsible for Pharmacare planning, and she has done no planning — none whatsoever. She has turned it over to the Minister of Finance as a budget measure. This whole health care agenda is being driven by the bottom-line, by the budget — not by good health care planning. Pharmacare is the perfect example of it.

Here's what we have from the secret document. Budget management strategies — that's the euphemism for cuts — are identified in the following table. There will be $395 million saved in income-testing. That means what you giveth in one pocket, like, you more than taketh away from every single pocket and your kids' pockets and your grandparents' pockets as well. The tax cuts are such a thing of the past now for anybody in this province who has to fill a prescription. How many prescriptions are filled per year in this province?

Hon. S. Hawkins: What a hypocrite. I'm sorry I have to say that. I mean, for years they ran a health care system they didn't fund properly. They knew what the increases were. They just kept letting it roll along and suck up money and didn't look at ways to really manage the system. Now we've got targets, we've got management plans, and we're looking at how we can best serve the needs of the public as we move on to the future.

She knows that the Pharmacare budget was not sustainable, not the way it was going. They knew, or they ought to have known, that the increase was 15 to 17 percent a year. They funded it at 2 percent. Guess what. We got sworn in, and there's a little lift of 2 percent to the Pharmacare budget when the briefing documents that we got — secret documents of the NDP — showed that they knew it was a 15-to-17 percent lift.

We're trying to fix up the mess you left us over the last ten years. We are not trying to cut Pharmacare. We know there are needs of populations out there. We know low-income patients need that plan. We're trying to make it more equitable.

There was a Pharmacare consultation done by the Minister of Health Services. I believe it was in September of last year. I believe it was last fall. There was a consultation that was done, and you can certainly ask the minister about that. It clearly indicated that we have to move to equitable sharing of costs by users, and certainly that is what we're trying to do.

We know that the impact — the member should know; I mean, she was the Health minister…. The member should know that as we move into the future, there's going to be new costs. There are new technologies, there are new studies, there are new drugs coming on board, and we have to make sure we prepare for them. We're trying to move to a system that is planned, that is sustainable.

I believe there are 25 million prescriptions filled out per year in this province. She's asking what I do as far as Pharmacare policy. We're going to be looking at stuff like that. We're going to be looking at utilization. We're going to be looking at chronic diseases. We're going to be looking at management of that. The Health Services minister is looking at his Pharmacare budget and saying: "Okay, how can I manage this so it is sustainable, so it is there for the people that need it?" That is why he's moving to programs that you refer to — the income-testing. That is done to make sure the people who need it most have that program in place when they need it.

The Chair: Members, point of order. I recognize that debate does get impassioned. I would remind all members to please adhere to parliamentary language, and I would ask the minister to please withdraw her initial remark vis-à-vis the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

J. MacPhail: There will be a cut of $406.5 million to Pharmacare. It is a cut. There's no other way of describing it. It was money that was funded out of the public purse and now will be coming…. The reason I was asking the minister about whether she knew how many prescriptions there are in the province is because a lot of these prescriptions won't be filled now — a lot of them. There's $406 million of health care costs that now have to be absorbed by individual British Columbians.

What I want to know from the Minister of Health Planning is what studies she is doing to see where those costs will be shifted and what health effects will result from that. Let me just tell you, I'm keeping track of it in my office by the experiment that's in place right now — well, it isn't an experiment; it's a fait accompli — about seniors having to pay $25 per prescription up front. I'm going to tell you that there are seniors coming into my office and making choices.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services says "high-income seniors." That's anyone who makes more than $20,000 per year. I ask the Minister of Health Services to stand up and tell me that he hasn't heard from seniors in his riding who can't afford prescriptions. After they leave his office, they come to mine.

The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. Members, can we limit debate to the estimates for the Ministry of Health Planning and refer comments to the Minister of Health Planning, please.

J. MacPhail: Exactly — that's the point. The government somehow thinks that ordinary people are just going to carry on and absorb the $400 million. That's the kind of planning they've done. The catcalling I hear from across the way is: "Oh, don't worry. It's rich seniors. It's absolutely rich seniors. Therefore, we haven't done any planning to see what the health care effects will be of cutting $400 million out of the Pharmacare budget." That's what the admission is right now by the catcalling that's going on. "Don't worry. We're offloading the cost onto seniors, and therefore there won't be any health costs. We haven't done any." Let me just tell you, I have seniors showing up at my offices when the doors of other constituency offices are not open to them, and they're choosing between prescriptions. A senior comes and has $50 of prescription costs up front. In fact, I had one senior who had $125. She was choosing amongst them. She was choosing amongst the $125 of costs she had up front.

You know what? It's very interesting. If somehow the members opposite don't believe me, all they had to do was go to the Canadian Diabetes breakfast. That's all they had to do: go to the Canadian Diabetes MLA breakfast. They'd have heard the same message from people with diabetes, the exact same message. What they were saying was that they are going to be….

J. MacPhail: You know, there's one of me and 76 of them. Feel free to get into the debate. I was in the Minister of Labour's riding, and we were discussing this topic, so feel free for them to get into the debate. I'm just looking for answers.

Anyway, this woman came in. She had to choose amongst five prescriptions. She said: "I want to choose amongst them…."

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, you know what? I'm just trying to do my job here, and the Minister of Finance is really, really interfering with the debate. It's all right. The public will be aware of it. He's really interfering with the debate.

The Chair: Certainly, in the way the House operates, there are comments back and forth. I would ask all members to try and keep those to a minimum. I recognize there will be some.

J. MacPhail: This woman was going to choose amongst them. She was a senior, and her income was $24,000 per year. She lives in Vancouver and pays a substantial portion of that for rent. I want to know what the Minister of Health Planning is doing to monitor the changes to the program as they've occurred and how she's using that to prepare for future changes for Pharmacare. That's how it relates to health planning.

Hon. S. Hawkins: First, a couple of clarifications. I understand that when the member mentioned $20,000 for low-income seniors, I believe it was…. It's $20,000 net of deductions. Let's make sure that's clear. I don't think she mentioned that.

The $400 million cut that she mentions is not a cut; it's a cost pressure. It's what they didn't fund in the budget last year, which is what I have been trying to get through her head. The Minister of Health Services is trying to manage that in a fair and equitable way. He's trying to make sure that people who can afford it can afford it and people who can't will still be assisted.

The other thing I need to say is that the deductibles did not change. I don't know if she knows that. Deductibles did not change. For low incomes it is still a maximum of $200. For higher incomes it's $275. That's the change.

Let me say this, too, because I think that we're again veering into Health Services. You can have that debate with the Minister of Health Services on how he's planning to manage that budget. It's an incredible challenge. No one in the last decade really undertook to take that on and figure out how we were going to manage that. Drugs just kept getting added on. Me-too drugs just kept getting added on. If you want to talk about transparency, there really wasn't any transparency in the last decade on how we actually managed that Pharmacare program. I would say that the Minister of Health Services is now trying to set up processes that will be more transparent. He is trying to get consultation on the changes he makes so that he can make

the program more fair and keep it there for patients that need it. What this minister is trying to do is look at ways to manage outside the system, keeping Pharmacare in mind.

She asked how many prescriptions were filled per year. I said 25 million. That's a heck of a lot of prescriptions. What we're looking at is utilization, evidence-based practice. Gosh, we know there's polypharmacy going on out there. The member stands up and says that there are patients with five or six prescriptions; I know patients with a dozen or more prescriptions. We want to make sure that they're getting the right drugs and getting the right management of their chronic disease, because most of these patients do suffer from some type of chronic disease. That's why they're on so many drugs. Guess what. They end up in very expensive hospitalizations perhaps because of that polypharmacy or because of the prescriptions that are written or because they're not taking it right.

Those are the kinds of things that this ministry is looking at in planning around Pharmacare. If she wants to get into details of the Pharmacare budget, she is welcome to get into that with the Minister of Health Services. If she'd like to discuss how we are looking forward on managing patient care around utilization of Pharmacare, the prescriptions that are filled, the hospitalizations, the kinds of strategies we hope to deploy to reduce utilization and make sure there's proper utilization, I'm happy to get into that debate.

I'm informed that between 1990 and 2000, drug costs increased by 163 percent. We just can't keep going the way that we're going. We have to look at other ways to manage not only Pharmacare but the disease processes that people are experiencing, which is why they're on the drugs. So there's a whole bunch of things that we're looking at.

I am working with the minister on policy areas, and I told the member that one of them was the reference drug program. That is something we committed to in the New Era. We've got the panel out there. I think they've finished their hearings now. They're going to have a report finished and to me by the end of March. Those are the kinds of things that we're looking at, specifically, with respect to managing and trying to sustain the Pharmacare program. That is a discussion that I'm sure the Minister of Health Services would be happy to have with you.

J. MacPhail: There has been a change in the Pharmacare application since January 1. I asked the minister: is she monitoring that change as it relates to health care costs elsewhere?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Those trends are being monitored. We've got excellent utilization and hospital utilization data. I'm informed that we do monitor those trends.

J. MacPhail: I don't think the minister is aware that people now have to pay $25 per prescription up front, which they didn't have to pay before. That is a change. I know the minister stood up and said that there is no change. There are people who, yes, out of their fixed income, in some cases have to pay $125 up front for their prescription costs.

The minister was at an MLAs' breakfast by the Canadian Diabetes Association, who raised all of these concerns with the minister two weeks ago — the effects it was going to have, the effects of these Pharmacare changes on the treatment and the outcomes of those treatments as it relates to diabetes. What are the formal processes…? Perhaps the minister could give us the first two months of analysis of these Pharmacare changes on expenditures popping up elsewhere.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We do monitor that, and we will be monitoring that. Let me remind the member that for low-income, premium assistance seniors, they pay $10 up to a maximum of $200, so that hasn't changed. For high-income seniors, they pay $25 up to a maximum of $275. It will change, come January 1 next year, because the Minister of Health Services is going to do something that's unique, fair and more equitable. She can certainly get into a discussion with him on how he plans to manage his budget to make sure it's fair to everyone who uses that program.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure seniors who are listening will be pleased to know that they're high-income when they reach $20,000. The minister will probably say: "Minus deductibles." Has anyone actually ever done a tax return for a fixed-income senior? It's quite interesting that somehow the questions, the lobs from across the floor…. Somehow, perhaps we could have a senior making $30,000, and her income is down to $20,000 with deductibles. They clearly don't live in the real world, those members opposite. They do not live in the real world. Seniors are extremely anxious about the changes this government has already brought in to Pharmacare.

The Minister of Health Planning is responsible for the consequences of those changes. That's her job. Somehow she stands up here and says they're not cutting $406 million. Well, yes they are. It's right here. It's called the budget management strategy, but that's a euphemism for a cut. What it means is that over the course of the next three years, people who did have their prescription costs covered up to the tune of $406 million out of the public purse and a progressive income tax system will now be paying for it out of their own pocket. That's exactly what they're going to have happen.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm happy to have the Minister of Labour join the discussion. He has some issues

in his own riding that he should be putting on the floor himself. He's got some major Pharmacare issues in his own riding, so I'd be happy for him to join in.

The Chair: Member, please proceed with the questions to the Minister of Health Planning.

Hon. S. Hawkins: With the regular use of administrative data, as it always has been. You know what? It's interesting. The member wants to share information — she shares studies and other information — so I would ask her if she has ways that her government was planning to fund that pressure. It was $400 million of cost pressure, and they only put a 2 percent lift in that budget. I'm open to ideas, because I'm here for long-term planning and for management of the Pharmacare program. She's absolutely right; I am concerned about that. I want to hear from her how she planned, because they must have had a plan. They only funded 2 percent for the Pharmacare budget. Her secret briefing documents said 15 percent to 17 percent, so they must have had a plan. Perhaps she can share it with this minister and this government, because we're open to all kinds of ideas. How were you going to fund that $400 million cost pressure?

J. MacPhail: Well, I've already said it. I wouldn't have given the largest corporate tax break in the history of British Columbia to the wealthiest and the corporations. That's what I wouldn't have done.

There would have been easy managing of the health care costs under those circumstances. You know what? That's exactly what we did say during the election. We told the truth, and the government didn't. The government didn't tell the truth. Now we have a situation where there are huge health care costs, and finally the government admits it. Finally the government admits that it didn't tell the truth during the election, that they were going to give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest and to the corporations. Now they have to cut Pharmacare.

We did tell the truth during the election, but somehow this government thought they could just say to everybody: "Oh, don't worry. You can have it all. We can pay off our friends. We can give our corporate tax cuts. We can give our tax cuts to the wealthiest. Don't worry. Your health and education will be protected." Today we see that this document puts the lie to it.

There will be $400 million of tax increases just on the issue of Pharmacare. We won't talk about tuition. We won't talk about insurance increases. We won't talk about tax increases. We won't talk about the fact that municipalities are now going to raise property taxes to pay for health care. That's what this government….

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance asked a question, and I answered it. The poor Minister of Finance doesn't like the answer. He wants people to move on. That discussion would have been the honest discussion to have when this government was so desperate to get into power. The first thing they did in power, besides shovelling it off the back of the truck to the corporate friends, was make massive cuts to health care. That's what they did.

They're making massive cuts to health care without even knowing the consequences to Pharmacare. Are there hospitals involved through the emergency wards that are monitoring the Pharmacare changes? If so, who are they?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We do monitor them through emergency rooms, and we monitor them through hospitals. I want to know from the member, because they funded 2 percent in that budget…. That was $90 million in pressures, and 2 percent wasn't enough to cover what they were funding. I want to know how she was going to manage the $90 million in pressures from that budget, because that might give me an idea of how we can move forward as we manage the Pharmacare program.

Perhaps she can tell me that, because 2 percent is what they funded in Pharmacare. That's what they left in the budget. There would have been $90 million in cost pressures, so perhaps she can tell me how they were going to do it. Obviously, they must have had a plan.

J. MacPhail: What an interesting set of estimates — just me asking questions and the poor government upset that I'm asking questions.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance calls it boring. I'm sure the people of British Columbia, the seniors who are now paying $25 per prescription, are going to find this boring. The Minister of Health Planning is across there saying: "Tell us how you would pay for it." Every single year we did pay for it. Every single year the pressures in Pharmacare were paid, and we managed to balance the budget and leave the government a surplus — every single year. Then we put in place management strategies that didn't harm the patient and didn't harm health care. That's what we did.

What this government did instead is completely misled the public on what they were going to do. They come into this House, and they hate the fact that they have to answer these questions. They hate the fact that we're actually trying to figure out what's so good about this for patient care. The Minister of Health Planning, because she has no answers, tries to push back in a very aggressive fashion.

Every single year the Pharmacare budget was paid — every single year until this government came in and gave massive tax breaks. Somehow, we can't get any answers of how this is good for health care. What emergency rooms are monitoring this? Who's monitor-

ing it? Is it being done through PharmaNet, and is it being coordinated across the province?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We've got the PharmaNet database, and we've got an emergency room database. We've got the hospital database information that's used to monitor it.

Let me just get back, because I'm kind of enjoying this. She stands over there and yells across this way that we don't have the answers, that I'm looking to her for answers. Yes, I am. They must have had a magic answer, because when we got the documents, when we got sworn in, their budget lift was 2 percent. Their information was that Pharmacare was going to grow at 15 percent to 17 percent.

If she doesn't have the answers, she should just stand up and admit she doesn't. Yes, in the past they funded it, but for some reason just before the election they were going to fund Pharmacare only 2 percent. That's what I'm saying. For the last few years, yes, I understand it was funded at the rate it was going to grow, but just before the election there was all kinds of stuff in the budget, all kinds of capital projects that were announced. I'd like to ask her how they were going to fund those.

Guess what. It certainly wasn't in the budget, the money that we had available. It certainly wasn't there. When she talks about cuts in health care, I have to remind her that we put in more than a billion dollars over and above what we were going to protect the health care budget at. There's over a billion dollars more in health care. She knows as well as I know that it's just not sustainable. We have to make sure we do things smarter.

When she asks about how things are monitored, about how things are checked to see if there's proper utilization, yes, that is what we're doing. We're going to look at that. When you talk about Pharmacare and talk about prescriptions and utilization, we want to make sure the drugs are being prescribed in a way that there's good evidence showing they actually work for people. We want to make sure the people who need them are actually taking them. We want to make sure the right drugs are there for people when they need them.

Those are all the kinds of things we're going to be looking at as we proceed, but again, there was $400 million in pressures for this Minister of Health Services to manage. He's doing it in a way that is better equity. He's doing it in a creative and cooperative way. There were consultations done. Certainly, at the Premier's level, the Premiers have all recognized that something needs to be done. They are looking at a common drug process, and they're coming up with all kinds of creative and unique solutions at the national level as well.

J. MacPhail: Maybe if I could actually give a fact pattern that exists, the Minister of Health Planning could tell me how she's dealing with this on the issue of Pharmacare. This is her job: to plan. According to their own fast facts, plan A, which is the seniors expenditure, represents 48 percent of the total plan expenditures. The income-testing that will be implemented for seniors, according to the government's own document, says that 420,000 seniors will be paying more and 20,000 seniors will be paying less.

So there's the combination of 420,000 seniors paying more. They're about 50 percent of the utilization of Pharmacare now. The acute care admissions into our hospital are very much swayed toward people aged 65 and older. It would seem to me that the combination of the biggest users of acute care, the biggest users of prescription treatment and the people who will be the most greatly affected — that's 420,000 seniors — by having their prescriptions reduced, may put pressure on the acute care hospital system. In fact, that's what the studies have shown in virtually every area of this model that the Liberals are hell-bent on going with.

What advice is the Minister of Health Planning getting on the issue of increased acute care admissions by seniors as a result of these drug cost increases to them?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We plan, and we are going to improve the utilization of seniors taking drugs, because we know that most of the hospitalization of seniors in hospitals is from poor drug utilization. We want to make sure we improve that utilization. We're working on strategies to do that. What we're actually doing is lowering the costs, through income testing, of low-income seniors. That's good news for those seniors who are on that threshold. They'll actually be paying less.

I think what you're trying to tell me is that if they're going to pay a little more, they're just not going to fill their prescriptions, and they're just not going to get the drugs they need. I don't think that's really fair to say. I can tell you, I have talked to seniors in my community and all over, and some of them have come up to me and said: "You're doing the right thing." It's time that people who can afford to pay do pay — and some of them are seniors — and those that really need it will get the help they need. I think this will be a fairer way of doing it. I think our monitoring and making sure we are improving the utilization of seniors who take drugs — make sure they don't get into situations where they get in hospitals — will go a long way to making sure the right patients are on the right drugs and getting them at the right time.

J. MacPhail: I'd like the specifics of the strategies the minister has for reduction or to deal with this issue of utilization and the issue of inappropriate use of prescriptions. Just for the member's information, it was at the same breakfast she and I attended, the Canadian Diabetes Association breakfast, where three people stood up to talk about how diabetics would be negatively affected by the Pharmacare changes brought in

by this government and the prediction of increased health costs. I'm not fearmongering; I'm reporting.

Could we have the specifics of what this minister has in terms of monitoring inappropriate utilization of prescriptions and inappropriate choices made by seniors in terms of what prescriptions to fill? The minister already has the evidence that seniors are making those choices now.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Those are the kinds of strategies we're working on. All the questions she's asking are the questions we're asking. We're meeting with groups. Yes, I was at the diabetes breakfast, and she would have heard me say at the end of the breakfast: "Yes, we do have to do things smarter." We're going to work with them, and we're going to make sure that patients with diabetes are going to get the right drugs and the right treatment they need. Those are the kinds of things that I said we need to do smarter. We're working on those strategies, and when we have those strategies ready to roll out, we'll certainly share them with the member.

J. MacPhail: Doesn't it seem to be a little backward that you make the changes to Pharmacare that could potentially harm people, as was described at the Canadian Diabetes Association breakfast, and then work on the strategies of how to deal with it? Isn't that backward? What was the urgency to bring in these changes that bring harm to people, before the minister had the strategies in place?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Well, the urgency was the fact that perhaps they didn't fund or budget for the money that was actually going to be used in Pharmacare. That was one of the urgencies. There was a $400 million gap there, and we had to make sure that the right people got the drugs at the right time. That is the challenge that the Minister of Health Services is facing, the challenge I'm facing. Those are exactly the kinds of questions that member should have asked in the last ten years and worked on to improve, and she didn't do it. So guess what. That's what we're working on right now.

J. MacPhail: So it's true. The changes in Pharmacare have been driven by budget alone, regardless of the health care implications.

Hon. S. Hawkins: That is not true. We're going to make sure we're protecting patient care, and the member knows that. That's the kind of fearmongering that I have been saying that she's been going on and on about. That is totally untrue. She knows. If she'd like a briefing, perhaps I could introduce her to the Minister of Health Services, and she can have a briefing on this and become more aware of how the changes are actually going to roll out. They are going to be fairer, and they are going to protect patients.

J. MacPhail: There's no other way to interpret what the minister said. The changes to Pharmacare were budget-driven. She hadn't completed the implications of the health care effects. She doesn't have the strategies in place to monitor the health care effects. These are the questions she's asking herself, she said.

Meanwhile, the cuts have been made. Meanwhile, people with diabetes stood up, speech after speech, and told the minister the consequences of the Pharmacare changes now, the changes to podiatry now. She was told what the health care consequences are, not down the road but right now. Because this government made choices about where they spend their money, these people are worse off from a health care point of view — far worse off. At no time ever did any British Columbian have a hint that this government would be making those kinds of choices that would harm health care in this province.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We are spending more on Pharmacare this year than that member's government funded. That is the truth.

You know what? We are looking at sustainability, something that that government never, ever looked at. These are the questions. When she was Finance minister, she should have turned around to her Health minister and asked her the questions — or him the questions; they went through so many — or she should have looked in the mirror and asked herself the questions when she was in government.

Those are the kind of sustainability questions, the kind of challenges, we are faced with, and guess what. We're actually working on them. We're working on primary care reform, making sure that patients get access to the most appropriate treatment and the most appropriate provider. We're making sure that we're looking at the Pharmacare program, making sure it's sustainable, because the way they left it, they didn't fund it to the degree that it needed to be funded.

We actually added money to the program. We're making it more fair; we're making it equitable. We're making sure that people that need it — the low-income, the most vulnerable, the poor — are actually going to get it. I think most people would agree that is the way to do it.

On top of that, we will be monitoring the population, utilization and hospitalizations. We will be looking at that broad spectrum of reform that we have to look at to make sure we are targeting our strategies to look after populations that take drugs, to take them appropriately.

To say that this is something driven out of cost pressures…. Yes, cost pressures in one way, left by your government, but secondly, they're driven out of sustainability, to make sure that those programs are there for the people that need it, for those low-income people who she talks about in her constituency — those people, those seniors that are low-income and need the drugs.

We are going to work on it as a whole program. We're not just going to look at topping up Pharmacare It shows there's a pressure there, the way her government did it — 15 to 17 percent a year. Yes, they funded

it, but they never looked at why it was increasing or whether there was any inappropriate utilization or hospitalizations. There were no chronic disease management strategies in place whatsoever.

We're just embarking on that now. When she talks about going to the diabetic breakfast and listening to people raising their concerns, she should turn around and look herself in the mirror too and say: "Gee, why didn't I do anything about it when I had the chance?" Guess what. We've told them we're going to work with them. We're going to make sure that we do have strategies that address their needs.

J. MacPhail: In the document here it says "restructuring fund for health." It says that in order to achieve required savings in 2004-05, some initiatives must be implemented now — e.g., Pharmacare income testing. It's being driven solely as a budget measure. If the minister is somehow saying it's about good health care, I'd like to see the tests she's put in place to make sure it is about good health care. Let me ask her about another area, in terms of Pharmacare. What is she doing to show it isn't just budget-driven, as her documents say? What drugs does she plan on delisting?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, this is a Ministry of Health Services question. She knows that. She knows the operational…. I've explained it to her several times. Again, if she would like me to arrange a briefing with the Minister of Health Services and myself to delineate the responsibilities, I'm happy to do that.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, it is about long-term planning. If the minister is talking about inappropriate utilization of drugs, then she should be well aware of the certain drug classes where that occurs. Is the minister planning on looking at the tool of delisting in terms of Pharmacare policy development?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm sure that as we move down this process, and we look at the different management strategies and work with the groups that are going to being involved in developing them, we will be able to inform the member what drugs are best used for those strategies and what perhaps is not necessary anymore. Again, you're absolutely right; we're going to monitor utilization and hospitalizations.

We're going to look across the whole spectrum — how patients are cared for and whether the drug program is actually working the way it should be for patients. Again, the specifics of what happens: we will be working in the ministry with our different groups to develop those long-term, chronic disease management strategies. We will be advising the Minister of Health Services, and then he can give you that information.

J. MacPhail: I thought the minister might take an opportunity to talk about the reference drug plan under this line of questioning. Is there some reason why she's not talking about the reference drug plan under this line of questioning?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think I mentioned the reference drug plan about three or four times. It's the first time I've heard her mention it. Yes, we've got a review going on. We've asked for the committee to look at cost-saving alternatives to reference-based pricing. We committed to do that in the New Era. We heard from patients, providers, doctors and pharmacists that this was a program that was causing huge bureaucratic and other kinds of concerns for them. We committed to putting a panel together, asking them to hold hearings and report back to me by March 31. I'm not going to prejudge their report. I'm looking forward to their report. I understand they've been working very hard. I'm hoping to get it on time, and I look forward to receiving their recommendations.

J. MacPhail: I thought maybe the reason why the minister was avoiding talking about the reference drug plan under questioning around delisting was because she didn't want to admit that was going to be their alternative to the reference drug plan. I understand that at the Premiers' conferences since the Premier of British Columbia has been chairing them, the issue of the reference drug plan has been front and centre around available cost-saving mechanisms that other provinces want to emulate. Is that true?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The Premiers agreed to start a common review process for new drugs. That includes common recommendations for coverage under provincial-territorial drug plans. The Premiers also directed their Health ministers to approve all new drugs for coverage on a probationary basis, subject to the ongoing assessment of cost-effectiveness. Also, they've asked the Health ministers to streamline the approval process for generic drugs. That's what they were asked to do.

J. MacPhail: I understand the Premiers were looking to the British Columbia reference drug plan as a model. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I can't comment on what the Premiers were…. She had opportunity to ask the Premier about that.

J. MacPhail: In fact, the Premiers across the province are looking to the reference drug plan for British Columbia. It was reported publicly, actually.

I'm wondering why the Minister of Health Planning doesn't have that as part of her…. She said she's still pursuing, because the New Era promised it, that there will be an alternative to the reference drug plan. What are some of the alternatives being considered that would be more cost-effective than the reference drug plan that's now a model across the country?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, I look forward to the panel's recommendations. I'm not going to prejudge, and I'm not going to sit here and speculate on what they might come up with. We've asked them to review

the program; we've asked them to hold hearings; we've asked them to look at submissions. I understand they finished the hearings. They will have a report to me, I hope, by March 31. That's what they were asked to do. I look forward to their recommendations.

J. MacPhail: So this is a completely hands-off approach, and whatever the panel reports, the minister implements. Is that it?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I receive the recommendations — she knows better than that — and we will be looking at them. We'll be reviewing them and seeing what makes sense to implement.

J. MacPhail: What will be the publication of this report and the opportunity for public input into discussing the recommendations? I'm sorry. Did the minister say she's already received the recommendations? Okay. So she'll be receiving those by the end of March.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I thought I was. I should look at you. Sorry. I was calling her "she."

What will be the public input after the recommendations are received for what the public's view is on the recommendations?

Hon. S. Hawkins: She knows how it works. The minister gets the report. There has been an incredible amount of consultation. The webpage has been up. There has been ample opportunity to put submissions on the webpage. The committee has held hearings, and they're taking written submissions. They are putting it all together. I'll look at the recommendations, and then we'll see where we go from there.

J. MacPhail: So far, there's only been two Liberal MLAs who have raised questions in these estimates. That's worth noting. We're on our third day of questions. I guess health planning isn't at the top of the Liberal MLAs' issues.

I'm going to continue on the issue of Pharmacare. I'm trying to figure out the planning that's gone on around these changes to Pharmacare. One of the areas that we haven't explored yet is the off-loading onto private insurance companies, and there will be off-loading onto private insurance companies. I'm wondering whether the minister has done any exploration of the consequences of off-loading onto private insurance companies.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm advised that Health Services has some information for the member, if she wishes to bring that up in those estimates.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm wondering why the Minister of Health Planning hasn't discussed this, because it does have some serious implications, particularly for people who have catastrophic illnesses or some major medical risk.

The Chair: This committee is recessed until the vote's complete in Committee A.

J. MacPhail: We were exploring the Pharmacare changes and how they relate to health planning. The minister distinguishes between health services, the operating side and the planning side, and somehow thinks that the question should be directed to Health Services. Let me give the minister a specific question in terms of long-term planning, and these are the effects of the changes anticipated under Pharmacare that may affect clients who are a major medical risk or have a catastrophic illness. In the income-testing category, with the Pharmacare change to make the model income-tested, I'm wondering whether the minister has any knowledge of whether income testing will eliminate Pharmacare coverage, depending on your income.

J. MacPhail: If that is the direction in which the government is going, may I ask the government to be cautious about one aspect of the changes. It's one that I will be monitoring as we move to an income-tested model. I take the minister's word that there will not be a complete elimination of the Pharmacare coverage, but there is going to be a huge off-loading onto private insurance companies. Part of the concern that British Columbians have brought to my attention is those who are a major medical risk and/or have a catastrophic illness and are middle income — earn $60,000 or more. As the province changes Pharmacare to ask private insurance companies to pick up a greater cost of prescription drugs, what has the minister got in mind for people who are major medical risks during this shift from public health insurance to private health insurance?

Hon. S. Hawkins: If I can reassure the member, people with catastrophic illness will always be covered. There won't be caps on that coverage. As a monitoring

measure, the centre for health policy research at UBC will be tracking any impact of plan I — which is the income-testing plan, I understand. My ministry does hold the contract with the centre for health policy research.

J. MacPhail: No. All right. I was asking the question in the context of the discussions the minister has had with private insurance companies. Right now, as I understand it, any costs that are not covered by the Pharmacare plan are picked up by people's private health insurance plans. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Well, yes, but it's either zero coverage, or else the private insurance health plan continues the coverage. I don't think there's been any change to that.

We now have a situation where there's going to be a huge change in the private insurance coverage of Pharmacare in this province. It's safe to say that at least a portion of the $400 million that the government is off-loading onto citizens other than themselves will be picked up by the private insurance companies. Does the minister dispute that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Right now we have the most generously funded public Pharmacare plan in the country. What we're trying to do is just take it to the level of other provinces, where the private companies may have to pick up a portion. Our plan is still the most generously funded in the country.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I'm actually not looking for rhetoric. I'm looking for specifics on how the Pharmacare plans may change other health insurance coverage.

Private health insurance companies will pick up the costs of prescriptions for those who, through income testing, will not receive the same level of coverage for Pharmacare. There's only one way that could not happen, and that's if the government brings in legislative change that says there can't be off-loading onto private insurance companies, and then that lets private insurance companies off the hook. I assume the government's not going to bring in that kind of legislation. I assume. I hope. I pray.

I just give this as a scenario for the minister to plan for. I think that her job is to plan for this. There could be such substantial change in the proportion of drug costs away from the public purse and onto private insurance companies that there will be concerns about coverage under private health insurance. One of those will be around people who have major medical risks.

I make this note for the minister in the hope that she can plan to avoid ill effects amongst people with major medical risks. The majority of private insurance companies will not substantively bear the risk of people with a pre-existing major medical risk. They simply won't.

If the shift in the income testing of Pharmacare is such that because of one's level of income being fairly substantial or even above $20,000, the majority of prescription costs are paid by a private health insurance company, which could put these people at risk. With a major medical risk as a pre-existing condition, they may not be able to get coverage by their private health insurance companies. Is the minister aware of this problem?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand that Pharmacare will pick up everything above the level of the deductible. Yes, there is going to be a gap there that perhaps the private insurer will put up, but then Pharmacare will pick up over and above that.

J. MacPhail: That's not under review for the income-tested model? How will you possibly get $400 million of savings if that's not under review?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We've taken into consideration the structure of the private companies, and we've looked at how they're going to be affected. Frankly, the plans are going to be equitable, and they're going to be fair.

J. MacPhail: Well, I want to be reassured by the minister's words that the point at which the government assumes 100 percent of the costs is when the limit of $2,000 per family is reached, regardless of the fact of moving to an income-tested model. Is that what I'm reassured? If that's the case, I'm reassured.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The member is referring to the existing deductible of $2,000, and we are moving, as we said, to an income-testing model. We're still working on refining the plan, so that will change. I can't tell her what the level will be, but anything over that deductible in a medical emergency or in a catastrophic illness situation would be covered.

J. MacPhail: So we do know that the government will not be picking up 100 percent of the costs after $2,000 per family.

J. MacPhail: Okay. This is very important. It's important that we talk about the same things. When a family now has reached the $1,000 deductible, Pharmacare will continue to cover 70 percent of the cost of eligible benefits and dispensing fees. Once a family has

paid $2,000 as their portion, further eligible expenses in that year will be covered 100 percent. That's the current plan. What I'm asking the minister, and what I thought I heard, is that the government picking up 100 percent beyond a family's costs of $2,000 will remain. Or is that up for change as part of the income-testing model program?

Hon. S. Hawkins: All those factors are being looked at. That's the old plan she's referring to. There's a new income-testing plan being modelled and refined right now, so those levels may change. Some families are going to be paying less, and we'll cover over and above that. Some will be paying more, and we'll cover over the new deductible — whatever that will be.

J. MacPhail: Okay, then my original question stands. That part of the plan is up for grabs as well. If one is a major medical risk and the vast majority of one's drug costs are anticipated to be covered by a private insurance company because of these changes…. Is the minister aware that private insurance companies don't insure people with major medical risks as a pre-existing condition?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, I am aware of that. That's why the planning for this income-testing plan is occurring right now, a year ahead of when it's going to be implemented. We are looking at all those factors. We're going to make sure we take that kind of information into consideration and have the most fair and equitable plan available for the people that need it.

J. MacPhail: That's why it's so important that the minister assume her responsibilities for planning around health care as it relates to Pharmacare changes. What discussions is the minister having with private health insurance plans to make sure that people with pre-existing major medical risks are not left out in the cold and end up covering all of their drug costs up to $20,000?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, it's the Ministry of Health Services that is undertaking this plan and dealing with the insurers and the people affected. I would ask the member to direct those questions to the ministry that is actually doing the groundwork and looking at how that plan is going to roll out.

I can tell you, we have those questions on a long-term basis. We are going to be monitoring this income-testing plan, which is plan I. We have the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research tracking the impact of the plan. That's what we're going to be doing.

With respect to patients with pre-existing and chronic disease situations, I wish she'd ask me questions about what my ministry's doing about chronic disease management strategies, the primary care reform and those kinds of good things that we're doing. She is intent to focus on Pharmacare, and I'm trying to direct her to the Health Services minister. His ministry is working very hard at this. They've been working for the past few months, and they'll be working through the year. We will be tracking the impact of those changes, but they are actually developing the plan and will be implementing it.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand those are the areas that the minister wants to talk about, but the changes planned right now are Pharmacare changes. I've been trying to get from the minister some understanding of where health cost pressures could pop up elsewhere as a result of these changes.

Here's a perfect example. It's got nothing to do with the Minister of Health Services. This is a policy question that relates to Pharmacare. If, through the model of income testing, the burden for prescription therapies shifts to private health insurers, there will be hundreds if not thousands of British Columbians who will not be able to get private health insurance to cover their Pharmacare costs that have been off-loaded, because they're a major medical risk with a pre-existing condition — hundreds if not thousands of British Columbians.

I'm asking the minister: what contingency does she have for the pressures that that will put on the health care system elsewhere?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I don't know how much clearer I can make it. We are well aware of all these issues. We're designing a plan that's going to be fair and equitable. We are going to take into account some of the issues that she is raising.

The member raises some very important issues. Pharmacare staff are working very hard to address these. We are going to make sure that this plan is implemented in the most fair and equitable way. The Minister of Health Planning will be monitoring that. We're going to be looking at the impact of that through a contract with the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at UBC. We'll be tracking that.

Frankly, that is why we're taking a year to do it. The planning is going on right now. We're taking a year to do it. We are looking at all that stuff. The Pharmacare ministry staff are talking to the private insurers, and they're looking at that. We're not trying to design a plan that's going to eliminate people from getting any kind of coverage. That is not what's being done here. We want to make sure that patients come first, they get the care they need, and we have a plan that's going to be fair and equitable.

J. MacPhail: We don't have a year; we've got 9½ months until the government makes the changes. I know these questions are frustrating for the minister, but let me put….

The Chair: Members, I think it's important that you go through the Chair when someone's on the floor, please.

J. MacPhail: We've got nine and half months until the changes are actually implemented: January, 1, 2003. Those in the situation I'm talking about, which the minister seems to be very frustrated about discussing, won't have nine and a half months. They will have to go out and get insurance coverage on their own to make up the difference. That requires application, meeting the tests of private insurance companies and finding a private health insurance company that will actually cover them. That's what British Columbians are facing. It isn't fearmongering. It's the reality that this government is putting on British Columbians.

When this model was put in place in the United States, there were tens of thousands of people who couldn't find private health insurance coverage. Then what happened was that they were hospitalized.

It's like real short-term gain for long-term pain unless there's planning done. That's this minister's job unless the plan is to have short-term gain, balance your books and cause long-term pain. When the minister says, "Oh, we've got nine and a half months" — that I'm picking at little fleas or being petty — she's dead wrong. The minister is dead wrong in that area. The fact of the matter is the minister wasn't even willing to come clean that the plan could be changed to affect people in this category.

I will be monitoring this extremely carefully, because the Americanization of our Pharmacare system is just dead wrong for this province. It wasn't what British Columbians were told was going to happen. At no time did this Minister of Health Planning, the Minister of Health Services or the Premier, in fact, say there was going to be an Americanization of our Pharmacare policy. The minister can protest all she likes, but that will be a consequence of an income-testing system unless there is protection against it. I can't even find out what discussions are going on around this. I'm being referred to the Minister of Health Services, and I bet you he won't have the answers either.

What discussions is the minister having with private health insurance companies about changes to Pharmacare?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, it's kind of galling listening to this because of the "Americanization of the income-testing plan." Guess what. We're using a model that's similar to Manitoba — the Manitobization of the income-testing plan. My goodness, the sky is falling.

The plan that's being designed is going to be fair and equitable for everyone. If you have high drug costs or you have low drug costs, once you reach your deductible, Pharmacare is going to cover everything above that. A person with high drug costs will reach their deductible sooner and have 100 percent coverage of costs.

I wonder: does the member get that? Does she understand that? We're going to a model that's similar to Manitoba's.

J. MacPhail: I'm well aware of the Manitoba model. What this government has in mind is not moving toward the Manitoba model — simply not. Under the performance measures, maybe the minister would like to answer her questions for the service plan out of her own Health Planning document as it relates to prescriptions, then. Maybe she would feel more comfortable answering that. "Performance measure. Percentage of the population appropriately insured for prescription drug costs. Target '02-03: increase toward 100 percent. Target '03-04: 100 percent. Target '04-05: 100 percent."

What does that mean? And what is the performance measure to determine whether the minister is doing her job?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That is the plan we're moving towards. Now we're getting somewhere. That means everyone will be income-tested.

J. MacPhail: So what the minister means by "appropriately insured" is really a euphemism for income-testing. Well, then why is it the minister can't explain what income-testing is going to do? She keeps referring it off to the Minister of Health Services. For the last three hours she's been referring me off to the Minister of Health Services, and it's her own measure.

It could have been your head under there, which would have been even more inappropriate. I agree.

The minister has said: "It's not my income-testing model. I don't know anything. Why can't you talk to the Minister of Health Services?" By her own performance measure, she has to figure out how income testing is going to give 100 percent appropriate coverage.

J. MacPhail: Oh, so this means nothing? The performance measure established by her own plan means nothing?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, we are talking about goal No. 3, and I'm glad she's reading the service plan. This is where we want to be. Maybe she'll get an understanding of what we do as we move through here. Goal 3 is a sustainable, affordable health care system. Under our objective 3 we talk about reducing the burden of cost on the public system, because we are talking about sustainability. If we continue the way we're going, we're not going to have money for anybody. We're not going to have money in the system for anybody.

When we go through what we're doing here, we're exploring options. One of the options is income-testing. That's what we're going to be doing. Under the target, a percentage of the population appropriately insured…. Right now we don't do that well. We have deductibles. We do other kinds of things. We don't really say how people are appropriately insured. Our target for the end of this year is to make sure we're increasing towards 100 percent — that everyone is appropriately insured, that they're income-tested, that they're paying the appropriate deductibles.

The Chair: Members, I think that when you're in the House, we're all hon. members here. We must address each other in our appropriate titles, and we must keep the decorum of the House, so we'll keep it civil and not personal.

J. MacPhail: And how is the member…? Is there some other definition of appropriately insured other than income testing?

Hon. S. Hawkins: What we're saying here is that people will be treated equitably and fairly. An equitable, fair way of measuring this is to income-test.

J. MacPhail: Then it is curious as to why the minister has spent the last three hours referring me to someone else to discuss the income-testing model, when it's the minister's own measure by which she will be judged. There's no other measure. I just asked. There's no measure other than income testing. It's income testing. By the end of this fiscal year the minister's performance measure, on which her salary rests, is 100 percent of appropriate insurance.

I must say, Mr. Chair, it is unbelievable that we have taken all this time for the minister shirking her duties, to somehow refer this to somebody else, when somehow the Pharmacare planning the minister says is not going on is really going on — all about income testing by her own performance measures. I gave the minister plenty of time to come to that conclusion herself — plenty of time.

There will be changes and consequences to these Pharmacare changes that will save the Pharmacare budget $400 million by transferring costs to the individuals. I predict right now that the costs will pop up elsewhere in the system either by people not getting insurance at all, by us moving to having people have no health insurance coverage for drugs or by having people partially covered in this system. That will affect long-term care, because people won't be able to stay in their homes. That will affect acute care, because people will be choosing their medications according to what they can pay, according to what their needs will be. I also predict that there will be serious consequences in the areas of mental health as well.

In the other areas of responsibility for the minister in terms of health planning, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health Planning about the effects of changes in emergency health services on other aspects of health care in this province. What are the proposed changes for emergency health services? What longitudinal studies is she doing about the effects of health in other areas?

Hon. S. Hawkins: With respect to emergency health services, we are asking for health authorities to identify needs. We're asking for the ambulance service to identify efficiencies to make sure they're answering calls they need to. We will be monitoring those kinds of measures. Through the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, we'll be tracking that.

I just want to go back for a minute to Pharmacare, because the member left it hanging, and I'd like to close it. The income-testing model is very complex, and it is something that is being worked on for a year before it is going to be implemented. Frankly, it is not this ministry that is designing that program. This ministry — and I don't how much clearer I can get it to the member — is going to be monitoring the impact. The target we've set for ourselves is to make sure that at the end of 2002-03 we are reaching up to 100 percent of the people that will be covered under that model.

That is fair. It's equitable, and it will make sure that people who need the drugs will be covered for them. That is what we are doing with respect to my ministry's work.

The Pharmacare program. The staff are working diligently — very hard. It's complex. They're refining that plan, and we'll be working to monitor to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and equitably.

The Chair: Members, I think it's important that you do go through the Chair and that we do keep the decorum of the House.

J. MacPhail: In the aspect of emergency health services, what review has the minister done in terms of planning for these changes as they affect rural versus urban communities?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We're working very closely with the health authorities as they review their needs and look at their service requirements. They're working on those plans right now, and they'll be bringing them forward at the end of the month.

J. MacPhail: In the cost pressures over three years in the budget for the emergency health services, it's $55 million. Then there's management strategies to reduce

that cost by $59.3 million. In other words, the management strategies over the period offset the cost pressures, and there will be $4 million left. Am I reading that correctly?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, I ask the member where she is reading that from. Is she reading that from Health Services, or is she reading that from Health Planning?

J. MacPhail: It's the emergency health services budget document dated February 13, 2002.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, that's from Health Services, so I would ask her to ask those specific operational type of questions to the Health Services minister.

J. MacPhail: Well, what I was trying to get was what planning the minister had in terms of urban versus rural care, and the minister referred me on to health authorities.

There is a document here showing that there will be a change of…. There's pressures in one area of $55 million, and then there's budget management strategies in another area of $59 million. That's $120 million worth of discussion we have to have — where the demands are coming from and where those pressures are going to get relieved. I don't think they're the same thing. They're not the same thing. It's $120 million of health care money over three years.

If all these questions about how long-term planning is going to affect urban versus rural…. If the public has to go to each health authority to figure that out, they're not going to have time to do that. That's why I'm trying to discuss this matter with the minister responsible for health planning.

Well, let me see whether I can put it this way. Is an urban health authority being treated exactly the same way as a health authority that covers mainly smaller communities and rural communities when it comes to emergency health services?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The Minister of Health Services is working with the ambulance service to look at efficiencies. He's certainly working with the health authorities to look at how they can better manage their needs. They're identifying their needs. They're working on their plans. Frankly, I think it's about time they did get some direction on having a good look at what their needs are and what kind of planning they need to do.

We have health authorities that have a mix of urban and rural, and we expect them to look at the needs of their health service delivery areas, of their regions as a whole, and to come back to us with good plans on what the needs are and how they're going to manage for their populations. You know what? That is certainly something we heard over the last few years. It wasn't looked at, and now we're asking the health authorities to do it in a real way — certainly, looking at the ambulance service and some of the efficiencies that hopefully they can realize and work together with the ambulance service to look after patients' needs across the province.

J. MacPhail: I guess if I want to find out what direction the health authorities are being given for long-term planning, urban versus rural, I have to go to the Minister of Health Services. That was the answer.

It seems to me that in this one area of emergency health services, there are very, very different needs between rural communities and urban communities. I know for a fact that there are very different needs. Is it anywhere on the minister's planning checklist to note those different requirements — anywhere, and on this minister's…? Or do I have go for all of this planning over to the Minister of Health Services?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's so frustrating, honestly. The member is asking some very technical budget questions. Yes, she has to go to the Minister of Health Services to get those budget-type answers. If she's asking how those plans are being developed, I can give her that kind of information. I can tell you that right now, yes, there is a difference between rural and urban communities with respect to ambulance services. We know that.

There's a huge disparity, in fact, so we've asked the health authorities to come up with a plan to look at the needs of their areas. Some of them are urban. Some of them are rural. Some of them are mixed communities. We've asked them, within the context of their regions, to come up with an evidence-based plan from their health authorities.

We're going to look at all kinds of information that they bring us and at their plan on how to manage within their health service delivery areas, within their regions, in providing care to patients that need it. If she's wondering what we're doing as far as budget, the actual operational stuff, yes, take that to the Health Services minister. If she's asking about planning for the needs of the health authorities, I've just told her. They've been asked to look at the needs of their regions, to develop those plans and to come back to us at the end of the month.

J. MacPhail: Are the health authorities being asked to figure out ways to allow for longer response times? Is that one way?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The B.C. Ambulance Service is a full partner with the health authorities in working on their plans. They will work with them in partnership to make sure the best decisions are made for the patients that are served in the different health authorities.

J. MacPhail: Because I can't have access to the health authorities to quiz them, this is the only place I have to ask these questions. I don't think it's acceptable to say that these are some of the areas the health authorities are looking at. In the minister's own planning document, it says that demand mitigation will be to

reduce demand for services by redirecting low-priority calls to other resources.

This may be a time when the minister wants to get up and talk about how well the B.C. HealthGuide NurseLine is doing — or poison control or social services, which is what her document refers people to. It says that demand mitigation will take place by single ambulance response regardless of the acuity of the situation. This is a quote, actually, from the minister's own briefing book.

"Implement policy not to transport patients home where alternatives exist following release from the hospital." That sure seems to me like having an urban versus a rural component to it. "Cap subsidized interfacility transfers of hospital in-patients, longer response times, delays in patient transfers…." Those are demand-management strategies that this minister is planning.

Is this also the list that the health authorities are working with? Is this the list that every health authority works with? Or does it vary, whether it's an urban or rural health authority? I'm sure some of the rural members might be concerned about this: "Find your own way home" or a longer response time.

Hon. S. Hawkins: It says right at the top, if she reads her leaked document. It was briefing material that was prepared for the Minister of Health Services. These were prepared for budget. We're looking at different strategies there.

These are not the strategies that the health authorities were given. The health authorities were given instructions to look at the needs in their areas. These are totally delinked from the restructuring. We're asking the health authorities to look at the needs of their population. We're asking the ambulance service to look at some of their operational strategies and find some efficiencies. That is the difference between what the health authorities are doing and what the B.C. Ambulance Service has been asked to do.

J. MacPhail: Out of the minister's service plan strategies, the minister's health planning service plan: establish a comprehensive accountability and performance management strategy for health authorities and other providers. The minister says that's long term. In the meantime there's no planning going on.

I'm an urban MLA. I fully appreciate the fact and consider myself extremely fortunate that I have access to acute care and emergency facilities within manageable travelling distance. One of the demand-mitigation strategies affects planning and accountability: longer response times.

I remember quite well that there was a tragic case of a little girl not getting appropriate health care in a devastating way. One of the issues was response time of the ambulance paramedics. After careful methodological review, the ambulance service was asked to set appropriate response times. It was very difficult. We were having a great deal of difficulty meeting those appropriate response times. I admit that.

To somehow say that planning for longer response times is not part of a performance measure…. Then I don't know what the minister does classify as a performance measure. Let me explain it for the minister, because the minister somehow thinks she can divorce herself from what the Health Services ministry is doing. As a way to manage their budget, the Health Services ministry, for those of you who represent rural ridings, is saying to the ambulance service: "Plan for longer response times." That's what it says.

What will be the response time? What is the ambulance service setting as a response time? There are very clear standards right now for response time.

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's incredible — the conclusions that can be reached from this document. I'm going to try and calm down here.

We are not planning for longer response times. In fact, if anyone created longer response times in the last ten years, it was that government. If there was any government that created a disparity between urban and rural health care, it was that member's government.

She's reading from a leaked document. These are strategies that can be employed to reduce budget cost pressures, but if you read through these, they're also strategies to reduce response times. If you're not sending an ambulance where it doesn't have to go…. I think the member remembers quite well, as I do. I don't know if she's talking about the tragic incidence of a little girl…. There were ambulances deployed doing other things, not necessarily emergencies, and they never got to a little girl.

What we're trying to do here is ask the ambulance service to look at their efficiencies, to make sure they're actually going where they're supposed to be going when they're supposed to be going there. We're asking for the health authorities to look at the health service needs of their population, and if they need to beef up their ambulance service, we will look at that. Those are the kinds of operational strategies we're looking at.

When she's asking what the difference is — my ministry and Health Services — they look after the operational, and I look after the long term. We're working in concert, but we're looking at the long term. As we redesign the health care system so it does become more efficient and more effective and so it does stay sustainable, we want to make sure that we do have ambulance service and the level of ambulance service we need across the province. We will be putting in those accountability measures with the health authorities to say, if we move down that road, what level of service we expect in the different areas of the province. That is the kind of long-term planning we're looking at.

We're looking at what kinds of facilities, what kinds of services and ambulance services might be needed, what kinds of ways we're going to measure and what we're going to make the health authorities accountable

for. That's what we're going to do. When you look at this list, it's not to deplete the rural areas of their ambulance service; it's to make sure we are using the services efficiently and effectively and, where they don't need to be used for a certain exercise, that they're being deployed using the strategy that best meets patients' needs. Some of these strategies will actually shorten response times.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Well, I'll read right here one that she read: "Implement policy not to transport patients home where alternatives exist, following release from hospital." Why would you tie up an ambulance to do that, if you could perfectly well take a taxi or get a ride home with family?

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sure some rural MLAs will have a view on that; that's what I said. I'm sure some rural MLAs will be a little bit concerned about a taxi drive for 50, 60, 70 kilometres or 50, 60, 70 miles. What if there is no family member?

I don't think these questions have to be so adversarial. These are planning documents of the government itself. They had to be revealed. They weren't brought to the public's mind by the minister. Yet now that we're actually asking questions about it, the minister is saying: "(1) It's not my job, and (2) if it is, I'm in the long-term phase."

In the meantime, the ambulance service may be reduced so that a patient is literally left at the door. I doubt there's adequate bus service between Burns Lake and Prince George to meet patients' needs upon discharge. I doubt there's a taxi that will take a person from Prince George to Burns Lake.

Secondly, in terms of long-term planning, there was a team of ambulance paramedics put in place to deal with the non-emergency transfer of patients. The minister knows full well there are transfers between long-term facilities and acute care facilities that are not of an emergency nature. Those are the very people that have been cut. The 37 ambulance paramedics that could actually relieve that pressure are now gone.

I am curious when the minister says that's one area that would shorten the response time. What about the reduced demand by redirecting low-priority calls to other resources like the B.C. HealthGuide NurseLine, poison control and social services? How will that work?

Hon. S. Hawkins: As the member knows, the transfer fleet is functional in the lower mainland and in Victoria. So when she talks about alternatives, those alternatives aren't there in the rural areas. What this document is saying is that where those alternatives are available, we wouldn't be using the ambulance.

Why would the member think it's the proper use of an ambulance to transfer a patient home when there might be a viable alternative? I don't understand that. What we're doing is searching for alternatives, and we're asking the health authorities to do that. That's very expensive. It's a critical use of a resource that could be deployed where it's actually needed in an emergency. We don't have transfer fleets outside the lower mainland.

What we're saying here is that in order to reduce response times, this is an alternative that could be employed: finding alternatives for an ambulance to transfer a patient home. That's what I was trying to get across there, but she doesn't want to hear that.

Anyway, the B.C. HealthGuide and primary care reform are a better use of more appropriate services. We think that as people get more comfortable with self-care or with taking responsibility for their health care, they will start using those resources more effectively and will feel more comfortable that who they have on the other end of the line can help them and advise them on whether they need to take the next step and actually order an ambulance.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps, for the minister's edification, I can explain to her how it actually works in terms of the patient transfer fleet. It works for patients such as frail elderly, extended-care patients and nursing home patients when they have to go into acute care facilities and back. I doubt that they'd be able to take a bus or a taxi, but it's not emergency care. That's why the fleet was set up, and that's gone now. Those people will actually be using ambulances that are also deployed for emergencies. The fleet of ambulances that would be able to relieve emergency vehicles from interfacility transfers has been cancelled by this government.

That's separate and apart from the issue here, which is another item, where people are going to have to take a taxi or get a family member to take them home after they've been discharged. That's the rural issue. They're two completely separate topics, both of which, as far as I can tell, negatively impact patient care.

If indeed these are only options to be explored, what does the minister anticipate in terms of demand reduction by redirecting low-priority calls to other areas?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I hope that member wasn't trying to mislead when she said the transfer fleet is gone, because it's not. That is totally untrue. The transfer fleet is intact. It's in place.

Secondly, the transfer fleet doesn't just take frail elderly. The transfer fleet happens to take fairly capable people between institutions, facility to facility, for diagnostic procedures. Possibly, they could be capable of taking other alternatives. That is what we are exploring here.

Thirdly, the ambulance service will be there for patients that need an ambulance — period.

J. MacPhail: Will that be one of the performance measures that each regional health authority has to meet?

Hon. S. Hawkins: One of the major accountabilities for the health authorities this year is to make sure there are emergency services for their population. They will be measured on that.

J. MacPhail: That's why I was asking: if there's a measure that says the ambulance service will be there when the patient needs it, then how does one measure that? Is it by response time?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Pre-hospital response times are measured all of the time, so that data is continuously collected. The other information with respect to whether a patient is going to be transferred from facility A to facility B or taken somewhere else is arranged with a hospital, and that information is collected at intervals.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware that the response times are collected. That's what I was getting at. I'm asking whether a response time will be part of a performance measure given to the health authorities.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Pre-hospital response times are a measure of the B.C. Ambulance Service.

J. MacPhail: Okay, I asked the minister how we would know whether the ambulance service is working properly, and she said the health authorities will be held accountable for this. I honestly take it that the minister is avoiding answering the question that response times will not be part of the performance measure, because I've asked a question three times in three different ways, and I'm still not getting an answer.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Health authorities are going to be held accountable for emergency services. The member is asking for response times. B.C. Ambulance Service is a provincial service, and they will be held accountable that one of their indicators is response times. They will be held responsible for that. Emergency services will be the responsibility of the health authorities, and we will have measures for them to be accountable for.

J. MacPhail: We have a two-track process here. We have the health authorities being responsible for emergency services and the ambulance service being responsible for emergency health services?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think we're caught up in semantics here, because emergency services is the old word for B.C. Ambulance Service emergency health services. It is now the B.C. Ambulance Service. I think that's been used for ages. That's pre-hospital care. The provincial service — B.C. Ambulance Service — will be held accountable for their response times.

The health authority's responsibility starts as soon as they transport the patient to an emergency. That's what I'm referring to. Emergency services are the responsibility of the health authority; the pre-hospital care, the B.C. Ambulance Service. The response times will be tracked and monitored by the B.C. Ambulance Service, and they'll be held accountable for those response times.

J. MacPhail: All of the demand-mitigation tactics will be determined by the B.C. Ambulance Service, then. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. That was the question I asked a little while ago and got referred to the health authorities.

Well, then this is a long-term planning question. There's no question about it. It's one to be determined in 2005. It says that the collective agreement for the ambulance paramedics expires in 2005. The government's original budget strategy was to eliminate approximately 300 paramedics and associated administrative supports, but this is not possible within the current collective agreement. What are the barriers under the current collective agreement?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The current agreement, I understand, says you can't go below 1,202. I'm advised that we're not planning to go under that.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Sorry — full-time positions. My understanding is that we are looking at how we can best meet the needs of patients, and we're going to keep that number intact.

J. MacPhail: The current collective agreement says that the composite for the provincial ambulance service has to be 1,202 full-time-equivalents as of 2005. Then there will be 1,202 full-time-equivalents, as well, even after the expiry of the collective agreement.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I am getting clarification here. It's full-time established positions. There might be more people than that, but the current collective agreement says it can't go below 1,202.

Let me say this: we are looking at our ambulance system in the province. It will be undergoing a core review, and we're going to look at how we can best meet patients' needs across the province as we move forward. As far as what's going to happen in 2005, I don't know. That is the kind of planning we're going to do over the next few years as we go through the core review of the ambulance service and determine what's best needed for ambulance services across the province.

J. MacPhail: Just to review, again. There may be a change to the number of full-time-equivalents. There may be a change to the 1,202 full-time established paramedics then, as the document suggests.

Hon. S. Hawkins: At this time we are not going below 1,202. In fact, I think there are a few more than that right now. As I said, we are going through a core review, and we're going to look at the needs across the province. We're going to work with the ambulance service and the health authorities, and over the next few years we're going to lay out those plans.

J. MacPhail: Well, you see, this is what makes people suspicious in the public's mind, because it looks like the planning has already been done here. It's only because of the collective agreement that you can't lay off — "eliminate" is the word here — approximately 300 paramedics and associated administrative supports. This is not possible within the current collective agreement.

One would assume — call it fearmongering or whatever — that upon the expiry of the collective agreement, the government will have either a negotiating strategy or a legislative strategy to eliminate 300 paramedics and associated administrative supports. I was trying to see whether the minister's long-term planning had put that little bullet in there, because long-term planning seems like to 2005.

In terms of the provincial ambulance service, hasn't it finished its core review? I thought the Ministry of Health was done.

Hon. S. Hawkins: No, the core review of the B.C. Ambulance Service has yet to be embarked on. A request for proposals for services related to performing a core review was put out on February 7 and closed on the 22nd. We haven't yet announced the successful proponent. That commission has yet to go through its core review.

J. MacPhail: Again, I asked that question of the Premier a few days ago, and the Premier didn't have any knowledge of core reviews being contracted out.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The only other one I can recall on my feet here is the Medical Services Commission. It hasn't had its core review either.

J. MacPhail: One of the things I explored with the Premier, as chair of the core review, was: was it a budget exercise? He assured me that it wasn't.

Will the core review have, as part of it, what you are going to do in 2005 to eliminate 300 positions?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It has nothing to do with the current collective agreement or staffing models. It has everything to do with looking at the core business of the ambulance service, what it should and shouldn't be doing, program delivery and those kinds of questions.

J. MacPhail: Well, it will be interesting to see. Is that particular core review going to be a public process if it's contracted out?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It will have significant consultations, so there will be stakeholders that are consulted. I assume the report will be public once it's done. Certainly, the request for proposals was done through a public process.

J. MacPhail: Well, it will be interesting to monitor what happens in this area, given this document we now have, given the fact that there's a core review going on and given the fact that there doesn't seem to be…. Well, I gather everything is up for grabs now, so it'll be interesting to see how many ambulance paramedics are left in the coming months. The provincial ambulance service is just that. What is the future relationship between ambulance service and health authorities? Will the provincial ambulance service remain a provincial, publicly provided ambulance service?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, that's part of the core review: how best can we deliver that service? That is a question that we'll be posing for the core review to resolve.

J. MacPhail: You know, there is an ability for the minister to say: "Yes, the member is right. It will remain a publicly delivered provincial ambulance service." By not saying that, one can only assume that that's up for grabs as well. Part of the need of the public right now is some reassurance about aspects of their health care system. I have to tell you that there is such concern about the lack of consistency, the lack of stability, in our health care system right now that people have no idea what the future is going to hold.

In the last couple of hours we've discussed Pharmacare, and we've discussed ambulance services. The minister can't give any reassurance that the ambulance service is going to be provincial and publicly delivered. Is part of the plan of the government, then, perhaps to…? Is one of the questions that is being considered whether to regionalize the ambulance service or not?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm not going to prejudge the core review. That is why we're doing to core review. We're going to ask them to look at all the aspects of the ambulance service, tell us what is considered core business, what isn't, how it should best be delivered, whether it should continue to be delivered on a provincial basis, whether it's best to devolve down to the health authorities to help them meet their needs within their regions. Those are the kinds of questions we expect the core review to answer. Again, we're asking someone to do this report. I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the report.

J. MacPhail: Well, this is a pretty significant issue. The provincial ambulance service was put in place in the seventies because there wasn't provincewide, uni-

form access to ambulance service. That's why we had the provincial ambulance service created in the seventies. Let me ask the minister this, then: as part of the core review, will the public be able to have input into that question of whether or not there should be a continuing provincial ambulance service?

Hon. S. Hawkins: What we want is an effective ambulance service. If the way it's being delivered right now today is the best way to do it, I'm sure the core review will tell us that. As I said, there will be consultations with stakeholders through this review, and there will be input from different groups into the process. I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of what will be considered the recommendations from this report.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm sure I can list a few just off the top of my head. I'm sure the unions, the health authorities, the municipalities and the provider groups will be consulted. First responders, I'm sure, will be consulted. Those are the kinds of groups I would think would be consulted through this review process.

J. MacPhail: The core review. The minister has said when the contractor is to finish his or her work. When is the government going to finish its work about core review? I would assume that any changes to the delivery of ambulance service in this province would have an impact on other aspects of health care. We're in a major restructuring of health care now, and all of sudden we find out there's a core review for a provincial ambulance service still to be determined. Up for grabs is whether it be regionalized or perhaps privatized. Is there any preclusion or prohibition from the core review to say that the provincial ambulance service won't be privatized?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm not going to prejudge what the recommendations of that report are going to be. We have committed to making sure that we review every aspect of the health ministry and the services it provides to make sure we're doing what we need to be doing and that patients are getting the care they need when they need it. This is one area that is going to undergo its core review. There are going to be a lot of questions asked. Stakeholders are going to be asked for their input, and we're going to get some recommendations out of it. If this is the best way to run it, the way it's running right now, I'm sure that's what the core review will tell us. I'm not going to say what I expect the recommendations to be. I'm looking forward to the core review, and I'm looking forward to the government receiving the recommendations.

J. MacPhail: I'd say this is a pretty important issue for public discussion. I'm not sure that anybody in any community thought a review of their provincial ambulance service would be left up to a contractor, to deliver the results in private to a government committee, and then have the results announced. I'm not sure that's what people thought they would get out of this government.

I expect that anxiety levels will be heightened with the document that says there'll be 300 fewer ambulance paramedics as of 2005, just as soon as the government can bring changes about through the collective agreement. It would be nice if the minister could stand up and reassure the public that ambulance service won't be privatized. Our ambulance service in British Columbia is far superior, by national acclamation, than any privatized ambulance service in North America.

It would be nice if the minister could at least allow communities the option of input about whether their ambulance service should be regionalized or not. For instance, an ambulance service that is now regionalized for all of the north may have concerns about not having a broader provincially mandated ambulance service in such a sparse area.

J. MacPhail: The minister's job seems to be unfolding in a rather chaotic way. I don't see anywhere in her health planning document where there will be performance measures on the provincial ambulance service devolution, revolution or whatever. Yet that's clearly part of the strategy for health authorities and other providers.

I have a couple more questions on paid training — just so the minister knows — with the ambulance paramedics. Then I'll be moving to midwifery and nursing care. One of the areas that we see for mitigation is a reduction in paid training — discontinuation of all non-essential training for paramedics. What is non-essential training for paramedics that occurs now?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm looking at, I believe, the same page the member is on as far as reductions in paid training. I understand that we pay for pre-employment training of paramedics before they get to us. What this strategy is identifying is that we are hoping to have them trained to the point that when they get to us, we're just training them as paramedics. The strategy here is to make sure they have their pre-training in place, and we would just train them to the level we need for the positions we're putting them in.

J. MacPhail: Is this what the minister is referring to as the P1 level of training that's prepaid?

J. MacPhail: The level of training that the minister says they're now paying for pre-employment — is that the P1 level of training?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We provide training to everyone after we hire them. What we're hoping to do here is make sure they have the kind of pre-employment train-

ing they need before they get to us, so we're not giving them the after-employment training and the pre-employment training. That strategy was around trying to reduce the level of pre-employment training that money was being spent on. Having said that, we are going to continue to provide training in the amount of $4.3 million, and that includes P1 training. That's for the '02-03 year. There is still going to be quite a bit of training provided, in the range of $4.3 million.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, so that means the paid-training budget has been cut by half from $8 million to $4 million.

This is how I understand the paid training works. It particularly affects rural areas. Again, this is why I've been trying to distinguish between long-term planning for the ambulance service in rural versus urban areas. In rural areas the paramedics only get paid when they're called out. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, I fear I'm veering into Health Services. This is again into the operational part of the Health Services budget, so these kinds of technical questions are probably better left to the Minister of Health Services.

I can tell the member that she is correct, that part-time paramedics are paid when they're called out. They also get pager pay, I understand.

J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to do is figure out what long-term planning principles have been put in place for this change. What I understand is that rural paramedics sit and are available, and when the call-out comes, that's when they start getting paid. One could argue that's because there's not enough call-out to have a full-time paramedic in rural communities. But you still need the person at the end of the phone or the pager. They have to make themselves available, just as doctors do. They can't be unavailable or in a certain state if they're on call. They have to be sober, healthy and ready to go, but they only get paid the minute the call comes.

In rural areas the incentive is the pre-employment training paid for by the employer so that the person is able to do the call-out. Then there's hope, eventually, of a promotion to a full-time job in a larger urban area. That's exactly how it works. If you eliminate the paid pre-employment training, you aren't going to have people who are willing to do ambulance call-out in rural areas.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand that P1 training hasn't been eliminated; in fact, it's been enhanced. It's going to continue to be delivered this fiscal year.

As far as long-term planning — and let me try and explain to the member what my responsibilities are around the ambulance service — we are doing a core review. When we travelled around the province, we did hear from people that they didn't always understand or get the service or find the service when they needed it. Our select standing committee of the Legislature travelled around the province before Christmas, and they heard from the public on those kinds of issues. Again, it's very important that we look at assessing the B.C. Ambulance Service, so in that regard we're doing a core review.

We are looking at system redesign. Again, when we travelled around the province, we heard from people who said that the way services were delivered didn't always meet their needs. We're asking the health authorities to go out and develop some plans, look at the needs of their population, look at the needs for ambulance service in their areas. With the core review, with how we're looking at system redesign and the needs that the health authorities address as far as ambulance service pre-hospital care, we are going to generate plans to address those needs. That's how it all ties into this ministry.

As far as technical, operational — what's being trained, what's not being trained this year…. I'm happy to sit here and answer those questions for the member, because I have the director of ambulance services here. My understanding is that training is continuing. As to how we deliver services in the next three to five to ten years, I'm waiting for the results of the core review and for the health authorities to address the needs in their areas, and we'll start planning for the long term.

I can tell you right now, if the member had actually travelled with the Health Committee and sat in on the deliberations…. I know it's not working in different areas of the province. I know that. That is why we're doing the core review. That is why we're asking the health authorities to go out and look at the needs and address them in a real way by generating plans that we can work on so that we have a system in place that will meet patients' needs no matter where they live.

J. MacPhail: The minister said that pre-employment paid training will continue until the end of the fiscal year. Does she mean till the end of this month?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We are in the estimates of '02-03, so that's the year I am referring to. P1 training is funded for '02-03. I'm also informed that air-evac training, infant-transport training, dispatch training, continuing education, occupational safety and first-responder training will also be funded for '02-03, as well as the P1 training.

J. MacPhail: So where is the $4 million cut coming from, which is the discontinuation of all non-essential training for paramedics this fiscal year — '02-03?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, that is out of the Health Services budget. She's talking about $4 million that isn't going to be there anymore. I honestly think that is better referred to the Health Services minister to explain why that part of the budget has been reduced and what aspects of it have been reduced.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's the minister's own words that provoked these questions. The minister says it's there till the end of the fiscal year. So there will be no cuts to pre-employment paid training, then, in '02-03.

Hon. S. Hawkins: These really are questions for Health Services. I'm trying to get the answers from the director of ambulance service, but I know that the Minister of Health Services is more intimately involved in the running of the ambulance services. These are operational-type questions. Again, that member has the opportunity to ask the Health Services minister, because he has not had his estimates yet. These kinds of technical questions around what gets paid and what doesn't get paid and what $4 million isn't being funded are more in his budget, since he's accountable for that.

J. MacPhail: Then let me ask this question, which I'm sure is in the Minister of Health Planning's purview. How does the minister expect to recruit ambulance paramedics to rural areas without paid pre-employment training?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Apparently, the rural paramedics would get P1 training. That continues to be funded. I apologize if the member is confused. That is not the pre-employment training. It's the P1 training. It continues to be funded. We are working on a long-term health human resources plan. We're looking at all aspects of it. We're looking at the needs of what kind of providers we need where and when. That is part of the strategy we're developing around the health human resources plan.

J. MacPhail: I know exactly the questions I'm asking, and I know exactly the training I'm talking about. What I'm trying to get from the minister is if she knows what she's talking about in terms of long-term planning for ambulance service in this province. What I say again — and it isn't fearmongering — is that it's going to be the reality if this government moves forward on eliminating pre-employment paid training in rural areas. There will not be ambulance paramedics who will do the job they're asked to do, which is to sit at home on call and be paid only when they're called, if there's not some incentive for them to take that job, which is pre-employment paid training.

We will not only have reduced response times and reduced services; we won't have any ambulance paramedics. That's why it's the responsibility of this minister in her long-term planning to ensure she can prevent what may be a penny-wise, pound-foolish initiative of the Minister of Health Services from occurring.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We are not eliminating pre-employment training. We are maintaining our rural initiatives, so those training programs are intact. I don't know what else to tell the member. If she's really concerned about the operational issues, she should canvass that in Health Services, but the rural training is intact.

J. MacPhail: No. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I already served notice I was moving on to midwifery. Midwifery is the next topic. I don't have that briefing document here, but of the two briefing notes the minister has, one is on status of negotiations and an expansion in the number of positions. I'm particularly interested in expansion in the number of positions and the minister's thoughts on how that's going to take place.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We are starting the midwifery degree program at UBC. The Minister of Advanced Education and I have been working on this, and I believe we will be announcing ten seats for September.

J. MacPhail: That will make it up to what in the number of licensed…? Sorry, they won't be licensed. There are the studies. What's the long-term planning for the number of midwives that will practise in the province over the course of the next three years?

Hon. S. Hawkins: There are 73 that are licensed right now. We'll be adding ten a year, because we'll be adding ten seats this fall. We're also seeing interprovincial movement, so there are ones that are moving into the province and getting licensed here. We are just starting to look at what kinds of populations they will serve and where and what the need will be. We will be mapping that out in our long-term health human resources strategy.

J. MacPhail: What's the dispersal of practising midwives on a geographic basis?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I apologize. I don't have the geographic distribution, but I can tell you, I think, just off the top of my head. From what I've seen, most of them are in the urban areas. Frankly, I think there's a great need in maternal and obstetrics resources in rural areas.

What I've asked for the Minister of Advanced Education and me to look at is adding a rural component to the training program. We're going to be talking to UBC about that. Frankly, I think that when we do add another practitioner or resource person, we should be looking at where they can be best utilized. I can tell you right now that when we talk to patients, providers and others around the province, they do talk about this crisis in rural obstetrics, in maternity care. I think this would be an excellent resource for those areas, so we are looking at focusing on that. I also understand we're looking at incentives for midwives to practise in underutilized, underserviced areas.

J. MacPhail: Are there any plans to expand the licensing to permit a broader range of home birthing?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The college has set up a model for home birthing. My understanding is that there are no plans to change that model, so I would assume, at this point, it would continue.

J. MacPhail: What is the status of negotiations in terms of fees for the midwives?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Apparently we've just been approached, so negotiations are very early. They're just beginning.

J. MacPhail: What is the current relationship between the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the College of Midwives of B.C.?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Midwives are an important component of maternal obstetrics in the province. I understand there has been increasing acceptance of that practitioner. I haven't heard any changes in that status.

J. MacPhail: I assume midwives are fully engaged. I think they have a limit of 40 births per year. There's a limit to the amount of work they can do. Maybe I should put this in a question. What is the demand for midwifery in this province? Does demand exceed availability?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'll use the term the member used: they are engaged. I understand there is always a demand in some areas. There is a waiting list for midwives in some areas. If there are no midwives at all, the choice isn't there. I'm sure if we had the practitioners in practice, they would be engaged, and I understand they are engaged.

I'm going to move on to initiatives. The minister has asked me to quiz her about these, and I'm going to. Then I have one last question about physician recruitment and retention.

I was not in the chamber when the member for Vancouver-Burrard was asking questions about the nursing executive, so I reviewed that and consider it to be a very positive initiative. What was not discussed during that was, firstly, the aspect of advanced nursing practice and the initiative around advanced nursing practice and then, secondly, the plans for recruitment to fill the gap.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I missed the last part of your question, but I'll pick that up. I think you're asking about the advanced nurse practitioner. There are plans in the works. We are committed to implementing that. As we look at system redesign, at scope of practice and at the best provider for doing the appropriate care, this is the kind of position that I think will be invaluable. I know other provinces have nurse practitioners incorporated into their system. We certainly have them here.

In fact, just last week the Minister of Health Services and I went to the James Bay Project and heard rave reviews of the relationship between the physicians and the nurse practitioners there.

We're excited about this. We are looking at how we're going to develop the infrastructure to educate and regulate nurse practitioners. We're hoping to have that done by the end of the year and, hopefully, have them practising in the next couple of years in a bigger way.

J. MacPhail: Are there any other provinces now, besides Ontario, that allow for nurse practitioners?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That's a good question. I believe Ontario is the only one that has regulated nurse practitioners, and that's what we're hoping to do here: set up the model. There are other provinces — and certainly in our province too — that have different advanced nurse practitioners, like clinical nurse specialists and others. We're hoping to set up the model for regulated nurse-practitioner practice.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to go a little bit off track here and ask my question about physician recruitment, because I think the two are linked. There's a role for a nurse practitioner in a multifaceted facility, but her greatest asset in a province as far-flung as this, I would think, is remote rural practice. I'm now asking the question of physician recruitment in that context. What is the status of physician recruitment in terms of rural and remote areas in this province?

Hon. S. Hawkins: If the member's asking about specific numbers, I don't have any here. I can commit to getting her some, if she's wondering what the status is of physicians being recruited to rural or urban areas. I can tell her that we are continuing with incentives, bonuses and continuing medical education–type incentives to get physicians to rural areas.

She's probably familiar with the forgivable loan program that the Minister of Advanced Education set up. The B.C. portion is to try and get nurses and medical students to underserved areas. We also have the initiative to develop the medical school satellite school through UBC, UNBC and UVic. We also have other kinds of initiatives to help us retain and recruit to rural areas. I'm sure she's familiar with the telemedicine projects and the video-link projects. Those are to help our physicians, to give them support, to help them stay in the rural areas and get that little bit of extra support that they wouldn't have if they didn't have those types of programs.

J. MacPhail: I assume that's part of the negotiations going on with the government now with the BCMA. Are recruitment and retention part of the negotiations?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, the rural issues have been a big part of the negotiations up to now.

J. MacPhail: I really do want to get through these estimates this evening, so I'm trying to make my questions in an orderly fashion. The next one is on the nursing strategy, over and above what the minister discussed with the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I also have questions on the provincial health officer, particularly related to drinking water. I think that will do it.

On the question of recruitment. Yes, I did hear all of the good news, and I think that's wonderful about the recruiting of nurses to British Columbia. Where are we at in terms of the deficit of nurses — nursing vacancies — in the province?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand that we had about 1,000 last year. I believe we're around 800 or just below 800 vacancies this year.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We've got some programs that are continuing. We actually had an offshore recruitment that was successful for, I believe, around 46 specialty-trained nurses.

We are now working aggressively on a return-to-nursing-in-B.C. program. We have sent out, I believe, around 4,000 letters. We have an uptake, the last time I looked, of about 250 applications for nurses who wanted to qualify and license again, who are eligible for the refresher program.

We also have another program where we're utilizing registered nurses on WCB or long-term disability. They are going to work as nurse mentors and preceptors in the systems to help our new nurses that are coming on board.

We also have a forgivable student loan education program that I mentioned; that is continuing. We have put in 177 new spaces, starting in January, for LPNs, RNs and RNAs. Those will be continuing. There is still active recruitment taking place, and there are still other incentives in place that will help us to recruit and retain.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister anticipate that this is a static number? For instance, are we at 800, and that's the deficit that needs to be recruited? Or does that deficit of nursing vacancies expand as the workforce changes — i.e., retires or quits?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I know the member is aware, because she was reminded and she reminds us too, about the aging workforce, so our health human resources plan is going to take into account the changing demographics in the nursing workforce. As that expands, then these numbers change as well.

J. MacPhail: I know that, but I'm asking for some hard numbers. For instance, how many people will be retiring in this fiscal year?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, specifically, we are tracking it. We're monitoring it. Again, we are looking to see where the need is. Certainly, there is still a great need in the specialty care areas — the ICUs, the cardiac, the OR, the emergencies, maternity — so we are looking at specific areas and trying to track where that need is and how we can get those nurses into those areas.

J. MacPhail: There was prediction of tension between working nurses and the government after the government legislated the contract, and then there was prediction of further tension as a result of Bill 29. First of all, I'd like the minister's view on whether that tension ever materialized between working nurses and the government. Is there cooperation now in terms of planning around recruitment and retention? Have there been any of the changes, in terms of what effects Bill 29 would have had on nursing in this province, that are in place yet? Or are all those changes still to come?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We certainly have our chief nurse executive, who is around the province and meeting and talking to front-line nurses. She's in the classrooms talking to students and bringing that perspective to government. We certainly have cooperation around some of the components of the nursing strategy — specifically, just looking at the utilization of registered nurses on WCB or LTD. The unions and other groups are working with us on implementing that. Yes, there is cooperation, and we're still looking to build the relationships and work with those groups to get our nursing workforce working for us.

J. MacPhail: Does the government have a working relationship with the RNABC and the BCNU?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, hon. Chair, they participate on a provincial committee with us.

J. MacPhail: What about the aspect of…? Have any of the changes that are going to be made available as a result of Bill 29 in terms of relocating…? We had quite a discussion about relocating nurses for a period of one month out of four and that kind thing, as a result of Bill 29. Have those options been made available yet to regional health authorities? Does the minister know whether any of those options for relocating nurses have been taken up?

J. MacPhail: Are there discussions with the BCNU about how those workforce strategies will be put in place?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand that the regulations haven't been passed yet. The options haven't been made available. I understand the Health Services minister did meet with RNABC, and some of those issues were discussed. You can canvass him on that meeting. I didn't have that meeting with the RNABC, but I understand there are issues that were brought to our attention. When those decisions are made, the health authorities are going to make that…. There's policy and standards around making sure workers are comfortable in the areas they're going to work in, and patient safety is number one.

J. MacPhail: Recruitment and retention are really the area of responsibility, I would say, of the BCNU. That's why I asked the question specifically about the BCNU.

What about the success of recruitment and retention strategies for paramedicals?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We are working on our health human resources strategy around allied health workers — paramedicals. We are collecting and reviewing existing data. The health human resources advisory committee is looking at difficult-to-fill vacancies. They're looking at the next steps in planning. They've done quite a bit of work around data collection and our population needs with respect to paramedicals as well.

Hon. S. Hawkins: On the health human resources advisory committee there are representatives from our ministry, the professional associations, the colleges, the universities, the unions — different stakeholder groups. I can get you a list of the stakeholders who sit on that committee.

J. MacPhail: My last questions are in the area of health protection — drinking water, specifically, which I assume is the responsibility of the provincial health officer. The government received a report from the panel reviewing drinking water legislation. They also reviewed the provincial health officer's report on drinking water.

They came to some pretty dramatic conclusions, one of which is having, I think, a provincial drinking water agency. That is my understanding of the report. The reason I'm asking this of the Minister of Health Planning is because the provincial health officer is currently charged with protecting drinking water in this province, and I wonder what planning the minister is doing to protect drinking water.

Hon. S. Hawkins: This report is now done. It was jointly commissioned, as the member knows, by the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. There were 26 recommendations. She's correct that one of them is with respect to creating an agency. The others address key issues such as source protection and assessment, small water systems infrastructure funding, land use planning processes and streamlining regulations around the Drinking Water Protection Act. All of these are currently being reviewed by an interministerial committee. It's being spearheaded by the Premier's office.

J. MacPhail: One aspect of the report out of the provincial health office — it was touched on very briefly but was mentioned — was the relationship between resource extraction and drinking water quality. Is the minister liaising with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and/or the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to ensure that drinking water will be protected in the resource extraction areas as well?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, a very important report with some very significant recommendations. Yes, there is an interministerial committee, and they're looking at all aspects of that, including what the member mentioned.

J. Kwan: I have a question relating to the Vancouver agreement. The minister will recall that earlier — I think it was last week — I came into the House to ask some of those questions. I've been tied up in the small House.

I'd like to ask the minister: what are her thoughts on safe injection sites? Is she in support of safe injection sites, and is that within the next phase of the Vancouver agreement consideration?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I know the Vancouver agreement has supported that. I understand that it's one aspect of harm reduction. It's one of the strategies along a continuum of strategies for harm reduction and is certainly something this government is looking at.

J. Kwan: The mayor of the city of Vancouver is committed to it. He brought the matter over to the big-city mayors caucus conference that took place in Toronto. All the big cities that were representatives of the FCM came and endorsed it.

Does the minister, as the Minister of Health Planning, support safe injection sites?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I haven't made a decision on whether I support it. I know that it is one aspect of the continuum of harm reduction. It's something we're looking at. I would have to get more information on how it works. I know that in other cities, in Europe, it is in play with other strategies. I would have to look at how it's been set up in that city.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect a decision on this matter? It is a very important component of the Vancouver agreement. It was meant to be the next phase of the Vancouver agreement when it was estab-

lished by three levels of government. I know that the previous ministers, if you will, that worked on this were wanting to head in this direction. The mayor was evaluating the question and has now come out and endorsed this question. How long is this going to take? Quite frankly, safe injection sites, combined with heroin maintenance initiatives, save lives. They're very important in my riding. I'd like to hear a commitment from the minister in support of safe injection sites and a time line when we can see one take place in Vancouver and other cities in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I know the federal government is looking at the legal issues around that, and our government is looking at the policy issues. When we make a decision, we'll make sure we let the member know.

J. Kwan: Is it contingent on the decision of the Minister of Health Planning or the Minister of Health Services? Who ultimately gets to make this decision on behalf of the province?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand the Vancouver agreement is a tri-party agreement. It's municipal, provincial and federal, so the three levels would have to come to agreement. Our policy hasn't been finalized in that area, so I'm not going to shoot from the hip here and tell you when we're going to finalize that. I don't know.

J. Kwan: I'm trying to get all these questions in because tomorrow I have to be in the small House again. I know that the city of Vancouver has already come forward to support it. I know that previously, in talking with federal ministers, when I approached them when I was the minister responsible for the Vancouver agreement, they said to me that if you can get the other two levels of government in support, they don't have a problem with it, and you can move forward on these issues.

At that time, what hung up the advancement in this area was the city of Vancouver. The mayor wasn't certain. Now that the mayor has stepped up to the plate, and he is certain in terms of supporting safe injection sites, the only question that remains is with the provincial government. I'd like to know what kind of time line we are looking at. How long will the delay caused by the provincial government be? Who ultimately gets to make this decision? Is it the Minister of Health Planning, or is it the Minister of Health Services?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, I am unable to give you a hard time line. Our policy isn't finalized in that, and frankly, the federal ministers have changed too. We have a different federal Health minister and a different member from Vancouver than the minister who there before. She's not in place either.

J. Kwan: I assume that when I was speaking with previous ministers — and it wasn't just the Health minister I spoke with — they were actually speaking as a government caucus on this issue. Who gets to make this decision? Is it the Minister of Health Planning, or is it the Minister of Health Services?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's a fairly significant, important policy decision. I would think that after the Minister of Health Services and I sat down and had recommendations, we'd make them to government, and government would decide.

J. MacPhail: Well, that finishes the opposition's questions in terms of Health Planning. I don't know whether anybody else has any questions, so I'll wrap up my remarks here.

There are some very, very serious issues facing our health care system in British Columbia. Planning is at the core of the success or failure of those health care initiatives. We've discussed health authority reorganization. We've discussed the accountability of those health authorities. We've discussed accountability as it relates to the taxpayer and, frankly, to this Legislature as well. We've discussed Pharmacare changes. We've discussed ambulance service changes. We've discussed drug policy changes as they affect the community. We've discussed aboriginal health policy initiatives, just to name a few which the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be monitoring very carefully as these changes occur — and the effect they will have on British Columbians.

We are the ones that have the responsibility to raise the concerns for those who may be worried that the change will not bring about better health care but only chaotic delivery of health care. We do not wish that, and we hope that isn't the case, but at this stage it almost seems as if there's a carpet bombing happening in our health care system, and nobody knows the outcome. In fact, nobody in this province really knows yet, I think, who the enemy is and why they're being carpet bombed.

We will be watching all of these changes extremely carefully. There are three others. There's the Minister of Health Services, who's been delegated quite a bit of responsibility to provide answers as a result of these estimates, and there are the two ministers of state that still have time with us in the estimates. It is a time of great change. I hope it's a time of success and not failure in our health care system.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I want to thank all the members involved in asking the very important questions. Planning is a very important part of health. Our priority is to put patients first. We are looking to save and renew our health care system in B.C. We want to make sure we're creating a sustainable, affordable health care system that makes sure we meet patients' needs where they live and when they need it. I look forward to working with all the members as we move forward on the service plans and the targets we set for the first time ever — three-year service plans for the ministry. I

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm pleased to present the '02-03 budget estimates for the Ministry of Education today, and I'd like to introduce the staff who are with me. Emery Dosdall, my deputy minister, is with me. Stewart Ladyman, who is the superintendent field liaison, is with us, as well as Tom Vincent, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for management services.

Our goal is to create, as we said during the election, a top-notch education system for British Columbia. That's a system that values student achievement above all else. It's a system that sets clear and measurable goals for improving student achievement and is held accountable for achieving those goals. It's a system that offers students more choices about schooling and provides parents with many, many more opportunities to be involved in their children's education.

We want to create a system that funds school boards in a simple and straightforward manner, one that gives them the autonomy and the flexibility they need to be able to make decisions that reflect the needs of their local communities. These are promises that this government made when we were elected, and these are promises we are delivering on.

That's why we committed to protecting education funding. At a time when other ministries are having their budgets cut, Education has been given $4.86 billion for the coming year. I don't think this government could make any clearer statement about what a priority we make education.

The ministry has already taken a number of steps to make our operation more performance-oriented. Most notably, we've drawn up accountability contracts with 60 school districts. The accountability contracts show how well districts are doing and talk about how well school districts hope they will do over the coming year. We set clear and measurable goals, and we'll hold them to those goals.

A good example of that is graduation rates. The graduation rate for British Columbia on average is 75 percent. That means one in four children doesn't graduate from high school. Two out of three first nations kids don't graduate from high school. Those numbers certainly could bear improvement. While we have an excellent education system, there is no question, I think, that we can certainly continue to do better.

Each accountability contract we've signed with every school district reflects the different needs and the different goals for each different community. They demonstrate that school boards across British Columbia have goals and are willing to work toward those goals. They are committed to measuring and, importantly, reporting on their progress publicly so that parents, taxpayers and citizens at large can hold them accountable.

We have given districts the right to be able to manage their schools. This has been a real issue in the past, in large measure because rigid labour agreements left boards with very, very little room to manoeuvre. That is no longer the case. We've brought in new legislation, in Bill 28, that removes restrictions on class size and composition as well as ratios for non-classroom teachers. Importantly, it moves those class-size restrictions and limitations to public policy so that now, for the first time, they are in legislation.

We've put class-size limits in for kindergarten to grade 3, where research shows that smaller classes contribute to improved student achievement. For grades 4 to 12 we've put in class-size averages so that school boards have the flexibility they need to meet students' needs and local priorities.

We're also giving school boards more autonomy about their local school calendar. They will no longer be constrained by collective agreements if they want to move toward an extended day or if they want to have a calendar different from the traditional September-to-June school year. This will allow boards to make better use of existing school buildings. By doing so, they can

help control capital spending. A good example of that is Coquitlam, where they have saved $50 million. That's the equivalent of two schools that do not need to be built because they have worked so hard at extending the school day.

We have introduced a new funding allocation system that will also help school boards manage their costs and focus their resources on improving student achievement. As promised in the ministry's service plan, we have gotten rid of the complex funding formula that created problems for boards and for government and replaced it with something that is simple, clear and predictable.

Under the old formula, the ministry specified 60 programs that it would fund. It defined 400 calculations to go with that. Then we added on endless amounts of rules and regulations and targets on spending and enrolment, not to mention a whole ton of accounting and auditing procedures that districts had to comply with or they would have their funding clawed back.

Boards told us — and it's true — they were spending so much time doing accounting and meeting the bureaucratic demands of the ministry that they were finding it difficult to find time to focus on student achievement. The new funding allocation is meant to ensure that this doesn't happen any more. Under the new allocation system, funding is being delivered in just two ways: a student-based allocation and supplementary grants. The student-based allocation will account for more than 80 percent of every district's budget, and the balance will be made up of the supplementary grants.

We will be supplementing for declining enrolment. B.C.'s school-age population is shrinking, and a substantial decline can create huge financial burdens for a district, because it almost certainly means a sudden, dramatic loss in funding. The new system protects districts caught in this situation. The old system did too, but this one improves that. If the decline is more than 1 percent, districts will receive half the per-student funding for every student exceeding the 1 percent threshold.

We are continuing to target funding for aboriginal education, but the other targets are gone. Trustees have told us they need more flexibility so that they can base their spending decisions on local needs and local priorities. Removing targets is one way we can provide that flexibility.

I'm confident that school boards will continue to provide every student with a quality education. School boards typically spend far more than they have ever been allocated by the ministry on special needs children. I know that they will continue to make these students a priority.

We're also providing supplementary funding for salary differentials. Teachers' salaries vary from district to district. Those at the high end can have a considerable impact on a district's budget. We're providing grants to offset that.

Another one of the grants that will be calculated each year is for transportation and housing, and another will go for unique geographic factors. Those are areas where we simply can't expect boards to find efficiencies or eliminate spending. Extreme cold is an example. We know that districts in the north spend a whole heck of a lot more heating their schools than districts in the south. Turning the heat down or off is not an option in a place like Prince George. Similarly, not all districts have the option of reducing costs by consolidating services. This can work well when you have a whole lot of schools close together, but not if your schools are located in small, isolated communities.

The new funding system recognizes and provides for factors like these because we want to allocate adequate funds among school districts across the province as equitably as we can. We want to return responsibility to the community, to locally elected trustees, who are best able to assess and to respond to local needs and priorities. We want to make it easier for everyone to understand how school funding is allocated. We want to make it easier for parents and other taxpayers to hold locally elected representatives accountable for spending their money effectively.

That leads me to another innovation that we've undertaken this year: satisfaction surveys. We started distributing them this month to parents, students and staff. These will make school boards and the ministry directly accountable to the people that they serve. It's a report card for parents to issue on the school system. This is the first time any government in B.C. has invited such a large-scale rating of our school system.

We are doing it because we want to create an open, service-oriented, consumer-oriented education system, one where parents know that they're included and that they're welcome. We're encouraging parents to take advantage of every opportunity to be actively involved in their children's education. We know that the more involved parents are, the better their children do in school. That is true no matter what economic background that child is from. It's true no matter what level of education the parents have. When the parents are involved, the kids do better.

We know that teachers and schools benefit from parental involvement too. They will be able to see improvements in their graduation rates. They will be able to see improvements in the achievement of children in their schools. If you look at any successful school in British Columbia, you know this is true. If they're successful, there are plenty of parents involved in that school system.

We're asking all of our education partners to work with us to improve the system, to tell us how satisfied they are with the whole range of academic and non-academic issues. That's everything from literacy to safety to preparation for the world after school. The questionnaires are going to be due back at the end of the month. We will be making the findings public so that schools and school districts will have time to incorporate the information into their planning for the coming school year.

They're annual surveys, too, so they'll be able to provide another valuable tool for everybody to be able to compare performance from year to year, from school district to school district. Being accountable on an ongoing basis is the key to improving student achievement. If we don't know how well we are doing, how can we know that we are doing better year after year? If we don't set goals for improvement, how will we know what to strive toward to improve student achievement for children? Parents, teachers, administrators, school trustees and the ministry are all critically important parts of this accountability cycle.

We will be introducing legislation in coming weeks to give parents a more collaborative and meaningful role in how schools are run. We'll be revising legislation to ensure that parents and students have more flexibility and choice when it comes to schooling. You can have a great neighbourhood school, but it may not offer the education program that your child needs. It may not offer the programs that that child needs to succeed. If every child is unique, then certainly every school shouldn't be the same. We want every child to be successful. That means we need to provide them with the means to get there.

We all know that there are going to be fiscal challenges over the coming year. We all know that there have been fiscal challenges over the past year, and that British Columbia's economy isn't going to turn around overnight, but education remains this government's number one priority. We've done what is necessary to protect our education system and to help kids learn and grow into productive and successful members of our society.

The initiatives that I've described, and that we will discuss in the course of this estimates process, represent a major shift in the way the education system operates. We are telling everyone who's a part of the system that we are making student achievement our number one priority and that we're setting goals to improve student achievement year on year. Most importantly, I think, we are also going to be reporting publicly on how well we've done. We'll encourage parents to work with us and the other education partners to achieve these goals.

We'll give school boards their budgets with fewer strings attached; we'll give them to them on time; and we'll remove other restrictions that have prevented boards from making decisions that are strictly in the best interests of students.

I am proud of the progress that we've made to date. I know that we still have a great, great many challenges ahead, but I know that working together, if we all put students first, we will overcome them. We will truly really reach our goal of creating a top-notch, world-class education system in British Columbia. Thank you.

J. Kwan: I would just ask the minister to introduce a couple of other staff, I think, that have just joined her in this room before I proceed.

Hon. C. Clark: Sure. We've got Keith Miller here, who is our director of capital planning, and Barry Anderson, who's a special adviser to the deputy. In the audience we have Jacquie Kendall who is with our school finance branch, and we have Teresa Sullivan, who is director of planning in the deputy's office.

J. Kwan: My first question to the minister is: it is my understanding that the government has frozen the funding for education for the next three years — is that essentially correct?

Hon. C. Clark: The government has protected education funding. We are facing some of the toughest economic times that we have faced in this province in a long time, largely due to the actions of the previous government. Despite that, we have put education at the top of our agenda. We have protected education funding, even though we have a declining enrolment in British Columbia. I think that's something that we should all be very proud of.

J. Kwan: So, essentially, the education budget has been frozen for the next three years — isn't that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the education budget has been protected. It has been protected from any cuts. While you'll see other ministries have taken a cut of 44 percent — some have a taken a cut of 12 percent — the Ministry of Education has taken a cut of zero percent. In our planning — the member will see this, if she refers to the service plan — the budget is predicted to at least remain the same over the next three years.

J. Kwan: Under the Liberal New Era agenda, the euphemism for frozen budgets for the next three years is protection, in this minister's terms. The fact is the education budget has been frozen for the next three years. Irrespective of how the minister wants to distort that reality by saying that it has been protected, the reality is that the education budget has been frozen for the next three years.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the education budget this year has been protected, even though enrolment is declining. Certainly I know that school districts will be making decisions over the coming year — those are their decisions to make — but, as I said, education funding has been protected, even though there will be fewer students to educate in the public system.

J. Kwan: I guess the minister has never heard of such a thing as inflation. The fact of the matter is the education budget's been frozen. I know that she likes to say that it's been protected, but that is the Liberal euphemism for cutting education programs.

I asked the minister what programs are going to be reduced or eliminated for the education system as a

result of this frozen budget over the next three years. The minister has replied: "Oh, it's not our decision. It rests with the local school board."

Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government has made decisions about education funding without knowing the consequences of those decisions?

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. As I said, the education budget this year has been protected. It's the same that it was year, despite the fact that we have declining enrolment. School districts are in the best position to decide what programs they will provide, based on local needs and priorities. Certainly that's a better way of proceeding than we've operated by over the last decade.

J. Kwan: Actually, before I go too far into the estimates process, let me just congratulate the minister on the birth of her son — her new baby. You must be very happy and very proud. My very best friend is expecting her little girl at the beginning of April, I think. There are many new parents coming onto the horizon. Let me congratulate the minister on her new baby.

As a parent, what educational experiences would the minister be willing to sacrifice for her child? Would it be larger class sizes? Would it be teacher-librarian ratios? If it happens to be a child with special needs, would it be the sacrificing of learning assistance by someone who would assist a child who is disabled? For a student who would benefit from counselling, would it be a sacrifice of counselling services?

Hon. C. Clark: I have two separate responses to that. The first is that I don't know what my child is necessarily going to be good at. I don't know what capabilities he will have. I don't know if he'll be good with his hands. I don't know if he'll be a mathematical thinker. I don't know whether he'll be artistic. He's six and a half months old; it's too early to tell. I do know he's going to be very verbal, however; that's evident already. I'm sure he gets that from his father.

The point I'm trying to make, though, is that the thing I want most for my child is the ability to get the education he needs. That means being able to access different kinds of programs within the public system. As a taxpayer I pay a lot of taxes to my government to provide my child with education, and I don't think, if I want to be able to access choice for my son, that I should necessarily have to go into the independent school system. There may be other reasons that I want to do that, but I don't think I should necessarily have to pay more in order to access choice.

One of the changes we are making as a ministry and that school districts are taking us up on is to introduce more choice within our public system so that children who have different and unique capacities can go and get the education that suits them best.

The second point I would make is this: I want to know that the education system we are providing today is put on a sustainable footing for the long term. I want to know that the government in British Columbia is sustainable. I want to know that the decisions we make today won't be mortgaging my son's future. Those are things that are very, very important to me as a parent, because I understand that if government continues to far outspend its means, the decisions that we will have to make a year from now, two years from now, five years from now, will be that much harder. Those decisions will ultimately, if we wait another five years, start cutting into our ability to provide education and health care services. That's why this government is making the decisions that it is today. That's why this government is still able to protect health and education funding. If we waited, those services would not be on a sustainable basis. We would not be able to continue to support them.

I would ask the hon. member to just think. If the government had decided five years ago or ten years ago to start spending responsibly, to get its fiscal house in order, just think how easy the decisions facing the government today would be. Just think if we hadn't wasted all that taxpayers' money. Just think how much money we would have to spend on education, to spend on health care, to spend on children, to spend on social assistance. Just think how rosy the future would be.

Yes, there are difficult decisions that this government is making today, but those decisions need to be made in order to put our system on a sustainable basis. Ultimately we can't continue. I can't continue to mortgage my child's future or the future of all the other children in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I would simply ask the minister to think, if this government decided not to bring forward the biggest tax cuts for the wealthiest British Columbians, how that would benefit the education system — the system whose budget this government has chosen to freeze over the next three years.

Just imagine for one moment, for the children who don't have access to education because of cuts the school boards will have to make as a result of this government's decision, what the impacts would be for those children who don't, quite frankly, have a lot of choices because of a variety of different barriers.

The minister sits here and waxes eloquent about how the Liberal government and the New Era agenda have protected education, when the reality is that they have frozen the education budget for three years. That is what this government has done. This minister sits here and waxes eloquent about how decision-making is going to be handed off to the local authority and it's their decision.

The leaked document actually exposed this government's agenda in terms of what they are planning to do — why they have a new funding formula in educa-

tion. The reality is so that they don't have to make the tough decisions in cutting education programs that they know they cannot fund under this budget scenario in this new era under the Liberal government.

When you ask the question about what educational services this minister will be prepared to sacrifice…. Is it going to be larger class sizes? Is it going to be teacher-librarians? Is it going to be counsellors? Is it going to be special needs? Is it going to be special needs in the category of gifted children? Well, this minister is not prepared to answer the question.

The parents of British Columbia are looking for answers to these questions. Maybe the minister doesn't know how much the freezing of the educational expenditure, requiring school boards to fund years two and three of the settlement this government imposed on the teachers, will require them to fund within their budgets over the next three years.

In an article that came out on February 6, shortly after the decision of the government not to fund the teacher increases in Victoria, it says: "Victoria angers student trustees by telling them to pay for raises…. Gordon Comeau said that requiring boards to cover the costs of the second and third years of the three-year, $300 million deal the government imposed on teachers suggests the Liberals have forgotten their promise to protect education from budget cuts. 'If this extraordinary cost is downloaded to school boards as responsible stewards of public funding, we will be forced to make significant cuts in educational programs beginning this year.'" And then he says: "This will inevitably jeopardize our ability to improve student achievement ( the common goal of government and school boards."

The reality is that government has frozen the education budget, they have off-loaded their responsibilities to school boards to cut educational programs and then even the school trustees have come forward and said: "You know what? We can't do it. We can't do it in this budget scenario given the constraints that we're faced with. We can't do it without jeopardizing educational outcomes." That's what Gordon Comeau has said.

To the minister: does the minister know how much freezing educational expenditures and requiring school boards to fund years two and three of the settlement that this government has imposed on teachers will require them to find within their budgets over the next three years?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know whom the member is quoting there, but the chair of the B.C. School Trustees Association had said recently that he thinks they can do it. He thinks they can rise to the challenge. Certainly, I don't deny that they do have challenges — absolutely. They're going to have to make decisions, but he said that they're up to those decisions. Most of the school boards that have gotten back to me have also said they believe they're up to these decisions.

The change of direction here with this government is that we actually respect school boards. We actually respect local trustees. We understand that they are no less elected than we are in this House. They are elected and empowered to make decisions on behalf of children in their local communities. They can make those decisions better than we can.

The point I've been making all along since I was appointed minister is that I want to respect school districts' right to be able make those decisions. I believe they can do a better job than we can and it's time to turn back the previous government's continual erosion of school board autonomy and start recognizing the fact that they're locally elected, they have the right to make decisions and we should respect their right to do that.

J. Kwan: The minister does not know who I was quoting. I was quoting Gordon Comeau, who stated this in the Vancouver Sun, Wednesday, February 6, 2002.

The minister did not provide an answer to the question I asked about the impact on educational expenditures as a result of the freeze of the government.

Would the minister first confirm what school officials have said: that between $300 million and $500 million will need to be found within the local school board budgets? In other words, between $300 million and $500 million must be taken from present service levels to just maintain the system.

Hon. C. Clark: At this stage those are projections from school districts. The ministry hasn't had a chance to sit down with school districts and confirm those numbers. I believe that's who the member is quoting. I can't confirm it today, because we haven't had a chance to sit down with school districts and confirm those numbers. I'd remind the member that those are school districts' projections, not the ministry's.

J. Kwan: What is the ministry's projection of the increased costs as a result of the imposed settlement that was just introduced in the House through an emergency sitting?

Hon. C. Clark: When we were debating this bill in the House, I remember the member opposite suggesting that somehow this wasn't a fair settlement for teachers, and that somehow the teachers should've gotten more.

I also remember, throughout the debate about what was going to happen should the teachers be legislated back to work, saying quite regularly that there was no more money in the education budget. I said that the budget was protected, but that there was going to be no more coming in, and that every penny that we added in was going to have to come out of the existing budget somewhere.

The settlement that the government came to — over the objections of the opposition — was a difficult deci-

sion to make. There's no question about it. I think 7.5 percent is fair — certainly more than the teachers ever received under the previous government. Nonetheless, we recognize that there will be pressures that school districts have to pick up as a result of that.

We believe that we've given them the tools to be able to manage those pressures. Certainly, I know it's going to be challenging for them. I think we've given them the tools, though, to be able to manage it.

J. Kwan: The fact is both my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and myself voted against the government's bills, there's no doubt about it — bills 27 and 28. We objected for a variety of different reasons. All of that is on record in Hansard.

The $300 million to $500 million projection ought to be one that the ministry came up with, and I believe it is the one the ministry has come up with. The trustees feel that they've been led down the garden path. They were under the impression that the government was going to fund those increased costs and not off-load them onto the school boards with their freezing of the education budget over the next three years.

Now we have a situation where somewhere between $300 million and $500 million needs to be found by the local school boards out of their budgets. They must — they have no other choice — reduce programs from existing programs that are now being provided in the educational system. That is the net effect of this government's action with their freezing of the education budget over the next three years.

I'd like to ask the minister: Does she believe that there is sufficient money in the K-to-12 education system that an additional $300 million to $500 million would not adversely affect the quality of education for students in terms of their educational experience?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I can't confirm the $300 million to $500 million that the member is referring to. If she wants to get me the numbers that she's worked out that suggest that's the pressure, I'd be happy to talk about whether they're accurate or not. However, I'm not in a position to confirm that.

J. Kwan: The $300 million to $500 million that's been identified is not a number I calculated. Maybe she should talk to the head of the B.C. School Trustees Association, Gordon Comeau, because he's on record saying that. I quoted to the minister earlier what his statements were in terms of the impacts of the $300 million to $500 million offloading from this government onto the school trustees.

The impact is: "If this extraordinary cost is downloaded to school boards, as responsible stewards of public funding we will be forced to make significant cuts in educational programs beginning this year. This will inevitably jeopardize our ability to improve student achievement — the common goal of the government and school boards." It's here. It's on the public record. It's reported in the Vancouver Sun, February 6, 2002.

I'm asking the minister the question. Does she think there is sufficient money? Will she put her name on the record to say there is sufficient money right now in the education system for K-to-12?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the previous opposition, if my party had put that exact question to her previous colleagues when they were ministers of Education, would have had a similar answer, I would imagine. That is: gosh, you know, we all wish we had unlimited money to work with, but we don't. We have to work in a budget environment, where taxpayers can support only so much government spending.

We are in very, very tough fiscal times in British Columbia right now. We have protected the education budget despite declining enrolment, which I think really speaks to this government's commitment. I will certainly take her up on her suggestion that I speak to Gordon Comeau. It won't be much of a stretch for me to do that, because I talk to him sometimes almost every week.

We're delighted to be able to report that we have board chairs now being quoted in the newspapers saying they are more included in government decision-making than they ever have been. We have more contact, I think, with the education partners and certainly with parents and with B.C. school trustees than many previous governments had. That's something to be proud of.

The Chair: Member, I just point out that there are other members who may want to ask questions if you want a break at any point or if there's a more appropriate time for any of them to step in. They keep sticking their hands up.

J. Kwan: Members of the House are welcome to ask the minister questions at any time. Actually, the member for Delta North had mentioned to me he'd be interested in asking questions. I asked him if he wanted to go first, and he said no, he didn't. He will signal to me at the appropriate time when he wishes to ask those questions. I'd be happy to relinquish the floor to the members. All they have to do is simply signal me.

The minister talks about what members from the previous government might say around the education budget. I can tell the minister what the members would say now. They would not give the largest tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations at the expense of health and education. They would not do that. In fact, the previous government always increased the educational budget.

This minister is sitting here smirking as though somehow they have protected the education budget and the protection is somehow going to enhance educational outcomes. In fact, the minister knows very well that this freezing of the education budget is going to take away educational programs from students in British Columbia. Trustees have come forward and

said it's going to impact the educational outcomes for students, because those programs would have to be reduced.

The $300 million to $500 million shortfall is going to further jeopardize educational programs and educational outcomes for students. Maybe the minister doesn't care, because maybe the minister just somehow lives in her own little bubble and thinks that in her own little world, everything is just going to be fine.

In my own community in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, when I look around the community there, the people who are most marginalized, who are faced with multiple barriers, worry about the educational outcomes for their children. They worry about it because of the action of this government. That worry has been heightened like it never has been before. That's what my constituents have been telling me.

The minister does not want to acknowledge that there would be pressures of somewhere between $300 million and $500 million on the school system as a result of the legislation imposed on the teachers. Surely, one would think, the ministry would have had some sort of projection. Surely one would have thought that, but perhaps not. Perhaps this minister is just living in her own little world and thinks that everybody's educational outcomes are completely protected and that it's all fine.

Maybe those numbers were never worked out. Maybe she doesn't know that freezing the educational expenditures and requiring the school boards to fund years two and three of the settlement imposed on the teachers would require school boards to find within their budgets over the next three years additional dollars which they don't have. The option for them would mean that they have to cut funding.

I'd like to know from the minister: what advice would she give to parents of students with special needs who find that the help their children received last year will not be provided because of the impact on the school boards' budgets of the freeze of the educational budget and the additional pressures that have now been placed as a result of the imposed settlement?

Hon. C. Clark: Before I get to answering the question, I want to bring us back to a semblance of reality in this room. The member talks about tax breaks for the rich. We have the lowest tax rates for people earning under $60,000 a year of any jurisdiction in this country, and you can't do better than that. We also have spent $1.2 billion more on health care. How much more does she think we should be spending on the health care system at the expense of other programs? We have protected the Education budget in an era where we have declining enrolments.

The member talks about living in a bubble and not having a sense of reality, and I would respectfully suggest to this chamber that the unreality, the fantasy world, isn't on the government side of the House. We are dealing in the hard realities that we were left after a decade of incompetent management. We are dealing with those very, very tough decisions every day, because we have to get government on a sustainable basis. That's what this is all about.

With respect to the question, specifically, about special needs children, I would offer this: every district in this province, save one that spent the exact amount, spent far more on children with special needs than they were required to spend by even her government.

I know from my personal experience with board chairs and board members, administrators, teachers and principals that all of them have the interests of special needs children at heart. All of them genuinely care about providing the best education they possibly can for those kids. I know they will continue making the best decisions with respect to those kids. They have a long history of doing that. Frankly, they have a better track record than the previous government did with it, and I believe they will continue to make those decisions.

R. Masi: Thank you to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for giving way.

I have a number of questions here. I'd like to begin with the topic of the College of Teachers. Could I ask the minister something on the organizational structure of the College of Teachers? First of all, who are the members of the College of Teachers?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, certainly. There are 15 elected representatives on the college. It's a 20-member college — 15 of them are elected; five of them are appointed. Two are appointed by order-in-council. They are Karin Breuer and Leo Chaland, who are currently serving in that capacity. Another two are appointed by ministerial order. They are Jim Holland and Chuck Luttrell. One was appointed by the minister to represent the deans of the provincial faculties of education. That's Mike Grant from Malaspina College. The remaining 15 are elected by members of the teaching profession from across the province.

Hon. C. Clark: I guess it depends how you define layperson. Of the order-in-council appointees, one is a retired superintendent, one is a retired principal and one, of course, is a dean of education. If you wanted to think about all 20 and were prepared to consider the former principal and the former superintendent as ongoing stakeholders in the system, that would leave one person on the board, that I'm aware of, who hasn't had any previous involvement in the education system directly — Jim Holland.

R. Masi: In the estimates process is there any suggestion that there would be a reorganization of the College of Teachers to in fact include more laypeople?

Hon. C. Clark: That's certainly a suggestion that I can consider. The college has existed in its current form

for quite a while, and we're always considering changes to its bylaws and changes to the way it operates. I'd be happy to receive any recommendations from the member or any work that he wanted to present pertaining to the composition of the college. I'd be delighted to look at that and consider it.

R. Masi: How is the college funded? If it is funded directly from the ministry, what is the dollar figure?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that it's funded mostly by a levy on payroll from members — teachers — with an additional $70,000 that comes from the Ministry of Education to pay for expenses for the members that we've appointed.

R. Masi: In referencing the independent school system, there are different categories of funding and different categories of independent schools. I'm wondering how these categories are established. Could you tell me about the criteria involved in establishing these categories?

Hon. C. Clark: Group 1 schools, which are funded at 50 percent by the ministry, have educational programs that are consistent with the ministerial orders. They employ teachers certified under the B.C. college. They maintain adequate educational facilities. They comply with municipal and regional district codes. They are fully evaluated every four years by the ministry and are inspected every two years.

Group 2 schools, which are funded at 35 percent, meet all of those same requirements, but because student operating costs are much higher than those of the local school districts, they receive 35 as opposed to 50 percent.

I think the way to imagine this is that the group 1 schools, at 50 percent, would typically be many of the religious schools, the Montessori schools — those kinds of programs. The ones that are funded at 35 percent tend to be what we might think of as elite schools. St. George's would be an example of that.

Group 3 schools are not funded at all by the ministry. They maintain facilities that meet municipal codes. They are not eligible for provincial grants. They are inspected every two years. That's it.

Group 4 schools, which are also not funded, cater mainly to non-provincial students. They meet the same educational programs as group 1 schools, so they follow the curriculum and ministerial orders, and they must have a minimum of 80 percent of their teachers certified. They may issue a Dogwood Certificate when 100 percent of their teachers are certified. They are not eligible for provincial grants. They are fully evaluated every year.

R. Masi: I wonder if the minister could tell me a little more about the frequency and personnel involved in the supervision and inspection of the lower category schools.

Hon. C. Clark: The group 3 schools are inspected every two years. They're not funded, and they don't grant a Dogwood. The inspection consists largely of asking: do they provide an appropriate environment for the children? We do not maintain the same kinds of requirements with respect to the curriculum at a group 3 school that we do at a group 1 school. A group 1 school is required to teach the B.C. curriculum. We inspect to ensure that's being taught, because they are granting a Dogwood, which is a valuable commodity. We don't want to diminish the value of that commodity by allowing anyone to grant it without teaching the curriculum in a way that's acceptable to the ministry.

Group 3 schools do not grant the Dogwood, so we evaluate them every two years. Group 4 schools, which may grant a Dogwood, are fully evaluated every single year. Often those are for-profit schools. Again, because they are granting, in some cases, the Dogwood, we want to maintain its integrity, and we want to ensure that they're fully evaluated every single year.

R. Masi: In terms of local taxation, could the minister explain to me how local school boards can in fact effect local tax increases?

Hon. C. Clark: School boards, as the member may know, do have that power under the School Act. It was introduced in 1990. It's section 112. It says that a school district, if it decides it wants to raise extra money, can undertake a referendum to do so. They may use those funds to provide new programs, to enhance existing programs or for local capital project initiatives. The limitation is that they must not use those funds to cover their operating deficits, and any locally approved referendum money must form a part of the board's budget for the next fiscal year. The referendum approval is for one year only, and the funds must be raised entirely by district residential taxation in the calendar year in which the referendum is held.

R. Masi: When can boards actually call for a referendum? Must it be done in conjunction with an election, or is this an open calendar?

Hon. C. Clark: A board passes a resolution that they want to put it to referendum, and then it must be held on the third Saturday in April — or any other date that's prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That's what the legislation currently sets out.

R. Masi: In terms of talking about operating and capital funding, this seems to be a contentious issue with a number of boards. They would like to have more flexibility. I realize there have been changes in

the fiscal formula. Can boards in fact borrow for capital purposes on their own?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, boards do have the ability to borrow for capital projects with ministerial approval.

R. Masi: I wonder if I could ask if that has been the case over the last while. Have there been any situations in British Columbia where this has actually happened?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that there have been maybe half-a-dozen school districts that have done this in the last couple of years. Typically, it has been to fund energy-efficiency projects, the thinking behind that being that they'll borrow the money and then of course they'll recapture that. They'll be able pay off that debt with the savings they make from the energy efficiencies they've built in.

R. Masi: In terms of the funding in this budget situation, I notice that there's a term around called "buffer" funding. I was wondering, in terms of large school districts versus small, is there a balance factor put in, in terms of growing enrolment and declining enrolment? How in fact is the base funding established? In other words, there seems to be some concern out there from some boards that they've had an increase in enrolment but the increase is not matched by funding, whereas declining enrolment districts have a buffer situation. I wonder if you could give me an explanation for that.

Hon. C. Clark: When we built the funding formula this year, we ensured that no board would lose money as a result of changes in the funding formula. That's the buffer grant I think the member is referring to. Some districts got it. Some districts didn't get it, depending on whether they were a net beneficiary under the new funding formula or not.

The funding formula starts out with $5308 per student times the number of students, then looks at the characteristics of the students in that district. Special needs, English as a second language, first nations — you get a certain amount of money for each of those students with those characteristics.

We also put in a supplementary grant for geographic differences, because just as it's often more expensive to educate a child who has a special need or needs additional English-as-a-second-language training, it's also more expensive to provide education in a school district that has low enrolment and is widely dispersed. We've recognized that in the funding formula. We've started with the basic $5,308 per student, then we've added in the supplementary grants based on the characteristics of the student population and of the geography of the school district.

S. Brice: Following on that same theme of the buffer grants, because this is something that does affect some of the districts locally here, could the minister tell me, with the buffer grant — I know it's going to be phased out — what opportunities there might be for districts to have the ability to actually fund that shortfall within the next couple of years?

Hon. C. Clark: We have given school districts quite a bit more, in fact a lot more, flexibility in managing their budgets. This is something that they all asked us for. Before the election they asked the previous government for it, and we've delivered on it. We've given them the ability to be able to decide how they staff their schools and how they allocate their budgets internally — two very important management tools school districts should have and, you know, are elected to have. People expect them to be able to exercise their autonomy. We're giving them back their autonomy. I believe that having those tools in the tool box will make it much, much easier for school districts to be able to manage cost pressures that they face.

With respect to the buffer grant, I spoke to the B.C. school trustees and superintendents last week, and I told them that we would be discussing with them the method by which we would be phasing out the buffer grant. We haven't, obviously, concluded how we're going to do that yet. The intention is certainly to phase it out. How we're going to go about doing that, though, will be the subject of, I'm sure, much lively discussion with school trustees. We do intend to come to some kind of conclusion about that in the fall.

D. Jarvis: I wanted to ask one question — it's a double-jointed one, I guess — with regards to district 44. I was concerned, too, about the buffer funds in future years — if they are going to be covered and how. You've already answered that aspect of it. Another one was about considering the cost increases that are imbedded in the existing agreements. Are you going to consider still covering them? In district 44 the trustees have determined that the funding it will receive falls short of its status quo needs by about $13 million over the next three years.

The Chair: Can I please remind members to ask questions to the Chair and avoid using the word "you" unless you're referring to the Chair.

Hon. C. Clark: In terms of contractual costs that are imbedded, there's obviously the teachers' increase, which we've talked about. School districts know that they'll be managing those costs for next year and the year after. In addition to that, there are some costs related to CUPE agreements. Some of those will be funded through BCPSEA. What I'd ask the member to do, though, is give me a little more clarity about which contracts he's speaking of, specifically.

D. Jarvis: Through the Chair — that being you, sir — to the minister: I've sort of interpreted that their problem was also with regards to the costs of aboriginal and ESL and all those sort of things that are con-

tinually increasing, especially in our area. That's more than just the agreements with the teachers, etc.

Hon. C. Clark: Those particular characteristics are recognized in the funding formula. A school district will get $5,308 for every student. Then they will tell us how many aboriginal students they have, how many special needs students they have, how many English-as-a-second-language students they have. They will get a supplementary amount for each of those students. For example, for English as a second language, it's $1,100 for every student they have that fits that category, in addition to the $5,308 that they get for every student. For aboriginal, it's $950. For special needs children, there are three different ranges, from $6,000 to $30,000.

We don't intend to change the formula. The formula will stay the same. The only things that could change are the per-student amount and, of course, the enrolment. The enrolment will change in any given district.

The purpose of this funding formula is to give school districts some stability and some predictability, so they can say: "Here's what I'm predicting next year and the year after. Here's, more or less, what I can expect to get." This is a big, big change for the ministry. In previous years the ministry used to fiddle with the funding formula every year to try and make it fit the bottom line that they got from the Ministry of Finance. School districts never, ever knew what criteria were going to be applied to them. They never, ever knew how much money they were going to get, even though they might be able to accurately predict the number of students and the characteristics of their student population. This is a huge, huge improvement. It will be predictable for them, and it will provide them with some stability.

D. Jarvis: Quickly, through the Chair…. This is a statement, more or less, rather than a question: as you're aware, minister, district 44 is about $2.5 million short from where they were before, because of the funding formula that we have. That was the real concern: that the buffer funds in future years be considered. As you say, you are still looking into that matter. I hope you'll see that the sunny North Shore — and the superior North Shore — continues to get the funding it deserves.

R. Lee: I have a few questions. The first one is regarding the new funding formula. As mentioned before, there are funds targeted for aboriginal students; however, under the special funding, special needs, ESL and adult education are not targeted. Is there any rationale behind that calculation of targeted and non-targeted funding?

Hon. C. Clark: We tried to take off the targets as much as we could because we wanted school districts to be able to decide how they were going to spend their money. We provide them with the money to support the services for the children that they have based on the characteristics of those children. Then, because they're elected people, we are allowing them to make the decisions about what kinds of services they want to provide for those children. Certainly they can better recognize the needs of those children because they are in those schools every day. They know those children. Some of them have their own children in those schools. We think they're in a much, much better position to decide how local priorities and the needs of local children should be supported than we are in Victoria.

R. Lee: The funding depends on the needs of, say, educating ESL students. There may be some extra programs for them — right? So the funding is allocated according to need.

I noticed that gifted children also have some needs for special programs. We heard a lot from parents from that sector during the education committee hearings. Before, there were some resources allocated for gifted children. Now it seems that it's not there.

My question is: will there be any programs or resources available in the future?

Hon. C. Clark: The money is still there for gifted children. It's still in the budget for school districts. It will be up to them to decide how they want to deploy those resources to support those children.

They may decide that they want to spend more than is allocated for those children on those children. We know that school districts do better than the ministry has directed them when it comes to special needs children. They have spent more money and more resources on special needs children than we have ever required as a ministry. I'm confident that they’ll continue to do that. The money for those gifted children is still there in their budgets.

R. Lee: I didn't see any category of gifted children in the budget. What you mean is that it's included in the $5,308 per student budget. Is that what you mean there? Is that in the overall budget per student?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, we've rolled it into the overall budget for them. The money is still there. We've simply taken away the accounting illusion where we tell them: this is what you have to spend, here's how you have to spend it — and by the way, if you don't spend it on exactly what we told you to, we're going to take the money back.

We're recognizing that school districts are locally elected. They are empowered to make decisions about delivering education to their local communities. We're giving them the right to make those decisions.

We've rolled the money for gifted students into the total. The money is still there. School districts will now have the right to be able to decide how they want to spend that money in a way that meets the needs of the children as well as they can.

R. Lee: So the extra costs for special needs students are allocated. However, for independent schools, my understanding is that depending on the funding formula, from 35 to 50 percent, their special needs students actually would have a similar reduction in terms of funding. My question to the minister is: do you expect the independent schools to spend less on disabled students?

Hon. C. Clark: The independent schools are funded, as I said, at 50 percent of the rate for every child that public schools are in the district in which they're located. There is an incremental increase of 50 percent for children who are in the high-cost, low-incidence category of special needs.

For the children that fit into a category where, for example, we provide $30,000 for each child, an independent school could, in theory, receive $15,000 for that same child, because we fund them at 50 percent of the rate that we fund for children in the public school system.

R. Lee: I think my question is: if the extra cost for educating a disabled student in the public system is $2,000, for example, then for the independent schools, should that be the same amount of funding for that student? Because they have to spend a similar amount for extra programs.

Hon. C. Clark: We don't fund any student in the independent school system to the rate of 100 percent, as we do in the public system. Independent schools supplement their budgets by tuition, by charging parents for their children to attend, so the government has made a very clear policy decision that we will fund at 50 percent for most students in the independent school system.

It's important to remember that we committed in the election not to change the formula by which we calculate funding for independent schools. We don't intend to change that formula. It's working reasonably well. I know there will always be complaints from one side or the other about whether they're being adequately funded. There will be calls from some people working in the public school system to change the formula so that less money goes to independent schools, and there are calls from people who have children in independent schools to do the reverse. I think we've found a good balance. We don't intend to change the formula.

S. Orr: Thank you, Chair. I think some of my questions have been answered, so I'm going to try very hard not to repeat what we've already heard from the previous member.

One of my questions is fairly basic. I would just like you to clarify. How does the supplemental funding for students with special needs work? That's my first question.

Hon. C. Clark: First of all, let me start here. School districts report to us the number of students they have, and then they report the characteristics of those students. They would certainly tell us they have a certain number of students that fit into category 1 special needs, category 2 or category 3. Category 1 provides for $30,000 for every student in that category. Category 2 is $15,000, which is an improvement on last year, where it was about $12,500. Typically, it would be autistic children that would fit into category 2. For category 3, which are children who may be mentally ill, it is $6,000 per student. We would take the number of students at $5,308, and then we would add on the supplementary amount, depending on the numbers the school district had reported to the ministry.

S. Orr: I think most of the questions I was going to present were already answered, but I have a couple more. One is about aboriginal students. How will the new funding system support them?

Hon. C. Clark: We provide a supplementary funding of $950 for every first nations student that the district reports. That's in addition to the $5,308 we allocate for every student. If one of those students were also special needs, there would be an additional supplementary grant for that child as well.

It's important to note, as well, that's the only area of the budget that has remained targeted. The reason it has remained targeted is because the aboriginal community and school districts both told us they didn't want us to take the targets off, so we left the target on there. Of course, if school districts don't want us to make that change and they don't think it's a tool they would use that would help them enhance their flexibility, we're certainly happy to comply with that request.

S. Orr: If money isn't spent in one area, can it be shifted around and spent on other things? That is new, I assume, in the new formula. Actually, I think I have answered it myself — or maybe I'll let you.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, that is new. With the exception of funding for first nations, everything else can be shifted around. If a school district, for example, were able to design a tremendously successful program for early literacy or literacy for English-as-a-second-language learners and they were actually able to save a little bit of money, what used to happen was the ministry would go: "Okay. Thank you very much. We'll take that back." Now they're able to shift that money around within their budget and spend it somewhere else if they choose to. They may not; they may decide to keep it all there, but the point is that school districts will now have some incentives to try and find efficiencies within their own system, and they'll be able to keep the money and spend it elsewhere.

I should note, though, that this isn't true of capital — right? We're only talking about operating money here. Operating money can be shifted around within the

budget. Capital is a whole different kettle of fish that's separate, and you cannot mix capital and operating.

The school district operating grants include a possible share of the provincial reserve for enrolment increases. What does that mean exactly?

Hon. C. Clark: That's what we call the recalc fund. We distribute that in September, based on unpredicted increases in certain areas of the student population. For example, if there are more special needs kids in a district than we predicted — and that's a very, very difficult thing to predict — they will be allocated more money to support those children.

The challenge we always face is that we base budgets on predictions about population shifts, which are virtually impossible to get accurate. We make those predictions around this time of year, and then in September we actually go and count the real number of children and the real number of children with various needs, and then we distribute that $20 million contingency fund — which is what we call recalc — to the districts based on where they are in reality versus predictions.

R. Lee: My next question is on some local programs, for example in the district of Burnaby. Last year in April the school board cut some of the multicultural liaison workers. Actually the whole program's gone. In the new funding formula, I guess there are no provisions for that kind of program. However, in the overall budget there is student funding. You can argue that there may be some resource available there.

If those programs were cut and that affects the liaison between the family and school, and if the parents have the barrier in communicating with schools, then that may affect the academic outcome of the students. I think my question is: will the ministry monitor the academic outcomes of those students affected?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, we are going to monitor, absolutely. I talked about that in my introductory comments. That's the purpose of accountability contracts. We want to know that students are doing better year after year.

Burnaby may be a district that wants to put special emphasis on ensuring that children who enter school with English as a second language do better year after year. They may decide that one of their goals would be to get ESL students through the program more quickly, so that they go from being English-as-a-second-language learners to being regular students in a shorter period of a time.

One of the ways in the past that Burnaby has decided they want to ensure ESL students are doing well is to support a program for multicultural workers, so that they can connect with the parents and ensure that the parents are involved with those children's education. While Burnaby has decided to cut those programs, there are other districts that have decided they're important enough to maintain. That is now, and has always been, a decision that is the board's to make. It isn't a decision that the Ministry of Education has ever been involved in. I think the question about why the Burnaby school district decided not to value those programs versus some of the other programs they're continuing to provide would be a question better put to their board.

R. Lee: I have another question on capital funding. In Burnaby a few schools need some kind of improvement in order to reinforce the structure so that when an earthquake happens, the students will be protected. This is a safety question. I know that in Gilmore Community School they have a project going this year. I just want to see if that project will be affected by the capital funding.

Hon. C. Clark: We have $133 million in the budget that we are using for seismic upgrade. The board in Burnaby has asked for a $3.5 million retrofit for Gilmore school. They have put it third on their priority list.

The way the ministry manages capital requests is to judge them against other requests in the same category. For example, if it's a new school, all the requests for new schools will be stacked up against each other, and that'll come out of that new schools envelope. If it's an upgrade, it'll go into the upgrade envelope.

This request from the board is being given consideration at the moment. It's third on the board's priority list, but certainly we'll take the member's concerns into account while we do our consideration of the capital projects for this year.

I also would like to mention a school renovation program at Moscrop School. There is a lot of dust generated at the construction site; because the students are still attending classes…. Is there any plan in the future to avoid that kind of disruption with construction?

Hon. C. Clark: The member raises a project that I drive by fairly frequently. I see it going on. It's a big project, fairly intrusive for the kids in that school. Ultimately, it is up to the board to decide how they want to manage their projects. The Burnaby school board manages the construction on schools that is going on in its district. It's up to them to ensure that they mitigate any impacts from the construction on the students that are in that school.

I've certainly also heard concerns about it. People have written to me directly as well. What I would suggest is that parents who are concerned about this issue should bring it up with the board and ask them to perhaps take further steps, if they think it's necessary, to try and mitigate those impacts that are impacting kids during the school day.

R. Lee: I have another question. This is my final question, on the new school. Actually, it's funded — for the southeast school. They have projected a lot of growth in that area. I think the worry is that if the school is constructed with not enough capacity, then you have to do the construction soon, in three or four years. Would that disrupt the students' studies?

Hon. C. Clark: Good question. The school district originally came to us and asked us for a school that would accommodate 1,500 kids. We went and looked at their projections and concluded that really the projections would require a school for about 1,000 children. We made a decision that we would build the core of the school up to 1,500 — the gym and the cafeteria would accommodate about 1,500 students — with the knowledge that eventually that area would require it, but classroom space for 1,000 students. The projections that we had from the city of Burnaby indicated that for the next few years it will only require class space to accommodate about 1,000.

The reason we decided to build the core to 1,500 is because then we knew…. You can always expand classroom space. It's the core of the school that's important to make sure you have at the extra-large size. We didn't want to be building classrooms that would sit empty for the next few years because the kids weren't there. That was certainly what was demonstrated by the projections that the school board gave us.

After we made the decision, the school board came to us with new numbers. They changed their projections. Once we had a look at those, we sat down with the city of Burnaby and — after aggressive lobbying from the Burnaby MLAs, I might add — decided that we would continue to build the core of the school to 1,500 but that we would expand the classroom space we were building to 1,200.

Now, if the area grows more than that, three or four years after it's built, we can always add the classroom space. That's something that the Burnaby school board can ask us to do. I'm confident that with a core of 1,500 and classroom space of 1,200, we're certainly building a school that will be large enough to accommodate the numbers of children that are projected to be there.

P. Wong: I understand that teachers are vital in a class for the students to succeed. Does the ministry have any evaluation plan to ensure teachers' qualifications and motivations are reviewed periodically so as to avoid deterioration of academic quality?

Hon. C. Clark: Teachers are currently evaluated by their local school district, and they are also evaluated by the college on a reasonably regular basis.

One of the things that has happened in other jurisdictions is teacher testing as a means of evaluating how well teachers are doing. The difficulty with that is that testing a teacher's knowledge tells you what a teacher knows, but it doesn't tell you whether or not that teacher can impart that information to a child. To me, how well a teacher imparts knowledge to a child is the more important part of that equation.

I'm not a big fan of teacher testing. The other methods of accountability we have in the system are the accountability contracts, so that we will know how well districts are doing. We can compare them to one another. We can apply successes in one district to another district that may not have had the same level of success.

In addition to that, we've got parent-student-staff satisfaction surveys, which are an opportunity for all of those people to issue a report card on how well our system is doing.

P. Wong: I understand performance evaluation is a very important part of the new-era commitment. Can you tell me what checking procedures or steps the ministry will undertake to ensure that new immigrants have adequate English language proficiency in class?

Hon. C. Clark: We provide five years of ESL funding for every child that's reported to need it from school districts. It's $1,100 a year for each child. Boards administer that money, and I know they do their best to ensure that those children get the services they need.

In addition to that, we will be holding school districts accountable through accountability contracts. We are putting increased internal focus in the ministry on data collection and monitoring, ensuring that we can pull out data. Hopefully, we will be able to pull out data for English-as-a-second-language students to see how well those children are doing.

Those are the kinds of things we can work into accountability contracts. Those kinds of results will be reported publicly. In addition to that, we are working on a regulation now that will require school districts to report publicly every year about how they've deployed their resources in their schools. They will have to report what their class sizes are and how they've deployed their teachers and their special needs resources.

All of these teaching resources will have to be reported publicly so people can hold school districts accountable, school by school, for the decisions they've made to support the children in those schools.

P. Wong: In view of a potential shortage of operating funds, will the school districts be empowered to sell their real estate or playgrounds to generate funds to pay for their deficits?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts are not empowered to be able to sell real estate in order to fund their operating budgets. That's sort of akin to burning the furniture to pay the mortgage.

Hon. C. Clark: Or to heat the house, if you want to be absolutely correct about your analogies.

P. Wong: With respect to independent schools, how many schools out of British Columbia are recognized and allowed by the ministry to grant Dogwood Certificates?

Hon. C. Clark: We have 1,857 public schools that grant the Dogwood. In addition to that, we have approximately 400 independent schools that also have the right to grant the Dogwood.

Hon. C. Clark: We have one, the Dalian Maple Leaf International School in China. We are very, very hopeful that we'll be able to expand that number.

We have a tremendous depth of intellectual capital in British Columbia that we can export. We can take the relationships we build through those contacts to enrich British Columbia. Any money we would earn doing that can come back to students in British Columbia. And of course, the long-term benefits to our province of enhancing our contacts with the Pacific Rim, particularly amongst students as they start out on their lives, are just incalculable.

We intend to expand the number of schools that are offering the Dogwood in China. I met with a delegation from China today to talk about how we are going to enhance our contacts. It is tremendously exciting, because in many, many ways the future is in China. It's a country with enormous potential. If we can find ways to enhance our contacts with them, all of us in British Columbia — not just students but every citizen — will benefit tremendously.

J. Kwan: Earlier I was asking the minister what advice she has for parents of children with special needs who find themselves in the situation, as a result of the budget freeze and the offloading of the teachers' contract onto the school trustees, of seeing that their children's services in educational programs will be reduced. I'd like to ask the minister how she will assure parents of special needs and ESL students that their children will receive full program support now that the target funds have been lifted from the education funding formula.

Hon. C. Clark: School districts, as I mentioned, always spent far, far more than the ministry required of them on special needs children, which I think speaks to their real commitment to ensuring that those children have the supports they need in the school system. In addition to that, I'd add that we are going to be asking school districts to report publicly every year to parents about how they've decided to deploy their resources in their districts.

J. Kwan: That's small comfort to parents who are now in the situation where they find themselves without the support they need for their children. I have some samples of letters that have been written to me, to the minister and to the school board around these issues. There are many of them. I've just picked a few of them to ask: what would the minister say to these parents?

This is a group of folks on behalf of parents of children with special needs, the support group for Mount Pleasant Elementary School. They've written a letter to the associate superintendent. This letter was written earlier, in September last year. The letter says:

Attached to this covering letter is a series of letters. Like I said, I'm only going to touch on a few of them, because there are far too many to read into the record.

This is from a concerned parent. Her name is Monica Cheung. She has a child named Nicholas, who has a global developmental delay. The funding for her child has been reduced by 50 percent for the special education assistant. She writes in her letter, amongst other things:

Another letter from Lydia Namoro. She has a son named Jesse who started kindergarten last year in September 2000. She writes that Jesse had a very difficult time. "He was not able to understand instructions and could not use words to express his needs."

Then she has an additional attached letter to illustrate what those concerns are. She writes, he was very frustrated and would run around the room, yelling and dumping things on the floor. He would also climb on the tables and jump off.

Jesse has worked with a full-time special education assistant person named Nova, using picture symbols to communicate, helping and guiding Jesse while at school. With this help, he is able to participate in the classroom.

Yet another letter, this time from another parent, Arsenio, around the cutbacks, the impacts of the elimination of the special education assistant. It's a long letter, so I won't go into the details around that.

Like I said, I have a host of letters — another one, from Lily Galigan, who says she's "a single mom who tries her best to give Richie the best in life."

Like I said, I have a whole binder full of these kinds of letter. I won't read each and every one of them into the record. The reality is that parents are in a place where they find themselves without access to special education assistants in their schools for their children. They have gone to the school boards, and the school boards have said they don't have the money to do that.

Given that for this year and for the next three years the education budget has, in fact, been frozen…. I know the minister will rise and say they can allocate the moneys because there's a whole lot of flexibility, but what if the reality in this scenario is that there isn't enough money to rob Peter to pay Paul? Those are the decisions school boards would have to make. School board trustees have already come forward to say they are going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Who are they going to rob from? Who are they going to rob from to ensure that these children who have the highest education needs have those needs met? How will the minister assure the parents of special needs and ESL students that these students will receive full program support in light of the three-year education budget freeze?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, it's interesting that the member would start by quoting from a letter where the mother is complaining about budget cuts that affected her child in September. That was based on budgets the Vancouver school board received from her government. If that's the complaint, that's money the school district's got from her government. If she doesn't understand how budgeting in the Ministry of Education works, I would be delighted to take her on a guided tour of the process.

School districts receive their budgets in the spring. Then they're confirmed as we go through the coming months. Those budgets were given to them by the previous government. The member is surely aware that the budget our government introduced after being elected in May was really confirming the decisions made by the previous government. Yes, we changed direction in the government, but in terms of the budget numbers that those districts got, it didn't change.

First, I certainly want to acknowledge the mom's concern she's raised. I sympathize with the clearly difficult situation she's brought forward. But I suppose it is a little bizarre, at best, to hear the previous member complaining about decisions her government made.

Having said that, I want to make these points, very seriously. One, we will be monitoring, and we will be requiring school boards to report for the first time ever on how they allocate their resources for special needs children in their districts. That isn't something anyone has ever bothered to do in the Ministry of Education, despite the last ten years of government. No one knew what happened to the money for those children before because no one bothered to ask them to report.

The important thing about this reporting procedure is we're not just asking them to report to the ministry; we're asking them to report to parents. How about that? What an innovation that a school district should have to be accountable to parents for how they spend money, that a school district would actually have to report about how they spend money for special needs children, in particular, so parents can pull that information out and hold them accountable for that. What an innovation that school district's should have to do that, something the previous government never bothered to do.

In addition to that, we are going to be able to pull information out at the ministry level on a district-by-district basis to determine how well kids with identified special needs are doing. When we do that, we will be able to work that into accountability contracts, make those results public and then hold districts accountable for trying to improve their goals year after year. How about that. Gee, what an innovation — asking school districts to set goals for themselves, particularly with respect to special needs children, and asking them to try and meet those goals year after year so that they do better.

This is a government that cares about providing services for special needs kids. That's why we brought these innovations in. When the member stands up and talks sarcastically about our government's commitment, I would ask her to look to what her government did or didn't do. The complaints she's been talking about in the letters she's brought forward are complaints that are based on budgets her government provided to school districts.

J. Kwan: You know, it's ironic, because it's this minister that is freezing the Education budget for the next three years. Maybe the minister will blame the previous government for that. The fact is it's her, this minister, who has chosen to freeze the Education budget for three years.

What does it mean? From the school trustees that she speaks well of…. Some of the trustees are very conscientious; there's no doubt about it. This is an article from the Vancouver Sun, March 6, most recently. What do they have to say around the Liberal government's decision on freezing the budget? Again, the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association "rejected the suggestion that there are any winners, because he said the Liberals, despite their promise to protect education funding, are stripping millions from the total budget." He states: "They've indicated that they haven't cut funding to education, that in fact it's frozen. But they have cut the amount of money going into classrooms, and that's a cut to education." He said this on Tuesday. Then he goes on to say: "You can play games with semantics…but the losers are the kids when you make these types of cuts." That is from the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, dated Wednesday, March 6, the Vancouver Sun. That's what the school trustees are saying to this minister. When she cuts education funding, it impacts the children. When the Liberal government decides to freeze the education budget, it means a reduction in education programs. That's what it translates to.

If the minister would like to stand in this House and say, "Hey, in the previous government that funding was still not enough for special needs," what does she think about her budget for special needs children now? The fact is those moneys are being reduced. That's the reality. That's what we're faced with today.

Maybe I'm wrong, you know. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the children's needs will be met by this freezing of the budget over the next three years. Maybe the president of the School Trustees Association is wrong in suggesting the funding that has been frozen would not yield a reduction in educational programs. Maybe he's wrong; maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. For the sake of the children, I hope I am wrong.

Then I'd like to ask the minister…. She's so confident that this government's decision is the right thing to do and that the children are going to get access to the programs they need and that these accountability contracts will somehow ensure that these children will get the education services they depend on for their educational outcomes and for their future. Maybe the minister is confident in that. Then will the minister rise up and give her personal guarantee that every single student in the province of British Columbia who needs special needs programming will be able to get access to that? Will she rise up and give her personal guarantee in this House, for the parents and for the children?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I've mentioned once or twice that the government has actually protected the Education budget, even though we've got declining enrolment in British Columbia. I want to add this. It is nothing short of disgraceful the way this member will try and use the very vulnerable people, try and use the needs of special needs children, as some kind of political football for her own partisan gain. It is absolutely nothing short of disgraceful that she would stand up and suggest to them that somehow they will have less protection under this government than they did under the previous government.

We have brought in special protections for special needs children, which she voted against. When we brought in legislation to protect special needs children from losing their support in the middle of the year because of union contracts that required bumping, she voted against it. She spoke against it.

J. Kwan: On a point of order. As the Chair often is apt at directing members of this House to direct their comments through you, Mr. Chair, I ask you to do the same for the minister.

The Chair: The requirement to direct comments through the Chair only restricts a member from referring to another member with the pronoun "you." You must refer to another member as "the minister" or "the member" or something like that and avoid the pronoun

"you." You need not start your comments with "through the Chair" or any other words like that. You simply avoid using "you." You always address another member in the third person.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd invite the member to check the Blues when they come out if she's concerned about the appropriateness of my comments.

I was kind of on a roll there. I do want to add this to my comments. The member is prepared to scaremonger and is prepared to go out and try to use any method she can for her own political gain. The member is prepared to go out and scare special needs parents and somehow try and convince them this government is removing protection from them when, indeed, the record is this: (1) we have brought in new special protection for special needs children, which she opposed; (2) we have preserved funding for special needs children in our funding formula; (3) we are continuing to require individual education plans for every child; (4) we are continuing….

Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to require that school districts integrate children with special needs into typical children's classrooms, something that is incredibly important, not just for the needs of those children who have special needs but for typical children as well.

Last, I will add this. This government is doing some other things that her government never had the moxie to do. We are requiring an accountability contract that school districts set goals for improvement year after year. We'll be able to pull out data specifically for special needs children so we can figure out exactly how well children are doing and compare them from district to district. We will make those results public, and lastly, we will require that boards report publicly how they have deployed their resources within their district. We will make special mention in that regulation of how they deploy the resources for special needs children.

For that member to stand up and somehow suggest this government doesn't support special needs children…. For this member to stand up when she has opposed the improvements we have made for special needs children and to somehow stand up and say she thinks she could do a better job is absolutely ridiculous. It's the height of hypocrisy, and it's nothing less than disgraceful.

J. Kwan: For this minister to say she's protecting education, as she often likes to mock other members when they raise questions that have been raised by parents with real concerns, to belittle their concerns and to suggest their concerns are somehow fearmongering is disgraceful. And she's the Minister of Education. I think it's disgraceful.

If the minister is so confident that the funding freeze this government has imposed over the next three years will ensure that educational services will be provided for all children in British Columbia in the area of special needs when they need it, I will simply ask her to get up and give that guarantee. That's all she has to do. Is she prepared to give that guarantee? Yes or no?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think there is any question about this government's commitment to support special needs children. I have very clearly outlined the steps we have taken, some of which are things we have preserved from the previous government and some of which are brand-new innovations to protect special needs children. I have very clearly outlined, I think, the very long list of things we've done and we intend to continue to do.

We are meeting with special needs parents on a regular basis. I think these are changes we can be excited about. I'm looking forward to working with the parents of special needs children to ensure that special needs children have the support they need in our school system.

J. Kwan: I will take that as a guarantee from the minister — unless she says otherwise — that every single child in British Columbia would be able to access the special needs support they need in the education system. I'm going to go back and tell all the parents who have written me or phoned my office, day in and day out, with their concerns and worries. I'm going to say, "Don't worry," because this minister has now, in the estimates process, guaranteed they will be able to access that.

I want to ask the minister: what happens when a parent comes forward and says their children are not able to get the special needs education support they need?

Hon. C. Clark: That is something we haven't changed from the way the previous government did it. Certainly, a parent who has a concern can talk to their school board, because the school board is the group empowered to make those decisions. That's something that hasn't changed this year over last.

J. Kwan: Isn't the minister ultimately responsible for the performance of the school boards? If the parent is not satisfied with the school board's response — or maybe lack of response — would they be able to come to the minister and ask for a direct response from the minister? Will she provide the guarantee that she will be undertaking to respond to these parents?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts have and have always had the responsibility to provide those services. They continue to have that responsibility. The ministry is requiring accountability for the first time through accountability contracts.

J. Kwan: Would the parents be able to come to her as the Minister of Education? Previously, they couldn't. When they wrote a letter to the ministry, it just got shifted off to staff, who wrote back to say: "Hey, don't talk to me about your children's needs in the education system. Don't talk to me about your concerns. Go and talk to the school board."

The minister is so confident that the three-year funding freeze on the education system with her budget is enough to meet the needs of the students in British Columbia. I'm asking for her ultimate accountability. Will parents be able to come to her as the Minister of Education with their concerns and the issues they have in terms of education for their students and for their children?

Hon. C. Clark: I am regularly in contact with parents about a whole range of issues. I'm delighted to continue to do that. As I said, the process has not changed.

J. Kwan: There we have it. Ultimately, the minister is not prepared to take on the responsibility to respond to parents. She's shovelling it off, saying: "Go talk to the trustees. Don't talk to me, even though I may be the Minister of Education. Don't talk to me."

That's exactly what it says in the leaked document — the cabinet decision document that was signed by the minister. That's exactly what it says. "On issues around cutting of programs, on educational program cuts, don't come and talk to me. Go and talk to your school board." That's what this cabinet document says. Reading it into the record, on page 2 of the leaked cabinet document:

There you have it, Mr. Speaker — the hidden agenda of this government all along. What is the purpose of this euphemistic new funding formula, in the name of flexibility and access and all those buzzwords the minister likes to use? She likes to use them because it's camouflage for cutting educational programs, for saying there is not enough money to provide for the existing cost of education. It's camouflage for, "I don't want to make the decision, as the Minister of Education; I want the trustees to make those decisions," so that when programs are cut and students can't get access to educational programs it's: "Don't blame me; blame the school trustees."

The minister just gave the answer: "You know what? If you have a complaint, don't come and talk to me. Don't come and talk to me, even though I am the minister that is ultimately accountable for education programs." Even though she's bringing forward all these accountability contracts, if you're not satisfied, you will not be able to go to the minister for direct complaint on this issue. That's what the Minister of Education is saying to parents.

Do you know what, hon. Chair? This budget is not good enough. The three-year funding freeze on educational programs is not good enough. Don't take my word for it. Take the words of the people who are in the system, who already said that on several occasions on record. When they say to the minister that with this freezing of the education budget, where they have indicated that they haven't cut funding to education but that, in fact, it is frozen…. They have cut the amounts of money going into classrooms, and that's a cut to education.

"You can play games with semantics…but the losers are the kids when you make these types of cuts." That is the reality of the new era in education. When the Liberals say they want to ensure and guarantee educational success for every student, it's only some, not all, students. Cuts will in fact take place.

A question to the minister: will special needs funding be given to districts based on the number of special needs students in that district?

J. Kwan: The evaluation of a student prior to the student getting designated as a special needs student, the assessment that needs to be done — is there a special funding allocation for the assessment work?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, that's not something that has changed from previous years. The assessment will be done by the school district, and that will be funded out of their general grant.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, that funding has always been a part of their general grant. It's a decision the school district makes out of its general funding. It's not a supplementary grant. Therefore, it's not targeted.

J. Kwan: How will the minister ensure that there are enough resources for the assessment of children who have special needs? Often I hear from parents that there is a problem in terms of the assessment process. Many of the children are not even assessed in the process. If the answer is that there's some sort of accountability contract in place, what if children are still not getting access to the assessment process, therefore ultimately requiring that they have the allocation of funding for the special needs of those particular children?

Hon. C. Clark: As I noted earlier, the thing that hasn't changed is that school districts were and continue to be responsible for doing the assessments of children who have special needs. That has come out of their general grant. The ministry is continuing to work with parents of special needs children, to work on the various criteria they'll use. Certainly, we want to make sure these decisions are made in the best interests of the children.

J. Kwan: Will the minister give her personal guarantee that children will get access to the assessment to determine what kinds of needs they have and whether they fit under the special needs category?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I'd point out that if the member had thought it was terrifically important for the ministry to target and specifically fund assessments of special needs children, her government had ample time to do that in a decade in office. They chose not to. I would suspect that had they thought it was a good idea, they would have continued down the road of targeting and prescriptively deciding how school districts would allocate their money. That was a direction they took in spades, so the fact that they decided not to do it is perhaps something she can enlighten us about. I don't know how she came to those decisions at the cabinet table.

However, our government is taking a different direction. We believe school districts should have the autonomy to be able to make the decisions they are empowered and elected to make. In doing so, we are giving them a budget with a fair amount of flexibility in it and allowing them to make decisions based on local priorities within that budget.

J. Kwan: It is this minister who is very confident about the funding cut, essentially a funding cut to educational programs, that school boards will be faced with as a result of the three-year funding freeze. It's this minister who's confident, in spite of this funding cut for educational programs as a result of the three-year funding freeze, that these children won't be impacted.

I'm asking the minister for her personal guarantee on the assessment process to ensure, in spite of the pressures that would be imposed on the school boards by this government's determination to freeze the Education budget over three years, that there is a guarantee that these children will get assessed. Yes or no? Will she give her personal guarantee?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the Education budget in the ministry is protected despite the fact that we have declining enrolment. The process for assessing children with special needs hasn't changed from the structure the previous government employed.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister's not so confident after all with the three-year funding freeze on the Education budget, which would yield reduction in educational programs for school boards. Maybe she's not so confident after all, because she's not prepared to give her personal guarantee. Why not?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I've answered that question a number of times. As I said, the Ministry of Education has a protected budget this year. We're delighted about that, in light of the fact that we're in very, very tough economic times in British Columbia. Some ministries are seeing a cut of up to 44 percent. We are managing within the system.

Certainly, school districts will have some difficult decisions to make. I have always said that. I trust, though, that trustees have the best interests of children at heart. They've certainly proven that in previous years. They've spent far more on special needs children than has been required by the ministry, and I am absolutely confident they'll continue to make that a priority.

J. Kwan: Let's just review what's happened to date and what the minister has given in terms of answers. She has said that the Education budget will be frozen for three years. This will effectively — as has been pointed out by the B.C. School Trustees Association — yield a reduction in education programs. It would yield that the children would be the losers in this. It has been established by the B.C. School Trustees Association president that the government likes to use semantics, but at the end of the day, the three-year Education budget freeze under the Liberals' definition of protection would mean a cut to education programs. It's as simple as that.

Then, when asked the question, "Will the minister give her personal guarantee that she would ensure that support is there for students who need support for educational programs in the special needs area?" the minister started to waffle on that answer.

Then, when asked a question on whether or not the minister would give her personal guarantee on the assessment process for students who need to be assessed to determine whether or not they have special needs, the minister is not prepared to give that guarantee.

When asked the question, "In spite of these accountability contracts the minister has so much confidence in, if answers are not provided to the parents on their concerns, would they get an answer directly from the minister?" the minister's response is essentially no.

"Don't come and talk to me. Go and talk to the school board; go and talk to the school trustees. Don't come and talk to me. I'm ultimately not responsible, even though my title is the Minister of Education."

J. Kwan: This is not question period, for the members who are wondering, Mr. Chair.

J. Kwan: I have a question for the minister. What will the Minister of Education be doing to ensure the integration of special needs students into the school system?

The Chair: I remind members that they have up to 15 minutes to pose a question.

Hon. C. Clark: I stated previously that this government has a firm commitment to the integration of special needs children into regular classrooms. We remain very, very committed to that principle. It's a ministerial order, and school districts are required to comply with that order.

J. Kwan: Just as the minister would assure all British Columbians that they're protecting education, when you translate what that means, it means a three-year budget funding freeze and cuts in educational programs. That's what it means. So my specific question to the minister is: what will the ministry of education be doing to ensure integration? What plans are there?

She can simply say: "Well, I'm not doing any of that; it's the school boards." But what is the minister's vision in ensuring that integration of special needs children takes place within the broader community-school learning environment for all children?

Hon. C. Clark: There's a ministerial order that requires school districts to integrate children with special needs. When we hear complaints about that — hopefully there are none — we investigate and ensure that school districts are complying with that order. As I said, we have a firm commitment to the integration of special needs kids into regular classrooms.

I'd add this too. The fact that we're requiring school districts, for the first time, to start reporting publicly how they deploy their resources will mean a whole new level of accountability for special needs children that school districts never had before. I would argue very strongly that that reporting requirement will greatly enhance the protection for special needs children and ensure that the integration policies of the ministry are followed.

Hon. C. Clark: The very first place to go with a complaint is to the principal of the school, then to the school district. They always have the ability to come to the minister as well. As I said, if we do think there have been violations of the ministerial order, we certainly will investigate.

J. Kwan: Does the process for enforcement — or monitoring, if you will — simply rest on the complaint basis?

Hon. C. Clark: Another enhancement I'd want to add to protect special needs children is this. The Ministry of Education in British Columbia has something unique in Canada — well, almost unique, as only one other province has it. It's a personal education number that's assigned to every child. We are technically able to pull out the statistics on any given child in any given district in any part of the province. We could follow what class every child is in, in every district of every part of the province, which is an amazing ability. We are the only province, outside of Quebec, that has that ability.

In the past the challenge has been that while we had the ability, previous governments never really bothered to use the information for anything. They had the potential to get the data. They often didn't collect it. If they did collect it, they often didn't do enough with it. We are reconfiguring the ministry internally to ensure that we are first, able to pull the data out — first collect it, then pull it out — and then put it to good purpose. We can include any information that we glean from that in accountability contracts and use it to ensure that schools do better year after year.

As I said, it's an important innovation. It's something that I think parents of special needs children are very interested in. I think it's going to mean a very, very big difference for children with special needs in our schools.

J. Kwan: For the children who are being assessed and measured on their learning outcomes, are there provisions in that work to ensure that you measure the child's ability when they enter the system so you actually have a base to compare with in terms of how they improve and so the basis of comparison for learning outcomes is not just on issues around whether that person got an A or B or C? Rather, do you actually measure the level of improvement from when they came into the school system to after they've been in the school system?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't do testing in kindergarten or grade 1 for children in B.C. That's certainly something that has been suggested to me. At the moment, though, we only do standardized testing in grades 4, 7 and 10. Then, of course, there are grade 12 tests as well.

If the member is suggesting we expand our standardized testing, that is something I could consider. At the moment we don't have that ability.

J. Kwan: I'm not talking about necessarily expanding, although maybe that's something the minister would like to consider. I'm asking about the standardized testing approach when students enter the system. When children come into the school system, different children are at different levels because of their own backgrounds and because of a variety of things. Is there a base measure taken when these children enter the school system so that you actually have a base to go by to measure how much they have improved or not improved?

Hon. C. Clark: The identification of children with special needs is usually done, first off, by a teacher. When a child enters the system, a teacher will usually be the person who identifies that the child may have an issue. An assessment of the child's needs is then done. That could be done early on. It could be done later on when the special need becomes evident. Again, that is something that is largely driven by the teachers.

J. Kwan: I'm not talking about special needs children. I'm talking about all children.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we don't do a standardized test across the province for kindergarten children. If the member is asking me to consider expanding standardized testing throughout the system, that's something we could think about.

J. Kwan: The minister has failed to understand my question. My question to the minister is not about the standard testing that needs to be applied for other grades, although that may be something the minister wants to consider. I'm talking about when a child is tested in grade 4, with a standardized test. Prior to grade 4, when a person enters school, the level at which the child enters the school varies from student to student. Has any thought been given to measuring the students' level when they enter the system in terms of where they're at? The standardized testing is not necessarily a true measure of the improvements, or lack thereof, of the students.

Hon. C. Clark: That's something teachers do. Teachers assess children every year. They assess them a couple of times a year. They send report cards home. That's based on their professional judgment about those kids.

I think the member raises an excellent point when she suggests that academic results don't give you a full picture of a child's abilities. There are a whole lot of other things going on for every child that we need to be aware of that will affect that child's ability to learn. Certainly, that is why teachers are an irreplaceable part of our education system. That's a role they perform, and I think we can certainly say that teachers do a tremendous job in classrooms across this province.

J. Kwan: How is that taken into consideration when the standardized testing is applied?

Hon. C. Clark: Standardized testing, as I said, looks at academic results. In addition to that, we've got the parent-staff-student surveys, which give all of those other groups an opportunity to report on how the system is doing. Those include questions about things that are non-academic, like student safety, for example, which is a very important part of ensuring that children have the ability to learn. We're also looking at graduation rates. We're also going to be looking, as we enrich our data management capability, at being able to pull out specific numbers for different populations.

We want to be able to ensure that 100 percent of students are meeting or exceeding expectations. That's certainly what we're working toward. I have never argued that the foundation skills assessment will give us a full picture of how well children are doing in schools. It's a much, much broader picture that we need to have. That's why we're employing a whole number of tools on which we will base our accountability contracts.

J. Kwan: The point I want to illustrate to the minister is that the standardized testing may not necessarily be an accurate picture of student outcomes. I know, as an example, that in some of the areas in my own community, children who enter the school system are at a different level than other communities' students because of a variety of barriers they face. The measure on the standardized testing is not necessarily a true and accurate reflection of educational outcomes.

One of the things you actually need to look at would be the place the child is at when the child enters the school system and then what improvements are made. In fact, the tests that are in place now don't do that at all, so there's not, in my view, necessarily a true reflection of the educational outcomes of the children.

The minister was very confident around the school board and the school board's accountability to the public. In that case, why would this leaked briefing document, which is signed by the minister, highlight that one of the disadvantages of the option the government has adopted — the student-based allocation system — is that some school boards may make poor decisions about how to allocate funds?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll speak to the first part of the member's comments first. I think it is very important — and I've said this quite a bit in most of my public statements — that we not just celebrate how well children do at the end of the year, you know, and look at a ranking of schools like the Fraser Institute does, based on the final marks. I think it's also important that we celebrate the smaller successes, which standardized testing doesn't always show us if you just look at it simplistically as marks at the end of the year. We need

to celebrate the success of the child who enters the school unable to read at all and gets 60 percent on an exam. We need to celebrate that teacher. We need to celebrate those parents. We need to celebrate that child and the school district that made that possible. Those successes are just as important as the success of the child who goes from 90 to 95 percent on an exam.

I have said often that I think the way the Fraser Institute ranks schools is misleading, because all it does is give you a final snapshot of how well children did at the end of the year. It doesn't tell you how far they've come. That doesn't mean that I don't think standardized testing is valuable, because I do. If a child enters the school system with big challenges, that doesn't mean we shouldn't test them to see if they're doing better year on year. Of course we should, but I've never argued that it will give us a complete picture of how well children are doing. I think it's much more complex than that. That's why we're using a whole range of tools to build our accountability contracts. We really do want a complete picture for all those children.

J. Kwan: I thought the minister was going to answer both of my questions. She's talked about the first part. The second part, which is in the leaked cabinet document, lists under disadvantages one of the issues that the minister is obviously concerned about. That is that some boards may make poor decisions about how to allocate funds. The minister says, with excessive confidence, an abundant amount of confidence, around the school boards' performance…. Why would they have a statement like that in her leaked document?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I think it's always a possibility that any level of government could make poor decisions about allocating funds. I can think back to, hmm, fast ferries. I can think back to, hmm, Skeena Cellulose. I can think back to a whole range of decisions where levels of government have made decisions that are really clearly contrary to the interests of the people they serve. It's possible for governments to do that. We certainly hope they don't, but school districts are no less elected than we are in this provincial government. They have been empowered to make decisions, and this government believes we should respect their right to make decisions and allow them to make those decisions in the best interests of the children in their communities.

J. Kwan: I could think back, hmm, just recently, within the eight months this government has been elected, of bad decisions they have made — broken promises they're called — under the new era of the Liberal government. Oh, would that be, "I wouldn't rip up contracts," when the Premier said they would not rip up contracts? Oh, well, broken promise number one.

Broken promise number two. Would that be the government stating unequivocally that they would not risk educational outcomes for children and that they would protect education? That's broken promise number two, because what the government's done is to freeze the education budget over the next three years, which will yield…. In their own mind, I know, they think they're protecting education, but the net result is that they have created a situation where educational programs would have to be cut. No doubt, with that process, the students' outcomes would be impacted.

Broken promise number three. That would be today's Minister of Education who said during the campaign that they would not give tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians and that the tax break would only be limited to the bottom two brackets. In fact, this Minister of Education went out and said: "We wouldn't be so arrogant as to come out and say to you that something we campaigned on in 1996 yielded a loss in the election process, and we'll come back with the same campaign promise." True, during the election process the now Minister of Education said they would not provide tax breaks for the wealthiest British Columbians and big corporations and that it would only be limited to the bottom two brackets. Well, the broken promise is that they have given the tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians and to big corporations.

I can go on all day, because obviously, poor decisions can be made by the government. It's already been shown in the eight months that this government has been in place that they've made an abundance not only of those poor decisions but, quite frankly, of broken promises. They said they would do otherwise and have now done differently.

The education issue around impacts for children. How will the loss of the support provisions as outlined in Bill 28 and the eliminations of targeted funding impact on special needs students?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to revisit the member's comments about the election campaign. During the election campaign, we didn't say we were going to give British Columbians a tiny tax cut. We didn't say it was going to be a small one. We didn't even say it was going to be a medium one. We said it was going to be a dramatic cut in personal income taxes. That was very, very clear. It was in the platform document, and it was front and centre in our campaign. A 25 percent personal income tax cut across the board is a huge cut. It's a dramatic personal income tax cut. In fact, it's what this government said it was going to do.

In addition to that, we have the lowest taxes in the bottom two tax brackets of any jurisdiction in this nation. I would add, as well, that we kept our commitment about protecting education funding. The budget in this ministry and the budget in the Ministry of Advanced Education are both protected, as we said we would do during the election.

Now, with respect to Bill 28, I'd say this. What we did with Bill 28 is to state very clearly our view that issues like class size shouldn't be a chip on the bargaining table. They're not there to be decided in the back room by the union and, usually, the government.

Those decisions are there to be made as public policy. They should be decisions that everyone has access to. When we entrenched class size limits in the legislation for the very first time in the history of this province, we made a very, very clear statement that we didn't think it should be just up to the union to make those decisions.

We made a statement that we think those are public policy issues that parents, individual teachers, administrators and school districts themselves should have a say over. I'd ask the member this. Does she think class size provisions are best left on the bargaining table where they can be bargained away in the back rooms between the union and management?

J. Kwan: My question to the minister was on the loss of the support provisions under Bill 28 and the elimination of the targeted funding impacts on special needs education. Maybe the minister doesn't understand that her government's cuts to special needs funding are reversing 15 years of mainstreaming for special needs children. Maybe she doesn't understand it.

Maybe she doesn't understand that the special needs education assistants play a vital role in the educational system in assisting these children. Maybe she completely has no understanding of that. I don't know. Maybe the minister has no understanding that the interconnectedness of all the supported needs in the educational system that take place in the classroom have an impact. Bills 27 and 28 have effectively threatened and undermined the support in the classroom system for these children.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is very irresponsibly calling into question this government's commitment to mainstreaming special needs children. There's absolutely no question about that. We continue to support it. We have always supported it, and we are not intending in any way to change the government's direction with respect to that. That's number one.

Number two, the funding for special needs children has been preserved in this budget. It is still there. School districts will still get it.

J. Kwan: The minister knows very well that targeted funding for special needs education has been lifted and that it puts students at risk in terms of accessing those programs, especially in an environment where the minister has frozen their budget for three years, which will yield a reduction in educational programs. The minister knows that too.

Is the minister confident that the resources the Liberal government has provided to education are sufficient to maintain the quality of education in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: We've done what we can to give school districts the tools they need to be able to manage their budgets and manage their operations. They've said they will have some tough decisions, but for the most part, they have also said they think they can manage.

J. Kwan: I'm asking the minister if she is confident that the resources the Liberal government has provided to the school system are sufficient to ensure the quality of education.

Hon. C. Clark: School districts, as I said, will certainly have tough decisions ahead of them, but I think that with the resources provided to them, they could certainly manage within those resources. We will continue to work with them over the coming years to make sure they put student achievement at the top of their agenda, just like we do in the ministry.

J. Kwan: I take it from the answer from the minister that she is confident, then, that in spite of the three-year funding freeze, in spite of pending cuts in the educational system over the next three years, she and her government are confident that there are sufficient funds to maintain the quality of education and improve the quality of education in British Columbia. Am I not correct in making that assumption? Yes or no?

Hon. C. Clark: We've protected education funding this year despite the fact that there are declining enrolments in British Columbia. That means the ministry has the same amount of money even though there are fewer students to educate in the public system. I'm confident that school districts will be able to manage within the resources they have allocated.

J. Kwan: The minister has just responded, and I assume I'm correct in assuming she is confident that this government is confident that in spite of the funding cut to education because of the freeze, the quality of education will be protected and it will even be improved upon. That's what I heard from the minister. Would I be correct in assuming that the government is concerned that the impact of the funding does not then adversely affect the quality of education at the classroom level?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we've protected education funding this year despite the fact that there is declining enrolment in British Columbia. I'm confident that school districts, although they'll certainly have some tough management decisions to make, will be able to manage within those resources.

J. Kwan: I take it from the minister that she is not concerned that the freeze of the education budget over the next three years would adversely affect the quality of education at the classroom level. Why did the minister remove the limit placed on the expenditures for administration?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've mentioned, we believe in school board autonomy. We recognize that they are no

less elected than we are. We respect their right to make the decisions they are elected and empowered to make. With the exception of aboriginal funding, we have taken off all of the targets.

J. Kwan: On the issue around expenditure for administration, is the minister anticipating that the expenditure for administration would actually be increased? Why would she lift the cap on the expenditure of administration? If she wants to ensure that the moneys actually go to educational programs, then she will want to keep the cap there on administration.

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member needs to understand that administration costs include principals and vice-principals, and this government has changed the law to allow principals and vice-principals to teach in their area of specialty. When she refers to administration — and that's certainly a title we use in the government as well — she is also referring, she should understand, to principals and vice-principals who are also, in many cases, teachers.

We believe school districts should have the right to make these decisions. That's why, as I said, we've removed the targets and caps. It's so they can have as much flexibility as possible in determining how they want to design their budgets to meet the needs of local children in their schools.

J. Kwan: One would have thought that if the minister wanted to ensure that the educational dollars went into educational programs, then the cap would be in place and the administration costs would be limited to ensure that funding from the education budget does not go into further administration.

I know principals and vice-principals teach in the school system. I know that very well. In spite of that, the issue around the cap does beg the question: does the minister anticipate that the administration costs are going to go up? Is that why the cap is lifted? I have to assume the answer is yes.

Some people who have looked at the government's new funding formula and compared it with last year's have said it's smoke and mirrors. It's just an illusion. Can the minister explain the differences between the new and the old formulas and how the differences will affect conditions in classrooms, schools and school districts?

Hon. C. Clark: The new funding formula will certainly give school districts a lot more flexibility in determining how they want to allocate their budgets. It will allow them to be able to make decisions that better meet local priorities. Ultimately, the decision we made with this funding formula is that all the decisions in local communities aren't best made in Victoria.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister, with the differences between the new and old funding formulas, what the differences are. How would they affect conditions in the classrooms, in the schools and the school districts?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, school boards will be making decisions about how they want to allocate their budgets internally. As I mentioned, that's a primary difference with this funding formula.

I went through in some detail in my opening comments about how the funding formula will work specifically, but really what we're talking about is moving to a world where instead of making decisions in Victoria about what's going to be good for kids in Burnaby or in Fort St. John, we're saying: "School districts who are locally elected, who are accountable to their constituents and who are empowered to make those decisions, should be making those decisions."

J. Kwan: The minister still hasn't answered the question of how the difference will affect the conditions in the classrooms, the schools and the school districts. Perhaps she doesn't know the answer to that, hon. Chair, but one would have thought the minister would have known the answer to that to ensure that the outcome for the students would actually be a positive one. Perhaps the minister doesn't know how it will affect the classrooms and the schools in the school districts.

Can the minister tell us how the base allocation per pupil, which is $5,308, was calculated? What components are included in the base calculation, and what things are not?

Hon. C. Clark: We went at this with the intention of maximizing the amount that would go on a per-student population basis, because as much as possible, money should follow the students. That's what we're paying for. We looked at the number of students and the characteristics of the student population, and we wanted to ensure that to the maximum amount possible, our funding formula reflected that. That's how we came up with the $5,308. That's 82 percent of the total allocation that districts get in the $5,308. In addition to that, there are the characteristics of the student population and, of course, also recognition that it's more expensive to educate a child in a far-flung rural district than it is in a very tightly concentrated urban district.

J. Kwan: I don't think the minister gave the answer on what components are included in the base allocations and what things are not.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I could go about this two ways. The previous funding formula had 60 programs and 400 formulas attached to it, which would take me a fair amount of time to go through. I'm not sure I want to put the committee through that. Instead, we'll do this by a process of elimination.

I'll say this. Everything is in the $5,308 except money for enrolment decline; money for unique students' needs — and that includes English as a second language, aboriginal background, special needs and adult basic education; money for salary differences; and a buffer grant that we worked in to ensure that no school district would lose money as a result of the

change in the funding formula. The geographic formulation includes extreme climate; dispersed schools; and rural and remote, low enrolment and small communities. In addition to that, there is money there for transportation and housing, which was there last year.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell us why that figure is $5,308 and not, say, $5,320 or $5,300 or any other figure? How did she come to the $5,308 figure?

Hon. C. Clark: We decided on a formula that did two things, which was a balance, quite frankly. One maximized the amount of money that we would provide on a per-student population basis but at the same time minimized the disparity that would be created between districts as a result of the change in the formula. We ran hundreds of simulations, and this is the one we settled on that found that balance most appropriately.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell us what is included in the salary supplement and explain how those costs were determined?

Hon. C. Clark: The formula for that is based on the lowest provincial average. I think the district that had the lowest provincial average was Chilliwack, if memory serves. Then we looked at each district based on how they were compared to that lowest-average district.

Hon. C. Clark: Two things. Districts, depending on the age of their teachers, will have more expensive teachers or less expensive teachers. Obviously, if your teaching force is older, they'll be more expensive, because they're higher up on the grid. In addition to that, some districts, back from the days when they used to be able to negotiate on their own behalf with some of these money issues, had much more expensive teacher grids overall. We recognize those two things. We make sure districts are not disadvantaged as a result of the funding formula.

Hon. C. Clark: No, it's just the average difference between districts based on the cost of teachers in their district.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we tried to come up with the simplest formula that we could to reflect the reality for school districts. We are looking at the average cost of a teacher in the district and comparing that to the lowest-average-cost district in the province. The difference is what they get in the formula.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I still didn't get the minister's answer on this question. Does that figure include the salary increments for the teachers?

J. Kwan: Then the salary increments in the next three years would not be funded by this government as well.

Hon. C. Clark: The member should remember that the number of people who are retiring in any given year usually — almost always — offsets the number of people who are coming into the system. We will end up with a very, very close approximation of what's actually going on in the districts based on this formula.

J. Kwan: That may be the case, but I'm asking: on the formula that the minister has now, does it include the increase in increments? The minister said no. Is that correct? She said no, and so, then, for the next three years the funding formula does not include the salary increments for teachers.

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to the first question remains the same. The answer to the second question, as I've already said, is: the formula recognizes the differences in the grid. It does not recognize the change in the increments. However, that should not represent a cost pressure for districts, as the number of teachers who are retiring, the expensive teachers, will be leaving the system and be replaced by younger teachers, who are much less expensive as they come in.

J. Kwan: We'll see whether or not the numbers will ultimately work out as such. We'll monitor that very closely.

Can the minister tell us what a small-community supplement is and how those costs were determined?

Hon. C. Clark: We looked at the distance between schools in a district, depending on how far apart the individual schools were and the size of the community in which they were located.

J. Kwan: What is the distance-determining factor, and is that the only thing the ministry looked at?

Hon. C. Clark: No. As I said, there are five different formulas that underlie the unique geographic features part of the funding formula: rural and remote, low enrolment, small communities, extreme climate and dispersed schools.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned the small-community supplement — the five things that they consider. Within the small-community supplement, is there an additional breakdown, or is it just those five things? What is the determination for a small-community supplement?

Hon. C. Clark: These are as simple as we could make them, but there are reasonably complex formulae for each of these. If the member would like a detailed briefing on how we came to each of these formulae, I'd be delighted to provide that to her. We could certainly go through the exact formula underlying each one. It's a fairly technical explanation, however. It may be in the interests of all concerned if we arrange a briefing and can spend a fair amount of time doing just that.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can just explain briefly about that, and then I can determine whether or not I need a briefing after that. Thank you for the offer of a briefing. I may take it up. If the minister could just go through some steps around it, I would appreciate it.

Hon. C. Clark: Rural and remote is determined based on the total amount of distance between all of the schools in a district and the board office, and then their distance again from Vancouver. That's the formula for that. It's comparative.

Extreme climate is based on actually looking at the temperature — the highs, the lows — and comparing the districts to one another to determine whether they qualify for extreme climate. Dispersed schools will tell us how far away the schools are from one another.

Low enrolment will tell us what the enrolment is at different schools. Rather than saying, "What's the enrolment on a districtwide basis," which doesn't tell you very much, we are more interested in what the enrolment is at a given school, and whether there many, many schools that have a small enrolment.

Small communities. How many small communities are there in that district? Is it mostly based in one urban centre with a few small communities, or is most of the district just many, many small communities?

J. Kwan: What's the definition of small communities? Is it 5,000 and under? What application does the ministry use?

Hon. C. Clark: The formulae we used for determining this are quite technical. I'd be delighted to get back to the member, either this evening or in the course of a technical briefing, on exactly the formulae we used to determine each of these things.

J. Kwan: I'd be happy to canvass that issue with the minister later on this evening.

Noting the time, I'd like to move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Members, we won't be reporting. We'll just be taking a recess until 6:30.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome. I think this is the first time you've sat in the Chair's seat in this House. It's great to have you.

Prior to the dinner break I was asking the minister about the small-community supplements, and she was in the process of explaining how the ministry comes to that determination. Could the minister please continue?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. For the small-school supplement we look at the number of students in a given radius. If it's less than 250 students within a given radius, within 5 kilometres, and that occurs a number of times, that is the factor on which we determine whether or not it qualifies for small communities funding. For secondary schools the number is 650.

J. Kwan: Can the minister explain why West Vancouver is a community deserving of a supplement but North Van is not?

J. Kwan: What about New West? New West is not a community deserving of the supplement, but West Van is. What are the relevant differences between those communities: North Van, West Van, New West?

Hon. C. Clark: West Van qualifies because it has Bowen Island in its boundaries. I'm sure the member is aware of the geography with respect to that. It's an island; it's remote. It's a unique characteristic that doesn't exist in either North Vancouver or New Westminster.

Hon. C. Clark: We're taking all five factors together, and any one of those might…. The fact that Bowen Island exists and is served by that local school district may have an impact on any one of those different five factors and get recognition as a result.

J. Kwan: Can the minister explain the funding category of unique district factors and how those factors were determined?

Hon. C. Clark: I think we did cover that briefly before the break. To refresh the member's memory, we

talked about small communities, which we've covered; low enrolment, which is, I think, fairly self-evident; and extreme climate, where we looked at the different temperatures on a different scale. Dispersed schools is the other one, in addition to rural and remote.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll just ask the member's indulgence. The official that would be able to give me the most concise and clear answer about the specifics of each of these factors is going to be joining us in a few minutes. If we want to move on to another set of questions, I'd be happy to return to this.

J. Kwan: Can the minister explain why the West Vancouver district gets about $1 million, because it is a unique district, and North Van gets about $210,000? How come there's the discrepancy?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I would be delighted to talk to her about some of those specifics in a few minutes, when the appropriate officials have joined us.

J. Kwan: My next question may thus be for the next official as well. It ties into the New West district, where they get only about $20,000 in the unique district funding. Would it be correct to say that New West is not unique because they only get $20,000?

Hon. C. Clark: Every district is unique. We're talking about unique geographic factors.

J. Kwan: Will the minister, once her staff get here, be explaining how there is this unique difference between North Van, New West, West Van and so on? Then we're just waiting for the staff to get in? Okay. I take it the minister will flag us in terms of that process when we get there.

Hon. C. Clark: We wanted to simplify what was a very complex funding formula. We wanted to ensure that we recognized geographic, student population and salary differences; that we protected against enrolment decline; and that we continued to allow for funding for transportation and housing.

J. Kwan: It is this government that has established those categories — the creation of these categories and the meaning associated with them. I take it the staff, when they come into the House, will explain the reasons why those categories were established and the meaning behind them. Perhaps I'll save this set of questions. I have a series of questions that relate to this, so I think I'll save those questions.

Would the Minister of Education please outline the role and responsibilities of school boards?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts have the responsibility to provide education in the local communities from which they're elected.

J. Kwan: I suppose that's the short version of it. In terms of the responsibility of the school boards per the accountability agreement the minister has established, could the minister please detail those responsibilities?

Hon. C. Clark: In the accountability contracts, we've asked school districts to agree on a set of goals for improvement the following year. All of those goals relate to improving student achievement. We want to make sure that children do better year on year. It's our responsibility, since we are spending not our money but taxpayers' dollars on trying to build the best education system, bar none.

J. Kwan: What provisions has the Minister of Education made to ensure there would be a provincewide standard in programs and services delivered by the local school boards?

Hon. C. Clark: We provide the curriculum, and we ensure that school districts are following the curriculum. Of course, we inspect schools on a regular basis to ensure they are doing that. Now, for the very first time, we are going to be ensuring that schools districts meet certain results they set for themselves so that we can see they're improving year on year. Of course, school districts will also be required this year to report publicly on how they are spending and allocating their resources.

J. Kwan: How will the minister assure each community that they will have equal access to resources, services and programs?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts are empowered to make decisions based on the needs of their local communities. Our funding formula is a fair one. It's transparent. It is for the very first time an equitable formula. I think the dispersion of money through the funding formula will ensure that every school district in British Columbia is treated fairly.

J. Kwan: How will the minister assure each community that they will have equal access to the resources and to the services and the programs? I don't think the minister has answered that question.

Hon. C. Clark: Instead of the old way for the last ten years, which is really to have no accountability, we are building in new accountabilities — that is, through accountability contracts, through public reporting and also by beefing up our data collection and management section in the ministry to ensure that on an ongoing basis, school districts are meeting the needs of the students in their community and ensuring that those students do better year after year.

J. Kwan: Prior to the break, the minister was very confident of the school trustees and their responsibilities and accountability. The minister is perhaps not so confident now, given that her own leaked documents talked about how some school districts would make poor decisions in terms of the allocation of funds. It actually doesn't jibe. On the one hand, you say we're fully confident. On the other hand, you say: "We're going to put in these accountability agreements and contracts to make sure they are actually accountable." Perhaps the ministry is not that confident.

Actually, I'm not that confident with the accountability contracts either. At the end of the day, if a parent has a problem with their ability to access resources or programs, they are left with no other recourse. The minister said earlier that parents should not come and talk to her, because she simply has washed her hands of it and has off-loaded the responsibility to the school boards. Due to the lack of funding for school boards we'll be facing as a result of the three-year education budget freeze, will the government introduce legislation that allows local school boards to levy local taxes in order to enhance local school programs?

Hon. C. Clark: As we outlined earlier, school districts have that ability now. I think I went through that in some detail with the member for Delta North. The power is there in the School Act for them, if they choose to avail themselves of it.

Of course, I do want to be clear about my statements with respect to school districts. I believe that school districts are equally capable of making good decisions with respect to taxpayers' dollars. I don't think they're any less elected than we are. I have the same amount of respect for their ability to do the job they're empowered by law to do as I do of any member in this House. To somehow suggest that I lack confidence in the school boards is really not clearly representing my views at all.

I think it's quite obvious that after the last ten years of government, any level of elected official is quite capable of making decisions about spending that are not in the public interest. As I pointed out, fast ferries, Skeena Cellulose…. There's a whole long list we could go through of inappropriate decisions made by politicians at the provincial level that didn't serve the public interest.

I don't think the member would necessarily want to make the argument that by vesting all authority to make all these decisions in the provincial government, we will necessarily guarantee that those decisions are better. History has proven otherwise.

J. Kwan: I'm just looking at the list of broken promises by the Liberal government, to name the top three. Tax cuts will pay for themselves. That didn't happen. No tearing up of collective agreements. That didn't happen. The issue that you should keep more of every dollar you earn, and government should take less. That didn't happen. Just looking at the new-era agenda in terms of the government and poor decisions, even this government is not being held accountable for their poor decisions.

The minister's own briefing note references local school boards and the concern that they would make poor decisions. Of course, the net effect — what I'm really concerned about — is those poor decisions impacting students in British Columbia and the ramifications that could have. One would have thought they would have the opportunity to go directly to the Minister of Education to complain and to register those concerns.

The minister has stated that is not the place they need to go but rather to the school board. The minister is looking confused. If I'm wrong in this and if, in fact, there are real concerns from the community with the school boards and the operation of the school boards that they could come directly to the minister with, then I would ask the minister to please state that on the record.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, any member of the public, whether or not they have a child in school, is more than welcome to express their concerns to me.

As a government, we respect the right of school boards to make the decisions they are legally empowered to make. Instead of doing what the previous government did, which was to say, "We in Victoria will make all the decisions for your local community, and then we will tell the people in the local community that it wasn't our responsibility," we are saying local communities will be making those decisions for themselves. They have the right to make those decisions. They will be held accountable for those decisions.

J. Kwan: I'm glad the minister has changed her tune. Prior to the dinner break, she was saying: "No, no, no. Do not come and register your concerns with me. Go to the school board. They're the people who are accountable. That's the process you must follow." I received correspondence from parents who wrote to the minister complaining about their concerns on the education system.

The minister simply passed that letter on to staff of hers within the ministry and asked them to respond back. There was no direct correspondence from the minister. I'm glad to hear the minister will actually respond back. I know that a lot of parents are wanting to contact the minister directly and have her respond back to their direct concerns. They are of the view that the school board is actually not responding to their needs.

The minister was pointing to her staff who've arrived on the question around the unique district funding factor. I would ask the minister to please provide those answers.

Hon. C. Clark: With respect to the question, the member wanted a comparison between New Westmin-

North Vancouver receives a small supplement because it has, to a small extent, the characteristics of a low-enrolment district. It's not high enrolment, comparatively. West Vancouver is the same thing. However, West Vancouver also meets some of the criteria for sparseness, and that would be, I would guess — and I caution that I would guess — because of Bowen Island.

New Westminster meets some of the criteria because it's a low-enrolment district. In addition, I will add that with respect to the small communities calculation, New Westminster doesn't qualify. North Vancouver doesn't qualify. West Vancouver does get a very small supplement for small communities — I would assume again, and I'm guessing — because of Bowen Island.

J. Kwan: Is it the case, then, that if there are more categories that apply to you for the supplement or the unique district factors, more dollars come with it? How much is one category worth? How does that work?

Hon. C. Clark: The total funding allocation that is dispersed to school districts under the unique geographic factors category is around 9 percent, which is comparable to the old formula that took into account geographic factors. The way we calculate each of these five different factors is to take the school district that qualifies as the highest — so, for example, Stikine has the biggest number under low enrolment — and then everybody else is factored compared to that.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can explain, just so I can understand, why New West gets $1 million because of the unique district formula and North Van gets $210,000.

Hon. C. Clark: That's principally because they sit at different places on the scale measuring enrolment. New Westminster sits higher on the scale of low enrolment — in other words, closer to where Stikine is — than North Vancouver does.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I was asking the question of West Van and North Van. North Van gets $210,000, and West Van gets $1 million. New West gets $20,000. There's a wide spread in terms of this unique district formula as it applies. How come there's such a wide spread in terms of the discrepancy? I'm trying to figure that out.

Hon. C. Clark: It's more expensive to educate children when they're at remote schools that aren't close to your board office and that may not enrol a whole lot of children. We recognize this in the funding formula. In the case of West Van, specifically, that's accounted for because they have schools on Bowen Island.

J. Kwan: Essentially, what the minister is saying is that the one factor determining why West Van is completely different is Bowen Island. That is the determining factor why they get $1 million versus $20,000 versus $210,000. There are no other factors to be calculated into that consideration.

Hon. C. Clark: The three factors are low enrolment, sparseness and that they do have one or two small elementary schools. That makes the difference.

J. Kwan: When the minister said, "They do have small elementary schools," who's "they"?

J. Kwan: The Bowen Island elementary school, low enrolment and sparseness: those were the determining factors for West Van to have a million bucks versus the others.

In terms of each of the categories, the minister was saying that it's a percentage relative to the other that determines it. What is the formula that applies for each of the categories in terms of how much money you get? Or is it a fixed figure? Maybe it's a fixed figure. I don't know.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm going to ask the member to restate her question, because I'm not entirely clear. The answer I think she is looking for is the fact that they are comparative. The school district that has the lowest enrolment, for example, would set the standard, and everybody else would be measured against that. The school district that has the most cold days of the year or the most cold and hot days of the year combined would set the standard against which everybody else would be compared.

J. Kwan: On that basis, how much is it worth, as an example, in terms of the new funding formula for the school district if you have the lowest enrolment versus the other district that has the highest enrolment? How much are each of the categories worth in terms of a funding formula for those school districts?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me give the member some examples. If you're in Rocky Mountain, it's worth over $4.177 million. If you're in Kootenay Lake, it's worth $5,586,900. It depends how the categories combine. It depends. A school district could have low enrolment but not small communities. It very much depends on the characteristics of each district. The interplay between them is very, very complicated. Again, I'd reiterate my offer to give the member a full briefing on some of the technical details, if she'd like one.

J. Kwan: I'm trying to understand. With all the different categories that apply, there seem to be five that apply in terms of what's determining the unique district factors: low enrolment; sparseness; severe weather; the minister also just inserted the elementary

school piece, and I assume that has something to do with the sparseness component; and the last one is the small community.

So there are five applications, but under each of the applications, I understand it is relative in terms of a formula. The actual number that is derived is a formula in comparison to the other school districts. As you work between the districts, how many scales are there within the one category — let's just say low enrolment — in terms of the value of the discrepancy? Is it a fixed number that is applied, or does it fluctuate?

Hon. C. Clark: If I understand the question correctly, the answer is that they all fit on one scale for each of the five different factors.

J. Kwan: To put it as a comparison, as a point system, if you have a school district that has low enrolment, I guess, it gets so many points. Those points will then transfer into the value of how much that district will get because of the low enrolment. It's likewise for sparseness. How sparse you are depends on the distance, whatever the distance may be. I think the minister said 250 kilometres earlier. Each 250 kilometres is worth so many points, and that is then translated into a dollar value. That is how the calculation is derived for each of the districts. Is that how it works?

Hon. C. Clark: I can give the member an example: extreme climate. That's adjusted heat days minus 1,000 divided by 10,000 equals their percentage on the climate index. We do that for each district, and then we put them on a descending scale. Depending where you are in comparison to one another will determine how much money is attached to that.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a chart that outlines how each of these scales work? If the minister can share that, maybe that would be helpful .

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I'd be delighted to provide the member with a briefing. We'll certainly have all the relevant materials for her there that will draw a picture of exactly how this works.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can provide the information, and then once I get a chance to look at it, I can let the minister know whether or not I would like a briefing to follow up on those specifics.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I'd be delighted to provide a briefing for the member with the relevant information. It certainly takes some explaining. I think we've demonstrated that here tonight. It's a fairly complex formula. As I said, we'd certainly be happy to give you materials in the context of a briefing.

J. Kwan: I'd like to receive the materials, and then I'd like to advise the minister whether or not we would be in need of a briefing around that.

The new categories. I asked a question earlier in terms of the new categories that have been set up and created. We know what those categories are and the established meanings of those categories. I was asking that question earlier in terms of the meanings of these categories. What are the alternate meanings of these categories?

Hon. C. Clark: If I understand the question correctly…. Low district enrolment, I think, is pretty self-evident. That's what your enrolment is versus the rest of the province. The rural factor is measured by small populations in the city or town where the board office is located, combined with the distance from Vancouver and the nearest regional centre. Sparseness is measured by the distance between the board office and each school. Extreme climate is defined by the number of degree-days of heating above the provincial minimum.

J. Kwan: On the new funding formula that the government adopted, isn't it true that the new funding formula was needed to ensure there would be $300 million to $500 million of savings that could be removed from the public school system?

Hon. C. Clark: No, the new funding formula was needed to ensure that we put an end to all the inequities that have been built into the funding formula by the previous government over the years. It just wasn't fair. It wasn't transparent. People weren't able to hold the government and their boards accountable for the way they had allocated money previously. That's why we needed a new funding formula. We needed something that boards could understand, use and predict their future funding on.

I should remind the member that this is something school districts asked the previous government for, and they were rebuffed. They asked this government for it, as well, and we have delivered on the commitment.

J. Kwan: Some have suggested the new categories that have been put in place are simply ways for the Liberal government to manipulate the funding to school boards, to reward boards that are favoured and to punish boards that are not. There's some discussion out in the community around it.

There is also discussion about flexibility. The new funding formula was needed to create that room of $300 million to $500 million of funding that is removed from the public school system. Without this so-called flexibility, the government would actually have to do the work of deciding what expenditures to reduce. This was clearly outlined in the leaked document, which actually said:

It's all exposed in one paragraph in the leaked document, which the minister had signed. That is the agenda behind this new funding formula. What values and considerations guided the revision of the formula?

Hon. C. Clark: This funding formula is founded on our belief and the school districts' that no matter where a child goes to school in British Columbia, he or she should be treated equitably. They shouldn't be subject to the political whims of the day or the government that wants to fiddle with the formula to favour one person over another. Children are too important for that. We changed the formula to reflect our fundamental belief in equity.

Let me tell you a story about a previous government that decided it was going to bring in a provincial collective agreement behind the backs of the school boards that were supposed to be negotiating it. When they did that, they went out and established ratios for non-enrolling teachers. Those ratios were set arbitrarily. They went across the province, and they said to the districts: what are your ratios for librarians, counsellors, whatever?

Those districts that had been keeping up the ratios because they had been a priority for them got nothing under the provincial collective agreement. Those districts that hadn't seen those things as a priority got something. In fact, they got big bucks out of the previous government. If this member wants to stand today and argue that somehow those inequities should be perpetuated forever on end, I will fundamentally disagree with her.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, if members would like to speak, they're welcome to stand up and ask questions.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the funding formula the government has put in place puts into question the agenda of the government. The cabinet decision document that was leaked to the opposition illustrates that. It talks about the reasons why the government has put forward the new funding formula. It's so the government can shift off the responsibility to local governments so that they don't have to make the decisions on educational cuts. That's the document this Minister of Education signed herself. It's all here in the leaked cabinet document.

Why is the funding for aboriginal education, English as a second language and only three levels of special needs provided, but funding for gifted students and students with mild learning disability is not? What values guided the government's decision?

Hon. C. Clark: They are funded. The money is still there. School districts, as I've said many times, were doing far better than the government ever demanded of them in supporting special needs children. In fact, while the previous government required that they spend 4 percent of their budgets on special needs, they were doing far, far better than that. The money is still there. School districts will continue to allocate it to special needs kids, and I'm sure they'll keep their best interests at heart, as they always have.

J. Kwan: What if in the situation whereby this new flexibility that I know the minister likes to talk about, the euphemism for cutting educational funding because of the three-year budget freeze…? What if in this situation you have a district where the demand for special needs or the demand for ESL or aboriginal needs exceeds the funding that is there? What if all these special categories exceed the demand? Who should the school board draw from in order to pay Paul? Who would the minister advise? Which program would the minister advise cutting? Would it be ESL programs or special needs? Or would it be special needs for ESL, as an example?

Hon. C. Clark: I'd certainly welcome the member introducing more letters complaining about the decisions of the previous government if she wants to, as she did earlier this evening. To address that point directly, I'd remind her that ESL, special needs and aboriginal children are funded based on the number of students, and that's not limited.

J. Kwan: The letters that were introduced earlier were to register a complaint to the minister around the decisions of the school board, which now has all the authority to make decisions on what funding level is going to be provided for what programs within the school. The targets for special needs have been lifted. Those letter were written to the minister, and she didn't even bother to respond. She just sort of threw them off somewhere else and had her staff respond to those letters. I have copies of these letters on my files.

J. Kwan: The minister is laughing along with the members around these issues. These are serious issues, especially ? I can't emphasize enough ? the issues around special needs children who face multiple barriers. It brings us to another point in another area in terms of special needs funding ? inner-city school funding, which has been cut by this government.

The government will say, "The equity envelope is protected," just like the euphemism of protection for education funding over the next three years when it has been frozen, which will yield a reduction in educa-

tion programs. That euphemism is now applied to inner-city school funding. Inner-city school funding within the equity envelope is now reduced. It's gone.

Some $5.4 million is now gone from the inner-city school funding, but I know the minister will get up and say…. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm hoping the minister won't get up and say: "Don't worry. We'll reinstate that $5.4 million into the equity funding envelope. Don't worry about that." I hope the minister won't say: "Oh, but don't talk to me about that. Talk to my colleague, the Minister of Children and Family Development."

I know the minister says she's looking out for all the children in British Columbia, for the educational outcomes, so one would assume that inner-city school funding would fall into that envelope. I hope the minister will rise and say the $5.4 million for inner-city school funding, within the equity funding envelope, would be protected and would in fact be reinstated from the funding cuts.

Hon. C. Clark: I am bound by the rules of this House, as is the member opposite, and I'm sure that after a few years on the government side and having had a few goes at fielding questions and estimates, she will be well familiar with the rules of this House. She will understand that the Ministry of Education estimates are a forum to examine the spending of the Ministry of Education.

If she would like to pursue discussion about the funding for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, she is more than welcome to do that. I am sure you would advise, hon. Chair, that she respect the rules of this House and ask those questions of the appropriate minister in the appropriate forum, as we are required to do.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that inner-city school funding ties into the educational outcomes. You would have thought that the Minister of Education would be concerned about that. You would have thought she would be the first advocate to say that the children of British Columbia are too important, that the inner-city school kids who face multiple barriers are too important to cast aside, and that, yes, because of the educational outcomes that need to be assured for all of these children, she will in fact make sure that the funding is in place. That funding is not in place.

The minister is casting off the responsibility on this important component of funding for educational outcomes for students, just like she is casting off responsibility overall for all educational programs onto the local school boards. That's so she doesn't have to answer for it, and she doesn't have to be the person who makes these cuts, knowing that when they are made, it's going to hurt the children of British Columbia.

I know my colleague from Delta here is wishing to ask the minister some questions, so I'm going to relinquish the floor to him at this time.

R. Masi: I was out of the room for a while, so you may have covered this one off. I'd like to ask a couple of questions on the parent, student and teacher survey that's going out. Haven't we covered that off then already?

Could the minister tell me about the implementation plans, how this program will be implemented — is it a mail out? Is it a send-home with students? — and something about the implementation so far?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm glad the member asked that question. This is an opportunity for parents and staff and students to be able to issue their report cards about how they think our education system is doing. This is the first time anybody has ever attempted this in a systematic way in British Columbia. We'll be able to use these results in our accountability contracts. We'll be able to use them to compare district to district, how we're doing in different measures. It's a very, very important new initiative on the part of the ministry. We want to ensure that as many parents and staff and students as possible fill them out.

If it is filled out by everyone in grades 4, 7, 10 and 12, it will be the largest sample done outside of the census in this province. We are distributing it through schools. Staff and students will fill it out at schools. Students will take it home for their parents. If there are students who forget to take it out of their backpack when they get home, any parent can access the questionnaire through the Internet, or they can phone my office, and I'd be glad to send them one.

R. Masi: Well, having had a bit of experience with send-home surveys, it seems to me that even during the accreditation days that schools go through, the send-home surveys, I think, come back at around 15 percent or something like that. Is there any element of compulsion or anything here in terms of the teachers and the students then, seeing they're the captive audience?

Hon. C. Clark: We won't be forcing staff to fill them out, and we won't be forcing parents. Certainly we expect that school staff will distribute them to students and that students will fill them out in their classrooms.

In addition to that, though, I should add that parent advisory councils across the province, who are incredible advocates on behalf of the children in our schools, are assisting in the distribution of these to ensure that they do indeed reach parents. The member is quite right, we can't always count on students to take them out of their backpacks when they get home or even to put them in their backpacks in the first place. In addition to that we are relying on parent advisory councils. Parent advisory councils are doing public service announcements across the province through media outlets. We are trying to get the word out as much as we can. I'd certainly encourage every member of this

House to try and get the word out by any method they have at their disposal as well.

R. Masi: I just wonder if the ministry has considered — I'm trying to get to the point of why this is happening — using the sort of common, legitimate polling firms like Ipsos-Reid or something like that. Would that be a more accurate reflection of public consideration of the school system?

Hon. C. Clark: That certainly could be, but we do want to make sure that we get district-by-district results as much as possible. That's very different through a telephone survey. It also changes the nature of the survey a little bit. Those are certainly valuable results you would get through that, but we want to make sure that we are able to break it down district by district.

Again, this is a really important initiative that we're undertaking here. It's the first time that parents everywhere in British Columbia will get a chance to rate our education system and say what they like and what they don't like. Parents have been telling all of us for a very long time that they aren't satisfied with the level of involvement they're offered in our education system. This is another method the government's using to invite parents in, make them feel welcome and actually use their input in the accountability contracts so that their input isn't just made; it's also heard, and it's also acted on.

R. Masi: That sort of leads me to my next question — the acted upon. I wonder what the application of this is. Is it more school-specific or a district emphasis? This is a major undertaking, and a lot of hours will be spent on it. I wonder what the final application will be on a project like this.

Hon. C. Clark: The results from the parent-student-staff survey will be used at all levels, I expect — from the school level to the ministry level. We can use that information to reshape our policies. We can use that information to change something very specific at the school level. Of course, it will apply at the district level, as well, so it will depend on the kind of information we gather. We'll certainly be looking to that information as we formulate policies and as we work to build a better education system across the province.

R. Masi: What I'm trying to figure out here is: are the majority of the questions related to the school in which it is applied, or are the questions district-related? Are they provincially related? I'm trying to see what the value would be for this undertaking.

Hon. C. Clark: Because most parents', students' and staff's experience comes from their immediate environment at the school level, they do relate, principally, to what's happening in a child's school.

They're very direct kinds of questions like: does your child or do you feel safe at school? Do you feel that your child is learning what he or she needs to be learning? Do you feel that your child is reading at the level at which you expect them to read? They're child-specific, and to the extent that they're child-specific, they're also school-specific.

K. Manhas: I'm pleased to be able ask a few questions here. At the pleasure of the House, I'd like to focus on some local issues and the effect of the estimates and the service plan on my communities — Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities.

In the past my school district, district 43, has had a history of implementing innovations, efficiencies and cost savings. As the minister would know, in the past they've been penalized for some of these efforts. How will the new funding formula encourage these and other local innovations?

Hon. C. Clark: District 43 has, as the member knows, been implementing the extended day in their schools for a long time. They've saved the equivalent of about $50 million for taxpayers because of it.

In the new funding formula, rather than recognizing square footage and rewarding just square footage, we are really putting more emphasis on the number of students and the needs of those students in the school. Coquitlam, as a district that has pretty consistently grown over the last many years, will certainly see the benefits of the funding formula distributed more equitably. That will make a real difference, I think, for district 43.

K. Manhas: On the topic of the extended day, speaking to some of the local school trustees, they had an understanding that the Coquitlam school district received a special allocation for the increased marginal operating costs of running extended day in the last funding formula. I believe that Terry Fox Secondary in Port Coquitlam, for example, which was built for a certain capacity of students, is able to accommodate on the order of 20 percent to 30 percent more students because of their extended day.

How does the funding formula account for the extended day? Is there any kind of special allocation? Was there any special allocation in the last year? How does it encourage a more efficient use of school facilities, school buildings and existing infrastructure?

Hon. C. Clark: A district that has a high density of students with a small square metreage will do better under this funding formula than a district that has a whole lot of empty space. This funding formula recognizes the efficiencies that Coquitlam has made. It recognizes, I think, the fact that they have been so entrepreneurial and innovative.

It's certainly something we want to encourage in other districts, where they can do it, as much as possible. That's why we included some of those changes in Bill 28 when we introduced it this winter. Yes, the new funding formula encourages and, I think, rewards

K. Manhas: Does the same apply: going one step further to year-round school use?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, it depends on how you decide to configure your year-round schooling. It depends on how you decide to structure it. Potentially a school district could maximize their use of space to an even greater extent with year-round schooling than they could with extended day. To the extent that the funding formula rewards districts that maximize the use of their square metreage, certainly, this funding formula does encourage school districts that use a year-round school model or that use an extended day model.

K. Manhas: Last year school district 43 had the terrible position of being the lowest per-student funded school district in the province. How will the new formula provide more equity and be more equitable amongst school districts, so my school district doesn't get the shaft?

Hon. C. Clark: This funding formula is distributing money equitably. Eighty-two percent of the money is distributed based on the number of students and the characteristics of your student population. I think it's fair to say that Coquitlam and the other districts that often complain they are at the bottom of the list, they're getting less money per student, will start to see the benefits of this funding formula as the years go on and we start distributing money equitably for the first time in a long time.

K. Manhas: What was the per-student funding last year, and what will it be for the coming year?

Hon. C. Clark: I am advised that the number for 2001-02 was $5,767. This year it's $5,860.

K. Manhas: As I was saying before, the school district funding formula has not always been equitable in the past. Will be there be any effort made to address the past inequities?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. When we worked our way through the funding formula, we built in a buffer grant at the end of the process. While the funding formula is pure, we did a line of buffer grants to ensure that no district lost money as a result of the change in the funding formula. We intend to phase that buffer grant out. We're going to meet with school districts and talk to them about how they would like to see it phased out. Obviously the districts that received the buffer grant will probably argue that it should be over a longer period of time than the districts that received no buffer grant.

We've isolated the inequities. We know where they are, and we have a commitment to phase them out once we've had an opportunity to consult with school districts about how they'd like us to go about it.

The chair of our school board has asked for clarification on transportation grants. Has the formula for those grants changed?

Hon. C. Clark: No. The transportation and housing grants this year are the same as they were last year for every district. We are reviewing the way we fund transportation. The structure we use at the moment doesn't encourage districts to find efficiencies. We certainly want them to be able to stretch a dollar as far as they can. I know they want to be able to do that. We just need to create an environment that encourages them to do that, so we've frozen the funding for transportation and housing at the level it was at last year as we undertake this review to see how we might better be able to manage that money.

K. Manhas: As I understand it, the funding formula was reworked to allow the school districts to better allocate the funds using their own priorities. However, the transportation grant was not added in to the per-student funding. Could the minister explain, or provide clarification, first of all on how the grant changes will affect school district 43 but also why the transportation funding wasn't rolled into the per-student funding allocation given to the school districts to manage, to allow the school districts to manage their envelope?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the funding formula is going to enhance every district's ability to manage its own money and to be able to make budgetary decisions that meet local and community needs as they determine them to be. That's the principal change of this funding formula. It applies as equally to district 43 as it does to any other district in the province.

It means that district 43 will be able to make decisions free of the political interference from Victoria that used to exist. Rather than Victoria saying, "Here's the program that we think you should provide in Coquitlam, because we know those students so well," we're saying: "Here's the money. You decide what programs you want to provide, because we know you know those students better than we do."

With respect to transportation funding, every district is very unique with their different transportation needs. That number for transportation that's in the budget is the same for each district this year as it was last, simply because we are undertaking a review to determine if there is a better way to manage that money and to distribute it equitably.

We'll have that discussion with school districts. I hope we will see a conclusion to that in the very near future.

K. Manhas: My school district is concerned about meeting the cost pressures they're facing. The teacher increases have increased operating costs by about $2.5 million, plus an additional $400,000 a year for the costs of local contract benefits, plus an impending local CUPE contract. Will the minister be able to assist them and help them make up for the shortfall?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts have their budgets for this year. We've given them some very, very important tools to be able to manage their own operations. They all told us before and after the election that they would be able to spend a dollar more smartly than we could, that they'd be able to stretch it a whole heck of a lot farther if we'd let them.

We built a funding formula that allows them to keep efficiencies and to budget based on their local priorities. In addition to that, with Bill 28, we gave them back the right to be able to decide how they would staff their schools and manage those schools on a district-by-district basis. Those are two very important tools for school districts. They all told us that if they had that kind of flexibility they would be able to make a dollar go farther. I'm confident they will.

K. Manhas: District 43 still has several onerous provisions in their local collective agreements. The cost from these provisions continues to increase.

One example of these provisions is a sick bank payout and retirement allowance for our retiring educators and support staff. According to the school district: "As increasing numbers of teachers, administrators and support staff retire, the payout costs are rising astronomically. In the last six years the costs have doubled." The district goes on to say that in 2000-01 alone these costs were over $1 million. Is there anything the minister can do to help the school district with this situation?

Hon. C. Clark: By giving the school districts the tools to be able to manage their budgets — by giving them that flexibility — they will be better able to manage those costs. There's no question that it will be tough for them, but we've given them the tools to be able to manage those costs.

I don't have a secret pot of money to reach into to take care of what are acute problems on that issue in Coquitlam. I think it could be argued that there are many districts in British Columbia that wouldn't find themselves in exactly the same situation but in a similar situation on another budget item. In my experience, every district has some very unique cost that is rising at a rate that's hard for them to manage.

Rather than trying to design a formula that would address each of those very, very unique problems, which would have been an unbelievably complex process and would have led to an incomprehensible formula, what we said was that we recognized different districts had different needs and that students in their communities had different needs as well. We said we'd untie the strings as much as possible and allow them to make decisions about how they want to allocate money within their own budgets. Again, the funding formula, along with Bill 28, should certainly go a long way to helping every district, including district 43, try and make a dollar stretch further, so they can maximize the value for students in their communities.

K. Manhas: On another issue, would the minister, if possible, be able to clarify what, if anything, will be transferred from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the Ministry of Education?

Hon. C. Clark: We expect that the social equity envelope, which is community schools, inner-city schools, school-based councillors and school meals, will be transferred to the Ministry of Education to be delivered by school boards in the following fiscal year.

K. Manhas: I'd like to move my line of questioning from the funding formula line to special education. There's been a number of concerns from parents that the education of students with special needs will suffer. Cathie Camley of the Tri-Cities branch of the Learning Disabilities Association of B.C. recently wrote a letter to one of the papers in which she claimed that funding considerations are no longer being made for what were previously listed as high incidence–low-cost and low incidence–low-cost categories, namely students with learning disabilities, moderate intellectual disabilities, moderate behaviour disorders and gifted students. Is this true?

Hon. C. Clark: No. The money is still there for those kids. District 43 has done just an outstanding job of stretching their budget to maximize the amount of money they can put in to support children with special needs. For many, many years they spent far more on children with special needs than was required of them by the Ministry of Education. That money is still there in that budget for those kids.

K. Manhas: Cathie Camley suggests that since districts don't have any financial incentives to identify children with learning disabilities, they may not make the diagnosis of these issues a priority. I know it would be a great concern to me if districts did not do their part in identifying children. I know it would be a big concern to a lot of people and, I'm sure, to the minister. Could the minister please comment on the validity of these statements?

Hon. C. Clark: First, I do want to acknowledge that the mother who's writing in obviously has concerns. While those concerns are unfounded, I do want to acknowledge that she's obviously a mother who cares deeply about her children and is doing everything she can to advocate on their behalf. That's certainly something we should all applaud.

In that context, I'll say this: the money we are providing for children with special needs for what the member has referred to as low incidence–low-cost or

high incidence–low-cost is still there. The incentives in the system haven't changed. School districts will continue to manage that money as well as they can. I think district 43 will continue to put special needs at the top of its priority list, as certainly has been evidenced by the fact that they've spent far more money than the Ministry of Education has ever required them to spend.

K. Manhas: Ms. Camley discusses the fact that although many special needs children will continue to receive special funding to the district since targets have been removed, the kids who generate a funding category don't necessarily get to have the funding they generate spent on them. She goes on to claim: "It can be spent on mowing the lawn or textbooks." Could the minister comment on these comments and explain what the ministry will be doing to keep the districts accountable?

Hon. C. Clark: There is something we're doing in the ministry that we've never done before. Something we have done before is to require individual education plans for children who have special needs. That's something that's drawn up in consultation with the parents and the teacher at the school. Each child who has a special need is required to have one of those.

For the very first time we are augmenting that to ensure that the IEPs are there for the kids by going out and monitoring and checking districts to ensure that those IEPs are in place, that they're appropriate and that they're working for the kids they are supposed to be working for. In addition to the public reporting and the accountability contracts and the other data collection and monitoring that we will be doing in the ministry, we will be very actively out there ensuring for the very first time that the IEPs that are required to be in place for those kids are actually there. That's a new protection for special needs kids.

K. Manhas: On the topic of IEPs, a parent in my community called, worried that individual education plans are critical to her child's proper education. She was told, and expressed some frustration, that IEPs may not continue to be offered. She expressed frustration that some teachers are often reluctant to comply with the IEP system, and she's worried that cost pressures on the school district will force them to downsize or eliminate IEPs. Will IEPs be affected by any of these changes?

Hon. C. Clark: IEPs will absolutely continue to be required by the Ministry of Education. In fact, we will be enhancing the way those are applied by going out and monitoring in school districts to ensure that those IEPs exist for every child that needs one. Not only are we continuing to require them, but we are enhancing the monitoring that the ministry does of school districts to ensure that those are in place.

IEPs are critically important for children with special needs. It's absolutely important that schools plan the supports a child is going to have based on that individual child and that they bring together the team which is going to be supporting that child to have that discussion. It's absolutely critical for those kids. We recognize how important IEPs are, and that's why we're enhancing our ability to monitor them.

K. Manhas: Have accountability frameworks for special needs been worked into the accountability contracts of any of the school districts? If not, is that a possibility, or could that happen?

Hon. C. Clark: This was our baseline year. We didn't get as much information into the accountability contracts as we certainly expect to next year — and to improve on that the year after and again the year after that. We had a fairly short time line to do it in, and it's something that's never been done before. We're starting with creating the infrastructure to implement them at the same time that we're trying to implement them.

Next year we are going to be focusing on ensuring that goals for special needs children's educational outcomes and goals for first nations students' outcomes are included in accountability contracts, because we recognize that's a priority. It will be much easier for us to do that next year now that we are building the ability to pull out the data specifically for those groups of children.

K. Manhas: I'd like to again change the line of questioning to parental involvement. I know many studies have shown that parental involvement in a child's education adds tremendous benefits to those children. My own parents were always very closely involved with my own education.

I fundamentally believe in the importance of a parent's involvement in their child's education. I know, too, from the minister's past comments that she believes in parents' rights to be involved and the importance of parents being involved in their child's education. Could the minister explain what specifically is being done to ensure that parents do have a greater say in their child's education?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, one of the first things this government did was bring in parent volunteer legislation. We are the first province in the country to enshrine in legislation a parent's right to volunteer. That's something I think we should all be particularly proud of. I think that sent a message to parents that they are an important part of the system, that we respect them and that we want to encourage them as much as possible to be involved in their children's education.

In addition to that, we have made huge strides toward making results public so that parents have as much information as possible about what's going on in

their individual child's school. Information is power. We recognize that, and that's why we want to get as much information to parents as possible.

We will be requiring that school districts report how they've deployed their resources, particularly with respect to special needs children but with respect to all children in their schools, and that they make those reports to parents, not just to the ministry or to the union.

In addition to that, we're doing the parent-student-staff survey, which is an important element in building our accountability contracts. Of course, we have the accountability contracts, which, again, will be public. That will be a measure that parents can use to hold school districts accountable come election time or during the process. I know there are many school boards who are actually involving parents in the process building up to the accountability contracts so that they can help decide what that accountability contract looks like before it goes to the public meeting, before it goes to the Ministry of Education.

We're consulting regularly with BCCPAC. I'm in very regular contact with their executive and, as much as possible, with their membership. I go and speak to their annual general meetings. I take questions from the crowd, which I understand is an innovation. Again, we are always looking for ways. This isn't the end of the list of the things we want to do to involve parents; it's the beginning.

K. Manhas: Many parents in my district have expressed concerns to me — increasingly so in the past little while — regarding accountability of teachers. The concern is that bad teachers are not disciplined and have little or no initiative to improve since they receive salary increases moving along the grid at the same rate and time as the good. Teachers are rewarded for time of stay not for what they contribute to education and the lives of the kids in it. The system does not mentor nor monitor teachers' performance. Likewise it does not reward or encourage great teachers for extra effort. Outstanding teachers cannot even be showcased.

I know from my own experience that the disparity in the system is enormous. A system of teacher performance measures would help that. Are there any specific measures that the minister could do to encourage excellence in teaching performance?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we are always looking at ways that we can encourage teaching excellence. That is the single most important element in our education system. It's second only to parents' involvement in determining the success of students in school. In fact, there have been recent studies that have concluded it's the quality of the teacher in a classroom that's more important than many, many other factors that we previously might have thought would have had a huge impact on a child's educational success.

We're always looking at ways to encourage teaching success. We are, as you know, committed to enhancing technology training for teachers, and we certainly do want to contribute to ensure that teachers are up to speed on the latest teaching techniques so that they're contributing as much as they possibly can.

There are many, many, many teachers — and I know the member will agree with me — who contribute an enormous amount in extracurricular time and in volunteer time for things for which they are not paid. I think many kids would tell you that the best thing about their school experience, the most learning that they did, was in the course of extracurricular activities. There are literally thousands and thousands of teachers who do that.

I think back to growing up. My father was a teacher. I can remember all the nights sitting around the dining room table with my dad when he would be marking tests, or all the nights when I'd be sitting around the dining room table without my dad, because he'd be out coaching basketball or taking kids on a field trip or doing whatever extra he thought was required to make those kids' school experience as good as it could be. There are thousands and thousands of teachers like that.

We are building accountabilities into the system that are new. I'm quite hopeful that the accountabilities we are building into the system will mean that everyone strives to work a little harder and that everyone is reaching a little bit further to improve student success in schools. That goes for teachers, that goes for principals, that goes for school trustees, that goes for school superintendents, and that goes for the ministry as well. I think the accountability contracts, the public reporting, the surveys and all those other measures that I talked about just a few minutes ago will contribute a great deal to ensuring that everybody in the system is accountable.

K. Manhas: I'd like to concur with the minister that there are some excellent teachers in our system. I know that some of the teachers in the Coquitlam school district, where I went to school, had a tremendous impact on my life. I still keep in touch with many of my teachers. I can't underscore the impact that they had on me.

I'm glad the minister made a point to mention that teachers and parents are probably two of the most important ingredients in the success of an education system. I'd like to mention how much work parents and parent associations do. I'd like to give the example of Castle Park Elementary in Port Coquitlam.

The school was actually built by the previous government with no budget for many items that we might think are absolutely necessary for a school. There was no playground equipment. It was built with no library books — no funding for any library books. I can't imagine going to school not having those facilities available to me when I was growing up and going to school. However, the school's PAC deserves a great deal of credit and accolades for the work that they've done on behalf of students there. They've, in the past, raised money for books in the library and, just this past Mon-

They will receive funding based on their student enrolment. I'd like to ask the minister: what is the current and forecasted enrolment for Castle Park Elementary School in south Port Coquitlam?

Hon. C. Clark: First, as the member knows, the government has exempted purchases by parent advisory councils from the PST, which is, I think, going to really positively impact parents like the parents at Castle Park. Castle Park Elementary was built for 80 kindergarten children and 350 grades 1 to 5. Enrolment at Castle Park Elementary now is 54 children in kindergarten and 243 in grades 1 to 5.

K. Manhas: I'd like to talk a little bit about capital projects now. When Westwood Plateau in Coquitlam was built, development was rolled out without any corresponding capital projects to accommodate students arising out of those developments. The result, as we know, was an explosion of students in the school district and an explosion of portables at schools and a scramble by the school district to accommodate those new students.

Housing development is continuing on the north side of Port Coquitlam. As we know, the planned development on Burke Mountain is a certain reality. Will future capital projects be planned and built in tandem with any new development, rather than proceeding when the kids are already there?

Hon. C. Clark: We fund and build schools for projected enrolment, not existing enrolment, so the ministry does do the best it can to make sure that the school is built before we see the whites of their eyes.

Coquitlam has a huge projected demand. They're projecting they will need six more sites. That's four elementary and two middle schools. It's $26 million for the sites alone in Coquitlam. We're encouraging the school district to enter into an agreement with the municipality as quickly as they possibly can to ensure that a third of the funding will be in place to fund those sites.

We passed legislation a couple of years ago. It's called the school site acquisition act, and that requires that local government contribute to the cost of acquiring school sites through the funds raised through the development.

K. Manhas: Two high schools in my own community of Port Coquitlam, Riverside on the south side and Terry Fox on the north side, were built with portables on their grounds at opening. Considering that these two schools are already beyond capacity — particularly Terry Fox, which is particularly affected by projected development — is there any plan to build capacity on the north side of Port Coquitlam or Burke Mountain?

Hon. C. Clark: The board has identified a need for a school in the northeast part of the Coquitlam–Burke Mountain area in year two of their capital plan. They have identified nothing for the northeast part of Coquitlam for this year.

K. Manhas: At the same time that certain areas in the Tri-Cities, like my community, are young and continuing to grow, there is certainly excess capacity and underused schools in other parts of the area. Is there any possibility to consolidate underused facilities in order that those funds may be reinvested in the education of our kids in the rest of the district?

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, that's a decision the board needs to make. The assets are there for them to manage, and they need to make those decisions.

K. Manhas: I'd just like to bring focus to a particular capital project in the district's five-year capital plan. There are three projects listed as priority 7, 8 and 9 in the district's five-year projected priorities for the five-year capital plan. Renovations to Minnekhada Middle School are listed as priorities 7, 8 and 9. The cost of these upgrades is $7.8 million. A new school would cost about $8 million to $9 million. A school replacement capital expenditure is funded and replaced at a cost of about 70 percent of that of a new school. That in consideration, the replacement of a deteriorating Minnekhada Middle School near me in Port Coquitlam comes to less than the cost of the improvements listed in the district's five-year capital plan and would be more cost-effective both now and in the long run.

Could the minister comment on this situation and if it would be possible to have the ministry look at a replacement of Minnekhada Middle School rather than the cost of renovations, mechanical upgrades and seismic upgrading of the same school?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that the school district — we've been encouraging them to consider this — has amended its capital plan so that it is now a replacement project worth $9.4 million. Of course, we'd want to do a feasibility study to ensure that indeed it will be cost-effective. Certainly, that will be the board's decision. If they'd like to submit that as a request, we'll consider that in the context of the other pressing needs across the province.

K. Manhas: I note that the construction of a brand-new middle school on the side of a hill in Heritage Mountain in Port Moody cost just over $9 million. I'm just wondering if the $9.4 million replacement cost is the full cost or the 70 percent replacement cost. The reason I'm asking is: will that be 70 percent of $9.4 million that will be the cost of replacing Minnekhada School?

Further to the construction of capital projects, as I understand it, when a new school is built, an architectural firm is hired to design each school. I've been approached by one of my local school trustees to find out if it would be possible for the ministry to consider buying and producing a book of designs that school districts could choose from, rather than paying architectural design fees for each new school in each school district. Could the minister comment on this? Is this something the ministry has looked at or would look at?

Hon. C. Clark: There have been a few districts across the province that have been using repeat designs. We've been doing that for a few years in the ministry. Coquitlam school district is a leader in choosing and using repeat designs. The member will recognize them from driving around his own community. Hampton Park, Blakeburn, Aspenwood, Castle Park in elementary schools, and of course Pinetree and Gleneagle are all good examples of that.

K. Manhas: I'd like to ask again if the ministry is considering or would consider producing a book within the ministry or buying a set of designs that school districts could share across the province.

Hon. C. Clark: The member raises an excellent point. I'm advised that at the moment there is a list out there — a compilation of different designs that different districts have used.

They're certainly all in contact with one another with respect to capital planning. Some districts can be hired out to manage capital projects in other districts. That happens a fair amount. Surrey, I think, is a leader in the province on that front with capital.

There is a list out there that exists. School districts are aware of it. They are in contact with one another to talk about it. Certainly, doing something centrally is something we could consider if school districts would find that helpful.

K. Manhas: My last question applies to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. School districts have told me that they spend considerable amounts of time and effort on requests filed under freedom-of-information guidelines. However, some of those requirements can be unreasonable.

School trustees have told me that the school districts want to answer the public's questions, but the guidelines for complying with the freedom-of-information guidelines are unreasonable and encumbering.

Hon. C. Clark: Our freedom-of-information office does what it can to support school districts in processing information in as timely a manner as possible. However, the big expense for the school districts is the fact that they have to comply with the act.

If the member would like to propose amendments to the act, I'm sure he could do that through the unparalleled access that this Premier has provided in this Legislature for private members to effect public policy processes through government caucus committees, the travelling legislative committees and, of course, the private members' involvement in committees of cabinet.

I'm sure that if that's a question the member would like to pursue, he will have ample and unprecedented opportunity to do so.

K. Manhas: I'd just like to thank the minister for her time. I'm going to finish there. I will refrain from other structural issues, perhaps, until next year following the report of the Select Standing Committee on Education.

J. Kwan: That was so much fun. You can come back tomorrow and ask some more questions to the member.

I'm going to resume my line of questions to the minister before I relinquish the floor to other members. If other members wish to ask the minister questions, please signal to me, and I'll once again relinquish the floor gladly.

My question is: what does the minister propose school districts do to compensate for shortfalls in funding that this formula creates?

J. Kwan: On the contrary, the funding does redistribute funds between districts according to the minister's own briefing document — the leaked cabinet decision document. One of the disadvantages on option 3, student-based allocation system, is that some school districts will be affected by redistribution, and the funding will decrease. There's an appendix attached to it that contains the detailed analysis around that, according to this leaked cabinet document. In fact, by the minister's own signed document, some school districts will face a shortfall. What is the minister's proposal for those schools that would be faced with shortfalls?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm sorry to say it, but the member is going to have to find a more reliable leak. The document she has is not accurate. The funding formula does not redistribute funding between the districts.

J. Kwan: The Vancouver school board released a 2002 budget update for the staff and parents that shows the Vancouver school board is set to receive less funding than in 2001-2002. How does the Minister of Education explain the fact that the Vancouver school board is receiving less money this year than last year when this government promised a freeze on the education budget?

Of course, I assume that if the funding is lower, it's because of the redistribution and the new funding formula.

Hon. C. Clark: Vancouver's enrolment is going to be up very, very marginally this year. The funding formula does not redistribute money between districts, as I said. We built in a buffer grant to ensure that didn't happen, so the effect of the funding formula between districts is nil unless it benefits them.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that no school district will see a reduction in their budget?

Hon. C. Clark: No. As has always been the case, many districts will see declining enrolment this year, and as has always been the case, declining enrolment and growing enrolment mean less money or more money.

J. Kwan: So the only factor impacting schools as a result of this new funding formula, if the budget is to decrease, would be declining enrolment.

Hon. C. Clark: No, as I've said before when we announced the funding formula, there's also a 1.3 percent decrease in the amount of money we distribute through the funding formula because of the increase in the amount of money we are carrying on behalf of school districts to support the cost of the classrooms we built.

J. Kwan: What other factors would cause a district to have a decreased amount allocated to them this year, the next year and the next? It's a three-year plan, actually.

J. Kwan: Can the minister explain how the funding formula works for growing districts — for example, a district like Surrey?

Hon. C. Clark: It works the same way it does for declining districts. A district gets $5,308 for every student, plus supplementary grants for the characteristics of the student population, plus geography, plus transportation and housing, plus money for a possible salary differential.

Hon. C. Clark: The buffer grant was built in to ensure that no district lost money as a result of the change in the funding formula.

J. Kwan: Does that apply for this year only, next year, the following year — how many years?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said, we will be consulting with school districts about how we intend to phase that out.

J. Kwan: Her service plan is actually a three-year plan, so will the buffer grant dollars be protected for three years, for two years? She has no idea? Under the current budget that she's looking at, given that the service plan is a three-year plan, surely the minister would have some idea.

Hon. C. Clark: If the member has a little closer look at the service plan, she'll see that the amount of money allocated for school districts is a block amount. It's in the neighbourhood of $3.7 billion or $3.8 billion — something in that neighbourhood. It's not broken down by district. That number isn't anticipated to change, unless it goes up. The buffer grant will be redistributed within that amount.

J. Kwan: Given that, it is a zero-sum gain over the next three years for the educational budget. The minister has said that the educational budget's not going to increase for the next three years. The funds are frozen. As she says, they're protected. The reality is that these funds are frozen. They're not going to go up.

With the new funding formula, she says, there's no redistribution of funding between the districts. She's implying that the district will always, on the basis of this funding formula, receive the same amount of money, unless it is hit with declining enrolment. As I understand it, the reality is: that is not the case. The different school districts would be faced with a decrease in funding.

How does the minister explain that? How does she square the circle, given that there are no additional moneys put into the system?

Hon. C. Clark: The buffer grant doesn't affect the amount of money available in total, so it won't change the service plan. The question that we'll be examining with school districts over the coming months is: how we will be distributing that money?

J. Kwan: At the end of that process, would some school districts be in a place where they would see a loss of the funding that they formerly would have been receiving?

Hon. C. Clark: I can't prejudge the outcome of the consultations that we'll have with school districts.

J. Kwan: The funding formula in the various school districts. Some of then are actually hit hard because of this funding formula change. Some of them have been on record to say that as a result of this change they are going to be faced with very difficult decisions in terms of cuts to educational programs.

One example. The minister says the funds are not redistributed, so maybe she can explain this situation. The southern B.C. school district is the biggest loser in Victoria's new education funding plan, and the board is reeling at the prospect of closing as many as ten schools. The Kootenay-Columbia school district faces a

4.9 percent budget cut or $1.8 million, the largest of any in the province. How does the minister explain that?

Hon. C. Clark: The reduction in Kootenay-Columbia, which is not nearly as big as the member has stated, is largely due to enrolment decline.

J. Kwan: I'm actually quoting from the Province on March 7. The article's headline is: "One District May Lose Ten Schools." The district secretary-treasurer, Kevin Cormack, states: "This isn't fair to our communities," and "I don't want to see all those schools close. The impact on the communities here is huge. These are a lot more than just schools." Then Cormack said the district has a declining enrolment and was working towards closing three or four schools but now has to consider closing as many as ten. Declining enrolment is one factor. Clearly, the district was looking at that, but now they're faced with potentially closing as many as ten schools. If the minister says the impact is not as great as that, what exactly are the impacts for this school district?

Hon. C. Clark: The ministry met with the school district today, as a matter of fact, and we're working with them to ensure that we all have a realistic set of numbers at our disposal and that we're all working with the same numbers. I'm quite confident the situation isn't nearly as bad as the district had originally concluded it was, and over the coming weeks and months we can certainly work through this with them.

J. Kwan: What is the impact? The district superintendent goes on to say: "We recognized the challenge of our declining enrolment and were prepared to make changes, but this is an untenable situation." This is from the district superintendent: "This is a region of small communities that have had their schools for decades. We are very concerned about the impact this will have on students, the staff and the communities. If it's as bad as it looks, I don't know what the solutions are." What is the impact, exactly, under this funding formula? Surely the minister knows how much money is being allocated to this district. Or does she not know?

Hon. C. Clark: Enrolment projections for Kootenay-Columbia suggest there will be 117 fewer students in '02-03 than there were in '01-02. That's the primary reason for a corresponding funding decrease of $972,354.

J. Kwan: On the basis of that figure and the declining enrolment of 117, what is the projection from the minister in terms of school closures?

Hon. C. Clark: That's a decision that school districts will make. There's a whole host of different decisions they can make to try and manage their cost pressures. I can't prejudge what those decisions will be.

J. Kwan: What options would the school district have to consider? Would it be cuts in educational programs? Reduced staff? What are the options that they can contemplate if they want to keep the schools open?

Hon. C. Clark: They can look for administrative savings. They can go to shared services, if they like, and try and find savings in there. Certainly they've talked about some of the other things they've been considering. There's a whole range of options out there for school districts to pursue, particularly now that we've given them the tools to be able to manage their own operations.

J. Kwan: Wouldn't the minister think that they would have already thought about that? Yet they came out on March 7 with the suggestions that given this new funding formula they would actually be faced with, potentially, the closure of ten schools.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not entirely comfortable with the numbers the member is quoting. Of course, newspapers are an easy way to get information; they're not always a reliable way to get information. I'm sure that I could dig up a few front pages, columns and articles of the Vancouver Province that the member might argue were entirely inaccurate.

J. Kwan: Irrespective, I don't think this was reported inaccurately because these are quotes from the various people in the districts, both from the school trustee as well as from the superintendent — two separate sources who are raising these concerns.

I'm asking the minister: does she have any inklings in terms of what the impacts would be as a result of this changed funding formula for the school district and other school districts as well? There are many other examples, I understand, that would be losers, if you will, under this funding formula. They will lose funding as a result of that.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is sadly misinformed. The school districts will not be losing money as a result of the funding formula changes. We've ensured that the funding formula impact is neutral.

J. Kwan: A variety of sources say differently, including the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier's leaked cabinet document, which she claims is not accurate but has her signature on it. It actually states that there is redistribution of the funds and that the funding decreases will take place among schools and school districts. What kind of analysis did the

minister do on the funding formula around the impacts of this new student-based allocation system?

Hon. C. Clark: We ran the formula, determined that the formula we settled on — which, as I've said, was one that minimized disparities between districts but also maximized the amount of money we would be providing on a per-student basis — would still result in some districts losing money as a result of the change in the formula. That's why we built in the formula buffer grant to make sure that no district lost money as a result of the change in the formula.

J. Kwan: So some school districts will lose money as a result. According to the minister, she isn't sure how long the buffer grants will be provided, so at the end of the day, some school districts will lose funding from the ministry as a result of this new funding formula.

I have a lot more questions around the funding formula and how it impacts each and every one of the districts in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Okay, I'd be happy to go. We have the report-out in the House at what time? I seek the advice from you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We could have one last question from the member, and then we should wrap it up.

J. Kwan: Okay, thank you very much, then. One last question for the minister before we wrap up. The document here ? the leaked document, the cabinet document that was signed by the minister ? breaks down the student-based allocation system in terms of how the funding works under this option. The funding is allocated as follows: 82 percent on the basis of student population; 8 percent on the basis of geographic district factors, teacher's salaries and enrolment decline; 10 percent on the basis of identified student needs. And then it references supplemental funding totalling 8 percent, which assists students in remote geographic regions, small communities and rural settings in gaining access to equitable levels of service.

The proposed funding formula also identifies funding of 10 percent for aboriginal education students, ESL students, adults and designated special needs students, and only aboriginal funding will be specifically earmarked. How did the ministry come up with all these percentage breakdowns?

Hon. C. Clark: Just to correct the member, as I mentioned earlier, the document that she has doesn't represent the decision that government actually made. So referencing the document has limited value, I think, in the context of this discussion, when we're talking about the decisions the government actually made versus the decisions that the member would like to think we made. We're trying to deal in the realm of reality here and not the realm of fantasy, so I think maybe I'll put that out front.

Second, as I've mentioned, the buffer grant will be phased out over a period of years or a period of time, I should say. I shouldn't prejudge whether that'll be years or not. We'll be discussing that with school districts. We will be sitting down and consulting with them about how we want to do that. The amounts we've assigned, for example, to ESL or aboriginal are amounts that reflect historically how much money we spent the previous year.

We went and looked ? for example, with English as a second language ? at the total amount we spent on average per student, and that was how we came up with $1,100. The amounts that you'll see in the funding formulas that are allocated for each of those different categories are comparable to the amounts that were available in previous years. As much as possible, we wanted to ensure that we supported the continuity of those programs over time. With that, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.