Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 3 -- Tuesday, March 12, 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

Reports from Committees		1787
	J. Les

Committee of Supply		1787
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Hon. G. Abbott J. MacPhail Hon. L. Stephens

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1801
	Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark K. Johnston L. Mayencourt J. Bray

J. Les: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the committee's terms of reference I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament, entitled Revitalizing the Provincial Approach to Treaty Negotiations: Recommendations for a Referendum on Negotiating Principles.

J. Les: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

J. Les: I move that the report be adopted. This report reflects the Aboriginal Affairs Committee's consideration of all matters and issues concerning questions which the government should submit to voters to implement the commitment to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum, while ensuring that constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title are respected.

The committee's report recommends a mail-in referendum ballot with a set of 16 enhanced and expanded principles for treaty negotiation. As well, it calls for a process of reconciliation and an expression of regret from the provincial government as a way to revitalize the treaty process and set a new vision and context for negotiations. The committee's public consultation process confirms British Columbians' support of the treaty process and their interest in playing a role in revitalizing it. The committee is confident that these principles will assist the province in achieving a strong and renewed mandate to advance the negotiation of fair and workable treaties.

I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the report, and I would like to thank all members of the committee for their input and dedication throughout the process.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be continuing debate on estimates for the Ministry of Education. If we finish that, we'll begin debate on estimates for the Ministry of Health Services. In this House I call Committee of Supply, and we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to present to this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for 2002-03. In particular, we'll be moving vote 19 and vote 20.

I would first like to introduce the senior ministry staff, who are part of our estimates team here today. On my immediate right is our deputy minister, Bob de Faye; on his right, Lori Wanamaker, who's the assistant deputy minister, corporate services, and assistant deputy minister, safety and standards; and on the left of the Minister of State for Women's Equality is Kaye Melliship, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Women's Equality and child care and of housing and building policy as well. Also with us — not all these officials are in the chamber at the present time but certainly will be playing a role at different points here, as we move through the estimates agenda — is David Richardson, the assistant deputy minister of community services and culture; Prad Khare, assistant deputy minister for aboriginal, multiculturalism and immigration programs; Dale Wall, who is the assistant deputy minister of local government and the community charter; Brian Dolsen, who is the assistant deputy minister for the Winter Olympics secretariat and the Vancouver agreement; Pauline Rafferty, who is the chief executive officer for the Royal B.C. Museum; Judy Brachman, who's the director of communications; Leta Hodge, who's the manager, executive operations, deputy minister's office. Monica Kendel from Women's Services is with us, as well, as part of the team. These are just a few of the skilled people who work with dedication and commitment in the service of the ministry and in the service of the people of British Columbia.

I'm also pleased to be working in partnership with two colleagues, the Hon. Lynn Stephens, Minister of State for Women's Equality; and the Hon. Ted Nebbeling, Minister of State for Community Charter and 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics bid.

The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is a large ministry with 30 responsi-

bilities and 30 agencies, boards and commissions. It is a ministry that has a mandate to, among other things, enable effective local government, aboriginal and women's services; foster safety and standards in the built environment; provide citizen access to government and support services for communities and first nations.

Although we face fiscal challenges, the government will protect local government grants to municipalities and regional districts. These payments are necessary for local governments to continue to deliver much-needed services to their communities. This commitment also means that public library grants will be fixed at their current level for the next three years. We are maintaining funding to the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program, which will invest a total of $800 million in local government infrastructure to March 2006. We are increasing funding in our 58 government agent offices across the province and working with strategic partnerships to enhance information access within those communities. As well, I am pleased to advise that the community charter is on track to complete a new legislative framework for local government.

We're taking other positive action as well. For example, we are focusing our housing resources on those most vulnerable, in partnership with the federal government, through the Canada-B.C. affordable housing program. Certainly, we are working with local governments, non-profits and, indeed, the private sector to develop partnerships that will ensure that the value of our resources are maximized. We're working towards eliminating barriers to private sector housing options, by working with groups across the non-profit and industry sectors.

My ministry, as well, will continue to support initiatives to stop violence against women and for counselling for children who witness abuse. We are continuing the ministry's aboriginal programs and services and, with the federal government, increasing program funding to help solve aboriginal urban challenges and to build capacity within their own communities. We're moving forward with our commitment to increasing funding to the First Citizens Fund and to the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. Finally, we have implemented the provincial nominee program, with 79 nominees to date, targeting key skill shortages in the province.

As I look ahead, I am confident that we can now take these positive steps to fulfil the mandate of this ministry, while holding the line on expenditures.

My ministry's many responsibilities mean that what we do really matters to people in their daily lives. For these reasons, we're determined to handle those responsibilities with care and consideration.

As we move forward to hearing the questions from both the opposition and government members in this chamber, I do want to thank the opposition for setting out the order in which they would like their questions to proceed during these estimates. It will certainly assist in making the most efficient use of staff time. I thank the member for that, and I do look forward to the questions from members of this House.

J. MacPhail: I was provoked to ask my first question by the minister's opening comments. He is responsible for three of the four groups of employees who are equity groups within the government service: aboriginal, multicultural and women. Could the minister please outline for me the percentages of employees who fall within those three equity categories throughout his ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have specific percentages with respect to those groups within the ministry.

J. MacPhail: Is it that they're not available or that they're not right here? If they're not here right now, we'll have plenty of time to get them. I would just appreciate them over the course of the estimates.

Hon. G. Abbott: The problem is that the information is not here. This ministry brought together all or portions of eight different ministries. While the material is available, we will get it to the member as soon as we can.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to proceed, but that will influence my discussions throughout the estimates, so the sooner I can get that, the better. I'll proceed with the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

I'm going to start with the most recent announcement that the government made in terms of the pay equity report. Just to put it in context, the Liberal government repealed private sector pay equity legislation last summer and then hired Nitya Iyer to recommend how to achieve pay equity without using legislative means. The report actually was released. The government has had it since February 28. The public saw it last Friday.

What plans does the government have to implement the recommendations? There are several recommendations, which the person inquiring into this made. Perhaps we could go through them recommendation by recommendation.

Hon. L. Stephens: The report's recommendations are substantial. They're very complex. It's detailed as well. The Attorney General and the rest of cabinet and government are going to take the time that we need to fully review the recommendations and their financial implications.

However, some of the highlights do speak to public education awareness and strategic partnerships with the private sector in achieving pay equity. The government is going to take the time to review those recommendations thoughtfully and thoroughly, and at that time there will be an announcement of what the course of action will be.

Hon. L. Stephens: This report is the Attorney General's, and the Attorney General would be the person to ask that question to. His estimates will be up shortly, I imagine, and you could do it at that time.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm in a quandary here. As you know, there are two opposition members. It may not be available to us to inquire of the Attorney General. This is clearly a matter that should be the responsibility of Women's Equality. If there's some guarantee that Liberal government members are going to be asking these questions of the Attorney General, so be it, but this is the appropriate place to ask these questions.

Somehow estimates is becoming such a joke that it relies on the opposition to ask questions, which is exactly what's happening, and we may not, due to scheduling of two Houses here, be available to ask these questions of the Attorney General. I don't know why it is that I can't get this information out of the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

It's called Working Through the Wage Gap. That means the wage gap between men and women. Shall I just put these questions on the record, and then we can recess and the minister can get the answers for me?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member should ask questions within the ambit of this ministry. It is pointless, regardless of the protestations around not being able to attend other estimates, that she should ask questions that are not within our ambit of authority. She should confine her questions to that area.

J. MacPhail: This report was done as part of a cabinet decision. Why is it that the minister isn't aware of how much the study on pay equity cost? Why is it that she's not aware of that? It was released ten days ago.

Hon. L. Stephens: The member opposite should be aware that the ministries responsible for various activities and reports have the technical information. I will simply reiterate to the member that this is not a Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services report. It is the report of the Attorney General. If she wishes to know the technical questions around that report, I again suggest that she speak to the Attorney General when his estimates are up.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm going to keep asking my questions, Mr. Chair, and if the minister has to stand up and take the Fifth, so be it. This is ridiculous. The Minister of State for Women's Equality is responsible for women's equality policy. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Stephens: That is correct. I will just reiterate to the member opposite that this particular report we are discussing was not paid through this ministry. It is the Attorney General's report. You can ask him how much it cost.

Hon. L. Stephens: In the development of policy relating to women, pay equity — equal pay for work of equal value, equal pay for equal work, and employment equity — is part of the overall policy development of the Ministry for Women's Equality.

J. MacPhail: Well, then I'm going to continue to ask questions about the pay equity report. That's exactly what I'm going to do. It's Women's Equality policy. This report deals exactly with the responsibility of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Did her ministry make a submission to the investigator? Perhaps the minister could advise me of the proper pronunciation of the woman's name.

Hon. L. Stephens: The member does have the proper pronunciation, and, yes, the ministry did make a submission.

Hon. L. Stephens: The conversation was between the task force and the previous Deputy Minister for Women's Equality. She provided information from the ministry, written information that was available, that had been done on numerous occasions in the area of policy development through the ministry.

J. MacPhail: Where can the public find the submission that the Minister of State for Women's Equality made to Ms. Iyer?

Hon. L. Stephens: I would be perfectly happy to make available to the member opposite the information that was provided.

J. MacPhail: Given that the minister of state is responsible for women's equality and that she has said pay equity is a factor leading to women's equality, what recommendations in this report does the minister personally consider the most important?

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, I think what we are discussing here is a report that government has not had an opportunity to review. We will continue to do so.

We all have the view that pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value, is a very thorny issue that we must all face, certainly in every workplace — some workplaces more than others. We are committed to reviewing this report thoroughly and thoughtfully and to developing a strategy from those deliberations. At

that time we will be able to make a public statement on the strategy and what further actions we will be taking.

J. MacPhail: So far I don't have any understanding or belief that the minister has even read the report, because I'm asking her personal views. They're personal within the context of her responsibilities — not her personal views when she goes back to her riding, but the minister's personal views as they relate to her responsibility at the cabinet table. Has the minister read the recommendations?

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes, I have read the recommendations. I would like to say that I think the task force was able to pinpoint a number of issues that are certainly of serious concern to this government and to women in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I just want to suggest to the public and perhaps to you, Mr. Chair, why I'm asking these questions of this minister.

Hon. L. Stephens: It absolutely does. It's a very strong branch. It is working very diligently on a number of initiatives. As a matter of fact, the policy branch is working on three interministry committees: one that deals with health care and women, one that deals with poverty and economic issues, and the other that deals with safety, security and justice issues for women. The policy branch is very active, and it is very much focused on some of those issues that we believe are pressing concerns to women in British Columbia today.

J. MacPhail: Here's what the webpage says for the minister's own responsibility. The women's policy branch "provides policy analysis and research support to government on issues that affect women. Priorities: economic, health and justice issues for women." It "participates in initiatives to support women's equality; works to integrate gender analysis in government legislation, policies and programs by providing information, advice and support to ministries."

Even if this isn't something that the minister wants to claim ownership of, the report Working Through the Wage Gap, it is her policy branch that is responsible for the analysis. It is her policy branch that is responsible for giving advice on how to integrate such matters into other areas of government. That's how I read it.

What are the plans? For instance, what is the ministry's plan to deal with recommendation 1, which is to undertake preliminary research to identify and prioritize four to five industries for industry case studies and to group industries for subsequent studies? It seems to me that that's exactly what the webpage refers to as the responsibility of the women's policy branch.

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, I will say to the member that we have had the report for a week. We are going to be reviewing the recommendations very carefully and very thoughtfully as government as a whole. We will be developing our strategy and our responses to the recommendations. At that time they will be made public, and the member will be able to review them as well.

J. MacPhail: Is that the answer to my question, or is that some script you're reading from? I asked the minister a very specific question. It says here that step 1 is to undertake preliminary research to identify and prioritize four to five industries for industry case studies. It seems to me that's what the women's policy branch is about. It says it participates in initiatives to support women's equality, works to integrate gender analysis by providing information and advice and support to ministries — on exactly this topic. If not this minister, then who will be doing that?

Hon. L. Stephens: I will reiterate to the member opposite that we've had this report for a week. It is the Attorney General's report. It is certainly an issue that is of primary concern to women. The government is carefully reviewing the report and the recommendations. When we have completed those deliberations and we have decided what our response and strategy will be, it will be made public. Again, the member will have an opportunity to comment at that time.

J. MacPhail: There's no question that achievement of pay equity is this minister's responsibility. There's no question about it — by her own website, by her own assignment of responsibilities and by her own discussion in the public purview. Now she sends mixed messages about how she's dealing with that responsibility, but in recent weeks she has admitted that there is much work to be done and that it is her ministry's responsibility.

Regardless, the minister can stand up and give the pat answer. Her senior minister can help her there. I will continue to ask my questions so the public can understand what, if any, support they have — particularly women — from this minister to move forward on this report. It's her responsibility.

The report states that it's necessary for government to provide staff and funds to increase awareness of the right to equal pay for equal work. How much staff and how much funding does this minister have to commit to that objective?

Hon. L. Stephens: We have had this report for one week. There are a number of recommendations in it that we are going to be considering very carefully. The issue of pay equity is one that encompasses the broad government social policy. We will be reviewing that report and its recommendations. Again, I will say to the member: when the decisions have been taken, they will be made public, and the member will have an opportunity to review those recommendations.

J. MacPhail: Equal pay for equal work has been the law for over two decades. It's not any revolution as a

result of this report. How much funding and staff are currently within the Ministry of State for Women's Equality to increase awareness of that right?

Hon. L. Stephens: That is part of the strategy that government will be developing in response to these recommendations. All of those details will be available at the time that strategy is made public.

J. MacPhail: My question was separate and apart from the report. Equal pay for equal work has been the law for over two decades — actually, more than two decades. It's separate and apart from the report. How much staff and funding has your government committed to make the public aware of equal pay for equal work?

Hon. L. Stephens: Section 12 of the Human Rights Code quite clearly states equal pay for equal work. Various mechanisms are available to individuals on a complaint basis. That is still there.

This whole issue of pay equity encompasses the Human Rights Code, various other pieces of legislation and certainly other ministries and policy development initiatives. Again I will say to the member opposite that the decisions we will be taking around pay equity, equal pay for equal work and employment equity will be in the government strategy that flows from this report we just received a week ago.

All of these questions she is asking are very valuable and very pertinent. However, at the moment, having only had this report for one week, government has not had the opportunity to review these recommendations carefully and thoughtfully and to develop a strategy with the resources that may go with it at this time. I can commit to the member that when this has happened and government does have a strategy, it will be public and certainly shared with members of the opposition.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually not working from the report right now. I'm working from the minister's own performance plan for the ministry for which she is responsible. They're the performance measures for the Ministry for Women's Equality.

Here's a performance measure: economic autonomy for all women. Under indicators: equal pay for work of equal value. We've moved on from equal pay for equal work. It's a broader concept. Measures: employers with formal plans for achieving goal of equal pay for work of equal value. Target, year 1 — which, according to the ministry's performance plan, has already been finished — which was '01-02: establish baseline number of employers with pay equity. That's where my question flows from.

It happens to be the same as what the pay equity investigator recommends. It's the minister's own performance plan measure. Don't even look at the report. Go to the website. Go to the minister's performance measures and check: "Establish baseline number of employers with pay equity." What has the minister done on that?

Hon. L. Stephens: The document to which the member refers is an old document from the previous administration. We have no such document. The only areas we are addressing are the service plans that have been on our website for quite some time, which lay out the initiatives of this government and of the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

In terms of what we are doing in our policy branch, we have nine individuals there. As part of the economic and poverty area they are responsible for, pay equity has certainly been identified as one of those items we are working on.

We are gathering information from other jurisdictions. We are looking at models. To move forward, we are developing a framework which will form a part of the government's overall goals and objectives dealing with pay equity.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. We just pulled this off the website today. It's the website of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We didn't have a ministry called that. These are the performance measures and targets of this ministry.

Hon. L. Stephens: I want to refer the member to the service plan of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services government priorities. I'd also like her to refer to better services for children, families and first nations. I would also refer her to goal No. 7, which is equitable opportunities for all British Columbians, where we talk about the provincial inventory of transition houses, where we talk about a safer strategy, a provincewide perspective and long-term strategies for safety of women in communities.

Goal No. 3 is also addressing systemic barriers affecting women. Those are the areas this ministry is going to be pursuing, pursuant to our agenda that we have laid out quite clearly in our service plan summary.

Perhaps the minister could address the performance plan that's on her website. I'm just wondering. A lot of the information I got is from the government's own sources, so I'm questioning the minister on her own sources. If somehow the minister is now saying that the public can't rely on the information they're putting forward on this issue, just stand up and tell me. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to question the minister on the information put out by her ministry.

Performance plan No. 2 says: "Economic autonomy for all women." The indicator will be employers working toward work-life balance and workplace equity. The measure will be the number of organizations and businesses receiving services through the centre for workplace excellence. Is that gone now — the centre for workplace excellence? Has that been cut?

Hon. L. Stephens: It appears the member opposite does have a webpage from the previous government. In fact, the centre for workplace excellence is no longer an entity, certainly not in this ministry or any other. Any references to that demonstrates that the member here does not have the current information. We will make an effort to find out just what is on the website presently. The staff doesn't seem to have an understanding of what is there. I am under the impression that our service plan summary is there. This is what we are working from.

J. MacPhail: This was pulled off the website on March 12, 2002. That's today.

The minister can't answer to the report that was made public. We can't rely on the minister's website for information about pay equity or what the goals are. The minister read out one or two lines from her service plan that have no detail attached to them. We can't find out what staff or funding this minister has committed to the objective of pay equity or economic equality.

Let me ask this. The Minister of State for Women's Equality exists. Will it have the responsibility for coordinating any pay equity initiative?

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, that is a decision that has not yet been taken. There are a number of ministries engaged in the conversation around what the strategy may be, but, again, that is another detail that has not been decided.

J. MacPhail: Well, then let's find out whether the minister should be the one coordinating this or not. On Friday, February 22, the minister stated that a single woman makes 96 cents for every dollar a man earns. Now, of course, I guess I shouldn't rely on the minister's own website. We're finding out that even though someone goes to it today, the minister says: "Oh, all of the cuts haven't actually been listed there yet." The minister's website says that women make 64.4 percent of what their male counterparts make.

Perhaps the minister would like to work through how she thinks it's logical for her to take one single statistic of a small group of women and somehow extrapolate that that's it for all women.

Let me just ask the next question. Does the knowledge of a larger gender wage gap change the minister's approach to addressing the issue of pay equity?

Hon. L. Stephens: The gender-based wage gap is a very complex one; it's not simple. There are no simple solutions. Various industries have various statistics. For women with different levels of education, the statistics are different. For women who want to work part-time, again the statistics are different.

What we need to do is look at the available information that we have. We need to look at the reports that have been provided, including the one that just came forward a week ago. We need to do a very careful analysis of what we can do to improve the wages for women in the workplace in British Columbia across all the industries.

We've had some suggestions. Recommendations have been put forward in this report that are very interesting. Again I'll say to the member that if you look at Statistics Canada and various other organizations….

Let me just share this with the member. When we look at the gains that women have made in the workplace over the last number of years, there are all kinds of statistics and information that support that.

I'll just read a little bit here from the Globe and Mail March 4 article by Bruce Little: "By last year [women] accounted for 46.2 percent of all job holders, up from just under 44 percent at the end of the 1980s."

He goes on to say that between 1996 and 2001, the economy created 1.6 million new jobs. Of those, men picked up 764,000, and the other 850,000 — 52.7 percent of the total — went to women, who made inroads in a wide range of occupations, not just the sales and service jobs that many women hold today, although they did take 62 percent of those jobs created.

Even in what is traditionally the male-dominated blue-collar world, women picked up almost 20 percent of the 287,000 new jobs in this traditionally male domain. "Last year, women held 15.3 percent of those jobs, up from 14.9 percent in 1996."

In the white-collar world, the same thing. Doctors, nurses, professors and teachers — women increased from 56 percent to 58 percent of the jobs that are held there.

Whenever we look at what gains are being made for women, they are quite substantial. We need to celebrate those gains. We certainly need to celebrate that women have fought for these jobs. They have gotten the education that they require to fulfil these jobs, and as such, they are making inroads into occupations that just a few short years ago were, for all intents and purposes, barred to women. In the science occupations, women are making inroads as engineers and architects. There's lots of good news, and I think those are the things we should celebrate.

Now, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a lot of work to do, and there are a lot of systemic barriers facing women in the workplace today. Wage inequities are one. Access to senior management positions is another one.

These are the issues that we are looking at in our policy branch to form the kinds of statistics that we need to move forward with a strategy that, as I've said before repeatedly, the government will be developing in terms of how we are going to move the issue of gender-based wage disparities forward for women in the province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I'm very happy to discuss the Bruce Little article. The member may not know it, but my background is in labour economics. I am very familiar with how the participation rate affects employment equity as well.

What Mr. Little addresses is the fact that, given a labour shortage — he doesn't actually address this, but the statistics make this point, and he doesn't follow through on this — the participation rate in our labour force has always been lower amongst women, as women move from unpaid work in the home to the paid workforce. Pretty much now, over the last two decades, the participation rate amongst men has been level at about 65 percent. Any expansion of the workforce comes from where there's underrepresentation in the participation rate. That's women. So, yes — absolutely — more women are working. There's no question about that, and that's all Bruce Little's report says. I read it with great interest to see whether he was coming to any conclusion other than that.

Yes, the participation rate amongst women in the workforce is almost the same as men now. Let's look at the wages behind that. In fact, we can take the perfect example of doctors. The minister brings up the issue of doctors. One of the reasons why the B.C. Medical Association is so furious at the way this government is articulating the raise that physicians got is because they're saying physicians got, on average, a $50,000-a-year increase. If you look behind those statistics, female physicians are not anywhere near that level of getting an increase.

Why is that? Because female physicians — and thank God, we've got female physicians at the rate we do today — are nowhere near the earning level of their male counterparts. Why? Yes, they're in the workforce, but they also bear the burden of child-rearing. They're paid on piecework, basically. I know that people don't like to describe fee-for-service as piecework, but it is piecework. Depending on how long you work, the more you get paid. That's how a physician is paid, and women have to go home and raise their kids when they're a physician.

Mr. Little is exactly right. There's a growing participation rate in the workforce from women, but they earn less. Physicians are a prime example, and that's why there are physicians out there today who are furious with the government trying to spin that, on average, physicians got a $50,000 increase. It doesn't take into account, at all, the gap between men and women.

I feel badly that the minister even raised that point. On March 25, 1992, here's what the current Minister of State for Women's Equality had to say about that very point: "Pay equity, access to day care and violence against women and children are problems for which society as a whole must bear responsibility."

Let me ask the minister now. It's true that it was a decade ago, but the minister is now in a position of responsibility to influence those three issues. With pay equity, I can't find one area in which the minister is taking responsibility for influencing it. Let's move on to day care. How does the government's child care policy reflect the societal responsibility that the minister said was society's responsibility as a whole a decade ago?

Hon. L. Stephens: The member raises some good points when she talks about the inequities between the pay that men and women receive, and she used the example of physicians. It's not just physicians; it's across the whole of the workplace, for the very reason that the member raised, which is that women do have the primary responsibility of raising families.

Again, you know, you look at Women in Canada 2000, a report by StatsCan, and it says that women and men both average 7.2 hours per day on paid and unpaid work, but women spend an average of 2.8 hours daily on paid work and 4.4 hours on unpaid work, while men spend 4.5 hours on paid work and 2.7 on unpaid work. It certainly makes the member's point and mine: that the fact that women do have more hours of unpaid work is a factor in the areas of remuneration for women. This is an area that the kinds of work we're doing in the policy department are going to be addressing.

Child care, as the member has raised, in my view, is an economic issue. It certainly is for families and for single moms. Access to quality, affordable child care is extremely important to the families in British Columbia. We've recognized that quite clearly.

Last fall I had the opportunity to do a tour of the province. I visited 12 communities, had a wonderful turnout from all of those communities. That was every region of the province. We mailed out 20,000 surveys to parents and child care providers around the province. We had over 4,000 responses, which was very good for the tight time line we had asked them to respond in.

They raised with us a number of issues that we're going to be addressing. We're going to try to make a new, much more streamlined child care system. We're going to try to make it as easy and simple as possible for parents and child care providers to access and to use. We're in the process of developing a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable child care grant program. One is an operating grant, and another is a capital grant. We're working very hard. We are, again, in the process of making sure that the plan we put forward is one that is going to serve the families in British Columbia well over the next number of years.

J. MacPhail: Well, the provision of child care is integral to the discussion around pay equity. The minister tried to skate around the issue that there was no, really…. I can't interpret it any other way than her targeting the fact that single men and single women with the same education level make almost the same money. Well, duh. Of course they would, because you've removed all of the factors that create the wage inequity in that examination. One of those factors is who looks after the children in society. The minister was deliberately, in my view, obfuscating when she focused on that one single statistic to try to get away from the fact that there's a wage gap.

Young men and women or single men and women who haven't had child care responsibilities and are educated equally make the same money. That's exactly right. I would also say that men and women who bear the responsibility for child care equitably probably are moving closer to making the same amount of money as

well. I bet you a physician who has responsibility for being home to look after his kids probably makes the same amount of money as a female physician who has to be at home looking after her kids. I don't understand, with the minister trying to obfuscate the issue of pay equity by articulating that one statistic, how she can possibly do her job at the cabinet table.

I don't know how they do their job, but I've got people sitting down there, in our research department, listening to the debate. What they do is look on the government's websites to see whether they can assist in this discussion. The minister's own website has been discredited in the first hour of debate, so let's go to the Premier's office. Here's the Premier's office. This was taken off February 5, 2002. Accountability statement for the Minister of State for Women's Equality. "I am the Minister of State for Women's Equality, and under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, I am accountable for achieving the following results for 2002-03: develop best-practices guide to assist ministries in ensuring that new policies and programs do not disadvantage women."

Now, the first policy and program that the minister should turn her mind to is her own child care policy. What is the minister doing to ensure that the child care policy that they're bringing in doesn't disadvantage women, as her accountability statement says?

Hon. L. Stephens: I'd like to address a couple of issues that the member raised. In terms of the dated document that the member referred to earlier, we do have on our website the current performance plan for the ministry. The document to which the member refers was retained for reference purposes on the website. However, it's clear now that just retaining it for reference purposes has caused some confusion, and so what the ministry will be doing is updating the website to make sure that others will not be as confused as the member opposite.

The second item I wanted to address was the member talking about the different factors that deal with the wage gap. I just want to read into the record information from Women Count 2000, which is a document that was prepared by the previous administration, by the previous Minister of Women's Equality. It talks about the impact of education on the wage gap. I just want to read what it says, because I think it will clarify quite succinctly what the member and I have both been talking about. I believe the member and I are both of the view that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and it is complex. There isn't a quick fix to this.

So as the members in this chamber can see and certainly the member opposite is aware, this is a serious issue, and it is a complex one. It's going to require a great deal of initiative and effort on the part of government, certainly, but also on the part of industry and on the part of women-serving organizations to address this very serious issue.

Now in terms of the child care. Again, I'll say to the member: child care for women in British Columbia is an economic issue, as it is for all women across Canada. There can be no denying that. We need to make sure that what we put in place is a child care system that will in fact support single moms and working families with quality, accessible and affordable child care. That is what we're working towards.

First of all, there are two new-era commitments that this government made. One was to target families who needed it the most, and the second was to encourage expansion of safe, affordable, quality child care. Those are the two principles that are guiding our decisions in formulating a new policy, and, again, when that policy is complete we will be making it public. We will be doing consultation with child care providers and parents alike. I am sure that at that time the members opposite would want to participate in that initiative as well.

J. MacPhail: I have a lot of questions on child care, the specifics of that. What I'm trying to deal with in child care right now is the provision of child care as eliminating the wage gap as it relates to the differing responsibilities for child rearing. That's what I'm focusing on in pay equity. There will be lots of questions on child care later.

The minister's report, which she read out, said…. I assume that by reading it out, she supports the direction the report was going in. The section she read out says that it is because women do different work than men — that can be the partial explanation — and that women's work is undervalued when you divide it into the traditional categories. What is the minister doing?

The report itself, even though the minister doesn't want to claim responsibility, says that the government has a responsibility to encourage women into traditionally male-dominated industries. The minister has had that information before her since 1997, so what is this ministry doing in terms of all of the changes in education that are occurring elsewhere in the govern-

ment? What is she doing at the cabinet table to advocate for women entering male-dominated industries?

Hon. L. Stephens: There are a number of initiatives that the women's policy branch is undertaking. In terms of the three separate areas that I talked of earlier, the economic and the poverty interministry committee…. They're looking at the traditional jobs that men have held. We're looking at dependent care, non-traditional occupations and non-standard benefits. As well, we are working with the federal-provincial-territorial working groups. British Columbia is leading these three initiatives. We are looking at a wide range of occupations that women need to have a little bit more support to access. Certainly, the non-traditional occupations are one of them.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister be a little more specific about "looking at"?

Here's my view of what's happened. The Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission had this as a specific mandate, and the HCL, Highway Constructors Ltd., Crown corporation had this as a specific mandate: moving the employment equity groups into non-traditional work. Both of those were eliminated by this government.

The apprenticeship program that was K-to-12 has now been eliminated. It's up to the various school boards, with huge pressures on funding, to decide whether they'll carry those on. I think I need a little more detail than "looking at." The government has eliminated the programs that were achieving that in a very concrete way. What have they replaced them with?

Hon. L. Stephens: The minister responsible for labour has been very diligent in working through the issues the member raises. There was evidence to the contrary of what the member has said.

The Minister of Human Resources has been working very hard to try to come up with various training programs to assist all members of society to participate. He has $300 million at his disposal to do that. He made an announcement yesterday dealing with opportunities for training. Where the government views the ability of all members of society to participate in various training programs and to access job opportunities wherever they may be, those are initiatives that will be developed as we move forward. The ministers responsible will be making those announcements as well.

J. MacPhail: I can read this into the record before I ask every question. It's the minister's accountability statement. I think this is upon which her salary rests.

She is to develop the best-practices guide to assist ministries in ensuring that new policies and programs do not disadvantage women. The government cut ITAC, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. They cut the Highway Constructors Ltd. model, which had a specific legislative mandate to encourage employment equity. I'm not sure what the minister was referring to — that there was evidence to the contrary. The evidence is quite clear that more women than ever, through the Highway Constructors Ltd. model, were employed in the non-traditional sector. The apprenticeship program for girls in K-to-12 is now up to the whim of the school boards.

How is it that the minister is fulfilling her accountability? What role is she playing in replacing ITAC or the apprenticeship program at the K-to-12 level?

Hon. L. Stephens: I'm sure the member is aware that this government is going to be doing things differently than the previous administration did. I've just outlined some of the initiatives that other ministers of government will be developing. The specific programs that the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Human Resources — or Children and Family Development, for that matter…. They are going to be looking at their various client groups and the programs that are going to be developed for them. What I am doing is looking at what the best practices are and providing that kind of information and support to the ministries as they go through the process of developing these new programs and practices.

J. MacPhail: As it relates to getting women — let's say girls in high school — into apprenticeship programs, what is the best practice that the minister is working on?

Hon. L. Stephens: The Minister of Education is very clearly the person that the member should talk to. What we have been doing is working closely to make sure that the kinds of programs that will benefit young girls, particularly in the education system…. We're certainly looking at initiatives in terms of eating disorders, for instance, and advising and supporting job fairs — supporting those kinds of initiatives that the school boards themselves bring forward and that the Ministry of Education encourages.

The changes to the education system will allow for the school boards to make more decisions along these lines if they choose to do so. My ministry will simply be advising the Minister of Education on what some of those programs and services should be.

A big role for this ministry is public education — an important part. The more we can talk about the issues around pay equity, the issues around opportunities for various non-traditional jobs for girls and the various opportunities for high school students, to make sure that they realize the opportunities they have in their senior years in K-to-12 and that they perhaps consider staying on the academic course, because that does increase their opportunities for further education…. It's in all of the ways of trying to encourage young people to make some choices in their lives that will be of benefit to them and trying to provide the information for them to do that.

J. MacPhail: Every single document I pick up here about what this minister's responsibility is does not permit her to refer these matters off to other ministers.

The minister is supposed to be an integral link — the women's equality link — and an integral advocate in all of the program changes that I'm discussing. Again, this is pretty much up to date. It's the appendix to the service plan of this ministry: "A government priority of greater equity and equality for B.C. is to ensure that the government programs address issues relating to women's economic and social equality."

Government programs. I asked the minister at the very beginning: what funding and staff does the minister have in place to support moving forward on pay equity? The minister stands up and says that education is the key. There's no question about it — her own words. I don't know why the minister doesn't actually take credit for this report. What she's standing up and saying is exactly what the pay equity report is saying. It says that the government has to use the educational system to teach people about employment equity.

What are the specifics? What funding and staff does the Minister of State for Women's Equality have assigned to carry out this obligation, this necessity?

Hon. L. Stephens: The women's policy branch has nine staff, as I mentioned before, and about $780,00 attached to it. As I know the member is aware, there are many issues that impact on women's lives. In fact, we are 52 percent of the population. Women are everywhere in every part of society. There are a great many issues out there.

We are going to be concentrating on three: women-centred health; safety and security, which is the violence against women initiatives; and the economic and poverty issues that we've talked about. What we will be doing and what we are doing…. I would like the member to perhaps keep in mind that we are a government of nine months. We just finalized our budget a month ago.

The initiatives that we are going to be working on I have outlined to the member. In many of those initiatives it is still too early to give the member a definitive answer on what some of the outcomes of these initiatives will be. In the fullness of time, when they are developed and we are ready to roll out the strategy, the public will be aware of what that is. The member opposite will be aware as well.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but even though the government is nine months old, it has taken a great deal of action that affects women already — cut the pay equity legislation. It's been a full year now that women, because of this government, have been without pay equity legislation.

The government cut the universal child care program. In estimates last year I asked this minister: "By January, will parents who have to rely on the previous government's child care program know how much they'll be paying for child care in this year?" They still don't know. It's a quarter of the way into their family budgeting year, and they still don't know how much they're going to be paying for child care come September.

The vote of the ministry operations — the estimates…. Let me just read what it is. I'm trying to pin down the minister to talk about her responsibility.

Under the estimates subvote it says: "Women's Services — provides for the review and research of issues affecting women; participation in federal/provincial discussions and initiatives related to women's equality goals; the review of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women; advice to ministries in their review and analysis of existing and proposed government policies…."

Let's just go with the first one: budget documents '02-03. What analysis has this minister done on the impact of this budget on women?

Hon. L. Stephens: I know the member opposite is familiar with the process of developing budgets for government. Ours was somewhat different. What we did was make sure the government caucus committees played a role in determining the budgets for ministries. We certainly had many conversations around what kind of budgeting would go forward for the various ministries. When the core services review was complete….

The Chair: Point of order. I believe there was a vote in Committee A, so this House will recess to the call of the Chair.

Hon. L. Stephens: Before, we thought we had to go to the little House to vote, but it turns out it was a false alarm.

I'm glad to be back and talking about issues that affect women. I was talking about the core services review that the government as a whole underwent to develop our budgets. It was a very good process; it was an excellent process. We were able to focus on the priorities of government.

One of the things we did was look at an overview of all the ministries and whether there would be groups that may be disadvantaged or disproportionately affected by the decisions government made. When we did this, it was clear that women and children were going to be bearing the brunt of a lot of these decisions. As a result, government made the decision to put $500 million back into the budgets, so $500 million was added back in.

What some of the ministries, particularly this ministry, are concerned about is how government decisions impact women. The member is quite correct that this is part of the responsibilities of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. What we've been doing is working very carefully and very collaboratively with

the Minister of Human Resources, the Attorney General, the Minister of Health — all of those areas in government that provide services which impact on women. We are determined to work with those ministries to mitigate, as much as possible, negative impacts on women and children.

I have to say, too, that this government had to make some very, very difficult choices. The reason we had to make those difficult choices, member, is because there isn't any money left. There isn't any money. Your government spent it all. What we're doing is refocusing the economy. We are making sure that we put in place those economic drivers to bring British Columbia back to the level of economic opportunity it used to be at. We used to be No. 1; we are now No. 10.

Our government is committed to turning that around. However, we are also concerned and committed to making sure that those people who rely on the social services of our province, those who are the most vulnerable, are protected. In my ministry the responsibilities I have in that regard are through the violence initiatives and through the child care initiatives. I want to tell the member that the funding for both of those areas is the same as last year. There have been no cuts to services. In fact, we've been able to increase the level of funding for the program areas of both child care and women's services. I've protected the funding for transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing, counselling for women and children who witness abuse, and the public education program.

I'm very proud of what we have been able to do in this ministry. I can tell you that in regard to some of the other issues that affect women across government, we are working very hard to mitigate those as well.

J. MacPhail: Just a note for the minister that the rhetorical rants of the Minister of Health Planning provoked a lot of telephone calls to our offices, and they weren't flattering to the Minister of Health Planning in terms of abdicating responsibility. I hope the minister isn't going to carry on with that and, when we're asking questions about what effects her government's budget cuts have on women, to somehow try to go somewhere else.

Let me ask some very specific things of the minister in carrying out her responsibility to provide analysis of how the budget affects women. Let me give the minister a list that I'd like her to respond to, for her analysis. That's her responsibility in the budget document.

Legal aid cuts, child care cuts, family maintenance enforcement program elimination, Pharmacare cuts to seniors — who are disproportionately women — and increase in the regressive taxes of PST and MSP.

Of the areas that the member has just touched on, the only direct responsibility that this minister has is child care. However, I do want to say that the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for the family maintenance, is working very hard to mitigate those areas that I spoke about earlier.

In terms of legal aid, I suspect that I will agree with the member opposite that legal aid is certainly a critical and important service generally for everyone in the province and for low-income people. It's particularly important for single moms who are looking at custody and access orders.

I can tell you that the minister responsible, who is the Attorney General, is going to be making sure that adult criminal and youth offender cases, mental health reviews, child protection cases and domestic violence restraining order cases will in fact have access to legal aid. In addition, funding will be provided at reduced levels for a public legal education and information program and family law legal aid.

Member, in regard to legal aid, British Columbia still has the third-highest per-capita funding for legal aid in the country.

J. MacPhail: I don't know whether the minister is aware of what it says in her estimates, in the subvote. I've read it out once now; I'll read it again. It's not under her purview to refer this matter, the question that I'm asking, to other ministers. Here it is. That is why the minister exists. Believe you me, there's much discussion among the public about the viability and the existence of this ministry of state. This is the time for the minister to prove the value of the ministry of state.

Here's what it says. The minister is responsible for "the review of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women." That's why I'm asking about these particular cuts.

Let's just explore legal aid. The minister was brave enough to get involved in that and actually admit that there have been changes. Poverty law coverage has been eliminated from legal aid. Is the minister aware of who's poor in this province?

Hon. L. Stephens: The issue of legal aid for poverty groups, particularly for single moms and women who are more disadvantaged than others, is one that this government has talked about and wrestled with for some time. In terms of what this minister has done, I've just told you that funding for domestic violence restraining orders is still going to be available — also child protection, mental health, public legal aid and family law legal aid. We still have the third-highest level of legal aid funding per capita in the country.

I acknowledge that there are many instances of people needing to access legal aid. That's true. What's we're trying to do is the best we can with the limited resources we have. The Attorney General has worked very, very hard and very diligently to try to make the kinds of decisions to provide as much support as he possibly can as we work through these very difficult times. I've said before that these are difficult times. All

If the member would like to have some more detailed information from the Attorney General on what exactly he is doing with legal aid and what he plans to do, please feel free to partake of his estimates.

J. MacPhail: Has the Minister of State for Women's Equality reached the conclusion after her review that women are not disproportionately disadvantaged by the legal aid cuts?

Hon. L. Stephens: I think I have acknowledged that in fact there are some difficult issues that women are going to have to work through in the province. I have not said that everything is rosy or wonderful, nor has any member of this government said that things are rosy and wonderful.

We've said quite clearly that we've had to make some very, very difficult choices and decisions. The fact is that there isn't a lot of money. What we did was look at the services that are provided. We looked at services provided across governments in Canada, and in many instances British Columbia enjoyed the richest programs in social services. What we've had to do is look at some of these and trim some of them back. Where we are looking to mitigate, we are doing that. As time goes on, I'm sure the member will see the evidence of that.

J. MacPhail: Yes, there were some tough choices to make. On June 5, 2001, this government gave the biggest tax break to the richest in the province. The wealthiest in the province are disproportionately men. The people who are now paying for that tax cut, which wasn't discussed during the election, are women. That's what I'm trying to get. That ain't rocket science. Pretty much every woman in the province has figured that out. I'm just trying to figure out whether the Minister of State for Women's Equality brought that to the attention of her colleagues, as is her responsibility. It turns out, she hasn't.

Let's look at the family maintenance enforcement program. Is the minister aware of who uses this program by gender?

Hon. L. Stephens: To the member: the tax cuts that we brought in benefited all British Columbians — all British Columbians, member. They were tax cuts targeted at those making under $60,000 a year. Those people now have the lowest tax bracket in Canada. They are people under $60,000 a year, not over. They are people who we believed, and we felt, deserved to have the kind of tax breaks we believe are in the best interests of all the workers in British Columbia.

The tax cuts were critical. I know the member opposite has difficulty understanding this, but tax cuts are critical in restoring confidence in the economy and in consumers. That was a critical factor in how we get the province moving again.

In terms of the actual numbers of the tax cut, even with the additional decisions that government has made, people today in British Columbia still enjoy a lower tax rate than they did with the previous government.

J. MacPhail: I don't know why the minister sets herself up like this to defend government policies that go directly against her responsibility. Is it that she's afraid of what's going to happen at the cabinet table? I don't know why she stands up with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services whispering in her ear: "Go get her on the tax cuts."

Here's what happened with the tax cuts. The disproportionate effect of the tax increases that this government brought in on February 19 virtually wipes out the tax cuts for people earning $60,000 or less. The combination of fee increases, tax increases and other off-loading more than wipes out the effect of the tax cut on those earning $60,000 or less. And guess who earns $60,000 or less, disproportionately: women.

I don't know why she lets people nudge her and say: "Go get 'em, minister." It's embarrassing that people don't understand what her job is at the cabinet table.

The tax increases were regressive, and the tax reductions were on a progressive tax income system and, therefore, disproportionately benefit the wealthy, who are men. The combination of regressive tax increases and disproportionate tax reductions on a progressive system mean women are disproportionately harmed.

I don't know why the minister is allowing herself to be used as a tool to argue anything else. It may be that it's time now for this minister to admit that there's no role at the cabinet table for a person who is to defend women's equality.

My question was specifically around the family maintenance enforcement program. Is the minister aware of who the clients are by gender for the family maintenance enforcement program?

Hon. L. Stephens: A couple of things. The member was talking about disproportionate tax penalties for women. We just went through earlier in our discussions this morning, Mr. Chair, where these women are working, how many of these women are working and the percentages of women working in these various industries.

Almost 50 percent of women are working in blue-collar jobs or white-collar jobs or management suites or professionals — science occupations, health field, education. Those individuals make pretty good money. Now, a large percentage of the working-women population is in those categories. They benefited from the tax cuts.

There are women who are making low incomes. Those are the women that we need to make sure have access to higher-paying jobs, have access to the training programs that the Minister of Human Resources is developing, have access to educational programs, post-secondary institutions — and that they stay in school

and get a grade 12 education. Those are the vulnerable people that we are interested in, and those are the people for whom we have been working hard to mitigate some of the effects of the decisions that government has made.

In terms of what we are doing, I think it's very clear that this ministry is working very hard across ministry, which is one of our mandates — the member realizes that, understands that, acknowledges that — and that in fact is what we are doing.

Hon. L. Stephens: The family maintenance enforcement program rests with the Attorney General and with the Minister of Human Resources. The Minister of Human Resources has made some changes. I suggest to the member that she speak to either of these two ministers on their program changes and what they are doing in their ministries.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could interpret for me what it means — and this is why taxpayers are paying for this ministry; that's the reason for the existence of this ministry — when it says that Women's Services is responsible for the review of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women. Is the minister aware that the family maintenance enforcement program, by vast majority, offers services to women?

Hon. L. Stephens: What the government has done is look at the majority of essential priority services to women. We have maintained those. That includes the child care programs. That includes the Stopping the Violence programs, which I mentioned earlier we are responsible for. We talk about the cumulative impact across the ministries. We are working to ensure that those priority essential services are maintained. The reason we are doing that, member, is to make sure we protect the vulnerable people in society. Again I will say that the minister is responsible, and MCFD, Health, Attorney General and Human Resources are working within their ministries to develop programs that will in fact benefit those on low incomes as much as possible.

Taking into consideration the fact that what we've had to do is get our house in order, get our spending in order, make sure we put in place the kind of programs and practices that will encourage economic development in this province so that all members of British Columbia can participate in the economy…. There is a statement that the Minister of Human Resources makes, which I quite like. He says that the best defence against low income is a good job. I would have to agree with him. We need to have as many people as we possibly can participating in the economic opportunities of this province, making sure that they are able to support themselves and their families in a way that enhances their quality of life. That's what this government is doing.

J. MacPhail: The family maintenance enforcement program is a program where women and men who are single moms and dads, but mostly single moms — disproportionately, over 90 percent are single moms — have assistance from the government to enforce child maintenance orders. Over 90 percent of the clients are women, and the government said: "If you're a single mom and you have to rely on social assistance, we're cutting any support that you may get from that program."

They were allowed to keep $100 a month out of the enforcement order. There was huge uptake in the 1990s for women to participate — and men. I don't want to in any way denigrate the role of single dads here, but the vast majority were women. They were going after deadbeat parents. In so doing, they registered, and they got to keep $100 per month. I'm going back in memory. It might have been per child, but I think it was just per mom. The government just cut that program.

Now single moms are $100 per month less well off, in addition to all of the other cuts that are being made to welfare. That affects women disproportionately. Did the minister bring that point, which is the reason she's being paid, to the attention of her cabinet colleagues?

Hon. L. Stephens: I would like to direct the member to the Minister of Human Resources. The Minister of Human Resources has provided me with some information. As the member knows, income assistance is a needs-tested, last-resort program. I think the member also knows that the exemption was introduced to encourage the pursuit of family maintenance through the Attorney General ministry. That is now mandatory, so the Ministry of Human Resources feels that the exemption is no longer necessary. For any further questions, what the member may do is speak to the Minister of Human Resources.

Now, in terms of whether or not this ministry supports this initiative, what we are supporting and what one of our primary mandates is — and I've repeated this to the member opposite…. Poverty and economic opportunities is one of the areas that we are working very hard on. That's one of the areas that we've been talking about this morning.

What we want to do is make sure that the economy is vibrant and growing — something that it has not done for the past ten years. We want to make sure that the tax regime is one that is welcoming not only to people to come to British Columbia to invest but also to the industries and the workers who are working in the province. That includes women. We want to make sure that the educational opportunities are there for people. We want to make sure that the training opportunities are there for people. That includes low-income women.

Member, we are working very hard to address these issues. They are serious, and they are important.

As I said earlier, we've had to make some difficult decisions. Ministers and the government overall are working very hard to address and mitigate some of the concerns that the member raises.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister come to the conclusion, in her review of the policy of eliminating the exemption from the family maintenance enforcement program, that it wouldn't harm women disproportionately?

Hon. L. Stephens: You know, as I've said repeatedly to the member opposite, the government is supporting the essential priority programs and services in a way that is cost-effective and sustainable. What we've found in our review is that many of the programs were simply not sustainable. As a matter of fact, there was an independent review that said that we have a $3.8 billion structural deficit.

We need to make sure that dollars are spent wisely on programs that will deliver the highest-priority services to those who need them. That is, in fact, what we are doing. We had to make those choices to ensure that those essential services are maintained.

The path that we were on was simply not sustainable. It would have meant that more and more people would have fallen off the economic ladder. We have taken steps to correct the path the previous administration was on. That was that member's government, as I said earlier, which was proven to have brought British Columbia from first place in Canada to the last place. We've taken steps to reverse that. At the same time, we have targeted our programs on the social side to address these issues in a way that is effective, efficient and sustainable for the people of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: This is the minister's opportunity, throughout these discussions today, to convince women that they're not disproportionately harmed by this budget. I'm making the case that they are. The minister is standing up and giving some…. Actually, I'm not sure what her reply is. I asked her a question: did she do her job like she's supposed to — that's what the minister gets paid for — and what conclusion did the minister come to? I didn't get an answer.

Let me just try to narrow it down a little bit more. The minister has said one of her areas that she's concentrating on is poverty. Let me just try to narrow it down a little bit more as it relates to the family maintenance enforcement program. The number of participants in the family maintenance program are disproportionately women. They are poor. The statistics all show that. They are now being forced…. Clearly, what the minister just articulated was that for the first time — I found out this information — it's mandatory for participation in the family maintenance enforcement program. That means a woman, regardless of whether her partner is abusive or violent or whatever, must pursue that deadbeat parent for enforcement.

Before, when the woman did that, she got to keep a portion of the child support payments. The government has eliminated that. It would seem to me it's pretty simple to make a case that when the government is reducing by $100 per month the support a person receives through the family maintenance enforcement program and those people are disproportionately women and disproportionately poor, it would be on the radar screen of the Minister of State for Women's Equality, given that she has said one of her priorities is the examination of poverty of women. That's the conclusion I would come to, yet the minister can't even answer me about whether or not she came to any conclusion about the elimination of the family maintenance enforcement program exemption.

The reason that I know all of this is because these proposals used to come forward from the bureaucracy to our government year after year. I first received this proposal when I was Minister of Social Services. Then I received it when I was Minister of Finance.

We duly considered it as a government. Do you know what we did? The Minister of Women's Equality would stand up and say that this disproportionately affects women. This disproportionately harms women. We would have a discussion. We didn't pay our caucus to examine government policy like this government does. We didn't pay our caucus. We saw it as part of our responsibility of representing all British Columbians. Our caucus would discuss this, and we would say: "No, we're not going to do this because it disproportionately harms women."

I'm wondering what information the Minister of State for Women's Equality has that's new and that got her to reach a different conclusion than previous governments that had the same cut put before them year after year.

Hon. L. Stephens: The member is correct. I know that in fact this proposal has come forward through the years. In the discussions we had around family maintenance exemptions and also earning exemptions, it was on why people shouldn't be allowed to keep more of their earnings and why we claw those earnings back. I must admit that I was one of those people who said that, no, we should have a step system in which people are allowed to earn X number of dollars, and as their income increases they're gradually weaned off social assistance. I was of that view.

Since that time we've had a number of discussions, and we've looked at various models in place around the country. Much to my chagrin, the evidence was that a model like that did not in fact move people into the workforce; it did not. The conclusion that our government came to was that we needed to put in place a range of new programs that in fact did move people to employment. The decision was taken that family maintenance is now mandatory. The exemption would no longer be needed. The Minister of Human Resources estimates that it will affect about 10,000 clients.

While we could not continue down the path of the previous government's initiatives, we are quite clearly aware that a lot of low-income people need to have the supports and resources to enter the workforce. The Minister of Human Resources is doing that. He is compiling a range of new programs to help people who are low income to make sure they have access to the economic opportunities of the province.

J. MacPhail: It'll be a fascinating discussion this afternoon to know how eliminating the exemption for the family maintenance enforcement program, combined with demanding that women go back into the workforce when their oldest child is three, leads to better job opportunities for women. That'll be the question that will start after question period, Mr. Chair.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and certainly ask leave to sit again.

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

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

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I was just looking at Hansard to see where we left off yesterday. Before I can pick that up, I'd like to actually go back to some of the questions I was asking around the funding formula.

Yesterday I asked the minister the question about the Vancouver school board, which released a budget document update for the staff and parents that shows the Vancouver school board is set to receive less funding than in 2001-02. To sort of set the background around that, the minister's explanation is that Vancouver's enrolment is going up marginally but the funding formula does not redistribute money between districts. She further said there was a buffer grant to ensure money would not be lost for the Vancouver school district. The effect of the funding formula between districts is nil unless it benefits them. That's what the minister said yesterday.

This morning information has come in that spells a different picture. First, a Vancouver Sun article this morning headlines: "Vancouver school board faces a $25 million deficit." It reads as follows:

It goes on to say: "As well, there will be $13.7 million in extra costs, many of them unexpected, and a structural deficit — of the board's own making — worth $4.4 million."

First I'd like to ask the minister: could she explain the $7.4 million shortfall?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said last night, the funding formula itself is not responsible for the redistribution of funds between districts. The Vancouver school district does not lose money as a result of the change in the funding formula.

K. Johnston: With regard, minister, to the same article and the Vancouver school board's situation, I wonder if I could ask a question. It refers to unexpected increases in the budget for the Vancouver school board. I was just wondering if you had an explanation on those particular unexpected increases. Apparently, the total's $13.7 million. I just was wondering how that came about.

Hon. C. Clark: Of the increases that boards will be facing, the principal increase will be funding years 2 and 3 of the teachers' contract — the 7.2 percent increase that teachers got. That is going to be the principal cost pressure that school districts face over the coming year. Certainly, that's going to be a challenge for them — there's no question about it — but I think

we've given them the tools to be able to manage that with Bill 28 and the new funding formula.

K. Johnston: I have another question with regard to the shortfalls. It talks about the MSP premiums. I think it's $1.1 million. The school board is uncertain of any type of funding allocation or support on that. I'd like to know if in fact those will be covered under this formula.

Hon. C. Clark: The ministry did receive an additional $18.25 million in the budget to support MSP payments, and as a result, the block grant we make to school boards went up. The announcement of the block we made on February 1 was $3.79 billion, largely as a result of the increase when we made the announcement to school districts of the allocation we would be disbursing. That had gone up to $3.809 billion. The money is in the grant, and the grant was correspondingly increased from our original announcement on February 1.

K. Johnston: I wonder if I might just address the issue — on this article as well — of arbitration costs of $800,000. I'm not fully cognizant of what that might be, and I wonder if I might get an explanation.

Hon. C. Clark: Arbitration costs are costs incurred by boards as a result of labour relations disputes they have. It's not something the ministry has ever funded or has ever been in control of, so that's certainly a local budget decision they make at Vancouver. It's something they control and that they fund entirely themselves.

K. Johnston: I just wanted to ask one further question. There's a $4.4 million structural deficit that's reported in this article, and it has to do with utilization of capital funds, I believe, from a prior year. Could I get clarification on that particular matter?

Hon. C. Clark: To be quite honest, I'm not clear on what the Vancouver school board is referring to when they talk about their structural deficit and the cause of the deficit. What we will attempt to do is contact the superintendent in Vancouver and the chair in Vancouver and talk to them about some of the details of their budget.

School districts, of course, manage their budgets internally. We're always aware of some of the larger issues with respect to their budgets, but specifics like that aren't something we always have a great deal of detail on, because they do manage their own budgets. I can certainly get back to the member about that. I'd be delighted to do that after we've had a chance to have a conversation with the Vancouver school board.

J. Kwan: Getting back to my earlier question, the funding loss the Vancouver school board is faced with is $7.4 million. Could the minister explain the discrepancy between her previous statements suggesting that the Vancouver school board is not receiving less money and their statement that they're receiving $7.4 million less? Where is the shortfall coming from?

Hon. C. Clark: I didn't say the Vancouver school district would be getting more money. What I did say was that the Vancouver school district is not being disadvantaged as a result of the change in the funding formula.

J. Kwan: I'd like to know this from the minister. They're losing money. They're not getting more money. They're losing $7.4 million. Could the minister explain the $7.4 million loss? Where is that coming from?

Hon. C. Clark: It's always difficult to interpret how school districts have come up with some of the numbers they've come up with. As I said, the funding formula itself is not responsible for any losses for school districts. School districts aren't getting any less money as a result of the change in the funding formula. I want to be clear about that.

Now, I think what the member is confused about is the difference between the funding formula and funding. The funding formula is a formula we use to calculate how much money school districts will get. That isn't the same thing as the amount of money school districts get. I think what the member is concerned about is not the funding formula itself. The funding formula does not disadvantage any district, and districts don't lose money as a result of the change in the funding formula.

However, many districts will see less money this year than they did last, many of them because they have declining enrolment. In addition to that, as I said last night, every district is going to receive a little bit less money because the amount of debt that we carry on their behalf to fund classrooms in their districts, in their schools, has increased. It's about 1.3 percent that is going to be carried across the board by districts. I think the member needs to be clear about differentiating between those two things.

J. Kwan: The minister said yesterday: "Vancouver's enrolment is predicted to decline, I believe." Then she said: "No, wait a minute. 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 that didn't happen, so the effect of the funding formula between districts is nil unless it benefits them." That's what the minister said yesterday around this issue.

I have with me today the 2002-03 budget summary document from the Vancouver school board relating to the '02-03 funding loss of $7.4 million. It says that the Vancouver school board's '02-03 provincial funding allocation has been decreased by $9.9 million, consisting of a $2.2 million loss of funding from provincial

funding allocation system — FAS — formula changes and the loss of one-time '01-02 provincial supplementary grants of approximately $7.4 million. Could the minister confirm whether or not this information is correct? Could the minister please explain the loss, as stated in this document, of $9.9 million, which nets to a total of a $7.4 million loss for Vancouver?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is incorrect when she suggests the Vancouver school district is going to be losing money as a result of the change in the funding formula. They are not.

The Vancouver school district is going to have less money, though, this year than last, principally because of the cost of the debt we carry on their behalf to fund classrooms in the district. Now, we could have decided, I suppose, not to build any classrooms at all and not to incur any debt. You can provide money for education, but if you don't have anywhere to teach those kids, if you don't have a roof to put over their heads, it's not going to do you a whole lot of good. You can pay for all the textbooks in the world, but if they're wet with rain, kids will have trouble discerning what's on the page. That is the principle reason the Vancouver school district has seen a decline.

L. Mayencourt: To the Minister of Education: I wonder if you could give us a bit of an understanding of the capital projects that have been approved for Vancouver school board for this calendar year.

Hon. C. Clark: We're preparing to make an announcement for 2002-03 in April, and I think I'll save the details of that announcement until we get to that date. If the member is interested in the information for 2002-03, I'd be delighted to give that to him.

Hon. C. Clark: Okay. It's $17.5 million. Now, these are the projects for 2002-03. There are other projects that are ongoing, like False Creek Elementary, which is in the member's riding. That's going ahead. That's from a couple of years ago.

In addition to the things I'm listing off here, there will be a whole ton of other ongoing projects that we're paying for and carrying on with that aren't on this list, because this is just the one year.

Lord Byng Secondary is getting a seismic upgrade. William Van Horne is a renovation that includes a seismic upgrade. There are upgrades going on at General Gordon Elementary, Grandview Heights Elementary, David Livingstone Elementary, Nootka Elementary, Grenfell Elementary, David Lloyd George Elementary, Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith, Sir Charles Tupper Secondary and General Gordon Elementary, which I think I mentioned. That's a different one. That's an accessibility upgrade. King George Secondary is getting an accessibility upgrade. University Hill Secondary is getting an accessibility upgrade.

That's about $17.5 million in Vancouver alone for 2001-02 alone. That doesn't include the 2002-03 announcement we'll be making in April, and it doesn't include all the other projects that are ongoing from years previous.

L. Mayencourt: Those projects that are ongoing right now are really important for people in my riding and for the people of Vancouver to understand, because that's the investment we're making right now in education in the city of Vancouver. I wonder if there is any possibility, if you have the information here, to expand on that. Those are important figures for my constituency and other constituencies in Vancouver to consider in light of this new story, I believe.

Hon. C. Clark: All right. I'd be delighted to give the list to the member. It's a long list, though. We've got Killarney Secondary, under construction. We've got Laura Secord Elementary, to increase the capacity; John Norquay Elementary, to increase the capacity; Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary, to increase the capacity; John Henderson Elementary, to increase the capacity; Collingwood Village elementary, a new school. We've got False Creek north elementary school, which is a new school. We've got Nootka Elementary, which is almost complete. That's to increase the capacity. At Eric Hamber a capacity increase is on the way. Point Grey…. We've got Lord Byng Secondary, to increase the capacity, as well, and we've got Hastings Community Elementary, increasing the capacity.

We're increasing the capacity of Renfrew Elementary. We have almost completed increasing the capacity at G.T. Cunningham Elementary. We are tendering the increase in capacity at Walter Moberly Annex, and we are working on the design for Walter Moberly Elementary to increase its capacity. We are increasing the capacity at Sir Sandford Fleming Elementary. We are, as I've said, increasing the capacity at Sir Wilfred Grenfell Elementary. We are increasing the capacity at David Oppenheimer Elementary. We are upgrading the facility, a seismic upgrade, at Lord Byng. We are in phase 1 of two renovations at Sir William Van Horne, as I mentioned.

There are all of those in addition to the ones we have put on hold temporarily as we review the capacity issues that we discussed about six months ago. We sat back, took a look at the projects in light of more recent demographic forecasts and are reconsidering the size of some of those projects. We've talked about some of those projects as well, but these are the things that are ongoing in Vancouver alone in terms of improving our capital.

L. Mayencourt: Could you combine that $17.5 million you mentioned earlier with the cost of those other items? What are we spending there?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll read out some numbers, with a caution. What I'd like to do is look back at the last five years and talk about what we've spent in each of those years. We can add them up. That will give us a pretty accurate picture of how much money is being spent on school facilities in the city of Vancouver. The caution I would add, though, is that some of the projects might have been completed or be substantially complete, or we may miss some projects that have taken a little longer than five years to complete. It's not a perfectly accurate picture, but it's pretty close.

For '01-02 it's $10.85 million; '00-01, $37.488 million; '99-2000, $33.1 million; '98-99, $12.1 million; and '97-98, $6.6 million. If you add all those up, you could have a pretty accurate picture of how much money we're spending on capital today in terms of projects in the city of Vancouver.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if we could go back just for a moment to an earlier statement the minister made regarding some of the net reduction to Vancouver school board that is as a result of the ministry asking them to contribute toward the capital financing costs of previous years. I wonder if the minister could tell me how much of that contribution is from the Vancouver school board for this year, and is it reflected in that $7.4 million referred to in the Vancouver Sun story?

Hon. C. Clark: On our behalf, the Ministry of Finance has for a few years managed the debt we manage for school districts, so today, regretfully, we are not able to break it down district by district. This is something I would like to be able to say: "City of Vancouver, here is how much debt we are carrying on your behalf." We aren't able to do that because the Ministry of Finance has taken over the management of it for the last few years. Of course, they don't necessarily have as much interest in doing that as we do at the Ministry of Education. That's a link we would like to make again, though, because I think it's important we do that. I think it's important that boards understand how much debt we are carrying on their behalf.

In general though, classroom space that has been built across the province has been distributed fairly equally. The debt we're carrying has been broken down by districts so that it's basically 1.3 percent across the board that everybody is carrying in addition. It's not a precise art. It's not as precise as we would like it to be, but it's as precise as we're able to make it at the moment.

J. Kwan: Getting back to the document I received from the school board regarding the funding loss the city of Vancouver is faced with, is the minister suggesting this document is inaccurate when they state that for '02-03 they are faced with a funding loss of $7.4 million? Let's just break it down step by step.

Hon. C. Clark: I haven't seen the document the member has in her possession. If she'd like to send it over, I'd be delighted to have a look at it. It's difficult for me to comment on a document I haven't seen.

What I can say is this: under the funding formula, the Vancouver school board gets a buffer grant of $2.491 million — almost $2.5 million. We have ensured through that buffer grant that the Vancouver school board does not lose money as a result of the change in the funding formula.

J. Kwan: The document actually says this: "For the '02-03 funding, they would be faced with a $7.4 million loss." I'll just read this information into the record, because it's not too much. I have to go through each of the questions on the document that I've received, anyway. It goes on to say that the Vancouver school board's '02-03 provincial funding allocation has been decreased by $9.9 million, consisting of a $2.5 million loss of funding from provincial funding allocation system — FAS — formula changes and the loss of one-time '01-02 provincial supplementary grants of approximately $7.4 million.

Then it goes on to say that the provincial government will provide an '02-03 formula buffer grant to cover the $2.5 million funding loss resulting from the funding formula changes. The Ministry of Education will receive the continuation of the formula buffer grant by the end of '02-03. Even with this buffer grant, the net '02-03 funding reduction is $7.4 million.

I'd like to have the minister explain the discrepancy. First, I'd like to have the minister confirm whether or not these numbers are correct.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd be delighted to have a discussion about the document once I can have a look at it. If the member would like to send it over so I can have a look at it, that would be very helpful. I can then make some accurate comment about the document. I don't know what assumptions they worked into the document. I don't know what they're assuming will be increases for textbooks in the document. I have no idea what assumptions they based it on, so until we see the document, it's very difficult for me to offer a comment on it.

J. Kwan: I'm just reading the document as it is written. This is a summary of the document as it is written, so there is nothing that the minister is missing, quite frankly, on this issue. I'll be happy to share this information with the minister when we've gone through these numbers.

I am interested in understanding from the minister the differences around these numbers. First, then, the allocation for the Vancouver school board. Did they not receive a reduction in the allocation of $9.9 million?

Hon. C. Clark: No, they did not. They had a buffer grant of $2.5 million, as I've said. They did not receive a reduction of the size the member has stated. Again, of course, it would be very helpful if she would let me have a look at the document. Then I could certainly help her work her way through it.

J. Kwan: As I said, I'm reading the document line by line to the minister, so surely she can compute the information that I'm telling her as it is in verbal form. The document says very clearly that the provincial funding allocation has been decreased by $9.9 million. Yes, it recognizes that there's $2.5 million worth of buffer grant and the net result of the funding reduction is $7.4 million. Then it highlights the two areas the $7.4 million loss was from, which I read into the record. It states in this document: "Two and a half million dollar loss of funding from provincial funding allocation system formula changes and loss of one-time '01-02 provincial supplementary grants of approximately $7.4 million. Those two things together add up to $9.9 million. Then minus the $2.5 million for the buffer grant, it nets a $7.4 million loss. Are these numbers correct or are they not correct?

Hon. C. Clark: From what I can gather in the absence of actually seeing the document, the numbers are not correct. It's very difficult, as I said, to go through this process of offering advice to the member about what's correct and what's not correct without actually being able to see the document. I'm tempted to get up and start asking her questions about the contents of the document, which I could do.

I could ask: what are their assumptions about salaries in there? What are their assumptions about the increased costs? What are they using for CPI? What assumptions are they using for CUPE increases? Are there CUPE increases? Which CUPE increases are they?

I could ask her all those kinds of things, and she could give me answers to those, although I'm not sure that's the purpose of estimates. It would be a whole heck of a lot easier if I was just able to see the document. Then perhaps I could help her with it.

J. Kwan: I don't know why it's so difficult for the minister. I'm asking her: did the Vancouver school board receive $7.4 million less than they did last year from the funding allocation? Let's start with that to see if the minister knows the answer.

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to that, for what I think may be the third time — perhaps the fourth time — is no.

J. Kwan: Well, then, maybe the minister can give the figure of what the Vancouver school board was allocated this year from the ministry for their budget versus what they got last year — the two figures, please.

Hon. C. Clark: Last year they got $363.43 million. This year they've been allocated $367.17 million.

J. Kwan: The minister, then, is saying that what was reported in the Vancouver Sun was also incorrect in terms of the funding formula and in terms of the impact for the Vancouver school board, which is $7.4 million less from the province in the total operating budget of $364 million.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the statement that the new formula will result in $7.4 million less is incorrect. The new formula is not responsible for any reductions in any school district's budget.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on saying that it's not the funding formula, and she keeps on implying that it's not the funding formula that's caused the reduction in educational funding for various districts in British Columbia. She implies that the reason is primarily enrolment. That's the driving factor behind it. Yet the information that's been received around the funding formula and the funding that the Vancouver school board has received is of a reduction of $7.4 million. Is she saying, then, that the school board trustee Barbara Buchanan, who stated that they're faced with a shortfall of $7.4 million as a result of the funding from the province, is incorrect?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, again, it's difficult for me to comment on the Vancouver school board's projected budget when I haven't seen it. Certainly, we will be working with the Vancouver school board very closely to work through their budget process with them. They have some excellent staff and some excellent board members who are all working very hard on behalf of kids in Vancouver, and I know they certainly have their best interests at heart, as do we. We intend to work very closely with them, and I'm sure that when I meet with them, they'll at least show me the budget they've worked up.

K. Johnston: I just wondered if I might be able to get some information relative to the Vancouver school district with regard to enrolment. It's my understanding that a lot of the basis of funding under the formula is enrolment, so I wonder if I might get some numbers on enrolment last year to this year in terms of the assumptions on that.

Hon. C. Clark: The enrolment in '01-02 in Vancouver was 56,752.76. You get the points because we calculate this based on the number of courses students take, so it doesn't always end up to be a full number. Then in '02-03 we project that it will be 56,931.89. That's a 0.3 percent increase. As I've said a couple of times, the factors that play into whether a district will get a little less money are enrolment plus, principally, the increased costs that the ministry is carrying on behalf of districts for capital.

K. Johnston: Under this formula, it's my understanding that there's an allocation of a per-pupil rate, if I may, in terms of what's paid. I just wondered if I could get the numbers for this year versus the rate last year in terms of whether that's changed at all.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can provide these numbers to this committee. The budget that the Vancouver school board receives, which she says is $367.17 million…. Can she break down that $367.17?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, I can. The base per-pupil allocation in Vancouver is $302,194,451. There's $5,250 for home schoolers, $17,997,650 for ESL, $1,931,350 for aboriginal, $18,151,500 for special needs, $7,435,649 for adult ed, $12,018,955 for the salary differential, $2,537,024 for transport and $2,491,703 for the formula buffer grant.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I missed some of the numbers. I wonder if the minister can go through the list once again so that I can actually record it as we go through.

Hon. C. Clark: The per-pupil allocation is $302,194,451. The per–home schooler is $5,250. ESL education is $17,997,650; aboriginal, $1,931,350; special needs, $18,151,500; adult ed, $7,435,649; salary differential, $12,018,955; transport, $2,537,024; and formula buffer grant, $2,491,703.

I'm sure the member can review Hansard if she wants to have any further clarification of those numbers.

J. Kwan: Can the minister provide the same breakdown for Vancouver from last year's budget?

Hon. C. Clark: The way we calculated the formula was different last year. For example, the way we calculated the base per-pupil allocation was different. The way we calculated unique geographic factors was different. The way we calculated a whole host of these different things was different, and there wasn't a buffer grant. You really can't compare.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can just provide the information — just what the numbers were attached to each of the categories with the total budget for the Vancouver school board.

J. Kwan: I'm not asking the minister to make that comparison for us. I simply want to have the information.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd be delighted to send the member last year's final composite for the Vancouver school board.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister to ask her staff if they have the numbers. I'd like to actually see these numbers as we proceed or before the estimates process is over. I like to look at those numbers and draw my own conclusions.

Hon. C. Clark: We're examining the '02-03 budgets here. That's the information we have on hand that we're prepared to debate. As I said, I'd be delighted to send the budget for last year to the member, if she'd like. We're not here to discuss that today.

J. Kwan: We are trying to determine the net effect of this year's budget on the students of British Columbia in order to draw some analysis around that. One would have thought it would be useful to look at previous numbers. Surely the ministry, in drafting up these new numbers for this year's budget, would have utilized that information, and surely the minister would be able to share that information with us here in this House before the estimates process is over.

Hon. C. Clark: The issue the member would perhaps be most interested in is the total amount of money the school district is getting. If we believe school districts should have the right to make decisions about how they want to structure their programs, it's the total amount of money they get that's the relevant question here.

As I said before, the budget for last year was $363.43 million; the budget for this year is $367.17 million. The reason that seems to have gone up, even though I have said previously that Vancouver will see a slight decrease, is because the money they have had so far does not include the cheque they are about to get for the salary increases. When you add those two together, the '01-02 amount will become $370.5 million.

J. Kwan: It's interesting, because numbers could be interpreted differently. Obviously, as we're going through the estimates process slowly but surely, we'll try and get at the heart of why these numbers differ and what they actually mean for the students in the classrooms and for the educational system of British Columbia.

In terms of last year's numbers, it isn't just the global number I'm interested in. As you break down the global number and how those dollars are applied and in what areas, it means different things for the students in the classrooms. I am interested in getting last year's numbers, because it is a comparison — not a comparison to the minister's words but rather a comparison to be drawn by someone else. At least have that information available so that people can look at it and draw their own conclusions. What we have learned from this Liberal government is that you've got to read between the lines, because when they say they've protected education, it means freezing the Education budget for three years.

We're hearing this now from school boards everywhere. It's popping up, as they're working through the budget numbers, that it would yield a reduction in education programs. It states that in the minister's own leaked document, so the minister wouldn't have to

make those reductions herself. We have to read between the lines very, very hard in order to find out what is really going on from this government in all areas. That includes education, even though they get up and say they've protected education when the reality speaks opposite.

I know the minister has great faith in the school trustees and their decision-making, but in the Vancouver Sun article today, separate from what I read out earlier, it goes on to quote Allen Blakey, a school trustee. "'The government's action is sleazy and lacks integrity…. For a government that said they were protecting education, I think they're giving continued evidence that their integrity is about that of a loan shark,' he added, calling for a full-scale campaign to call attention to the plight of the public school system."

The other person who's spoken on this issue is the head of the Vancouver secondary school principals association, Andy Krawczyk. He "told the meeting that a deficit of $25.5 million will 'truly threaten' service delivery as it now exists and suggested it may be part of the Liberal effort to drive students out of the public school system and into the private ones."

Anyway, I can go on with this, but first, I want to get confirmation from the minister that she will be providing to this House, prior to when the estimates process is over, last year's budget breakdown and the breakdown of the budget in the areas of how much is allocated for what in the different categories. Will she be able to confirm that?

Hon. C. Clark: I've already told the member I'd be delighted to send the information over to her when we have it. Again, though, I'm anxious to get on with discussing the '02-03 budget estimates, which is this year's budget.

I think school districts will be excited about the fact that they are able to have more freedom to allocate their budgets internally. For many years, that's something they have asked for, not just of this government but of the previous government. We are certainly granting them that responsibility. We recognize that they are locally elected people. We trust that they are capable of making decisions just as well, if not better, than the provincial government. They know the students in their communities, and they can design programs that meet the needs of those students better than we can.

J. Kwan: I know that the minister is perhaps reluctant to provide a breakdown of the categories of last year's budget on education for the Vancouver school board. Actually, it's not just for the Vancouver school. We need to make those comparisons for every one of the boards.

As I mentioned, we've got to read between the lines with this minister and with this government to try and figure out what really is going on, because at the end of the day, when they say they're protecting you and prioritizing you first, it means a reduction in programs and services for you. That's what the net result is.

I don't know why the minister is not committing to providing the information before the estimates process is over. I think it is relevant to the estimates process we're dealing with today. It's to compare the notion that the minister claims they have protected education in this year's budget, and in order to make the comparison and to know the information, we need to have last year's information. Surely, I hope the minister would be prepared to provide the information to this House before the estimates process is over.

The other question I have for the minister is around the MSP premiums. I'm going to go back to the numbers a little bit later on, but I want to ask the minister about the MSP premiums. Don Goodridge, the superintendent of the Vancouver school area, is very concerned about the increase in MSP premiums. Will this increase be funded by the government?

Hon. C. Clark: This increase has been funded by the government. The block, as I said about half an hour ago, was $3.79 billion on February 1 when we announced it, and it is now $3.808 billion.

J. Kwan: So the increase in MSP employee premiums will be covered. It's funded by this government in addition to…. I have to clarify this as well. When this government says they're funding things, we really have to break it down because of what this government often does — like the inner-city school funding. We learned through question period in the House that on the social equity envelope, the government's saying they're funding the school meals program, the counsellor program, the inner-city school funding and the community school, but what they've done is to actually cut the money by $5.4 million. All four things are to be funded. They're saying they're funding it. However, the dollars are not coming with the program.

I want to be very clear on this question. For the increase on the MSP premiums, is the government providing additional dollars for the increased premiums?

Hon. C. Clark: I said the block grant went up. The member can look at the budget estimates. The money is there: $19 million. Three quarters of a million dollars of that will be going into independent schools, and $18.25 million will be going into public schools.

J. Kwan: The budget that's been given is a block number. It doesn't break it down by school district. I'm asking a very simple question of the minister. Just a yes or no answer would suffice. Is the government providing additional dollars to school districts to fund the increased MSP premiums? Yes or no?

Hon. C. Clark: I can walk the member through this again if she likes. We made an announcement on February 1 that was $3.79 billion. We said that was going to be the allocation for school districts. The budget came out on February 19. It added $19 million to our budget. As a result, the allocation we have made to school districts has gone up. It is now $3.808 billion.

Lots of parents in my riding have been looking at the ministry's service plans with great interest. I have some questions with respect to some of the ministry goals that have been outlined in the service plan. I'm hoping the minister can provide myself and my community some more information on some of those goals laid out in the service plan.

First, I want to commend the minister and her staff for doing an excellent service plan and providing a lot of information that communities haven't had before with respect to major issues like public education. It gives a great framework for parents to start to look more closely at public education.

In goal No. 1, there are some basic strategies around improved student achievement. I note, for instance, establishing some standards, collecting information, monitoring performance, identifying and reporting areas of low performance and undertaking initiatives intended to improve performance. On the performance measures, which is really what parents and educators are going to look at, could the minister provide me just some brief explanation on what is meant by "percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations on foundation skills assessment"?

Hon. C. Clark: We established the goals for school districts for FSA based on the baseline for their previous year. Each district will be working to get better, as opposed to taking a provincewide average for FSA results — for example, in numeracy — and then applying that across the province. There may be some districts who are doing exceedingly well at numeracy, and we'd actually be setting a goal that would be lower for them. For some that are not doing as well, we'd like to set a bar that's reachable for them in a short term. We do it district by district. We look at their specific results, use that as the baseline, and then we say: "How are we going to improve on those results next year?"

J. Bray: Also under the same goal there is a comment about measuring grades 8 to 9 transition rates. I'm just wondering if the minister can provide a bit more information on what that actually is measuring with respect to students. One of the reasons is that we are going to a middle school reconfiguration, and I think that's an important figure for parents in our community.

Hon. C. Clark: The reason we look at grades 8 to 9 transition is because that's a transition where we see a lot of loss from the school system. A lot of kids leave between grades 8 and 9.

As I've said before in the estimates, we have the real good fortune of having a personal education number system where every student has a number assigned to them. We are able to trace a student's progress through the education system if we choose to. We've had that ability for a long time, but we've never used it. Now we're deciding to start to use the data.

Where we see districts losing a lot of kids between grades 8 and 9, we want to start coming forward with some solutions about how we can improve their rates. We also want to be able to look at districts that are doing very, very well; learn from their success; determine what's made them successful; and then, perhaps, apply some of those lessons in districts where they're not having as much success.

As I move along in the service plan, under major projects the very first major project listed is the information systems plan implementation that I note was started in January of the previous year. It deals a lot with improving access to information for ministry staff and education partners and improves software applications. Is this project, then, meant to support the ability of the ministry, school districts and educators to measure that performance in an accurate and timely way so that communities are able to really ensure the service plan targets are being met and that the ministry is working in a coordinated fashion along that line?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is very close. That's what we're trying to do. We are trying to build a system where we can pull out specific information from all the data we collect and start being able to use it to identify problems and apply solutions at the ground level in a very timely manner. Obviously, the key to this is timing, because a child only gets one crack at every grade they do, hopefully — right? A child only gets one crack at grade 8. If we start seeing problems in a specific school or in a specific district in a certain grade, we want to be able to assist them in first identifying that there are problems and then in helping them identify solutions to those problems as quickly as we possibly can. That's the infrastructure we're trying to build in the department.

J. Bray: As mentioned earlier in estimates, it seems to me that there is a lot of information often collected around the province that has not previously been used in a way that monitors performance — literally down to the classroom level, not just district or provincial — that would actually allow principals, teachers and counsellors to identify problems literally down to the classroom level. It's my understanding that this provides the ability for all the education partners to be involved in improving performance down at the classroom level. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: That is exactly what we're trying to do. It's very nice to be able to pull out a big statistic and say: "Boy, we have a 75 percent graduation rate. That's not very good." But until you take that information and start drilling down and applying it to the classroom level with the individual students, teachers and administrators in those schools, you're not going to be able to do very much to turn it around.

That is precisely what we're trying to achieve. We want to be able to make that information public so that every partner who has an interest in what's going on in very specific classrooms with very specific children can take that information and use it to try to improve performance in schools. The ministry and school districts can do the same thing, because as I said, it's not nearly as useful to have the big numbers as it is to understand how they apply directly at the classroom level.

This whole change in the ministry is about refocusing the education system on the achievement of individual students. That means one by one, student by student, making sure we do everything we can to improve every single individual's improvement every single year. Now, that's a lofty goal and a difficult, difficult one to reach, but if we don't set our goals high, we will never, ever do anything great with our education system.

J. Kwan: Before I proceed, I've noticed that we actually don't have quorum in this House, so I'm calling quorum.

J. Kwan: Getting back to the Vancouver school district's funding, the numbers in the Vancouver Sun and in the document I received actually match. The Liberal government has said over and over and pledged that the funding to the education system has been protected. The minister said this many times yesterday and today. The numbers are clear, of course. The ministry has frozen the budget. However, the minister is calling it protected. Those are perhaps not the most important numbers that we need to look at. Could the minister articulate the value of the increased demands on the districts based on various government decisions? Let's start with the Vancouver school board.

Hon. C. Clark: We're predicting for Vancouver a very, very slightly increasing enrolment. It's always dangerous to try and predict the increased demands in terms of special ed and aboriginal, but we do go in and have a look in September and see if the projected enrolment that we've predicted is the same as the enrolment that's actually turned up. We have built in a $20 million contingency fund to make sure we're able to fund any increases in those areas if there are any potential differences.

J. Kwan: How much money does the board have to pay for the teachers' salary increase that the minister has legislated?

Hon. C. Clark: It will be 2½ percent of their teacher costs. I don't employ the teachers, so it's impossible for me to predict how many teachers the Vancouver school board intends to employ next year.

J. Kwan: Surely the minister has some sort of ballpark number in formulating the budget in terms of what each school district gets? Maybe those are not exact numbers. The minister may not have the exact number, but surely she has a ballpark figure in terms of the salary increases for the Vancouver school district?

Hon. C. Clark: The members says she has the Vancouver school district's projected budget there. I'm sure she may have an idea, based on that, of the number of teachers they intend to employ. I would imagine that it's 2½ percent of that cost.

J. Kwan: It's astounding. Does the minister mean to tell me that she doesn't know, that she has no idea? She's given all school districts a budget based on what they anticipate it to be, and she has no idea whatsoever what the increment for teachers' salaries is for all of the districts, starting with Vancouver? She has no idea?

Hon. C. Clark: I couldn't give the member an exact number because I don't know, as I said, how many

teachers the school district is planning to employ next year. That'll be a decision that they make.

J. Kwan: That's astounding indeed. I don't know how the Minister of Education can come up with a budget and within that budget claim that she's protecting education, claim that programs for students would actually be protected, when she doesn't know what the added pressures caused by the government's action are on the various school districts, including the increments and increases for teachers' salaries. You mean to tell me she has no idea? If she has no idea, quite frankly, it's irresponsible of the minister. It's irresponsible of the minister not to have some projections of what those numbers are.

I ask the minister once again: does she have no idea, and does she have no projections within the ministry's work, on the costs to the Vancouver school board of salary increases for teachers?

Hon. C. Clark: I would very much like to be able to be precise with the member. It's impossible to do that in the absence of any information from the Vancouver school board about how many people they intend to employ.

I should remind the member that it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Education to hire teachers. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Education to do local budgeting. It is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to make those decisions. Those are decisions that rest with school districts. The school districts are legally empowered to make those decisions. They are elected locally to make those decisions.

If she has a budget document there from the city of Vancouver that perhaps — I haven't seen it — may project the number of teachers they have and the total costs they're projecting for that next year, she may want to take 2½ percent of that and do the math.

J. Kwan: All the minister has to do is actually look in the Vancouver Sun, which says today that the teachers' salary hike is an $8 million increase pressure for the….

J. Kwan: The minister thinks it's kind of funny, you know. She's going: "Like, why are you asking me? I don't know. I don't care about these numbers. I don't hire the teachers. Why would I care about any of that?" The minister is making light of this situation.

The fact of the matter is that each and every one of the school boards is given a budget by this Minister of Education. In these numbers, they include the services that need to be delivered to all the children in British Columbia. That includes salary costs and all the increased pressures that this government is putting on the school board because they're not giving them full funding for that.

One would have thought that a responsible Minister of Education would have figured out how much all of that costs, especially when this government goes around claiming that they are protecting education and that they will ensure that all students in British Columbia would have top-notch access to education.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard is thumping his desk just like another trained seal, like in every other….

J. Kwan: Actually, all of the seals are barking at the same time, hon. Chair.

J. Kwan: They all just thump their desks at the same time and bark at the same time anyway.

On the question around the financing and the breakdown of the increased costs to school boards as a result of the salary increase which this minister legislated, she must have some sense of what the increased cost for that is for school boards. Will the minister advise how much they are anticipating — beginning with the Vancouver school board — for the increased salary costs that will be impacting their budget? The $8 million figure that has been used in the Vancouver Sun article — is that the correct number?

Hon. C. Clark: Hon. Chair, before I answer the question, I just want to take exception with the member's characterization of the members of our government. You know, it's absolutely wrong for her to suggest that somehow the members of this government just do what they're told. This isn't like previous governments. This isn't a government where every decision is made out of the Premier's office or a government where even cabinet ministers — and I'm sure she would have had personal experience with this — aren't clued in to the decisions that are being made in their own departments. This is a government where unprecedented access — unprecedented in this country, if not in the Commonwealth — has been provided for every single member of the government.

Every private member has access through government caucus committees. Private members sit on committees of cabinet. We've activated standing committees of the Legislature to actually go out and do their work for the very first time. We allow free votes on the government side of the House. When was the last time that was allowed in British Columbia?

The level of access that private members have to decision-making in this government is something like we have never, ever seen before in this province or, I would argue, in this country, so I very much want to take exception with the member's characterization of the way this House works. It's wrong. It's perhaps a vestige of the way things used to work. It's perhaps a hangover, in her head, of the way things operated when she was in government.

It's a new era. It's a new world. We're doing government differently, and the members here today are proof of that. She should understand that.

I'll make that point and then I'll answer the question, hon. Chair. That's this. The cost to school districts for the salary increase in the second year is 2½ percent. The member needs to understand that there is a difference between budgets and allocations. She suggested at the beginning of her question that the Ministry of Education gives budgets to school districts. That, I think, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the Ministry of Education works. The Ministry of Education does not give budgets to school districts. We give allocations.

J. Kwan: I know the minister is big on semantics, but she'll recall, from the quote I actually put on record yesterday from the president of the School Trustees Association…. You know, the minister can play semantics all she wants, but at the end of the day, what she has done with this budget and with the tactics that the government has employed is that she's not protecting education at all. In fact, it would yield a reduction in programs for students, and it would impact the students. She can play semantics all she wants. She thinks that somehow it's funny, and she's not taking these issues very seriously.

The minister goes on to talk about how it's unprecedented and how this government is open, accountable and transparent and all of that and that they consult with all of their colleagues, and so on and so forth. Oh, funny, you know. I often wonder. The member for Yale-Lillooet…. How does one go about finding out that the courthouse in his own community has been shut down? From the mayor. How does one go and find out that the Health budget for that area is actually being threatened and that they might be faced with hospital closures? From the local pub owner.

Well, that's open and accountable government for you. Boy, I wish I was in that kind of government, where I'd find out information on cuts in programs from the local pub owner. My goodness, the minister is proud of that record. Boy, I don't know. I tell you, that certainly wouldn't be the way I would want to find out information if I were an MLA on the government bench. Yet I guess all these members here are content with that.

The school budget that the Vancouver school board is faced with — according to the Vancouver Sun — is an $8 million reduction in the teachers' salary hike. The document we received around this issue states that exactly. The teachers' salary increase is $5.6 million, and the increment is $2.4 million, totalling $8 million. These are listed under the '02-03 additional cost pressures of $13.7 million the Vancouver school board would be faced with.

What accounts for the total of $13.7 million? It appears that the minister doesn't know and does not care to know, because she just sits there and says: "Well, you know, we gave them this allocation. They can do whatever they want. They're responsible, and they're accountable." But at the end of the day, the allocation the minister has given to the various school boards, and particularly to some school boards, would yield a deficit situation. That's what's been exposed under the Vancouver school board: a $25.5 million deficit.

What are the other cost pressures the school board is faced with? The minister claims she doesn't know because she hasn't seen the school board's budget. One would have thought that the minister, prior to handing out their allocation to every one of the school districts, would actually have some sense of what kind of pressures they're faced with. I'd be very surprised for any minister to claim that they don't know what those pressures are. If they claim they don't know what those pressures are, either they are being dishonest, quite frankly, or they're just being completely reckless in their approach.

For the Vancouver school board, for the information of the minister, here's what the pressures are. There's $13.7 million for '02-03: $5.6 million for salary increases; the increment of $2.4 million; and other employee group salary increases and increments, $1.2 million.

The employee benefits cost increases, excluding MSP, $2.6 million. There's a question mark around this item, the MSP employee premiums, which is $1.1 million. Arbitration settlement costs and other costs, $800,000. The total is $13.7 million.

Will the minister rise up and confirm these numbers and say whether or not they're correct?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I'd be delighted to go over the document once I have a chance to have a look at it. I am certainly also looking forward to sitting down with the Vancouver school district and talking to them about the numbers as well.

J. Kwan: Yes. Actually, the Vancouver school district has requested a meeting with all the Vancouver MLAs. I hope the Vancouver MLAs will be meeting with the Vancouver school boards, and I hope the Premier will be meeting with them as well. They have raised a lot of concerns in terms of the minister's notion of protecting education when it

actually yields a net result of having to reduce education programs, which is coming out day by day as they work through the numbers in terms of what those real impacts are for students in the school system.

Well, let's ask the minister this. She doesn't know what the salary increase is; she doesn't know what the increments are. She didn't know what other cost pressures this government has placed on the school board, and she doesn't know about the arbitration settlement costs. She doesn't know any of this stuff, so I want to ask the minister this question: has the minister provided enough funds to the school boards to ensure they can afford all these costs?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I've been pretty clear that the cost pressure is 2½ percent for this year for school districts. In terms of the salary increase, I think I've been crystal clear about that. The member is asking me specifically about a document which she has refused to provide me on the Vancouver school board budget. As I said, I'd be delighted to get into specifics with her about the document. It would be more than helpful if she'd be willing to provide it. If not, I suppose I could phone the school district and get it from them, in which case I think I can also have a discussion with them about it, which is something that I'd be delighted to do.

J. Kwan: I'd be happy to share this document with the minister as I'm going through. Like I said, there's really nothing secretive around the numbers here. I'm reading all the items onto the record as they're presented. I will actually read all of this information onto the record, and then I'm going to have my staff clean up, perhaps, traces of identification of where the document might have come from.

J. Kwan: Well, actually, you know, we do want to protect the people who gave us the information in terms of government leaks. The fact of the matter is that this government has launched a witch hunt to go after people who are providing information to the opposition. I know that the minister and the Minister of Finance, before they were elected to government, said those were brave souls coming forward to provide information. They had to speak the truth. They wanted to ensure that that is the case. We want to protect these individuals from a witch hunt. I absolutely want to do that. When the information is shared, I want to make sure there is protection there.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, going back into the document, which the minister is very interested in getting information on, I have already read into the record the funding loss of $7.4 million for '02-03 and all the items, the bullets, that have been listed under that. A $9.9 million allocation shortfall from the ministry with a buffer grant of $2.5 million yields a net reduction of $7.4 million.

I have just read into the record the additional cost pressures of $13.7 million, of which $8 million goes to teacher salary increases and increments; $1.2 million goes to other employee group salary increases and increments; $2.6 million for the employee benefits cost increases, excluding MSP — question mark on $1.1 million on the MSP employees' premiums — and $800,000 on the arbitration settlement costs, totalling $13.7 million.

The document goes on to say that for '01-02 there's a structural deficit of $4.4 million. Even though the 2001-02 operating budget has been balanced with one-time funding of $4.4 million — consisting of $2.6 million from the local capital reserve, $1 million from the annual capital allowance reallocation and $800,000 from the provincial job security grant — the district has a structural deficit of $4.4 million entering into the school year of '02-03.

Then it goes on to the '02-03 projected operating budget deficit of $25.5 million. We're projecting an operating budget deficit of $25.5 million for '02-03: provincial grant reduction, $7.4 million for '02-03; cost pressure increases, $13.7 million; structural deficit for '01-02, $4.4 million — netting a $25.5 million operating budget deficit. I'm going to pause there for a minute, and then I'll read the other parts into the record.

I'd like to ask the minister: is she content to let the Vancouver school board run up a deficit, or will she admit that while she has frozen the funding for education over three years, she has not maintained a level to allow the board to be sustainable?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, it would be easier to discuss the document if we could share it. I don't know what the member's so worried about, quite honestly. Clearly it's not a Ministry of Education document.

It would have been prepared by the school board, and it's something they've discussed publicly with the newspapers. I suspect the newspapers have the document. They've discussed it publicly with trustees and parents. I imagine it's in fairly wide circulation, so I don't think she needs to worry about protecting her sources.

I'm not entirely sure she was the first person to receive it, either. I'm not sure it would be fair to characterize it as a confidential document. However, if she's uncomfortable sharing it with me at this stage, I'm happy to wait. We can also contact the school district

or any of the many other people on the list of people who received it, and we could talk to them about that.

The member will know, I think, from her previous experience in executive council, that it's the law for school districts to deliver balanced budgets. That law hasn't changed.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm sure I'm not the first one who's received this document, but that isn't the point. The point is the minister hasn't received the document. She has no idea, it appears to me, what the impacts are on school districts as a result of her budget.

The impact for the Vancouver school board is a serious one. They're looking at a $25.5 million deficit. They have a funding pressure from this government of additional costs of $13.7 million. They have a loss of funding on the allocation of $7.4 million. This is in spite of the buffer grant.

It goes back to the point of the other leaked document that came from the minister's office, the cabinet document. They go right to the point. The reason the government has changed the entire approach to education in the name of flexibility is so that they can off-load these pressures onto the school boards so they would have to make the tough decisions. The minister just said they would not let the school board run deficits, and because they are not able to run deficits, they are having a shortfall in the city of Vancouver, in the Vancouver school district — a $25.5 million deficit and $25.5 million pressure, then, if they're not allowed to run a deficit.

The minister knows that by freezing the education budget, what she has effectively done is to disable the board to provide for educational programs that are needed by the students in the city of Vancouver. Would the minister admit that the Liberal government has given the school board a budget, an allocation funding, that is not sustainable for the programs they need to fund?

Hon. C. Clark: I know this member believes it is appropriate to finance government on deficits, but I don't agree with that. I know, from the previous ten years, where her government sent this province into the indignity of have-not status in this country, where her government created a structural deficit of $4.4 — not million — billion…. That was the irresponsibility of her government. I know she believes there is nothing wrong with that.

She probably thinks that if you've got cheques in your chequebook, there is money in the bank. Well, that's not the way it works. If you don't have money in the bank, it's pretty difficult to continue to support the programs that are so important to us.

We believe it is important not just for government but for school districts to get themselves onto a sustainable basis so that we can ensure that education is provided for the long term. That's the purpose of the law that requires them to have balanced budgets. We haven't changed that law. We're continuing to work with school districts to help them through their budget difficulties as much as we can, but in the end, we of course expect them to be able to balance their budgets.

The Chair: Noting the hour, I'll recognize the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Noting the hour, I'll just close with this before we break for lunch.

It is just laughable for the minister to suggest that this government cares about their deficit. You know what? It is this government that's brought in the largest deficit in the history of British Columbia. Please spare me. Thanks so much for the biggest tax break to the wealthiest British Columbians in the history of British Columbia.

Before this government even went into the House and looked at the books to see what the situation was, they went and just closed their eyes and shovelled money off the back of the truck. For whom? Not for the people who need it the most but for the wealthiest British Columbians and for the big corporations. That's what this government has done.

I'm going to table the document I received for the ministry. Actually, the Vancouver school board has now put this on the website, so I'm going to table this document for the minister's information.

J. Kwan: Oh, I can't table it. Well, I'll just simply pass it along to the minister so that she can look and see how the city of Vancouver is being pressured as a result of this minister's budget for the students in Vancouver.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.