Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 4 -- 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

Introductions by Members		1815

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1815
	McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10) Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1815
	Recreational hunting B. Bennett Forest industry jobs in Port Alberni G. Trumper Dining out for life L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions		1816
	Funding for Delta Hospital J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell ICBC Building in Surrey B. Locke Hon. G. Collins Government support for tourism industry W. Cobb Hon. R. Thorpe Armoured car services at Camosun College J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori

Tabling Documents		1819
	Children's Commission annual report, 2000 Hon. G. Plant Environmental Appeal Board annual report, 2000-01 Hon. J. Murray

Committee of Supply		1819
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) Hon. G. Abbott J. MacPhail Hon. L. Stephens S. Orr

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1843
	Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark R. Hawes

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Today we have the great pleasure and honour to have a number of guests in the gallery that I would like to introduce. The first guest is the Dutch consul general, Aart Jan Verdegaal. He had a meeting with me this morning, and I really welcome him here to the House.

Further, we have three other guests, with whom some of my colleagues had the pleasure of having lunch. It was the consul general of Belgium, residing in Toronto. That's Mr. Frank Carruet. He was accompanied by his wife, Christine Carruet-Manigart. The consul general for Belgium in Vancouver was also in our little group, and that is Mme. Monique Poncelet-Gheleyns. I would like the House to make all four of them very welcome.

Hon. G. Cheema: I would like to introduce some special guests from my great riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. We have with us today 45 grade 5 students visiting from Surrey's Khalsa School. They're accompanied by their teachers, Marilou McCallum and Rupinder Hayer, and their supervisor, Jaswant Kaur Jawanda. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: Today we have with us a very successful realtor from this beautiful city of Victoria and a very good friend, Rashida Malik. I would like the House to make her welcome.

Hon. J. Murray: Visiting today I have family members Pauline Kendall and Simon Kendall from Vancouver, June Brinkman from New Westminster and Honas Brinkman from Ontario. Will the House please make them welcome.

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND TREATY No. 8
ADHESION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G. Plant: Bill 10 supports the province's fulfilment of land transfer obligations in the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion and settlement agreement. This agreement was brought into effect on March 27, 2000. The agreement settles litigation commenced by the McLeod Lake Indian band against British Columbia and Canada to join Treaty 8.

British Columbia implemented aspects of the agreement through a bill called the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act. The bill that is before the House today will remove the requirement that section 70 of the Land Act applies to Crown land that under the McLeod Lake adherence agreement has been, must be or may be the subject of a transfer of Crown land to Canada.

Section 70 of the Land Act imposes limits on the size of district lots. Several of the Crown land district lot parcels that will be transferred to Canada to discharge the province's obligations under this agreement exceed those limits. This amendment will provide an explicit legislative basis for the confirmation of surveys by the surveyor general of British Columbia.

This bill affirms the government's commitment to negotiate and implement workable, affordable settlements that provide certainty, finality and equality for all British Columbians, including first nations.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Bennett: I am making a statement today in the House on recreational hunting, a part of our heritage. Human hunting traditions are at least 2.5 million years old. Recreational hunting today is a legitimate and effective tool for responsible management and conservation of wildlife. Recreational hunting is also an integral part of rural British Columbia culture and an important part of our provincial heritage.

Opposition to hunting is based on two beliefs: (1) that hunting threatens the survival of wildlife species and (2) that hunting is morally wrong.

Hunting has not threatened a species of wildlife since President Teddy Roosevelt and Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier got together before World War I and created rational regulations. The assertion that hunting threatens a species of wildlife cannot be supported today by factual evidence. In fact, hunters from the Kootenays helped start the B.C. habitat conservation trust fund, which today funds habitat restoration projects around the province and is funded directly from the purchase of each hunting licence in B.C. Groups

such as Ducks Unlimited, the American Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Kootenay Wildlife Heritage Fund Society and local hunting and fishing clubs also volunteer their time to help wildlife during severe winters and disease cycles.

The second belief — that hunting is morally wrong — is a matter for each person to decide. With all due respect to those who do not share my belief in hunting, I suggest that at least some anti-hunting sentiment is based on the environmental doctrine that modern industrial mankind, as distinct from indigenous cultures, is not part of nature and does not have the right to exploit or manipulate wild plants and animals. Most rural people do not share that philosophical view. Most of us believe that far more plants and animals are reproduced each year than can survive and that these excess plants and animals are resources to be harvested within a careful context of responsible regulations and practices.

I ask for the tolerance of those who do not share our beliefs. I ask that this government, as has already been done in Ontario and Nova Scotia, recognize in law that recreational hunting and fishing are valued parts of our provincial heritage and play an important role in the conservation of fish and wildlife in British Columbia.

G. Trumper: As we all know, the last few years have been very difficult for those in the B.C. forest industry, due to past government policies, changing markets and now the softwood lumber dispute. In my region we have lost an incredible 75 percent of forest-related jobs — jobs which feed families, keep businesses going and support public facilities and community life.

It is, therefore, encouraging to see an initiative in Port Alberni by Weyerhaeuser, Coulson Forest Products and the local IWA to lease the idle Somass mill, which has been closed for three months. For six months Coulson will lease and operate the mill, providing employment for 40 local workers, who will take a cut in the wage that they had under the previous operation, in hopes of spurring further economic activity.

It is the spirit of our earliest settlers, who combined personal drive with community-minded sharing. It raised barns, built homes and schools by continuing together in a selfless, cooperative fashion. It rallied people in difficult times and ensured opportunities in good times.

These types of ventures are taking place not only in the Alberni Valley but throughout British Columbia — a willingness by all parties to try and work out viable solutions that will enable companies to keep their doors open and people to be employed and to support their families, stay in the community and enable other businesses and services to continue. In Port Alberni, I do commend the efforts of the two companies and the local IWA in applying goodwill, hard work and initiative to ensure a better future for all.

L. Mayencourt: I'd like to speak for just a moment about a very important fundraising event that's going to take place on Thursday throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia. The event is called Dining Out for Life. It is to support two very important charities in our communities. One in particular that is very special to me, of course, is Friends for Life. The second is A Loving Spoonful.

A Loving Spoonful provides home-cooked meals to individuals that are housebound because of long-term disabilities because of having AIDS and being shut in. It's a very important service that is offered to people in my riding but also throughout the lower mainland. Friends for Life provides support services like counselling, one-on-one support, group support, meal programs, massage and bodywork.

What Dining Out for Life does is allow people to simply go out for dinner on Thursday, March 14, and 177 restaurants in the lower mainland will be donating 25 percent of their revenue to the agencies. Over 200 volunteers will make sure that everybody has a really great time. Please get out for dinner on Thursday night at a Dining Out for Life participating restaurant and help in the fight against AIDS.

J. Kwan: Yesterday in estimates the Minister of Health Planning said she had no knowledge of a plan being cooked up in Delta to raise property taxes to save the Delta Hospital from government cuts. She made it plain that municipal tax increases are not part of the government's plan. But today we find out that indeed Delta council is contemplating big tax increases to pay for this government's health care off-loading.

Does the Minister of Health Planning now want to change her story from yesterday, and can she tell British Columbians if she endorses the scheme being put forward in Delta?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I did yesterday, I'll remind the members that the operations of the health authorities are in fact the responsibility of the Ministry of Health Services.

I am aware that a proposal was put forward by the mayor of Delta. We've certainly encouraged them to work closely with the health authority during this whole planning process. No decisions have been made with regard to the changes of uses of facilities, and we're encouraging local mayors and other community leaders to work with the health authorities as we all move forward to try to make sure that patient interests get met.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: It was the Minister of Health Planning who said what she said in the estimates yesterday.

We understand that the mayor of Delta met with the Premier last week, where this tax increase scheme was developed, and the plan is before Delta council as we speak.

Yesterday the Minister of Health Planning said she had no clue about any of this; yet she is the Minister of Health Planning, we understand. Today she finds out that while she is taking up space at the cabinet table, plans are being developed behind her back to download health care costs onto local taxpayers.

Will the minister endorse or condemn sticking it to the local taxpayers to pay for this government's health care cuts?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd be very pleased to sit down with the members to explain the relationship between the Ministry of Health Planning and the Ministry of Health Services.

We at no time have made suggestions to any municipalities that they should pick up the cost of health services in their communities. We are working with communities to try to make sure that patient needs get met throughout this province. It is part of a long overdue examination as to how we actually best make use of our facilities in the province. Clearly, the status quo that we inherited from the previous government was not working. It was not sustainable. Change is necessary, and we are prepared to provide the leadership for that change.

J. MacPhail: The opposition knows what's going on with this health care agenda of the government, but the poor public is the one that's having to suffer the consequences of it.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the government said no to consultation on cuts to the Delta Hospital, despite the fact that the Fraser health authority reneged on its promises to give the citizens of Delta a voice. The same residents are being faced today with the prospect of a big tax increase, all to pay for this government's broken health care promise.

Hospitals all over the province are due to close. Can the Minister of Health Planning stand up and promise other local taxpayers that they won't be blackmailed into saving their hospitals with big property tax increases?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would urge the member, rather than simply carrying on with the next question that she planned to ask, that she'd actually listen to the answer I gave last time.

What I said, and I will repeat, is that we are not looking to municipalities to pick up the cost of health care deliveries. We have not made any such suggestion, and we will not. We're looking forward to getting on with redesigning the system.

There has been ongoing consultation. Every one of the health regions in British Columbia has been consulting with community leaders and with front-line providers of health care services, whether it's doctors or nurses. That has been on ongoing process for many months now, and that consultation will continue right up until decisions are finally made.

J. MacPhail: Well, I don't blame the Minister of Health Services for not knowing what's going on; he's often left out of the loop. The Premier had a meeting with the mayor of Delta last week where this scheme was cooked up.

Middle-income taxpayers have already been hit hard by this government with over $800 million in tax increases. Now they face the prospect of even more tax increases. The promise by the Premier in his New Era document of not increasing taxes for middle-income voters has been broken. Now he's betraying another new-era promise that says he would outlaw off-loading of provincial government costs onto the backs of local property taxpayers. How many more side deals has he cooked up to stick the municipal taxpayers with the bill for his broken health care promise?

Hon. G. Campbell: I met with the mayor of Delta because the mayor of Delta asked to meet with me. I meet with constituencies and with people across this province when they ask to meet. Some people call that consulting. Some people call that listening. Some people call that working with local communities. That's what this government is going to do, whether the member opposite wants us to do that or not.

Let's look at what this government has done. We've increased the health care budget so that we have the doctors, the nurses and the health care workers we need to protect health care for patients.

The Minister of Health Services has just explained that we have no intention of going to property tax payers to support health care. The $10.4 billion supports patients and health care services in this province — if we work with communities, if we deliver services and if we make sure, unlike the last government, that patients always come first.

B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Right in the middle of my riding of Green Timbers, ICBC has built a great big building.

My constituents have expressed outrage over the cost of the ICBC building at Surrey Place Mall. The people of British Columbia are paying over $250 million for a building that may be worth $150 million. Can the minister please explain how that boondoggle ever happened?

Hon. G. Collins: The project was off track right from the beginning. The project is $250 million. We now know that it's probably worth around $150 million.

The rent that was to be charged to ICBC by ICBC Properties — from one pocket to another — was well above market rates. Customers would end up subsidizing this project when they bought their insurance. Even at that rate, the rate of return for the capital project itself was well below market rates as well. There was no fiscal basis for this whatsoever.

The previous government — the NDP — and the former minister responsible did not have a business plan for it. In addition, there was $88 million worth of costs in the form of new furniture and computers and moving the new people into the office space, which wasn't accounted for at all.

I would love to know what the rationale was for that project, other than an ego trip for somebody involved.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers with a supplementary question.

B. Locke: An empty building is no asset to ICBC or to the taxpayers. Can the Minister of Finance please tell us the status of the building and what is going to be done with it?

Hon. G. Collins: In the previous plan, Tech B.C. was intended to be part of the occupants of the building — again, at a very high rate. Tech B.C. is not doing that. SFU has taken over that project, and they'll remain where they are. That leaves a building which potentially has some vacancy.

The government is trying very hard to encourage ICBC Properties to find other tenants. I've heard from some members of the Legislature who have suggestions of possible tenants. The government is doing everything possible to make sure we are able to lease that building or provide some other way to try to recover what has been a hugely expensive project with no plan, which has cost British Columbians $100 million for no advantage and which certainly could have been used for other things such as health care.

W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. As I made reference to in my budget speech, your service plan for the ministry commits to doubling B.C.'s $9 billion tourism industry. Could the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what steps are being taken to meet those goals?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, tourism is a $9.5 billion business in British Columbia and growing.

The first thing we did was reduce income taxes by 25 percent. I want to say that those families making $60,000 or less now have the lowest tax rates of any jurisdiction in Canada, and they can enjoy a holiday in British Columbia.

In the February 19 budget we increased the tax exemption threshold for small business to $300,000. We provided an exemption for non-resident boats and travel trailers so that they can come to British Columbia and aren't punished, as they were by the previous government. The tax will be eliminated on September 1. Most importantly, we are working with regional tourism operators throughout British Columbia on a multi-year plan to double the business of tourism in British Columbia. Tourism truly is Super, Natural in British Columbia.

W. Cobb: To be more specific, minister, ecotourism plays a specific role in the riding of Cariboo South and in particular the Chilcotin. It could be of great benefit for expanded tourism opportunities. Can the minister tell constituents how he plans to include regional tourism interests in that goal?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Very recently the COTA tourism conference for British Columbia was held. It was the largest in the past nine years, giving a strong indication of how tourism operators feel about tourism here in British Columbia. In attendance were the Premier, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, myself and caucus members. We met with regional tourism operators and tourism organizations throughout British Columbia. Our government is committed to working with regional tourism boards and organizations to increase tourism so that all British Columbians and all regions of British Columbia have an opportunity to share in the doubling of tourism in the next five years.

J. MacPhail: A little while ago I was speaking of outlawing things. There have been some great heist movies over the years. Ocean's 11, The Great Train Robbery and The Italian Job are just a couple that come to my mind. If the Minister of Management Services is like most people, he likes a story.

J. MacPhail: He likes a movie based on a real story, a true story. Just last Thursday his ministry put out to tender its need for armoured car services at Camosun

Here, being helpful, is what it said. The invitation states the exact time, the exact day, the exact place for armoured car services to pick up shipments from the accounting office, cashier's office, bookstore and — wait for it — to deliver all shipments to the Bank of Nova Scotia.

To the minister responsible for the gang that couldn't shoot straight: can we anticipate the premiere of the colossal Camosun caper? Should George Clooney be worried?

Hon. S. Santori: Speaking of movies, we've been following the sequel for the last ten years, called "The Young and The Jobless," that that government over there created.

With respect to the matter that the member opposite brought forward, I will take the question on notice. I'm not familiar with what you're talking about.

Hon. G. Plant: I table the report of the Children's Commission, the annual report for 2000, entitled Blueprint for a Better Future for British Columbia's Children and Youth.

Hon. J. Murray: I ask leave to present the 2000-01 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Chair, if I may, the member for Vancouver-Hastings asked this morning for some detail with respect to the percentage that minorities, etc., constituted in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I have some detail of that for her now, so I'll offer that. If she has additional questions, we can deal with them now, if that's possible, or subsequently.

From the latest figures we have, 2 percent of the employees of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services are aboriginal; visible minorities, 7 percent; persons with disabilities, 6.5 percent; and women, 63.2 percent. That compares to all government — again, starting with aboriginal, 2 percent; visible minorities, 6.8 percent; people with disabilities, 5.5 percent; and women, 56 percent. Those are the figures for the ministry and some for comparative purposes.

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much to the minister for that information. In terms of the cutbacks to the staff in the ministry, how does that affect those statistics?

Hon. G. Abbott: The changes with respect to personnel have been announced, but certainly there are vacancies, and there are bumping provisions with the collective agreement. Certainly, all of those things are playing out. It is not possible at this point in time to give the member any particular detail with respect to whether those numbers might have changed. We expect that they would be relatively the same, given the scope or magnitude of the changes in CAWS.

J. MacPhail: I would appreciate those numbers as they unfold, in terms of the impact on the layoffs.

Before lunch we were talking with the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I'll continue along the line of discussion we were having before lunch. That was the minister's responsibility to advise the government of how government policies affect women. That's taken from the subvote listed in the estimates, Mr. Chair. Just for reference, it's on page 88 of Estimates for '02-03.

We were talking about the family maintenance enforcement program. Now I'd like to carry on with the discussion around changes to employment programs, particularly the elimination of government-provided employment programs, and whether the minister has any analysis on whether and how they affect women.

Hon. L. Stephens: We have, in this ministry, secured the priority essential services for women. We'll make sure that the safety and security of women are maintained and provided. We recognize the extremely valuable work that is done across the ministry. That's why we're ensuring that government programs address issues related to women's economic and social equality. What we are doing is working cross-ministry. I've spoken to this issue before.

I would like to tell the member opposite just what it is we are doing. I hope the member has had an oppor-

tunity to look at our service plans on the website. In fact, if she would do that…. I'll draw her attention to page 14 and goal 7, which speaks particularly to the provincial inventory of transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing. I think the member will be aware that this is an important part of protecting women in this province.

In terms of the issues she raises that are not a direct responsibility of this ministry and particularly the Minister of State for Women's Equality, I would ask the member to address the issues in the estimates of the minister who is responsible.

S. Orr: This question is to the Minister for Women's Equality. What I'm trying to get confirmed is language. I've had several calls from constituents, so I would just like some clarification. I'm in the service plan right now. I'm on the minister's accountability statement portion, right at the very beginning of the service plan. That is page VI. There are two sections here that I just want to confirm.

One of them is the last bullet: "Develop and implement long-term strategy for encouraging the expansion of safe, affordable child care services. Strategy will be submitted…." That's the first little piece, if you could just hold that for a second.

Then, if you could go in the service plan to page 10, under objectives and program initiatives, 7.2, the initiative portion: "Develop and implement new integrated operational grant to support licensed child care spaces. Consult with parents and stakeholders." I recognize that you've done that.

Where I'm getting a lot of calls from my constituents is the language — where they don't hear the word "quality." I'm getting the question, "Does that mean this will be a lesser service?" — because the word "quality" is not in there. What I would really like from the minister is some clarification on that word. We're using "safe, affordable"; they're talking about quality. Could you maybe explain that to me a little?

Hon. L. Stephens: I want to thank the member for the question. This is an area that a great deal of people are concerned about, certainly working families and mothers.

The words we have used are "expansion of safe, affordable, quality and accessible…." It's unfortunate that all four of those words do not reflect in the service plan here, but I can assure the member that, in fact, those are the four watchwords of what we're going to be doing in the development of a new child care program. That's quality child care — accessible, affordable and safe. Those are the areas we are going to be concentrating on. I want everyone to be sure that when we do move forward, those are the priorities and the principles we will be using in the development of the new child care plan.

S. Orr: I really thank you for that clarification, because I think we needed that.

Just a couple of other quick things. I did note, during the debate this morning, that we talked a lot about pay equity legislation. I'm very glad to see we all knew that the prior legislation was quite unworkable and actually not a very good piece of work.

I'm glad to see that this government ordered this task force on pay equity by Nitya Iyer, which is very good. I do note that the member for Vancouver-Hastings agreed that this was a very good report. I started reading it, and it is indeed good. I'm glad that this was approved and ordered by this government.

What I'd like to know is: where do we go from here? You've got this report; you're reading it. Could you let me know what the next step is?

Hon. L. Stephens: This is a very important report; there can be no question about that. The discussion we had this morning confirms it. There have been a number of reports on pay equity. This particular one — this last one — I think, is something we are certainly going to be paying a great deal of attention to.

I want to say, in terms of pay equity and particularly this report, that this government is committed to the principles of elimination of gender-based wage disparities. I want to make sure that's absolutely clear.

I agree with the member; it is a good report. It makes an important contribution to the understanding of the issues — the wage disparities that we find in the various workplaces today. We know that it is a very complex issue, and we know there are no quick fixes. I will say, as I said this morning, that government will be reviewing the report. That is the next step. We've had it for a week. We'll be reviewing it. We'll be looking at the options and recommendations. We'll be coming forward with the next steps at that time. At that time they will be available to the public and certainly to anyone else that is interested.

J. MacPhail: I was discussing employment programs, specifically, as they affect women. During the course of the answer, the Minister of State for Women's Equality basically directed me to stop bringing up issues that weren't the minister's direct responsibility. I'm a little bit taken aback by that.

The service plans of government are filled with referring people to other links. The government service plans themselves refer to the links. One of the promises the Premier made in being the most open and accountable is that there would be no shutting down of information.

My questions are about areas of which this Minister of State for Women's Equality is supposed to be informed and is supposed to be a participant in the decision-making — not by my design but by her government's own design — and for which we pay this minister. The minister can stand up and try to get me to stop asking these questions. I simply won't.

The reason I asked the minister the question on employment specifically…. There is one that relates directly to her ministry. It relates to the issue of women and abuse. It's the Bridges Employment Training Project, which this government has cancelled. I'm sorry; maybe I'm wrong. It's the service plan of the ministry for '02-03 that says the Bridges employability project is cancelled. Am I correct in that?

Hon. L. Stephens: The ministry will no longer be funding the Bridges program at the end of March '03. We've said quite clearly that programs such as this are valuable to women coming out of abusive situations. Most of those women — as a matter of fact, all of the women — who have access to that program are social services recipients.

I've said earlier that the Minister of Human Resources has $300 million to reorganize his training programs. He will be doing so. I have been in conversations and discussions with him to determine whether or not the women who are currently in Bridges and those who perhaps would have been recipients of the Bridges program in the future would be able to take advantage of the new programs that the Minister of Human Resources will be developing.

Hon. L. Stephens: When we were doing our core services review, we were looking at the priority essential services for all of the ministries across government. In the area of women's services it was determined that our essential priority services were for women in crisis situations. This is why we have maintained our funding for the transition houses, safe homes, counselling services and so on. We are going to be concentrating on providing the funding to those direct essential priority services.

As I just said, the bridging program is one that can be maintained in another ministry. We didn't feel we needed to have a separate training program for women who were coming from abusive situations. They could be folded into the new training programs through the Minister of Human Resources.

J. MacPhail: That makes me very concerned. First of all, has the minister received a guarantee from the Minister of Human Resources, in her off-loading of her responsibilities onto the Minister of Human Resources, that this program will continue under his auspices?

Hon. L. Stephens: We are funding that program through March 31, '03. There is a whole year that we will be funding that program. As I've said, I'm in discussions with the Minister of Human Resources as he develops his new training programs. We will discuss whether or not the bridging program will be able to be incorporated into his plans in some form.

What we do want to make sure, Mr. Chair, is that the women who are leaving abusive situations and trying to get back into the workforce have the opportunity to do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, I think this harks back to the minister's quote last month that says, "Women are abused, not oppressed," as if there was no link between the two. The minister's cancelling of the Bridges employability project is a demonstration of that. It's her putting into action her belief that there is no link between abuse and oppression.

What the Bridges employability project did was specifically assist women in abusive relationships into employment. There are very specific needs that women leaving abusive relationships have in order to gain economic independence. That's what the Bridges employability project was all about, and it was successful.

The minister said last month: "Women are abused, not oppressed." Is that why she cancelled the Bridges employability project?

Hon. L. Stephens: I've said quite clearly that the focus of government is to protect those priority essential services. Where services can be provided in other agencies or other ministries, we were looking at how those kinds of programs could be delivered in a different way. That's clearly what we've done here.

We are funding the Bridges programs for a further year until March 31, '03. That is going to give us the opportunity to make sure that women coming from abusive situations will receive those services and can depend on them. I can't be any more clear with the member. We believe those women in those circumstances require help to go into further education or training or counselling. We understand there is a need there, and we are committed to making sure that we meet those needs.

J. MacPhail: Then maybe the minister can reflect on the value of her job throughout the fiscal year '02-03 and see that it's her responsibility to ensure the continuation of the Bridges employability project. She has said that the three areas that she's concentrating on are women's health, poverty and violence — safety and security for women.

The Bridges employability project encompasses all those three in a very positive, very supportive and very successful way in moving women out of abusive relationships into employment opportunities. It's a very special program. It isn't your run-of-the-mill human resources program that anyone can take and move into employment. It's very targeted towards the minister's three priorities, and yet she's cancelling it at the end of this coming fiscal year.

I would say to the minister that this is her opportunity for her, on behalf of her government, to restore some confidence in her government by women.

I'm actually having difficulty with the conversation that's going on across the way, but I'll try to overlook it. I don't mind waiting for the answers if the two ministers need to consult. I don't mind waiting while they consult.

There's absolutely no reason for this government to now stand up and say that's why they're waiting till '03 before they cancel it, because clearly it's cancelled. It doesn't say it's under review. The minister admitted that it's gone. It's being put over to the Minister of Human Resources. The Minister of Human Resources does not have as his mandate — because I've checked the service plan….

J. MacPhail: I'm being a good kid. I know the Minister of State for Women's Equality won't take questions if it's in somebody else's service plan.

It's not in his service plan to move people from abuse, out of oppression and into independence. It's this minister's responsibility.

Hon. L. Stephens: The mandate of this ministry is to address the issues that affect women in the province of British Columbia today. That includes some systemic issues. That includes issues around poverty, violence and abuse. That does not mean that what has been done in the past needs to be done in the future. We recognize that times change, people change, needs change, ways of delivering services change. This government's whole restructuring is about change. Simply because the previous administration provided services in a certain way does not mean that this government will provide services in a certain way.

What I'm saying to the member opposite is that while we will no longer be funding the Bridges program as she has come to know it past March 31, 2003, we are going to be working and are working with the Minister of Human Resources in his new training programs to address the needs of women leaving abusive relationships. We will continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: I know this government considers absolute anathema anything that happened during the 1990s. Come heck or high water, they'll cut those services and those programs just because they were brought in by the previous government. It is ideological. It's absolutely ideological — the cuts this government has made to the programs. That minister just articulated that. That minister said, "We're not going to do things the way the previous government did," even if it's successful.

The Bridges employability program is successful for women who are moving from an abusive relationship to economic independence. That's how it was successful. It was a model. It is a model for the rest of the country. But because the previous government brought it in and it was successful, this government says: "Hey, hey, it's gotta go." That's what this government says.

No need to worry about the women who find themselves in situations of abuse. No need to worry about whether they're oppressed or not, and maybe that's contributing to them staying in an abusive situation. It's off-loaded onto the ministry that's suffering the biggest cut ever in its history and the biggest cut of all in this overall budget. Now we'll have the Ministry of Human Resources take responsibility for that — the Ministry of Human Resources, which is having to bear the burden of one-third of the program cuts across government in this budget. Well, good luck, women. Good luck, women who are in abusive relations. Good luck for having to move in any way with the help of this government into economic independence.

Let's talk about other services that this government is responsible for. Let's move into the area of child care. The minister said that she did a survey. The New Era document states that there will be targeted child care funding to help parents who need it most. What part of the minister's survey determined the ranking of parents in need?

Hon. L. Stephens: The survey the ministry sent out was one that asked whether or not the present child care system was working for providers and parents. We did not ask the questions that the member is speaking of.

What we tried to do was address some of the concerns of parents in terms of access, the number of spaces and costs. We also asked the question of the providers — what some of the impediments or their concerns were as well. Those are the responses we got back.

It was very well received. We certainly had a lot of input from people around the province, and those are the issues we're going to be addressing in our new child care plan. We hope to have the results of those surveys on the website shortly.

J. MacPhail: I thought the whole purpose of the new-era child care program is funding for parents who need it the most. How is it that a survey can be done where that isn't determined? Is the minister herself going to determine parents who need it the most?

Hon. L. Stephens: The objective of the consultations was nothing as narrow as what this member is asking. We certainly weren't excluding anything. The consultation process was one that was comprehensive and all-encompassing. The idea of targeting child care to families who need it the most will come when we get the information, we compile the statistics, and we know how many spaces we have and how much

money we're going to have for the spaces. We can in fact then make sure that families who have….

For instance, infants and toddlers. We know from discussions with communities around the province and from the child care survey that parents were concerned about, first, the availability of infant and toddler spaces and, second, the cost of infant and toddler spaces. It's been determined that this is one of the priority areas we're looking at in terms of targeting our programs to families who need it the most.

J. MacPhail: I wouldn't actually say it was a narrow question on the issue of child care, to determine what the government means by parents who need it the most. That's the sum commitment this government has made in the area of child care. To say that this is a narrow focus is absolutely ridiculous.

It's been known forever that as more and more women enter the workforce — as we discussed earlier — and have children, infant and toddler spaces are at a premium. We've known that for a decade. Why is it that came as a surprise to the minister?

Hon. L. Stephens: It did not come as a surprise to myself and certainly to the government. What did come as a surprise is that their government did nothing about it.

I think what we need to do is make sure the child care program we have in this province is sustainable. It certainly wasn't sustainable under the previous administration. What we are trying to do is make sure that parents who need child care…. We're also making sure that we have put in place a plan that will encourage the expansion of quality, safe, affordable and accessible child care.

That is what the survey was designed to provide information on. That was certainly what the face-to-face consultations around the province were meant to do. We now have that information. We are in the process of developing that plan with those two principles firmly in our minds: targeting child care to those families who need it the most and encouraging the expansion of quality, safe, affordable and accessible child care.

J. MacPhail: I really would suggest to the minister, because her words go around the province to women, that she somehow puts herself and her government forward as defenders of women's equality programs in comparison to the previous government. It was this minister who stood in this House and cancelled the Child Care B.C. legislation that funded universal child care. It was her government members who stood up and said, "We're not going to fund child care for tennis moms," and this member did nothing about it. It is absolutely ridiculous.

It's surprising the number of people who actually listen to the words that are spoken in this chamber. The minister has felt the wrath of that already. She's felt the wrath publicly, in e-mails and in letters, of misspeaking herself on matters that affect women deeply. Child care is one of those.

This minister knows that second only to Quebec, B.C. had the best record — until the election of this government — in the provision of child care. All of those gains were made in the 1990s, up to 2001. All of that has come to a crashing halt.

This minister now understands — she didn't last month — that a woman's responsibility for child rearing affects her income. I'm curious to know: if it's a woman who's suffering from a wage gap that's greater than the 4 percent that the minister likes to tout as a symbol of equality, will she be the parent who needs it most? Let's say a woman is making 70 cents of every dollar that a man's making. Would she be a parent who needs it the most?

Hon. L. Stephens: I said earlier in the day that child care is an economic issue. It certainly is. Women working outside the home today — 70 percent of them have children under the age of six. That has to tell you that child care is a big issue for working women in the province of British Columbia.

There's absolutely no question about that. I agree with the member opposite. What we need to do is make sure that we can, as much as possible, provide supports to encourage the expansion of child care spaces.

The previous administration decided to bring in universal child care before and after. It was a program that was clearly not sustainable. I would suggest that the member opposite knows that. There wasn't the funding there to maintain that universal child care.

Our view is also that we will and should target funding to families who need it the most. We believe that families who can afford to pay for child care should pay for their child care. That's not new.

I think what we're looking at here is a disagreement between the member opposite and this government on what universal child care should be. We have said quite clearly that we do not support universal child care. We believe that families who can afford to pay for their child care should. Those who cannot are the ones we will target to help with their resources and expansion of safe, affordable and quality child care.

J. MacPhail: Let's determine, then, from the minister's survey how she is going to determine who can afford to pay for child care. What part of her survey will help her determine who can afford to pay for child care?

Hon. L. Stephens: The Ministry of Human Resources and my ministry are working closely together looking at the people who are on social assistance and looking at the kind of programs we could put in place and where we may be able to work together to make sure that families at certain income levels — those families who need it the most — in fact are the ones that we target.

We're also looking at the kinds of child care spaces that are available. I mentioned earlier that infant and toddler spaces are in extremely short supply. Those are the ones that are expensive. Those are the ones that most young families have a lot of difficulty accessing. There are a number of factors that we are taking into consideration. We are well on the way to getting a new child care plan developed. When that is available, again, that will be public, and the member will know that along with the rest of the province.

J. MacPhail: The survey went out in September. Why is it taking it so long? The completion date of the survey has been well over four months.

Hon. L. Stephens: That's a very good question. I want to thank the member for asking it, because it's something that has been quite frustrating. The simple fact of the matter is that we just don't have a computer program that will handle it. What we're finding, right across government, is that a number of the computer programs are quite deficient. This is one of them.

We're struggling very hard. The ministry is working very hard to find a system that in fact will deliver the program, will not be redundant in a couple of years and will work well for us and for the child care providers. That is the challenge that the systems staff are working under. It is a frustration to me; I know it is a frustration to them. I'm sure it's a frustration for the child care providers we've been talking with. They are anxious to see what a new plan might look like, as are parents and as are we. That is the holdup at this point. What do we do, and how do we get a computer system that is workable?

J. MacPhail: The minister sent out a questionnaire that she was incapable of analyzing because she didn't have the computer technology available. How did that occur?

Let me just put to you what my experience was. The previous government did a survey, and they got 10,000 replies. They were analyzed, and the report was published. Did the minister get many more than 10,000 replies? How was it that the minister herself designed a questionnaire that she can't analyze? It's a technical problem.

Hon. L. Stephens: The member did misunderstand. It's not the analysis of the data that we received. It's the new child care plan that the present system is not capable of handling. The present system is one that is quite convoluted, and it is absolutely impossible to provide the new child care program. That is what the problem is. It's not the analysis of the data. It's the setup of a new child care program that is going to be far simpler to administer for government and for child care providers.

That is what the issue is. It's not the analysis. It's the development of the plan and how a computer system will support that.

J. MacPhail: I take it the survey is done and analyzed. Why is the minister withholding that information from the public?

Hon. L. Stephens: I said earlier that it will be on the website shortly. I expected it to be there this week. I will undertake to get it to the member as soon as possible.

J. MacPhail: The public — women, men — can expect the analysis of the survey, the minister is hoping, later this week. Then what happens? Is there a period of discussion, or does the government…? Is it kind of like your offshore oil and gas exploration? We keep the study, and we announce the study and how we're moving forward. Is that how we're treating child care too? Here's the analysis, and here's our program. Is there any period in between for consultation?

Hon. L. Stephens: There is a period for consultation. We asked for input from organizations and parents. We have that. We've done the analysis. The ministry staff are in the process of developing a new child care plan. I said that we have difficulty with the computer system that will facilitate that plan. Once we have the options and the suggestions in a form where we can go out and talk to child care providers and parents, that is exactly what we will be doing. We anticipate that will be shortly.

I've been in discussion with the B.C. Child Care Council since October on this issue, and we'll continue to consult with the council. Once we have a fuller proposal, we will be talking with a broader range of child care providers and parents.

J. MacPhail: What did the survey tell the minister? It's there. Let's not worry about the website. What kind of trends did the minister discern from the survey — trends around advice? Was there anything beyond just that infant and toddler spaces are at a premium? We've known that for ten years. That was the plan this minister cancelled: the expansion to infant and toddler child care programs. Other than that, what did the survey tell the minister?

Hon. L. Stephens: For the record, the program that was cancelled was the before- and after-school child care. That is the contract that is expiring at the end of June of this year.

The consultations and the survey highlighted a number of issues of concern to parents and child care providers. One of them is early childhood educators, the amount of salary they receive or don't receive. Another issue of concern to many child care providers, particularly in the rural parts of British Columbia, is licensing. They have some concerns around the flexibility required in licensing. Another area of concern is the accessibility, the ability to have multi-aging groups of children. Many people feel the regulations are inflexible and don't really address the needs of families today.

There was a very wide range of concerns that people expressed — to do with licensing, with multi-aging and the grouping of children, with training and profes-

sional credentialling of early childhood educators and with the costs, of course, of child care spaces. There was a whole range of issues and concerns that people addressed and identified. We're going to be taking all of those into account as we put together the new child care plan.

J. MacPhail: Was one of the themes the minister received that people who can afford it should pay for their own child care?

Hon. L. Stephens: I think the member would be surprised at some of the conversations around the cost of child care. People who require and need child care were very cognizant, of course, of the costs both to themselves and to the grants the government is putting into child care. The consensus with everyone — child care providers and parents — is that we have to have quality child care that is safe, accessible and affordable. What I found was that all of the participants were aware these were issues that had to be addressed and did so in a very helpful and very positive way.

The issue of affordability was, of course, one of the ones at the top of many people's lists, as it is at the top of our list. We're very hopeful that with the changes we're making, we are going to be able to expand child care spaces. Perhaps, in some instances, we're going to be able to make a difference in the costs of some of these spaces as well. As we move further down the planning process, those are issues we will be discussing with the various child care groups and with the Child Care Council.

J. MacPhail: The minister mentioned information around the salary levels for early childhood educators. Did the minister bring this to the attention of the government when they brought in Bill 29, which gutted the wage and benefits of early childhood educators by the reneging, the cancelling, of the Munroe award?

Hon. L. Stephens: The wage increases that were in the Munroe award will be met, will be followed through, and I think the member knows that.

J. MacPhail: There were many aspects of the Munroe award that were cancelled — outlawed — and many affect early childhood educators. My question was: did the minister, as her responsibility at the cabinet table, bring that to the attention of her colleagues?

Hon. L. Stephens: There were various discussions, of course, around the cabinet table and certainly in caucus as we worked through the changes that were made. The parity provisions were the only provisions that affected the Munroe accord, which were cancelled. All of the wage increases that had been planned for in the agreement will be met, will be followed through. It was only the parity provision in the accord that was cancelled.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister misses the point once again — that the parity provisions of the Munroe award were targeted at women, eliminating the wage gap that exists simply because women are doing women's work. That's what the parity provisions were there for. I assume, with the survey saying there were concerns around the pay scales for early childhood educators, that was the concern being articulated — that early childhood educators, the vast majority of whom are women, are inadequately paid, and it's hard to recruit them into the profession.

When the minister stands up and says, "Oh, it was only the parity provisions that were cancelled in the Munroe accord — outlawed," that's exactly who that cancellation is affecting: early childhood educators who are women and who are now hard to recruit.

Hon. L. Stephens: What the member fails to understand is that we simply have to have a sustainable system. That was not the case with the agreements that the previous administration entered into, most of them in the dying days of their government. In terms of Munroe, the parity provisions were tied to the health labour accord, and what we had, in effect, was a ratcheting up. Now, the salaries for ECD staff plus the other individuals who work in the community sector…. Their wage enhancements will go forward, as I have said. If the member would like to, she can probably look at what those are and find that in fact they are among the highest in Canada. They are certainly in the top three.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's because of the Munroe accord. My gosh, this discussion is like a dog chasing its tail. It's like a dog chasing its tail, trying to get an answer out of this minister. It's because of the commitment throughout the 1990s to pay early childhood educators their worth, that we have that situation. Bill 29 eroded that, and now the minister has to accept the consequences of that as it relates to early childhood education.

Let me ask this question of the minister in terms of her survey. One question was: "In your opinion, where is the need greatest? Rank the priorities 1, 2 and 3." I assume the minister was expecting lots of information from people who aren't just describing their personal family situation, because if I was asked that question, I'd say: "My kid's the greatest need." What response did the minister get in terms of rankings of the priorities as 1, 2, 3?

Hon. L. Stephens: I just want to go back for a moment to the Munroe agreement that the member raised. I want to tell her that the women's services and child care division is going to be spending in excess of $10 million this year to cover the above-noted commitments. Those commitments are that the scheduled wage and benefit increases over the life of the Munroe collective agreements will be met. The costs that we had attributed last year, $8.6 million, will increase to $10 million in this budget to cover those commitments.

I just want to make sure that the member is under no illusions. We are continuing with those wage and benefit commitments in that agreement.

In terms of the before- and after-school care and the out-of-school care, the cancellation is because of the costs of the child care — I've said before that the universality was not sustainable — and because there was an identified need for infant and toddler spaces, as I've said before. We are redoing our child care plan to take into consideration that we are targeting families who need it the most. We will be encouraging the expansion of quality, safe and affordable child care, and we will be looking at those parts of the child care system that are the most needed. What I have been told repeatedly is that infant and toddler spaces are those spaces.

J. MacPhail: In answer to question No. 3 — "In your opinion, where is the need the greatest?" — ranking No. 1 is infant and toddler spaces. That's what the survey will show.

Hon. L. Stephens: Just to correct the member, the No. 1 ranking on the survey is the cost of child care.

J. MacPhail: That's cost of child care to the parents, not to the government, I would assume.

J. MacPhail: I do recall the minister saying she was going to build upon the previous survey that was done, which had 10,000 responses. To the survey that the minister put on the website this week, this was one answer: "The cost to the parent is the highest concern." Will it review the findings of the 10,000-person survey and then add on that kind of information?

Hon. L. Stephens: What will be on the website will be the results of this specific survey. We will be using the information from previous surveys, along with our present survey, to factor in the issues that we will need to do to build that new child care plan.

J. MacPhail: I assume the survey wasn't just among social assistance recipients and low-income families. I assume the survey was from all ranges of socioeconomic categories.

J. MacPhail: We have a survey that covers all socioeconomic categories and probably all tax categories. Even given that, the prize priority is the cost of child care to the family.

Let me ask this question: is it still the government's intent to cancel the before- and after-school child care program run by the government as of June of this year?

Hon. L. Stephens: The legislation that we passed in the spring effectively does that, as the member knows. The universal child care part of the plan is what will be cancelled. The contract is up at the end of June of this year. The universal before- and after-school plan will not move forward.

We will be developing the new plan that will take its place. It will have a component for before- and after-school child care.

J. MacPhail: So the before- and after-school care program for parents throughout this province is cancelled a little over two and a half months from now, and parents have a little over five months before they actually need child care.

You can tell my child is 13 and not 12. Many parents would be making use of those same child care facilities for the summer months as well. My apologies, parents, for leaving you behind as my child gets older.

We have a situation where two and a half months from now, the before- and after-school child care program is going to be cancelled. That was a saving, undisputed by the now government, of about $1,100 per year per child who is in before- and after-school care. That's the program that this government cancelled.

Here we have a little stack of money that this government gave to middle- and low-income families — maybe about $300 per year if you're $30,000 or below and up to about $700 per year total tax cut if you're $60,000 or below. That's the tax cut. Let's not even worry about MSP premium increases, and let's not even worry about PST increases — two very regressive taxes. We now have a family, and if they've got Raj and Sally in before- and after-school day care, they've got a bill of $2,200 more that they're going to have to pay. Am I missing something here?

Hon. L. Stephens: Regardless of what the member prefers to say, the fact of the matter is that the universal child care plan was not sustainable. Those are the simple facts; we simply could not have the kind of program that her administration put in place. We said quite clearly that we believe that families who can afford to pay for child care should pay for child care.

In terms of the before- and after-school care that parents are going to be faced with at the end of June, those spaces are still there. They're not going to disappear. The providers that provide those spaces are still there. The difference will be that parents will have to pay the full costs of those child care spaces.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's my point. They'll now be paying $1,100 more per child per year for child care than they were last year. Let's just put it in the language of the government, then, about flexibility and choices. That's the language that the government likes to talk about.

The government says that the universal child care program isn't sustainable even though it was fully committed, fully budgeted for. This government made a choice on June 5 to give to individuals tax breaks worth about $1.5 billion. Then on July 30 they made

another choice to give corporations a tax break worth about $800 million. That's $2.3 billion in tax cuts. I assume that one of the things the government took into account was whether individuals would be worse off or better off with the tax cuts. In fact, the Minister of Finance swears up and down every single day that every single British Columbian is better off as a result of the tax cuts.

Of course, what the Minister of Finance fails to take into account — and the Minister of State for Women's Equality doesn't correct him — is that if you're a family with children in child care, you're way worse off. Let's say you're a family that makes $60,000 per year, because that's the average family. We won't even talk about low income. The average family got a tax cut of — I don't know — even $800 a year. How are they better off? How is that family better off if they have just one child in before- and after-school care? Did the minister bring that to the attention of the Minister of Finance when he was misspeaking himself?

Hon. L. Stephens: I suspect that the member opposite and I are just not going to agree on this issue. She believes that universal child care is the way to go, and we've said quite clearly that universal child care is not the way to go. Her government chose to go down that road. They also chose to make decisions that doubled our debt and left a legacy for our children to have to pay.

What we need to do is concentrate on getting our fiscal house in order, making sure that, in fact, the kinds of opportunities are there for people to build a better British Columbia. That includes parents who are working. Our position is — again, I will say this clearly — that we do not support universal child care. Her government did. Her government put in place a universal child care program that was not sustainable, and it wasn't costed.

We're saying that what we want to do is make sure we can do as much as possible in these very difficult financial times that we face — again I will say, Mr. Chair — as the result of the decisions that her government made. We are trying to do the very best we can. There are just some very difficult circumstances.

I've said repeatedly that we had to make some very difficult decisions. This was one. We're having to make some very difficult decisions around a whole bunch of other areas that impact on people and people's lives. Believe me, it was not easy. In terms of child care, what we're trying to do is the very best we can, given the limited resources that we have, to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of providing those child care spaces.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister answer my question? The Minister of Finance said nobody is worse off as a result of the tax increases; everybody's better off as a result of the tax cut.

I'm not making this family up. These families exist in this province by the tens of thousands — with a family income of $60,000 per year and just one child in before- and after-school care. Does that family have more disposable income? Is that family better off as a result of this government's initiatives?

Hon. L. Stephens: The existing grants we have are going to be consolidated into the operating grant, 2002-03. I'd be happy to answer questions dealing with the child care grant, but I suggest that if the member would like to talk about tax policy, again I'll direct her to the Minister of Finance's estimates.

J. MacPhail: No wonder women are so poorly served by this minister. She refuses to answer a question that she well knows the answer to. That's the kind of advocacy we have at the cabinet table on behalf of women.

The minister says: "It has nothing to do with me. Go to the Minister of Finance." Well, the Minister of Finance misspoke himself. He misled the public. It was up to the Minister for Women's Equality, at the cabinet table, to stand up and say: "Oh, wait a minute, Minister of Finance. You forgot that we were cutting the grants to parents for before- and after-school care. As of June 30 they'll be paying $1,100 per year more than they were before you were elected, Minister of Finance." Did the Minister for Women's Equality say that? No.

She stands up and misleads again to say that the universal child care program was unsustainable. The Progress Board report didn't say that. The fiscal review panel report didn't say that. The Minister of Finance didn't say that. Just the Minister of State for Women's Equality is saying that.

I put it to the Minister for Women's Equality. I know she won't answer the question. You have to go all the way up to earning $100,000 per year to just make up for the cut this minister brought in, in child care, for one child in before- and after-school child care. That's separate and apart from the tax increases and the MSP premium increases.

Do you know — through you, Mr. Chair — how many people earn $100,000 a year in this province? Less than 4 percent earn that. Does the minister have any idea how many families of school-age children or toddlers or infant children earn that amount of money? Less than 1 percent. Families with kids in child care, almost to a family, are worse off because of this government's policies.

The minister says her survey will show affordability. The cost of child care is the biggest concern of parents. I expect that the families who are benefiting from the universal child care program that will be cancelled in a few months will be saying loudly and clearly: "We had no idea we would be so much worse off under this government."

The next question that the minister's survey asked…. I'm sorry. The minister refused to answer the previous question, so I assume she won't answer that question.

J. MacPhail: I just asked her. I asked a series of questions. Is the minister aware of the statistics around child-rearing families and their income?

Hon. L. Stephens: You know, we're talking about a survey here. We're talking about a new child care plan. We're talking about the direct responsibilities of this minister. If the member opposite wants to talk about tax policy, she can talk to the Minister of Finance.

What we're trying to do is provide a child care plan that provides flexibility and stability and predictability for child care providers and for parents to access child care spaces. The member may think she knows what we're going to be doing, but in fact the decisions around a new child care plan have not been finalized yet.

The member can make all kinds of accusations and fearmongering that she may wish to do, but her comments are completely unfounded. Again I will say to the member that when we have the plan together and ready for consultation, we will be out there talking to parents and child care providers to make sure that the plan that we do put in place does in fact target families who need it the most and does facilitate the expansion of quality, safe, affordable and accessible child care.

J. MacPhail: It's clear the minister didn't answer the four questions that I asked. There's a lot of help from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He seems to think he knows the answer that families would be better off under this government if they have a child. I'll be happy to have him join in the debate, if the Minister of State for Women's Equality can't answer the questions.

The fact of the matter is that families raising children in this province who need assistance raising those children outside the home are worse off under this government than they ever could have contemplated. That's just taking into account one cut that this government has made. Oh no, I'm sorry. If you earn $100,000 or more, you'll about break even. I guess it does prove the point that the minister made last month: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and that's the way it goes. The minister feels no compunction to change that point of view at all through her own advocacy.

The next question that I was curious about is question 4(c): "What solutions would you suggest to address these challenges?" Can the minister outline what the survey results were on that?

Hon. L. Stephens: I want to go back to something the member said earlier and to correct her. Under the new child care system, twice as many child care providers will benefit. The funding will be distributed much more equitably and across more of the child care providers. In fact, I believe our new child care plan will be of more benefit to the people and families of British Columbia than the previous administration's. I think we can prove that quite clearly. Again, I'll just say to the member that she can stay tuned and see what the new child care plan does in fact look like.

The question the member asked was that in addressing the unique challenges in providing child care to children under three, the highest number of responses called for increased funding for infant and toddler care. We've talked about that, and I've said clearly that's what they had asked for: direct and increased funding to providers by way of operating and capital grants — that's the other priority; simplified application and administration of the current funding programs; more child care facilities in the workplace, possibly with tax incentives for businesses creating child care facilities at the worksite; more licence-regulated child care for infants and toddlers; a review of the current licensing regulations in light of urban and rural issues; and accessible training for child care providers. These are all issues that were raised and that will be in the summary of the child care consultation.

J. MacPhail: The minister has mentioned the issue of licensing several times. What aspects of licensing are needing to be changed?

Hon. L. Stephens: The discussions around licensing have to do with some cultural and traditional issues faced by aboriginal populations. The current regulations are inflexible in terms of allowing elders or traditional food, for instance, to come into child care centres. This was an issue that I heard quite clearly in the northwest and the northeast.

The other issue around licensing came from licensing officers themselves. In the more rural parts of British Columbia many licensing officers felt that where a child care centre had some difficulties adhering to the letter of the regulations, there needed to be some flexibility around how they could manage in order for that particular child care centre to remain open. Those are some of the issues that we're looking at.

In terms of licensing, I just wanted to say this: we are looking at the legislation, but I do want to make sure everyone understands that there will be no compromise for safety and health concerns of children in child care spaces in this province.

J. MacPhail: We have a minister for deregulation…. I'm sorry, I can't remember whether it's a minister of state or a minister of deregulation. Minister of state.

Who will be leading the changes to regulation of child care — the Minister for Women's Equality or the Minister of State for Deregulation?

Hon. L. Stephens: The Minister of State for Long Term Care. The regulations, as the member probably knows, are under the Continuing Care Act. It's the Minister of State for Long Term Care who will be leading the changes to the legislation.

J. MacPhail: The Minister for Long Term Care will do the changes to the regulation? My apologies. I wasn't paying full attention.

Hon. L. Stephens: The Minister of State for Long Term Care has the lead role and responsibility for the Continuing Care Act. The child care regulations fall under the Continuing Care Act, and so she will have the lead role there.

We have been working across the ministry to address those concerns. I just want to say this too. The role of the minister of state and the ministry itself is very much working across ministry with other ministries. We're doing that in a very cooperative way. We're certainly, I think, moving forward very expeditiously on a lot of these issues. That's one.

We're looking very closely at how we can make the changes to the Continuing Care Act with broad consultation with providers, parents, ECE workers and licensing — all of those — to make sure what we put in place is a regulation that is not prescriptive but allows flexibility and ease of enforcement. It absolutely must maintain protection of safety and health issues for children in child care centres.

J. MacPhail: I will be raising these questions about changes to the regulation with the Minister of State for Long Term Care.

The Ministry for Women's Equality service plan states that working parents need child care in B.C. For 76 percent of couples with children, both parents are in the workforce, and 66 percent of single parents are employed. There are more single-parent families than ever before. I'm quoting from the minister's service plan.

Can you share with us what the plans are to ensure that this is a question that your plan will actually deal with — the needs of those families?

Hon. L. Stephens: It's clear there are more women working today. We all know that. The stats are very clear. There are more women working today. There are more single women working today. There are more women working outside the home today.

Our child care plan is going to reflect the added needs of working women. I said earlier that 73 percent of women working outside of the home have children under the age of six. That means they need to have some intensive child care — infant and toddler, preschool, kindergarten.

Those are the issues we're going to be addressing in our new child care plan. We want to make sure the families of British Columbia have the kinds of child care that are appropriate for their needs.

J. MacPhail: The service plan then goes on to say that there are 73,000 licensed child care spaces in B.C., or about 26 spaces for every 100 children under the age of 12. With an estimated 45 percent of families requiring child care, there is a shortfall of about 200,000 licensed spaces. In a 1997 survey of parents, 31 percent reported that child care–related issues interfered with their ability to seek employment, remain in the paid labour market or pursue education or training.

I want to ask the minister a two-part question. Is this the goal? By this being part of the ministry plan, is the goal then to eliminate that gap of 200,000 licensed spaces? What are the future demographic changes that would affect that number? Thirdly, given the fact that the minister herself highlights that child care interferes with employment, what effect is the cut to the child care subsidy for low-income families going to have on women being able to stay in the workforce?

Hon. L. Stephens: Through some of the analysis we've done, we've seen that, yes, more women are working, but they're having fewer children. The demographics are changing. What we are attempting to do is increase the number of child care spaces per 100,000. This is the target we've set for ourselves.

In terms of the child care and employment initiatives of the Minister of Human Resources, again I would refer you to the Minister of Human Resources. As I said earlier, he is putting together the changes in his ministry and would be able to share with the member all of those changes.

The Chair: Members, the committee has been sitting now for approximately two hours. It's been suggested that we take a five-minute recess. Is that agreeable to the committee? We'll recess until five after four.

J. MacPhail: On the issue of the last question I was asking, in terms of the MHR cuts to subsidies for child care, I do want to explore this with the minister, and here's why. The minister has said that her own service plan articulates the connection between proper child care and the ability to be employed and remain in the paid labour market. That's from the minister's own service plan.

Then the minister's child care initiative is targeted, by her own words, to those who need it the most. It would seem to me — just from an economic argument, let alone the right thing to do for our children — that low-income families need child care as much as or more than anyone else in order to stay in the paid labour market. Yet the very people who are now getting child care subsidies, the low-income working-poor families, are having their child care subsidy cut — a $26 million cut on a $126 million budget of child care subsidies. How does the minister rationalize that?

Hon. L. Stephens: Priority services for women remain in place. Those include child care programs, transition houses, counselling programs, and it also includes the services of the Minister of Human Resources.

We examined all of the ministry changes across ministries to ensure that essential services would be

maintained. There are job placement and training programs that will be available to the clients that the member speaks of — primarily single parents — to help make that transition into the workplace. The child care subsidy administered by the Minister of Human Resources is available for those clients who will be in that job training or earning low income to assist with their child care costs.

J. MacPhail: The minister is quoted as referring to these cuts to the child care subsidies to low-income families, saying the changes were necessary to make the system more affordable for taxpayers, even though they will result in needy parents paying more. Is that a correct quote?

Hon. L. Stephens: I do not recall having made that statement, if in fact I did. Perhaps the member could put some context as to where and when and all of those other details.

J. MacPhail: The minister made them after the cuts were announced post–January 17, 2002, in an interview. I'll provide the minister with the interview. I always want to give the minister a chance to undo her interviews, but so far the minister hasn't challenged this one as it appeared.

Can the minister explain how making needy parents pay more for child care benefits those who need child care the most, which is her initiative under child care?

Hon. L. Stephens: We're not talking about needy parents paying more; we're talking about trying to provide equitable child care services for families in British Columbia. That includes all families.

There is a subsidy available from the Ministry of Human Resources to assist low-income families in accessing quality child care. That remains.

I've said to the member repeatedly that my responsibilities are around trying to expand the number of child care spaces in British Columbia. The new child care plan will do that. When that is ready, we will be rolling it out, and the member will have the opportunity to view it.

Since we are moving along in the afternoon, and the member hasn't taken this opportunity to discuss in much detail what is in the service plans, I would just like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about some of the priorities that we have in this ministry. I think it's important that all members, and certainly the general public, have an opportunity to hear what we are going to be doing in the next year. We have quite a list here. I want to talk about some of the major projects included in our service plan, some of our other priorities and some of the issues we're going to be working on.

We are going to be developing a best-practices guide. This is clearly one of our priorities. It certainly will be designed to assist ministries in determining some of the considerations around new policies and programs and practices of ministries. We're going to be assisting them through the cross-ministry work — how they can, in fact, factor into their deliberations issues that may impact women negatively. That's a major undertaking that we will be doing.

We're also going to be doing a reporting document. What we would like to do here as part of the accountability of government, if you like, is develop a document that lays out quite clearly what we undertook as a government and as a department of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services in order to address those systemic barriers that women face. This is a document we will be able to report on from year to year to measure ourselves and see how far we have moved down that road to addressing these systemic barriers for women.

One of the key strategies is that we will be developing a safer community strategy to look at what resources are available in communities to help protect women in transition houses and shelters and how communities can, in fact, keep women safer. That's an important initiative we've undertaken, which we hope will be complete by the end of this year.

We're also doing a provincial perspective for the delivery of women's services. Here is where we hope to provide, in one place, services that are available to women across the province. We're looking at a Web-based model. Most people have access to the Web these days. It is certainly the new way of providing information. We believe that to have all of the government programs and practices that will impact on women and assist them in accessing government services…. They will be available in that format.

We're also working on a number of health issues. Access to abortion. We are making sure that that, in fact, is moving forward and that nothing is coming forward that will impact that service in a negative way — those legal medical services for women. I know the member opposite will share my views on that.

We've also said quite clearly in our New Era document that we're going to be implementing a prevention of domestic violence act. That is an initiative that is underway with the Attorney General. We are in the process of gathering the various pieces of legislation from across Canada and other jurisdictions and are looking at legislation that may be appropriate for British Columbia.

Some of the other areas we're working on…. This is through the cross-ministry committees I've identified. We're looking at filling the labour market shortage in trades. We want to have a discussion paper to address that issue.

We're also looking at and working with the Minister of State for Mental Health in transition house access, mental health and substance abuse. More and more women who are coming to the transition houses are presenting with these two difficulties that they are undergoing in their personal lives, sometimes as a result of abuse in their homes. They're having difficulty finding a place to go. Not all transition houses are able to accept women that have substance misuse issues. We're addressing that.

We're looking at development of an awards program for women in leadership. The Lieutenant-Governor has expressed some interest in working with us on that.

The ministry is also going to be addressing aboriginal needs, as the member well knows. That is certainly a focus of the ministry overall, and it's certainly an issue that is near and dear to my heart in terms of aboriginal women. There are a large number of issues that affect aboriginal women, and we're going to be addressing those, both through the direct policy development we are doing in our policy shop and in the aboriginal secretariat of the ministry overall.

That, as well, goes for immigrant and visible minority women in our immigrant and multicultural section of the ministry. There's lots of overlap, and there's lots of working back and forth to address those issues.

The federal-provincial-territorial meetings continue. We are preparing their economic projects: dependent care, non-traditional occupations and non-standard benefits. These are items that have been identified across Canada as needing to be addressed. We are moving forward on those, and British Columbia is leading the discussion.

We are also looking at violence indicators. The federal government has committed to developing a violence indicator — not a checklist, but they are developing an indication from across Canada of what violence indicators may be, like a risk assessment model. We're working with the federal government in that regard.

In our interministry committees…. As I said earlier, we reduced the committees of Women's Equality from 32. Prior to our government there were 32 interministry committees. We've reduced those to three to make them much more focused and much more able to carry out the policy priorities that we've identified. Justice is one of them — safety and security measures. Again, we believe that is one of the priority areas of this ministry, to make sure that women are protected from violence. We have put in place the funding mechanisms to make that happen.

We've talked a little bit about the economic issues — wage parity. That's one of the policy developments the ministry staff are working on.

There is a lot of area that this ministry is responsible for. There's a lot of policy development that is on its way. The staff are working very hard. We're making sure that we remain focused on what it is we need to do. We've tried very hard to look at those essential priority areas for women in British Columbia. As I said earlier, they fall under women-centred health care, to make sure that in fact women have access to health care, to make sure that the poverty and economic issues that women face in this province are addressed, and to make sure that the safety and security issues that women face in this province are addressed.

Those are the areas that we're going to be working on over the coming year. I look forward to any questions the member may ask in regards to those areas.

J. MacPhail: Those are exactly the issues that we've been discussing. I appreciate that the minister wanted to get up and give her version in a compact way, but we have been talking about best-practices guide. I've actually been asking the minister what she's done about it today in advising her colleagues about what the best practices are for their policies. Does it make sense to cut the family maintenance enforcement program?

I can hardly wait to see the best-practices guide. These are exactly the questions I've been asking the minister of state for employment.

Let me just go through the ones that…. I'll fill in where we've been asking questions and ask some more.

You're undertaking a document about the commitments the government made. What about the commitment to have a stand-alone ministry for women's equality?

Hon. L. Stephens: The commitment to have a stand-alone ministry for women's equality. When the government sat down to look at the kind of new government programs and new government restructuring that we felt was the best way to deliver services in British Columbia, it was clear that women's issues, women's equality and all of those areas that affect women could best be served through a ministry that was more community-based. Therefore, the decision was taken to create a ministry that was Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

These areas are all community-based. When we look at what is contained in this ministry, that's very clear. We have the opportunity with three ministers to advocate and put forward issues that are of concern to women. In fact, that is what happens. We also have the ability to partner with various other parts of government. I've mentioned a couple of them. One is the aboriginal, and the second is the multicultural. There are many natural connections in this ministry that impact on women. We have found that in fact, it has been very productive, it is working well, and we are making sure that the cross-ministry integration and coordination is working in this ministry. We also have the ability to make sure that it is happening all across government ministries.

J. MacPhail: The minister wrote, prior to the last election: "A B.C. Liberal government will carry on the core funding for women's centres, and the Ministry of Women's Equality will continue to exist as a freestanding ministry." How will those two promises be reflected in the document that the ministry is undertaking?

Hon. L. Stephens: The letter to which the member refers was written in 1999, well before this government came to be. There were a number of initiatives that, of course, all governments look at, all parties look at. As the member well knows, events change. The events that change are primarily the restructuring of government which we said quite clearly, prior to the 2001

election, was exactly what we were going to do. I've just gone through the changes that we made to the Ministry of Women's Equality.

In terms of programs, we've been speaking about that for the entire day — the reason for these changes. The government feels quite clearly that we need to do government differently. In fact, the ministries reflect that, and the programs reflect that. What we are trying to do is make sure that in the social ministries, we put in place the priority essential services that people need to address those issues that affect their lives.

We've been talking today about services to abused women — women who, through no fault of their own, are living under some very, very difficult circumstances. We've made sure that the funding is there for them when they need it — that there are transition houses, safe homes, counselling services and that there are counselling services for children who witness abuse. We are making sure that we're going to be able to do some public education around the effects of violence against women and how we need to effect those changes.

We've also made sure that we have the funding for child care spaces. The funding this year has not changed from last year. We are continuing with building those affordable child care spaces.

Hon. member, the decisions that we have taken quite clearly show that in this ministry, we are committed to making sure those priority essential services for women are maintained.

J. MacPhail: I hardly know where to begin. The minister reiterated the commitment to a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality in January 2001, and she full well knows that. At the time when the government was saying that they deserve to be the government, they pretended and acted like they were a government-in-waiting. They just didn't bother to tell the truth. That's another one where the minister didn't tell the truth.

The third week in January 2001 the MLA for Langley announced…. She may remember this. It was talking about A Decade of Accomplishments, and her response to that report was that her party had changed its mind about the future of the ministry. They're not going to implement the 1996 platform of eliminating the Ministry of Women's Equality. The then MLA for Langley announced, in January 2001, that her government-in-waiting would have a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality.

We're a small band. There's only two of us, but we work very hard to do our research. For the minister to stand up there, surrounded by her other colleagues, and think that she can get away with this kind of stuff is just unbelievable — unbelievable.

Now we're on to item No. 3 of what the minister wanted to talk about, and that's on my topic too: safer communities, safer communities strategy. Let me tell you what the Trial Lawyers Association says about the government's cuts to legal aid and the closures of the courthouses. In an open letter to government dated January 23, 2002, the Trial Lawyers Association — not known to be a bunch of commie pinkos, and I don't think they have NDP membership cards — said: "The cuts and closures announced last week by the provincial government went too far. Unfortunately, all British Columbians will pay the price, particularly women and children." What does the minister have to say about that?

Hon. L. Stephens: I will reiterate to the member opposite what we talked about earlier, in terms of legal aid. Again, I will just simply say that on a per-capita basis, British Columbia is the third highest in Canada. I will also simply say that the funding for legal aid services will continue to be available at existing levels for cases involving domestic violence restraining orders; mental health; child protection; adult criminal and young offenders, including duty counsel.

If the member would like to canvass what the trial lawyers of British Columbia have to say, I suggest she do that with the Attorney General.

J. MacPhail: I'm only addressing the issues that the minister herself wanted to talk about, which was safe…. Maybe there's a different definition. Does safer communities, which the minister is lauding as an initiative she's working on, mean something different than the personal safety and security of women?

Hon. L. Stephens: The area that we are working on, of course, is the physical structure for services for women and the counselling services. We're also going to be working with local communities, with the police forces, with victims services, and with all individuals, groups and organizations involved in safety and security issues for women. We are getting that initiative underway, and it will encompass a broad range of consultations.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the Trial Lawyers Association will be comforted by the minister's remarks.

Here are some of the changes to the justice system that I'm wondering how the minister's safer communities strategy…. I assume she's talking about safer communities for women, because that's her responsibility. Here are some of the changes, the cuts, to the justice system and legal services: closing of courthouses in 24 communities; a budget target of 5,000 fewer criminal prosecutions; gutting legal aid funding, particularly as it relates to poverty law — the poverty law clients, the clients who had the assistance of funding from poverty law under legal aid were, in the vast majority, women; eliminating Crown victims services so that women and children will have to go to court now on their own; eliminating family advocates — the family advocates actually protected the interests of children in custody cases; and gutting the Human Rights Commission.

This is one that the public isn't even really aware of yet: a massive gutting of the Human Rights Commis-

sion. Funding will be slashed by one-third. The Human Rights Commission is responsible for ensuring the protection of equality rights as they relate to women. How do those cuts jibe with the minister's initiative? What will she do in her safer communities strategy to make up for the effects of those cuts?

Hon. L. Stephens: I've said clearly that the service plan objective is to develop a safer strategy for women in communities. That is what we intend to do. We intend to talk with police services, local governments, local women-serving organizations and victim services to develop the kind of strategy that communities require. Some communities, particularly those in the more rural and remote parts of the province, struggle daily with trying to provide the kinds of services that women need. I can assure the member that there will be ongoing consultations and that this is a top priority for us. We will continue to work towards that safer strategy.

J. MacPhail: The minister lauded the work of reducing 32 interministry committees to three committees, but she did say there was one committee left to deal with justice. What's the workplan for that committee?

Hon. L. Stephens: The justice committee is working through the Attorney General's ministry and with the Solicitor General's ministry. We're addressing the issues in terms of the domestic violence legislation. We're addressing issues in terms of the federal-provincial changes to various federal legislation. We're working with the Solicitor General's ministry in terms of the sexual assault policy. All of those issues that impact women in the legal sphere are being examined by the committee.

J. MacPhail: Is this a closed-door committee, or are there public representatives or stakeholder representatives on it? Or is it the government deciding these matters amongst themselves?

Hon. L. Stephens: They're the usual interministry committees of government that work cross-ministry, collaboratively, with other parts of government to address the issues of the day. Our ministry, as the member well knows, has a responsibility to do that. We need to be aware of issues that are affecting women, and we need to be able to make representation on women's behalf. That's what these interministry committees will do. They have a very aggressive plan and agenda and, as I said earlier, are working very hard to address these issues that affect women.

We are just beginning the process. We only received our funding, and we have been reorganizing government, as the member well knows. We are addressing these concerns, and we will continue to address others as they arise. For those justice issues that are top priority for women in British Columbia today, the member can rest assured that we are in fact working very hard to address them.

J. MacPhail: The reason I asked that question was because this is a concern of a lot of women across the province — women who have organized themselves into advocacy roles on behalf of women who don't have the time to speak on their own. That's a group of women's organizations.

What is the minister's working relationship with women's organizations such as the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres? How often does the minister meet with those stakeholders? Are those stakeholders being consulted on this safer communities…? Am I calling it right? I wrote down safer communities. If I'm calling that incorrectly, the minister can correct me.

Hon. L. Stephens: The working relationship with the stakeholders is very good. I've had a number of meetings with the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses, the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence, specialized victim services and the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres.

With the exception of the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, the stakeholders in other women-serving organizations have committed to working with me and with this government to make sure that important issues concerning women are addressed.

As a matter of fact, I can tell you that I have formed a minister of state's working group that does have individuals from these organizations I have mentioned as members. They will be the people that we will be consulting with initially, and then with a broader array of women-serving organizations.

Quite clearly, we've decided, and we'll be using the expertise of women-serving organizations to address these very real and very pressing serious issues that face women today.

J. MacPhail: When was the last time the minister met with any women's group?

Hon. L. Stephens: The one that immediately comes to mind was October 23 with the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres. The next one was budget day when a number of stakeholders were guests of mine in the House for the budget presentation. We had a number of conversations at that time.

J. MacPhail: There was a meeting in October and one on February 19. Who were the stakeholders who were the guests of the minister?

Hon. L. Stephens: There had been a very extensive meeting with stakeholders right across the continuum. I've met with many of the child care services organizations, including the aboriginal child care association. If

the member wishes, I can certainly give her a list of the meetings that I have had over the past number of months. I can ask the staff to make a list.

J. MacPhail: I'm just asking the minister what her work schedule is for this reason. There has been controversy surrounding the Ministry for Women's Equality over the course of the last six weeks. I'm just wondering what the minister's feedback has been from women's organizations.

There has been quite a public dispute between the minister and the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres. Somehow the minister has said this month — just this month, and we're at March 12: "I think the women's coalition is working from a political point of view and not from a women's point of view — to assist the women of B.C." That's a direct quote from the Times Colonist, March 1, 2002.

I'm curious to know the minister's distinction between what a political point of view is that would make it not a women's point of view. If she's not meeting with the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, who's filling that gap? Who is the minister meeting with, and what has been the response?

Well, let's see. What was their response to the budget? The stakeholders who the minister had here as guests — what was their response to the budget? Who is the minister meeting with that meets her needs of being a woman but not political?

Hon. L. Stephens: In terms of the first question, I would refer the member to the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres' website, which quite clearly says that they are a political organization. I believe they use the words — and I'm paraphrasing here — that they are the political opposition, because there is no one else. That's quite clearly stated on the coalition's website. I can only deduce from this that, in fact, they do view themselves as being very much political and very much the opposition. That is their choice.

I met with them on October 23, as I said. We had a meeting arranged for March 1, which they chose to cancel. It's very well known and certainly has been made very explicit to all women-serving organizations that I'm very happy to meet. As a matter of fact, we have some meetings that are kind of stacked up, because there are so many.

We need to be talking, but as the member well knows, sometimes it's very difficult to do over here in session. As best I can, I'm trying to meet with women-serving organizations on a regular basis. Some I meet with very regularly; others not so regularly. Also, I do have conversations by telephone with organizations and individuals in women-serving organizations in the province.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister only meet with people who agree with her, then? Is that why, because this website said that they were opposed to the government's agenda…? Does the minister only meet with people who agree with her?

Hon. L. Stephens: I want to correct the member. The meeting was cancelled by the women's centres coalition. It was not cancelled by me. They chose to cancel. If they would like to meet again, all they need to do is to pick up the phone or send me a request.

Again, the issues that affect women in this province today are very serious and very critical. We are working as hard as we can to address those issues. They're very real. They're certainly very real to women who are in abusive situations, to single moms who are looking for child care and to moms who are looking for employment opportunities. Every opportunity I get, I am talking with those women. I'm talking with the organizations that represent women.

What we need to do is work together in a coordinated and collaborative way to address these issues. I think women who genuinely want to see the advancement of women and see some of these issue resolved will work together in that manner. I have to say that the women-serving organizations I have met with thus far and have known through past years as the opposition critic are doing that, and we will continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: What was the minister's schedule for meeting with women on International Women's Day?

Hon. L. Stephens: I had an invitation to attend a function in Nanaimo. Unfortunately, the estimates were going to be called, and were called, so I spent the day here in Victoria working through some of these issues that the member and I are talking about.

J. MacPhail: International Women's Day was on Friday of last week. The House wasn't sitting.

International Women's Day is a pretty important day for women in this province. I was surprised. I was looking for the Minister of State for Women's Equality. It passed by. The celebration of the achievements of women and the commitment to working more passed by this Minister of State for Women's Equality completely. I think that pretty much says it all.

The minister said that she had stakeholders here on budget day. What were those stakeholders' reactions to the budget that the minister brought in along with her government?

Hon. L. Stephens: The various stakeholders in women's services in the province…. As a matter of fact, I have a note here that just came in, which I received from the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses. It's just a note to "express our appreciation for your support of Stopping the Violence programs. We look forward to working with you over the coming months." I received another one from a couple of transition houses. There's a number of individuals and groups

and organizations in the province who understand the seriousness of the problems we face and are prepared to work to help resolve them. The member opposite, I think, should perhaps take that to heart.

In terms of International Women's Day, we have a message on our website. I sent letters to the editors of every community and regional paper in the province. As I said earlier, I had been invited to a function in Nanaimo but couldn't attend because estimates were called, and I was here in Victoria preparing for estimates. As a matter of fact, there were a couple of invitations to attend in my constituency as well.

As I said earlier, those commitments had to be cancelled in terms of dealing with what I believe and what I see as the fundamental issue around addressing women's concerns in the province. I believe that the importance of making sure that government programs and practices…. Certainly, this ministry's programs and practices around addressing the needs of women are important and have priority. The decision I made was that we would, in fact, be working very hard to develop those programs further and prepare for estimates and make sure that all members of this House know the good things we are doing and that all members of the community know the good initiatives that are underway and all of the good news coming from this ministry.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of State for Women's Equality is the voice of this government for women. She chose, for whatever reason, not to celebrate International Women's Day in order to talk to this Legislature during estimates. I'm flattered. There's been one other member from the government caucus who's asked this minister a question.

I would say that next year the minister can give preparation for answering my questions a miss. She can work with her caucus to see whether any of them have questions. No caucus member but one has stood up to ask this minister a question. No other government member has a concern, obviously. Perhaps the minister's priority next year, if the ministry still exists, could be to actually join with women on the one day of the year where women celebrate successes and outline plans for further action — one day of the year.

My question actually was: what did the stakeholders that the minister had as guests here…? What was their reaction to the budget on budget day?

Hon. L. Stephens: As the member well knows, budget day is one that is…. The news of budget day that goes out is new. It takes a while for individuals to respond to it.

The discussions I had with the various stakeholders that were guests of mine for that day revolved around the initiatives that we were going to be undertaking to address the systemic barriers for women. They are very committed; I am very committed. This is the program development. This is the cooperation that I and the women's stakeholders are going to be developing our work around. I look forward to it. They have expressed a pleasure and an interest in doing that. I take them at their word, and I'm sure we can bring together the kinds of changes in British Columbia that we'd all like to see.

J. MacPhail: You know, the minister is supposed to follow the Premier's lead, where he says this is the most open and accountable government. The Premier said in his estimates that for the first time ever, he has given the public a three-year service plan, and that's the basis of discussion for estimates. He claimed that as a jewel in his crown, so could the minister please answer the question?

Hon. L. Stephens: There are no changes to the women's services program for this year, '02-03. However, in '04-05 we will be reducing or eliminating the funding — the $47,000 that goes to each women's centre in the province. I've said quite clearly that we are going to be working with the women's centres to find ways that we can assist them to replace that $47,000 somewhere else in the community or to find organizations to partner with in their community to provide the resource and referral services that they currently provide.

Now, women's centres that currently hold contracts with the ministry in regard to the Stopping the Violence initiative — the transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing — women's counselling programs or Children Who Witness Abuse…. Those contracts are in place and will remain in place from now until the end of '04-05.

J. MacPhail: Upon careful questioning, the minister admits that the funding for women's centres is eliminated — eliminated. I'm sure it'll be great comfort to women's centres that the minister finally came clean and said it will be in the third year of their service plan.

The website. Maybe the website has been altered at lunchtime — I'm not sure — but the ministry's own website says: "Women's centres are often the first place women go for help in their communities in times of crisis. Providing operating funding for these services helps them deliver vital services to women in communities around B.C."

We got that from your website. Maybe that was left over from the previous government. Is that the case, or is that on the website because of this current government's view?

Hon. L. Stephens: The funding for the women's centres will continue for the next two years. What we

the government have said clearly is that we are doing business differently. The areas of advocacy, resource and referral, we think, can be done another way. The women's centres are primarily resource, referral and advocacy. Therefore, we decided that we are protecting the priority essential services: direct crisis intervention services for women. We have made sure that the funding for women's centres is in place and will remain in place for a further two years. We have committed to working with them to find the replacement for the $47,000 or to find partners in their communities. This is what the commitment has been, and this is what we will do.

J. MacPhail: What did the minister mean, when she was a member in the opposition, when she said that a B.C. Liberal government would carry on the core funding for women's centres?

Hon. L. Stephens: The reorganization of the government meant that we were going to do things differently, as I've just laid out to the member. We value the work and the services that women's centres provide, but services can be delivered in a different way.

What we have done is commit to help the women's centres find either alternate funding, as I've said before, or partners within communities to help them maintain the services that they think are important. We are not the only funders to women's centres. The Stopping the Violence programs that we do contract with some women's centres for will be maintained throughout to '05.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's look at alternate sources of funding for these women's centres. The Campbell Valley Women's Centre. I got this out of the Langley Advance. I know the minister is into a bit of a struggle about the accuracy of the Langley Advance reporting. This report is by Jordan Bateman. We got it off the website today.

Let's see what it says. "The Campbell Valley Women's Centre will close on March 30 unless a miracle happens." Now, this isn't a commie pinko. This isn't an NDP member making this allegation; it's Randy White. Oh, Randy White — who is he? He's the federal MP for Langley-Abbotsford. The centre is going to close, and Randy White, the MP for Langley-Abbotsford, is angry. Here's what he says: "Due to the lack of provincial and federal government support, the Campbell Valley Women's Centre will stop assisting our youth, yet money is directed to areas of much less importance."

What's the minister's answer to that? In her own back yard, in her own community there aren't any alternatives. What's her solution for the Campbell Valley Women's Centre?

Hon. L. Stephens: The Campbell Valley Women's Centre, as the member may or may not know, is a facility for young women who have addiction problems. The funding for that centre has been through the federal government's youth addiction services. Also, under this member's government, the Ministry for Children and Families funded some beds there for aboriginal women.

The issue we face is to make sure that we can look at what the needs are of the population of young women who are in the justice system with drug and alcohol programs. That particular facility is a very good facility. It's very well run, and it certainly has all of the services that these young people need.

The responsibility for youth addiction services is now with the Ministry of Health Services. The Ministry of Health Services is looking at the programs that they provide to youth requiring drug and alcohol services. The Minister of Health Services is looking into this particular issue as we speak.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I raised this question is that the minister's priority, by her own definition, is women's health. One of the initiatives she raised was…. She said she's working with the Minister of State for Mental Health on mental health issues as they face women, including addiction and substance abuse.

Hey, here's one right in the minister's own back yard. What position did the minister take on funding for the Campbell Valley rehab facility prior to being in government but being the MLA for Langley?

Hon. L. Stephens: As a matter of fact, I met with the minister responsible on a number of occasions to deal with the concerns of the Campbell Valley Women's Centre and how we could keep the facility providing services to young women in the province. I continue to do the same. I've spoken with the Minister of Health Services, and I've spoken with the Minister of Children and Family Development.

As I'm sure the member is aware, the Minister of Health Services has some very important issues that he is addressing. However, this issue we are working very hard on this issue. I have spoken to him on a number of occasions. Staff is working hard as well.

Between the member from Langley-Abbotsford, our MP, and my colleague from Fort Langley–Aldergrove and myself, we are working to make sure that services for young girls in the province are maintained. Frankly, we believe that there needs to be an enhancement of those services. Campbell Valley Women's Centre is a facility that would be one that would be able to provide those kinds of services. We are working hard to resolve this issue.

The Chair: Member, could we keep the questioning to the ministry's review of what they're trying to

J. MacPhail: Absolutely, Mr. Chair. This is a perfect example of getting the minister to deliver on her commitment to women's health. Addiction services seems to me right in the ballpark.

What I'm trying to figure out is…. The previous government…. I guess the minister felt comfortable lobbying the previous government when she was an MLA, saying: "You have to fund this centre." It was funded. Now that she's actually in charge….

The Chair: Member, again, we must stick to the question. Her previous involvement as an opposition member is not her job today. She's a minister, and we stick to asking the minister what her responsibility is today.

J. MacPhail: What is the minister's responsibility today that has changed? What is her responsibility to the Campbell Valley Women's Centre now that she's in government? What has changed, and what's going to happen as of March 30?

Hon. G. Abbott: It seems the member hasn't quite understood the direction from the Chair, given that this is not an issue within the minister's purview. As the minister has explained very patiently and very fully, this is a Health Services issue. The minister has discussed it with the minister responsible. Again, I think that if the member wishes to pursue it further, she should do it in the context of the Health Services estimates.

I find it curious, for example, that the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General went on just a couple of evenings ago, and while I see in Hansard that there were numerous questions from government members with respect to the issue, the opposition was entirely unrepresented in that discussion.

Again, as the Chair has noted, I think the member should begin to devote her questioning to the ministry itself rather than tangentially trying to get answers to questions that clearly reside in the responsibilities of other ministers.

J. MacPhail: Of course, the Solicitor General refused to accept any responsibility for it in his estimates as well. I was in this chamber doing estimates — in this chamber.

J. MacPhail: The minister's interventions on behalf of his colleague are ridiculous.

The Chair: Order, members. If we could just keep going on the questions of the minister.

J. MacPhail: Absolutely. Let me ask this, then. The Minister of State for Women's Equality got up and said: "Gosh. The member doesn't want to discuss my priorities, and my priorities are women's health, an initiative on mental health for women as it relates to addiction services, and safety and justice for women." Does the Campbell Valley Women's Centre fall into any of those categories?

Hon. L. Stephens: Of course the Campbell Valley Women's Centre falls into those categories. I've just explained to the member what I am doing about it.

I have been talking with the Minister of Health Services. He has the responsibility for those services. We are looking at ways that we can resolve this issue. As of today there hasn't been an answer. We haven't had a solution. But I can tell the member that we are working hard to resolve this issue. That's all I can tell her at this point in time.

They're serious issues. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse are serious issues for young women. They're serious issues for anyone, but they're particularly difficult for our youth. We need to make sure we have the facilities in place that will address those issues. Certainly, we need to do more than the previous administration did. I can tell you that when we were looking at the various treatment facilities, they were virtually nonexistent. Those are some of the things we need to address, and I know the Minister of Health Services is doing that.

In terms of Campbell Valley Women's Centre, that is not a women's centre that we fund in this ministry, but it is a very vital component of my community, and it is certainly a very vital component of treatment services for young women.

Hon. L. Stephens: The Minister of Health Services and I are going to be working very hard to resolve this issue by March 30.

J. MacPhail: Well, you know, people around the province are watching, as we speak, what this minister is saying. In fact, the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres is furious about what the minister said just a few moments ago — absolutely furious that she doesn't even understand that the unofficial opposition the minister referred to was an indirect link. The unofficial opposition took the women's centre news release and posted it on their website. That's all. For the minister to somehow make that attack on the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres because she got her information from a website that has nothing to do with the Coalition of Women's Centres is outrageous. They're now furious; they're absolutely furious.

The minister has widened the gulf because of her inaccuracy, her misinformation and, frankly, her prejudice against certain women's centres in this province. I would suggest the reason for that is because the minister doesn't like talking to anyone who disagrees

The Chair: Member, I think it's important to realize that we are not going after personalities here today. We are trying to get the estimates done — I think personal conflicts should be kept out of this at this time — and to carry on with what the ministry is trying to do and the questioning on the estimates.

J. MacPhail: Well, thank you for that guidance. The line of questioning that led to this is: what relationship does the minister have with the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres in planning for her further initiatives? She articulated that they were a political body, as opposed to just reflecting a woman's point of view. The reason she knew that was because their news release said UnofficialOpposition.com at the top of it. The Coalition of Women's Centres who are listening now immediately called in and said: "That's ridiculous." They didn't have that on their news release at all, and the coalition's mission statement and value statement refer to political action in a broad sense of political action on behalf of women — not partisan action but political action. That's the link, Mr. Chair. I was trying to find out — and I take your advice — about who the minister consulted with in cutting the funding to women's centres.

The other question that was sent into me immediately was: what alternate sources does the minister anticipate women's centres having access to when their funding is eliminated?

Hon. L. Stephens: You know, I can't be much clearer. I'm prepared to meet with all of the women's organizations in the province. Indeed, I had a meeting with the women's centres coalition. They chose to cancel. We welcome meetings with all women-serving organizations in the province. Our intention is to build strong and lasting relationships with women-serving organizations in the province — not to create divisions, as this member has done. This member clearly wants to create divisions within the women-serving organizations.

Again, I say that I did not cancel the meeting; the women's centres coalition did, which they're perfectly free to do. If they wish to have another meeting, all they have to do, as I said earlier, is write a letter or pick up the phone. I'm prepared to work with all women's organizations in the province.

We need to be sure that we work in a way that is collaborative, that is respectful, that is focused on addressing the needs women face. I will say again that all women in the province who have that goal, who want to work to make sure that government services do in fact provide the best services for women in the province, I think, would be eager to do that. I'll say to the member: I extend that invitation and commitment to working in a respectful and collaborative manner with all women-serving organizations in the province.

J. MacPhail: Well, perhaps the minister would like to withdraw her comments that the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres is part of the unofficial opposition, now that she has that information and that they're watching.

Hon. L. Stephens: The website is where the coalition made those statements. They've also made the statement that the B.C. Federation of Labour paid their way over for the October 23 meeting, and I believe there was also a meeting that they held with the B.C. Federation of Labour following that, which was posted on the BCTV website as well. So I have some information that perhaps the member may want to view, in that regard. I'd be happy to provide that to her.

J. MacPhail: Unbelievable — the minister won't withdraw her comments, even though she's been proven wrong. Somehow, she says that women's centres who actually had to attend a meeting with the minister — because the minister refused to meet with those women's centres in Vancouver, and they couldn't afford to come over here to Victoria — got a sponsor and somehow…. It was at the minister's insistence that they had to come to Victoria to meet. She imposed the costs on the women's centres. They didn't have the funds; they got a sponsor. Would it have been better if the B.C. Business Council had sponsored them?

Hon. L. Stephens: It's up to the women's centres to find whatever sponsor they wish to. I'm simply making a statement that it was the B.C. Federation of Labour that paid their way over. I make no judgments on whether that is inappropriate or appropriate. The member may take whatever she chooses from that. I was simply making a statement. All organizations and everyone in this province are free to come and go as they please. They're certainly free to find whatever sponsors they may wish to have, to sponsor their activities. I make no judgments about that. I was simply making a statement.

J. MacPhail: I was asking the minister this in the context of saying that maybe she'd like to withdraw her accusation — that the reason why the women's centres are political is because she thought they were part of the unofficial opposition. That's been repudiated, and then the minister stands up and gives, as a response: "Well, I have information that perhaps the member doesn't have — that they were sponsored over by the B.C. Federation of Labour." It was under that that the minister refused to withdraw her allegation, so I can only assume that the underpinning of her allegation is the fact that the minister imposed extra, unnecessary costs on cash-strapped women's centres by forcing them to meet in Victoria, that the minister didn't like the sponsor that had them here and that it was some sort of justification for….

J. MacPhail: Well, actually, this is the nub of the issue about the existence of this Ministry of State for Women's Equality. Whose interests are served by this minister here? The women's centres in this province are one of those groups who are out there doing unbelievable work on behalf of women. Their funding is being cut. One, the minister doesn't even understand who they are. She sees them as the enemy. Two, every single time I ask her a question about what the alternate funding sources are for these women's centres, I get nothing.

Perhaps, then, the minister could answer the question that I did ask about what alternate sources of funding are available for these women's centres when their funding is cut. I asked that question quite a while ago.

Hon. L. Stephens: The question was answered quite a while ago, as my colleague says. It's obviously true that the member doesn't like the answer.

The fact is that what we have made the commitment to do is work with the women's centres to find alternate sources of funding for them. We've made that commitment. We are going to be doing that. We will be contacting the women's centres to sit down and do that: to explore what kind of options there may be for them in their communities or some of the advocacy funding groups that are available provincially. That's a commitment that we've made, and that's a commitment that I'm going to maintain. We're working to do that.

J. MacPhail: It's not a matter of me not liking the answer. There isn't any detail; there's no answer there. You're going to work. What's the range? When the minister sits down to discuss alternate sources of funding, what's the range of those sources that are available now? My information is that the women's centres have already tried to get alternate funding, without success.

Hon. G. Abbott: The service plan of this ministry was released on January 17. Any Sherlock Holmes could have gone and looked at it anytime after January 17.

What we're here for, Mr. Chair, as you have reminded the member on a couple occasions now, is to discuss the estimates for the fiscal year '02-03. There is no cut in funding to women's centres in '02-03. The member is indulging in speculation, as well as future policy, in attempting to get very definite answers to a hypothetical situation in '04-05. It's completely out of order.

J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Chair, this always happens around this hour when the members of government must need some food or something, because they always try to avoid answering the questions. It happens every day at this hour. They all sit there doing no work, and every once in a while some minister has to get up and defend another minister about how we're out of order.

Let me just refer to the Premier's estimates. I said to the Premier: "It's a real risky strategy, Premier, going first, because your words may come back to haunt you." Anyway, the Premier said, "Oh no, I want to go ahead with the estimates." The Premier said: "For the first time ever, we have a three-year service plan that should guide the estimates." All I'm doing is asking questions.

Earlier on, the Minister of State for Women's Equality said, upon close questioning, that funding for women's centres will be eliminated after two years. I'm putting them together: an open and accountable Premier who says there's a three-year service plan to guide the estimates; the minister's admission that funding is to be cut, and she's working with the women's centres to find alternate sources of funding; and information provided currently, as of today, that women's centres have been looking for alternate funding and can't find any — asking the minister. What's her advice? Where would she go?

Hon. G. Abbott: With all due respect to the member, she is asking for details around a situation some 24 months-plus out. The minister responsible for women's services has, I think, given very full and complete answers to the questions that have been posed.

We will gladly submit to your guidance with respect to the relevance of this, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Well, member, I think it's important that we stay to the estimates of this year, the coming year. I concur a small bit that with the three-year planning that is in progress, you will have an opportunity in the next estimates to debate the following year. If we could stay with the year in question, I would appreciate it.

J. MacPhail: To the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services: what's the purpose of the three-year service plan?

Hon. G. Abbott: As has been mentioned, the three-year service plans were released on January 17. They do lay out the future to some extent, but what we're here for, hon. member — and you're free to ask questions in question period or any venue you feel is appropriate…. The estimates are for the estimates. I think that's precisely the case. It seems to me that to use the estimates for something other than the estimates strains the whole relevance of this.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the tendencies of this member to deconstruct and misconstrue the words of other members of this chamber. I don't for a moment want to indulge in this absurd little exercise.

I don't know why she can't ask questions with respect to the estimates '02-03. Is there not enough bad news for her?

J. MacPhail: This is very significant . The decision of this minister — the senior minister here — is to now say that the three-year service plans are off limits for estimates.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked questions with respect to what the minister was attempting to do in relation to women's centres. The minister answered that question. Where the member went, I think, far beyond the parameters of this debate was in attempting to secure detailed information with respect to a policy issue that is some two years out.

J. MacPhail: No, that's not correct. I'm asking for information now about what the minister is doing to secure alternate funding sources for women's centres.

I'm shocked. I actually am very shocked that the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is saying that the three-year service plans were a ruse — were fluff. He stands up in this House and says: "How dare anyone ask questions about the three-year service plan?"

That's exactly what the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has just said. It is outrageous, and it will come as a shock, probably, to his own members. The fact that he is trying to shut down discussion simply puts the lie to this government's openness and accountability. The government introduces three-year service plans. Believe you me, members, I am not twisting the words of the Premier. We had a long discussion about service plans and the aspect of the three-year service plans.

When the questioning gets tough, when they're jammed into a corner and the questioning gets tough, it's become a tactic for some minister to stand up and say: "Oh, this is out of order. How dare they question us?" Well, that's fine. We'll leave the chamber right now, and we'll go out and tell the public that the three-year service plans are fluff, are misleading and didn't really mean anything. Is that what the minister says?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's contention is clearly absurd. What we are seeing here is obviously a lack of any real preparation for these estimates. The member seems incapable of generating questions which are relevant to the estimates of '02-03. Instead, she tries at every turn to poke at divisions and to, I think, raise red herrings around the three-year service plans.

This government has been entirely open with respect to the three-year service plans. What the member is attempting to do here is have this ministry indulge in speculation about the future, when of course we are here for the discussion of the estimates of the fiscal year '02-03.

The member asked a question earlier — and I guess this goes to the heart of it — about what the minister responsible for women's services is doing to help pave the way for the future. The minister answered the question quite properly. The member, I think, took it to another level that was clearly inappropriate for these estimates.

It's unfortunate that the member tries to disguise the lack of preparedness on the part of the opposition with respect to how she's managing these estimates. I'm hoping she actually has some questions relevant to estimates. I know the minister responsible would be delighted to answer them, if they were formulated.

J. MacPhail: Is the Minister of State for Women's Equality refusing to answer my question?

J. MacPhail: I said that these are televised proceedings, and the public is actually watching them. When the minister stood up and said she's going to be working with women's centres to secure alternate funding, we immediately got information from the women's centres. They said: "We've been trying to secure alternate funding, and we can't."

My question was to the minister who said that was her plan. I wonder how it is a red herring, when it's the minister herself who stands up and says that $47,000 per women's centre for core funding will be eliminated, and she's trying to find alternate funding sources for them. How is that a red herring?

What are the alternate sources of funding that the minister will be exploring — the specifics?

Hon. L. Stephens: Well, we'll try one more time. The member doesn't seem to get it or doesn't wish to get it. Whatever she may have in her mind, the fact of the matter is that there are no cuts to women's centres' funding this year or next year. We have made a commitment to consult with the women's centres and to work with them to find alternate sources of funding.

The member opposite here has just stated that she has been in touch with the women's centres and that they feel they do not have either the capacity or the ability in their communities to replace that $47,000. That is precisely why the ministry has made the commitment to women's centres to assist them. As I've said repeatedly, the funding for women's centres is there in its entirety for this year and for next year.

Over those 24 months the ministry will be working with the women's centres to identify some of those alternate sources of funding. I think the member would have to acknowledge that perhaps the province has a bit more information on the options that may be out there. That is another reason why we have committed to working with the women's centres. We have two years to do that. We anticipate it not taking that long, but in fact we will be working with the women's cen-

tres. In the meantime, their funding remains whole for this year and for next year.

J. MacPhail: Well, the reason why this is important is because every community is having huge stress put on it for alternate sources of funding due to government cuts. I'm wondering: is it the Vancouver Foundation? All the minister has to do is name names. Is it the federal government? Will it be the municipal government? Will it be the Vancouver Foundation? Are there some charitable foundations? Are there scholarships available? Frankly, if that's the range, all of those sources have been tried.

Actually, just to correct the record, it's not me in contact with the women's centres. This is a televised venue. People are watching the words of this government, and they're responding. It's wonderful, actually, that they can get information in so quickly.

You know what? I'll take it this way: the minister doesn't have alternate sources of funding in mind that are concrete and are of substance. That's what I take from the minister's refusal to answer these questions, and the lame interjection of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I'm surprised he didn't say to the women's centres: "Cry me a river." I'm surprised he didn't say that.

Let's move on to other ways that the minister is trying to assist women. The minister said on March 7 in question period, just last week: "We have protected and maintained the funding for transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing. We have protected the funding for counselling programs for women and the counselling programs for children who have witnessed abuse." Now, there is a service plan in existence — maybe the minister doesn't want to own it — that cuts rape crisis counsellors' funding. Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, I will say to the member opposite that for specific questions she has around programs in other ministries, she needs to speak to those ministers. I would encourage her to participate…. Oh, I think she's missed the Solicitor General ministry's estimates. Perhaps she can make an appointment and see him in his office if she didn't care to go and participate in his estimates.

J. MacPhail: What bullyism. There's an opposition of two and 76 silent members here. Somehow, this government refuses to answer questions because I was doing the work of the entire province, who disagrees with this government's agenda. The minister refuses to answer the question.

Let me just ask: what did the minister mean when she said in question period: "We have protected funding for the counselling programs for women"? What did the minister mean?

Hon. L. Stephens: The counselling programs I have protected are those that pertain to this ministry, the ones that I have direct responsibility for. Those are the counselling programs for women who witness abuse and the counselling programs for children who witness abuse.

J. MacPhail: The question was: what was the minister's commitment to women's issues? It wasn't what the minister's commitment is to her own programs. Tell me: do rape crisis counsellors work exclusively with women?

J. MacPhail: It's actually been the topic of major discussion in the public eye over the course of the last months. Yes, rape crisis counsellors deal only with services to women.

When the minister said, "We have protected funding for counselling programs for women," she didn't mean rape crisis counsellors, even though that's a counselling program exclusively for women. What I understand is that not only are the three-year service plans hands-off and off-limits for discussion in the public way, you have to actually get the minister to admit that her sole reason for existence is the programs that she is personally responsible for, even though there are counselling programs for women that are under other ministries. Is that what we're supposed to take from the questioning of this minister, whether it be in question period or estimates?

Hon. L. Stephens: The member opposite is either not hearing the answers or doesn't want to hear the answers. The fact of the matter is that we're here to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and the women's services division. Quite clearly, what we have done in our ministry and in our budget is maintain funding right through to '05 in terms of counselling services for women and children who witness abuse.

Again, I will say to the member that if she wants to look at programs that are offered in other ministries, she's certainly free to do so.

J. MacPhail: It's surprising the number of people who are watching from the public — surprising. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is probably already learning to regret the comments that he has made.

Let's talk about another women's centre, the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre. I'll quote the now-minister, then-MLA from 1999. The now-minister, then-MLA, questioned the amount of funding that the previous government was allocating to women's centres in B.C. in 1999. I have to be careful about this, Mr. Chair, because there's a reversal here. The now-minister, then–Langley MLA asked: "Is this ministry considering assisting the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre in some way, shape or form, whatever that may be? If it's yes, then I'd like the minister to explain what

form that assistance may take. If no, then I'd like to know why the ministry is not considering assisting in some way this particular group of people, who are struggling against some very, very difficult odds." Hansard, May 18, 1999.

Now we have a situation where the minister is in a position to ensure that the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre receives the funding that it desperately needs. How much money has the ministry provided to this women's centre?

Hon. L. Stephens: The Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, I think the member would agree, is unique. It certainly provides far more in terms of services for women, particularly the most disadvantaged women. It does far more than provide resources, referral and advocacy. As a matter of fact, the individuals who work in that particular centre probably deserve sainthood for the kinds of programs they provide with the very limited amount of money that they use to do it.

As the member knows, the Vancouver agreement is one that is very closely associated with the downtown east side. As a matter of fact, it is developed to provide some of these kinds of services to the downtown east side. That is in our ministry as well, and I can assure the member that we are working within the ministry with the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre and with the Vancouver agreement, the city of Vancouver, the federal government and all of the other partners — the health authorities — to resolve these very, very serious issues in the downtown east side.

Certainly, the responsibility that I have in terms of the women's centres…. We are looking at making sure we assist that particular women's centre as much as possible in addressing those very, very serious issues that affect women on the downtown east side. That is one women's centre that we are going to be having further discussions with. We're looking at how we can tie together the Vancouver agreement mandate and the mandate of this ministry.

J. MacPhail: Then is it safe to say that an alternate source of funding for the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre is the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. L. Stephens: No, it is not. We are going to be working within the ministry and with the partners in the Vancouver agreement to look at how we can each share the roles, responsibilities and resources to address these very serious issues in the downtown east side.

I'm simply saying that the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre has a very large role to play, and that I, who have responsibility for women's centres, am certainly prepared to assist the ministry to find some very creative and innovative solutions to deal with those very serious issues for women on the downtown east side.

Hon. L. Stephens: Actually, we're looking at something as soon as possible, as we are with all of the women's centres. The Downtown Eastside Women's Centre to me is one of the more pressing and persistent areas that we have to address. We are speaking, as I said, within the ministry. We are looking at the options that are available to us to assist the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I seek your guidance. I have about a dozen more pages of prepared questions, and there is one small section that can be isolated out. That's the area around abortion services. I seek your guidance on whether we should do that now or rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott: Could you advise, hon. Chair, whether Committee A is still sitting?

Committee A has a few more minutes to go. With the consent of this committee, we can rise and take a short recess until Committee A is complete.

Hon. G. Abbott: If the hon. member wants to proceed with some questions that she believes can be confined in the time frame of our normal rising time of five minutes to six, we're certainly happy to try to address those questions.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of State for Women's Equality said that one of the initiatives she's working on is to protect the availability of abortion services. Can the minister tell me, given the changes and restructuring of health care, how many facilities in the province currently provide abortion services?

Hon. L. Stephens: To the best of my knowledge, there are about 34 hospitals and two freestanding clinics. However, the Minister of Health Services would be able to provide a more up-to-date listing for the member, I'm sure.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could describe what she meant when one of the key initiatives that she is working on is ensuring adequate provision of abortion services.

Hon. L. Stephens: The staff in the ministry, in the policy division, had identified that perhaps there may be some slippage in terms of medical personnel available to provide abortion services for women. What we had decided to do was have a look at that and see whether in fact that was the case. That is the initiative that is ongoing in the ministry at this time.

Hon. L. Stephens: There are no conclusions as of yet, member. The analysis is still continuing.

J. MacPhail: What is the time frame for concluding that analysis? Let me tell you where I'm going on this question. There has been radical restructuring of health care in this province. I had that discussion with the Minister of Health Planning, just so the minister knows. Lots of questions were referred to the Minister of Health Services. But there is going to be radical restructuring, and I am interested to know what part of the initiative that the minister outlines is ensuring adequate abortion services. I want to know what part of her initiative is dealing with the radical restructuring of health care services as it affects abortion services.

Hon. L. Stephens: Nothing, hon. member. The only thing the women's services division is doing is looking at the so far anecdotal evidence that, in fact, there is a declining number of health care providers that are providing abortion services. What we are trying to do is ascertain whether, in fact, that is true. We're in the process of finding the statistical data, the hard data, that will either support or reject what is now simply anecdotal evidence. Until we have that determination made, we won't be in a position to make any definitive decisions one way or the other. I can say to the member that should we find that the level of services for women in the province has declined, we will be making sure the Minister of Health Services is aware of that, and we will be working to make sure we restore those services to the level we have committed to.

What other parts of the strategy are the minister's responsibility — the strategy to protect the availability of abortion services? What other role is the minister playing?

Hon. L. Stephens: As I just outlined to the member, it is one of a watchdog role, and it is one of a policy and advice role. This particular issue is one that we, as I've said, are following because it was brought to our attention that this may be happening. Again, I'll simply reiterate to the member that we are in the process of determining whether or not that is the case and whether it is a fact. Once we find out what the facts are, then we'll be able to make the decisions on what the next steps will be. But as I've said to the member, if we do find that those services are diminished, I will be taking the necessary steps with the Minister of Health Services to maintain those levels we have committed to.

J. MacPhail: That's an admirable commitment, I must say. Does that mean the minister will ensure a commitment to protecting funding for abortion services as well as the provision of abortion services?

J. MacPhail: Well, then we should rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, on that good note.

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: Madam Chair, before I begin, again I notice the House doesn't actually have quorum, so I'm going to be calling for quorum.

The Chair: The committee can now resume debate. I recognize the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: The question I'd like to ask the minister centres around the Vancouver school board budget. The Vancouver school board budget, as stated earlier, is going to be faced with a $2.5 million budget deficit.

As a result of that budget deficit, they are going to have to cut education programs.

Prior to the lunch break we were going through the information, which the Vancouver school board has now put on the website, with respect to the difficulties they're faced with. The minister, prior to the break, had asked for the document so that she could go through it.

On the question around the funding loss of $7.4 million, maybe the minister could explain on this document, '02-03, the $7.4 million lost to the Vancouver school district for education.

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said, there is not a $7.4 million reduction in the Vancouver school board's grant this year.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that the information posted on the Vancouver school board website, the $7.4 million reduction, is incorrect?

Hon. C. Clark: After a very preliminary first look at it, it appears that there are some discrepancies in the assumptions the Vancouver school board has made. We have contacted the school board, and my deputy and senior members of our staff will be delighted to sit down with the school board and discuss exactly what assumptions they've used and ensure that we're all singing from the same page.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll give two examples. One is that the district is predicting a very substantial enrolment decline — much, much larger than the ministry is predicting. Second, the district has misinterpreted the government's commitment to provide funding for the first year of the teachers' salary. In fact, they have underestimated the amount that we will be providing to support that salary. More good news. There you go.

J. Kwan: What is the projected amount the ministry has come up with if the $7.4 million figure is incorrect?

Hon. C. Clark: Vancouver school district is going to be receiving next year, with a very, very modestly increasing enrolment, $364,763,532 and many new tools to be able to handle the cost pressures that they didn't have before. They can make sure a dollar fetches farther. They can make sure the money gets down to the students more efficiently, and they can spend smarter.

J. Kwan: The minister is suggesting that with the added pressures the Vancouver school board would be faced with, whether it be salary increases or whatever factor they're faced with, they are not going to be faced with a shortfall in funding these programs if they keep these programs intact without reduction.

Hon. C. Clark: What I'm telling the member is that the Vancouver school district has presented some projections. We have not had an opportunity to go through those projections fully. I suspect there are some assumptions made in those projections which are incorrect. We are looking for the opportunity — in fact, we are seeking the opportunity actively with the school district — to sit down with them and talk about what the reality of the budget numbers are so we can determine exactly what it means for them.

Of course, as I explained earlier, the member knows the Ministry of Education does not provide budgets and design budgets for school boards. We provide an allocation of funding, and school boards design those budgets. Now that the Vancouver school board has presented a preliminary budget and some projections, we're going to be in a position to sit down with them and talk to them about exactly what those numbers mean and whether indeed all the numbers they're using and the assumptions they're making are correct.

J. Kwan: The document was on the school board's website from late this morning, I believe. Going down the document I was working on with the minister earlier, on the funding loss of $7.4 million, the minister is saying they're not going to be faced with that $7.4 million funding loss. What about the issue of additional cost pressures of $13.7 million? Could the minister go down this item and advise the House on the accuracy of these numbers?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we've had a very preliminary look at it. The member points out quite correctly that it's been on the website since this morning. I've been in here debating Education estimates since this morning. Although the member was trying to debate this document from early on today, she refused to actually provide me with a copy of it until we were well into the debate. We haven't had a whole lot of time to look at it.

After a first look at the document, I suspect that once we have an opportunity to sit down with the Vancouver school district, we will find there are assumptions that are mistaken. For example, the document suggests MSP is not funded, while indeed it is being funded.

J. Kwan: The information in the document was actually read to the minister line by line as we were going through it. The information is actually not new to the minister. Certainly, it wasn't the case that it wasn't being shared with the minister.

Hon. C. Clark: You refused to give it to me on the grounds it might incriminate somebody.

J. Kwan: The minister is saying I refused to give it to her on the grounds I may incriminate somebody. That is in fact not true. If you look back at the Hansard, line by line as we went down on the budget items, it's clear on this information what the school board was

saying. I asked these questions of the minister to explain these numbers. Now that the minister has got the written document, which was given to her before the break, I'm asking the minister to explain these numbers, as she disagrees with them. It would be most helpful if the minister would just go through this document on a line-by-line basis to see where the areas are that she disagrees with.

This is a government that claims they want to be open and accountable. This is an open and accountable process we go through in the estimates process. I'm asking the minister to please explain the discrepancy.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd certainly be delighted to explain the discrepancy once we have an opportunity to really look at it in detail, as I said. We've had a very quick first look at it. I've pointed to at least one area where we think there certainly will be some dispute. However, I just want to point out to the member that this is part of a normal process we go through with school districts. Even under her government, they did the same thing. I think if she remembers and thinks back for the last couple of years, this is a dance we go through with school districts as we are preparing budgets.

We provide an allocation. This year we provided it on time for the first time in a decade. We respected the law of the land and the statute and lived up to our commitment. We delivered school districts their allocations on time for the first time in a decade. Districts then take that allocation. They make projections about what their deficits will look like, and then we have a discussion about what the reality of the numbers is. Eventually, as the months pass, we get down to a realistic picture of what the budget numbers are going to look like.

In the case of Vancouver in '97-98 — I'm sure the member will know this — they concluded that there were $16 million worth of funding cuts and a $3.9 million deficit. No deficit was incurred in '98-99. They requested a $7.1 million deficit, and no deficit was incurred. In '99-2000 — these, of course, are all years where her government was funding the Vancouver school district — they identified that they were in a deficit situation of $11.8 million, and they did not incur a deficit. In 2000-01 they had been talking about a $5.2 million deficit.

This is part of the process. I think we should take the advice we've got from the Vancouver school board in that spirit and recognize that this is part of the process and that we'll continue to work together to make sure they deliver their budget, on budget, and that we in the ministry deliver on our commitments to them as well.

J. Kwan: Just going down this document again…. There aren't too many items on this document. It talks about the $13.7 million additional cost pressures. One is the teachers' salary increases of $5.6 million in increments of $2.4 million. Does the minister agree with that figure, totalling $8 million?

Hon. C. Clark: It is difficult, as I said, to be able to assess the accuracy of some of the numbers in here in the absence of officials from the Vancouver school board. As I said, we'd like to be able to sit down with them and talk to them about the numbers of teachers they have. We don't make those decisions for them; they make those decisions. We are, as I said, very actively seeking a meeting with the Vancouver school board so that we can sit down with them and have a thoughtful, rational discussion about these budget matters.

J. Kwan: First it was that she didn't have the paper in front of her. Now that she's got the paper in front of her, she doesn't have the officials in front of her. One would have assumed that in the work around the projections of what the Education budget would look like and how the funds would be distributed to the different districts, the minister would actually have had some assumptions herself around the cost pressures that school boards would be faced with. I'm asking the minister: does she have any assumptions at all about the cost pressures that the school districts will be faced with, and if so, what are they and how much?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think speculating about assumptions is a useful way to have this kind of debate. I think we should be dealing in the realm of reality. School districts now have their allocations. They're able to make their projections, and we're able now to have a discussion about the reality of the numbers that are out there. I'm not sure anyone will be served by having me speculate about assumptions that we might make, because we now no longer have to deal in the realm of assumptions and speculation. We can start dealing in the realm of reality, and that's certainly what we intend to do when we have an opportunity to sit down with the Vancouver school board.

J. Kwan: The assumptions the ministry had in formulating their education budget for all of the school districts in British Columbia derived at the flatline budget. One would presume that the ministry has adopted the flatline budget, as the minister says. It's the protection-of-education budget, which means a freezing of the education budget. One would have thought that the ministry would actually have some of that work done in order to come up with these numbers, especially when the minister claims that the budget is sufficient in providing for all the services that are needed for British Columbians, for the students in the school system.

I think it would be very wise for us to go over what kind of assumptions the ministry went through in order to arrive at these numbers so that she could get up and make the statement that education programs are indeed being protected.

Also in the realm of reality are the budget numbers that the Vancouver school board has come up with to illustrate that they're going to be faced with a $25.5 million deficit, $7.4 million of which is funding lost from the province and $13.7 million of which is a result of additional cost pressures.

The minister mentioned that the MSP is one piece that is not included. There was a question mark — at least on my copy of the document — around the MSP employee premiums and whether or not that would be funded by the ministry, which was a question I asked before the break. It took much, much work to get a straight answer from the minister, but eventually we did get one.

Now I'm asking about the other line items. Are these numbers correct, or aren't they? If not, what are they? What are the projections that the minister has?

Hon. C. Clark: I can give the member a quick outline of how we came at this, in answer to her first question.

We came at this whole funding formula recognizing, first, that we were protecting education funding despite the fact that we have declining enrolment. That's the first point. Second, we were going to try and shovel as much of that protected budget money as we possibly could out the door to school districts so that they could have it in their local budgets. That meant lowering costs in the ministry and shuffling budgets around. It certainly meant that we wanted to give as much of our resources to school districts as we possibly could. Third, we wanted to divide those resources among school districts in a way that was fair and recognized as much as possible that we should be funding students and that should be the basis on which we fund education. Those are the assumptions that we based our funding of school districts on.

There are some assumptions that the Vancouver school district is making in their budget projection here. For example, they aren't taking into account recalc, which is our $20 million contingency fund. They will very likely get a part of that. They haven't included that. They have very dramatically different enrolment numbers from what the ministry has projected. Thirdly, I think they have made some miscalculations in figuring out the total impact of the salary costs, because they've underestimated the amount that the province is contributing to that.

J. Kwan: To decipher the minister's answer: on the cost pressures, then, we're looking at salary increases. The minister's suggesting that salary increases — the $8 million figure — are not as high as the Vancouver school board has projected. The other piece is the MSP premiums.

Earlier the minister talked about deficit financing and deficit servicing, if you will. Am I correct in saying that the ministry is no longer providing funds to the school boards for deficit servicing?

Hon. C. Clark: No, we certainly continue to carry those debt service costs — and by the way, they're going through the roof.

J. Kwan: The ministry is continuing to provide for debt-servicing costs for capital projects for all school boards?

Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to carry that cost on behalf of school boards, as we always have.

J. Kwan: And the school boards do not have to pay or contribute to debt servicing?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the Ministry of Education has always carried that cost on behalf of school districts.

J. Kwan: How much is the debt-servicing cost for the Vancouver school board?

J. Kwan: So the government has not discontinued the debt servicing to the various capital projects that were approved and underway for the various school boards. The minister has just stated that. For the Vancouver school board area, the minister said we're looking at debt servicing of $580.9 million globally. Do the debt-servicing costs for each of the different school districts vary? They must vary, I would assume, for each of the school districts. Does the minister have a list of the debt-servicing costs for each of the different school districts?

Hon. C. Clark: To correct the member, the 580 number that I gave her is a provincewide number for debt service and amortization. We don't break it out, as I explained quite clearly earlier in the estimates. We don't break that out by district. That's something we would very much like to do. However, when the previous government transferred responsibility for this over to the Ministry of Finance, that connection between the debt service cost and on whose behalf we were carrying it was lost.

J. Kwan: The minister's correct. She did say the $580.9 million was global in terms of the debt servicing. There isn't a breakdown in terms of the debt-servicing costs for each of the school boards. The minister says she was actually in the process of trying to break those numbers down. None of the cost for debt servicing is off-loaded onto the school board for them to fund. The

minister has confirmed that. If I'm wrong, I would ask the minister to correct me on that question.

I'd like to ask the minister a question on the buffer grant. The buffer grant is required to offset the funding pressures that the school boards are faced with. Is the minister anticipating that she would have to increase the buffer grant even for this year? If, let's say, the Vancouver school board is faced with a $25.5 million deficit, is the minister anticipating that she would have to take the moneys out of her $20 million contingency to increase the buffer grant for the Vancouver school board?

Hon. C. Clark: Raiding contingency funds is a budget balancing process that I think was unique to the previous government. We don't to intend to continue that practice in this government.

J. Kwan: Does that mean to say the minister is suggesting she will not be increasing the buffer grants for any of the school districts?

J. Kwan: Some members in the House are actually clapping. They're very delighted the minister wouldn't be helping out the school boards no matter what programs they would have to cut. The minister has just confirmed that she would not be increasing the buffer grants for school districts, even though they may have to cut severely into the education programs because of the increased cost pressures school boards will be faced with.

I want to just look at another area. I may come back to the Vancouver school board issues in a little while. It seems like the minister has not had time to review the documents that have been posted on the Vancouver school board website. I'm going to have to give her some time to review that, so we may come back to the Vancouver school board budget in more detail tomorrow.

J. Kwan: Well, we never know whether or not we'll finish tonight. I've lots of questions, and I intend to go through each and every one of them to try and get the answers. This is an open process. It's a place where the opposition can get answers for the public and hold the government accountable on the Education budget. I'm going to be doing that as we go through.

On the Victoria school board. I understand that the Victoria school board has a situation where they, too, have a shortfall. The secretary-treasurer for the Victoria school board has prepared an analysis. It shows that the district is facing a shortfall of over $8 million for '02-03. Can the minister confirm that figure?

Hon. C. Clark: We actually did have a meeting scheduled with the Victoria school board this morning to talk to them specifically about their budget numbers. We didn't have that opportunity, obviously, because we're in estimates. We're rescheduling it so we can have a chat with them about exactly what their projections mean and what assumptions they're using.

J. Kwan: The Victoria school board treasurer has prepared an analysis and is showing a shortfall of $8 million for '02-03. That's the analysis that the Victoria school board have done. They're also saying that this is two to three times the deficit that the board was facing when they contemplated school closures in the 1999-2000 budget.

The minister, I'm sure, would have some information around the Victoria area in terms of the pressures they are faced with and the deficit numbers they have come up with. Even with the allocation of transition moneys to the district — which is, I believe, $3.5 million dollars — the Victoria school district is still faced with a substantive shortfall. Could the minister tell us what areas of pressure the Victoria school district would be faced with, aside from the ones they themselves have identified?

Hon. C. Clark: Two principal changes that the Victoria school district is facing this year are (1) decreased enrolment of 123 students, we predict, and (2) a buffer grant built into their formula of $3.5 million from the ministry.

J. Kwan: What is the amount of the funding that was reduced as a result of the decreased enrolment?

Hon. C. Clark: If we were just to represent the total amount of funding decline due to enrolment, that would have equalled 1.41. That would be the total impact of enrolment decline on that district, in theory.

J. Kwan: When the minister says 1.41, she means million dollars — $1.41 million in decreased enrolment. The buffer grant was $3.5 million. Where are the other shortfalls coming from?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we're going to sit down with the Victoria school district and make sure we get a good picture of where their shortfalls are coming from.

J. Kwan: The $3.5 million buffer grant that the minister talked about…. What is the purpose of that grant in terms of what it is buffering — that is to say, in terms of the funding losses that the district is faced with? What is that $3.5 million covering?

Hon. C. Clark: It's to ensure that no district loses as a result of the change in the funding formula.

J. Kwan: Which part of the funding formula derives a loss of potentially $3.5 million, which resulted in the ministry having to come up with a buffer grant of $3.5 million to cover it off?

Hon. C. Clark: In the example of Victoria, they have a lot of square metreage, some of which is empty. It certainly doesn't make sense, I think, for taxpayers to pay for classroom space that sits unfilled, particularly in a fairly crowded urban area.

J. Kwan: Is that — around class space — the only place? It sounds to me the minister is saying that. Part of the new funding formula resulted in the Victoria district receiving less funding because of the class space questions, so part of the buffering grant's covering that off. What else?

Hon. C. Clark: As I have already said, declining enrolment certainly also plays a large role in Victoria's budget.

J. Kwan: Are those the only two items, and how does it break down with the $3.5 million? Is it $1.5 million for declining enrolment? Is it $1.5 million for the space question? How does it break down?

Hon. C. Clark: Very, very roughly, we can attribute about $2 million of it to square metreage and about $1.4 million of it to declining enrolment and other factors.

J. Kwan: When the minister says other factors, could she tell us what those factors are?

Hon. C. Clark: Things like admin costs can be in there. Certainly there were impacts from the provincial collective agreement that the previous government forced on school districts. There are a whole range of other factors that could play into that number.

J. Kwan: The per-student dollar figure — what was it? I believe $5,308 is the correct number. Does that include the increase for MSP premium costs, and does that include the debt servicing, or is that separate?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said earlier, the total block we've granted to school districts went up by $18.25 million, so that number is worked into the funding allocation they get this year. Does it include debt service? No.

Hon. C. Clark: As I just said, the answer to her first question was yes, and the answer to her second question was no.

J. Kwan: So the per-student dollars include MSP premiums but not debt servicing. The other question, then, is: does it include the added pressure for the student salary and the increments?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, it includes the salary increase for the first year, over the next three years.

J. Kwan: I think we're starting to get into understanding these numbers a little bit. Earlier, when I canvassed the minister about the per-student rate, which is $5,308, she said it covered everything with the exception of the unique areas. In terms of special needs, in terms of ESL and so on, there's a different sort of formula applied. We're getting to the understanding of why school districts are now faced with such a shortfall, I think, even though the minister says the formula didn't cause that.

The net result of the formula is that there is a reduction in the educational system for the students. They now have to carry costs — an increase in MSP premiums and the increase on the teachers' salaries — on the per-student number. Although the first year is covered, the future years are not. Those costs, perhaps, are added to the pressure for the school board, where they now have to look at reducing school education programs.

We're now starting to get a sense of what is going on with the ministry's budget and the notion of really needing to read between the lines to find out how this government is funding education — or better yet, how this government is not funding education and where all the hidden line items and hidden costs are.

The Victoria school district has sent out a news bulletin. I know this minister is very proud of her efforts in working with parents and that she values the voices of parents. This is the news bulletin from Victoria dated March 8, 2002. It's news from the PAC president in this school district. I'll read just a couple of their bullets into the record and will ask the minister these questions, which I think are questions the PAC president has.

Hon. C. Clark: Again I'd say this. We are protecting education funding, even though we have declining enrolment in British Columbia. There is declining enrolment in Victoria as well. I'm very much looking forward to the opportunity to sit down with the school district and make sure we're working from the same set of numbers.

The initial projections we see from school districts every year are always — and I think I read into the record what happened in Vancouver — off the mark. Certainly, we very rarely see the kinds of deficits that get predicted at the very, very beginning once we actually get down to nailing down the budget.

Let me give an example from Victoria. Enrolment has been declining for ten years — it's been on a pretty steady decline in Victoria — but administration costs have not been declining at anywhere near the same rate. In fact, they've gone down by 0.1 percent. There certainly are places where school districts can look to try to ensure that their administration costs and those other kinds of costs are keeping pace with the changes in enrolment. Certainly, in Victoria there will be lots of areas to discuss when we sit down with the school district. I'm very, very much looking forward to doing that.

The member is quite right. I do very much value the contact I've had with parents and the opportunity to consult with parents. Of course, my door is always open to the parents from Victoria as well. I'm sure we'll be able to have a good discussion about the budget and start working with some real numbers and getting some realistic predictions.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps talking about real numbers as though somehow these numbers are not real. These are the numbers that came from the school district and from the trustees themselves, whom she praises highly — that they're highly responsible in terms of the work they do. These are the numbers they themselves have come up with.

Take as an example school districts 61, 62 and 63. These are the South Island school districts, 61 being greater Victoria, 62 being Sooke and 63 being Saanich. This is a press release the South Island school districts sent out March 5, 2002. It says:

That was the press release that was sent out on March 5 from the South Island school districts.

The school PACs fear they're looking at a reduction of special needs students funding from $17 million to $10 million. Can the minister tell us, on this question alone: how did this number come up in terms of the $10 million if the minister says they're funding education as per the previous level? How come there's a $7 million reduction?

Hon. C. Clark: As the member read that, it struck me that the press release referred to the fact that they had received their funding allocation the day before. I think that when I walked her through the history in Vancouver of predicted deficits versus the reality…. I'm sure many of those predictions happened after having more than 24 hours to examine the budget. I know the districts are still spending time going through their budgets. We are looking forward to the opportunity to work with them.

The greater Victoria area is also going to see some significant enrolment decline, not just in greater Victoria but in Sooke and Saanich. That certainly has funding impacts. Again, I don't think 24 hours is really enough time for any district to make a realistic prediction of what their budget will look like.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying, then, that the school districts of 61, 62 and 63 are wrong in their projections of these numbers?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm saying that those are initial projections. History has shown us that initial projections usually are inaccurate because there's such a wide difference of understanding of what the numbers mean. Once we have an opportunity to sit down with the school districts in greater Victoria, which we had planned for today but will certainly do another time as soon as possible, we will have an opportunity to go through the budget numbers with them and make sure we're all working from the same numbers and that we're all making the same assumptions.

J. Kwan: The PAC president said that last year they received $17 million for special needs students but this year the amount has been reduced to $10 million. What's the minister's answer to the PAC president on this issue?

J. Kwan: I'm asking this question in relation to the PAC president's concern about the reduction of special needs funding for their district. They have stated that last year the budget granted to special needs was $17 million. This year that amount has been reduced to $10 million. The PAC president goes on to say that this will affect all children and not just those with special needs. What's the minister's answer to the PAC president on this issue?

Hon. C. Clark: The money for high-incidence, low-cost children with special needs is still there in the budget. It's still being provided. We are continuing to fund, as well, children who have specific severe categories of special needs.

J. Kwan: How come there's a discrepancy of $17 million from last year's budget and $10 million for this year?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, as I said, we're continuing to fund those special needs students where, depending on the enrolment they have for children in those categories, that number may go up or down. We fund per student for many of those categories, and for the students we identify as high-incidence, low-cost, that money is still there in the budget.

J. Kwan: Well, the discrepancy came from somewhere in terms of last year's budget of $17 million to this year's budget of $10 million. Can the minister advise the House: is it because of the reduced number of students that are qualified for special needs for this school district? How does the funding per student compare for special needs under the three different categories the minister has outlined? How much is it per student? What was it before?

Hon. C. Clark: In answer to the first question, we will, I'm sure, be able to determine what the discrepancies are between the two budgets when we have an opportunity to sit down with the Victoria school district. We're very much looking forward to having that opportunity.

In terms of funding for identified special needs children, the categories are $30,000 for level 1, $15,000 for level 2 and $6,000 for level 3.

J. Kwan: What were the categories before this change? How much were they for each of the different categories?

Hon. C. Clark: For severe behaviour it was $6,014 and for moderately handicapped, $3,132. For severely handicapped it was $12,460. For dependent handicapped it was $31,910.

J. Kwan: There were four categories before. There are now only three. The amounts vary depending on what category the student fits. On average, just based on, let's say, last year's numbers and funding formula for the special needs children of the Victoria school district, how much did they get?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't have that number here as we're not examining the '01-02 budget estimates. We're examining the '02-03 budget estimates.

I would add this to my previous comments. I want to note that the amount last year was $12,460 for children who are classified as severely handicapped. That has been increased to $15,000. I think every member of this House will know that parents of autistic children have been very actively lobbying on behalf of their children, ensuring that they get adequate supports from their school districts. Certainly, those children deserve adequate support. Many of those children, if not most, will fit into that category. We've increased the support that's available for those children who fit into that category, many of whom are autistic.

J. Kwan: I know the minister has highlighted that they've increased level 2 special needs children to $15,000. I also note, though, that in level 1 — I guess the highest need in terms of special needs in the school system — the ministry is right now giving them $30,000 per student. Previously, the highest dollar figure attached was $31,910, which is about $32,000 — $2,000 more per student. Really, the ministry giveth and taketh. Maybe that's the comparison. If I'm incorrect on that, please clarify.

Hon. C. Clark: What we did was to try to maximize the amount of money available, recognizing the need in level 2. The amount available in level 1 has decreased much less than the increase in level 2. That decision was made because we felt it was a better balance.

J. Kwan: It may be a better balance, but the question is: a better balance for whom? How does the number work out at the end of the day for the various different school districts? I'm wondering about the PAC president, who's come up with a figure of $17 million that was being granted to them for special needs last year which is now being reduced to $10 million. Is it a result of the different calculations under the levels 1, 2 and 3? If it's not, maybe the minister can enlighten us on what basis the amount was reduced $7 million.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we're very much looking forward to sitting down with the Victoria school district, determining how they've come up with the numbers they did and ensuring we're all working from the same set of assumptions. We're very much looking

forward to doing that. I'm sure the member will hear about the results of that discussion once we have an opportunity to have it.

I think we can say with some certainty that that discrepancy is not the result of the fact that the funding for categories 1 and 2 has changed.

J. Kwan: Category 3 is actually a big issue as well. It's $6,000 — substantively less in terms of the funding for the other students in categories 1 and 2. I know the minister did mention category 3. Maybe that's where the discrepancy came from.

As we go through this estimates process, in my own view, it's vitally important to try and find out what the assumptions are that the minister herself has been working with to come up with the numbers and how she came up with the funding allocations for each of the school districts. While she hasn't had the opportunity to talk with the other school boards around what their assumptions are, I'd be very interested in knowing what the minister's assumptions are for her to come up with the numbers she has.

J. Kwan: What are those assumptions based on what we spent last year? Could the minister break that down?

Hon. C. Clark: We made the decisions this year based on the money we spent last year. That was the assumption.

J. Kwan: Surely there are breakdowns, within those assumptions, of the broad numbers. I'd like to know from the minister what the breakdown is for the budget that was derived for this year's budget. It's not just one number, which the minister arrived at and said: "Okay; education. Here is the global budget, and that's the number we have arrived at. For the school board in Victoria, here's the amount we've come up with." There are assumptions that came with it that broke down those numbers.

The minister herself has said she'd be interested in talking with the school boards and finding out how it is that they arrived at the assumption that somehow special needs education for Victoria will be reduced by $7 million or, in the case of Vancouver, how the numbers in terms of cost pressures came to be $13.7 million. What are the assumptions behind it? The minister disagreed with these numbers, but what are the assumptions, then, that the minister herself had in coming up with her own set of numbers?

Hon. C. Clark: I haven't come up with my own set of numbers for Victoria because I'm not in charge of doing the budget for Victoria; Victoria is. They've laid out their budget. They've made their assumptions, and we're certainly looking forward to sitting down with them and examining that.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that at some point, somewhere within the ministry staff, the ministry looked at all of the numbers in relation to the school board districts, and they have some projections on what those costs are. Whether it be for increased teacher salary, MSP premiums, debt servicing, textbooks, special-needs assistance or whatever the case may be, surely, somewhere in the ministry, some of that work's been done. I'm asking the minister to share that information with us, as the minister's commitment for an open and accountable government.

How did the minister arrive at the budget breakdown she's arrived at for each of the different districts? How did it break down? What are the assumptions behind it, whether it be for MSP…? The minister says, as an example, that MSP is being funded on the per-student figure. Well, for Victoria, what is the amount for MSP that comes out of the per-student amount of $5,308?

(a) We had a protected budget, so we would have the same amount of money to spend this year that we did last year, even though there were fewer students to educate in British Columbia.

(b) We would maximize the amount of money, as a portion of that, that we would shovel out the door to school districts — as much as we possibly could.

(c) We would divide that money between school districts based as much as possible on the number and the characteristics of the students they had in their districts. We would also ensure that we made some specific supplementary grants to recognize the fact that it's more expensive to educate a child in a rural, far-flung district than it is in an urban district. We would recognize that school districts also educate adults and have distance education learners and that they have home school learners. As much as possible, what we tried to do was ensure that this funding allocation was distributed based on the number and characteristics of the students in those districts.

J. Kwan: The minister has broad categories of how the breakdown of the funding for the students would apply. Attached to each of these broad categories…. What are the dollar amounts associated with them?

Hon. C. Clark: In terms of the province, the amount that is being provided for unique student needs is $361,850,249. The amount that's being allocated for unique geographic factors is $132,529,900. The formula buffer grant is $25,771,635.

J. Kwan: Could the minister run those numbers by me again? I imagine this is for the Victoria school district?

Hon. C. Clark: No, those numbers are for the province. For the Victoria school district it's $13,403,164 for unique student needs and $781,900 for unique geographic factors. The formula buffer grant is $3,536,838.

J. Kwan: Those are the only assumptions that the ministry worked with in terms of trying to come up with the numbers for the school district: the buffer grant, the geographic issue and unique students?

Hon. C. Clark: No, as I've said a number of times, the funding formula allocation takes into account the following factors: a basic student allocation, home schoolers, enrolment decline, unique student needs, salary differential, unique geographic factors, transportation and housing and the formula buffer grant.

J. Kwan: For each of the school districts then, what are the dollar amounts that are attached to each of those five categories? Let's start with the Victoria school district.

Hon. C. Clark: For the Victoria school district, the basic student allocation is $111,163,371. For home school, it's $4,250. For unique student needs, it's $13,403,164. Salary differential is $4,886,608. Unique geographic factors is $781,900. Transport and housing is $795,367. The formula buffer grant is $3,536,838.

J. Kwan: Those are the breakdowns of the five different categories under which Victoria has received their funding. On the basis of those numbers, which were also shared with the Victoria school board…. They received the same numbers from the Victoria school district. Yet, as the Victoria school board is going through their budget planning process, they find themselves in a situation where they have a budget shortfall of $8 million. The PAC president is saying that there's a reduction of $7 million for the special needs area alone.

Again I ask the minister: in terms of the deficit projections in the Victoria school district, what is the minister's answer to the Victoria school district on their shortfall of $ 8 million? What will she advise them to do to make up for that shortfall? What would they have to do to make up for that shortfall? What would she advise them was the cause of that shortfall? Does the minister have any sense of what caused that shortfall?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't need to advise them of this, because they've already taken us up on our offer to sit down and go over the numbers. We're certainly looking forward to doing that, to having that meeting with them and coming to a realistic set of assumptions to work from.

I suspect that when we meet with the Victoria school board, we will find that the budget projection is based on the assumption that they will be doing many, many things exactly the same way that they are this year. I'm not sure if it's fair to assume that we should do everything exactly the same way. For example, when we have fewer students to educate, we don't need as many classrooms. When you have fewer students, you can look at managing your costs differently.

In addition to that, one of the great benefits of this funding formula is that it encourages districts to be able to find efficiencies and keep them. That's a big difference from the previous government. The previous government used to say: "Good. Go out there, folks, and save as much money as you can. And by the way, if you save it, we're going to take it back from you." We're not saying that anymore. We're saying to school districts: "If you can find a way to deliver a program more efficiently, you can keep that money, so go ahead; be creative. Be entrepreneurial and unleash your creative powers and put them to work on managing these budgets." All of them have told us that if we gave them that ability, they would be able to spend smarter and stretch a dollar further. That's what we're allowing them to do.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that when the school board came out with their figure of an $8 million shortfall in Victoria, they were exercising their creative juices to their maximum to try to figure out how to make up for this $8 million shortfall.

J. Kwan: Yes, this is actually information from the opposition's research. Absolutely they have research with information that's come forward from the secretary-treasurer in Victoria, which is faced with an $8 million shortfall in their budget analysis. I've no doubt they'll be looking and searching in every single corner to try to find where they could make up for this $8 million shortfall, no doubt as a result of the government's euphemistic protection for education. It has yielded an $8 million shortfall, which will mean cuts in education programs, really. The euphemism for protection is the minister's approach to education, and that is freezing the education budget for three years — and not only that, but off-loading increased pressures onto the school boards that this government is not going to be funding.

As a result of that, school boards are faced with huge and tough decisions, decisions that this minister does not want to make, decisions that she wants to off-load in the name of flexibility to local school boards. They will have to make these cuts so that she can say: "I didn't do it. We gave you all the creative juices and told you to run with it. How come you came up with this deficit? How come you have to cut these programs? It's not my fault; it's the school board's fault." That, I know, is the path this minister's leading British Columbians

down in the area of education, and I would say it's a garden path for a lot of the students.

Parents are saying: "We're faced with a $7 million shortfall for special needs funding." It's $17 million versus $10 million. That's $7 million. They go on to say that with the cut in this, it will affect all children, not just those with special needs. Yesterday or earlier today the minister was saying that I was fearmongering when I suggested this. Well, is the president of the PAC fearmongering now?

Hon. C. Clark: What I said yesterday and what I will say today is that the funding for special needs kids is still there in the budget. The comment the member refers to is certainly something I stand by. When she stood up yesterday and somehow suggested that this government was intending to move away from a policy of mainstreaming and integrating special needs kids when there's been absolutely no discussion of that in this government, I don't think it could be characterized as anything but absolutely the lowest form of politics possible.

J. Kwan: We can check Hansard in terms of what the minister was suggesting I was fearmongering on, because this government has been accusing the opposition of fearmongering on virtually everything, whether it be education or health.

I know that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings…. When she raised the issue around MSP premiums going up, the Minister of Health Services said the opposition member was fearmongering. Well, what do we have today? Oh, MSP premiums have gone up.

In the question around education, especially as it relates to special needs funding, we have a situation from one school district where the PAC president has come forward to say that they're going to be faced with, as one issue, a $7 million shortfall in special needs. I'd like to know from the minister what she is going to say to that PAC president. Is that PAC president fearmongering?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said, I think, a number of times, we're looking forward to the opportunity to sit down with the Victoria school district and discuss the assumptions that they've used. Certainly, it's difficult, at best, for me to suggest that their projections are accurate. History would certainly show that school districts don't have a good history of accuracy in their budget projections. We are looking forward to sitting down with them and having a discussion about that.

J. Kwan: Is the school board from Victoria, in this instance, and then, of course, in Vancouver…? I have a list of others. Are they all fearmongering?

Hon. C. Clark: As I think I've said a number of times, this is part of the process that school districts go through. I know that when she was a member of cabinet and making the decisions around the cabinet table, the school district in Vancouver did exactly the same thing. It's not something that's uncommon. It's not a great, shocking revelation. We are looking forward to getting down to the real numbers and working through our budget process.

J. Kwan: When the previous government was going through the education budget, I can tell you one thing that was substantively different from this government's approach. This is in terms of the increase for the salary. Increases for teachers were funded by the government. It came with the dollars attached to it. That's unlike this government. They're not going to fund the salary for teachers, and that's the reality. Yes, they are buffering it for the first year, but the rest of it is faced with increases over the next two years.

Look at the Victoria situation. This is a three-year plan the minister is looking at. If you look at the three-year situation for Victoria, once they lose the buffering dollars, the $3.5 million, the shortfall would actually be $11 million. There's a substantive difference in terms of how this government does business versus the old. There's an $11 million shortfall….

The Chair: Excuse me. Order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

On the question around the next two years, because the first year is the $3.5 million buffering, what is Victoria going to be faced with? They are now projecting an $11 million shortfall. Right now they are projecting $8 million because of the buffering grant.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we're very much looking forward to sitting down with the Victoria school district and having a good examination of the budget numbers and ensuring we're working all from the same assumptions. You know, this government could have done what the previous government did, which is to give teachers virtually nothing over the last decade. We could have done that, but you know, I respect teachers. I think teachers do a heck of lot of hard work.

I think teachers are one of the most important parts of our education system. I respect the work they do. I understand that they work hard, and they deserved a raise. I know the member's previous government didn't agree with that. I know they were parsimonious when it came to teachers. They decided to give them zero-zero-and-2. You could talk to almost any teacher, and they'll tell you they saw virtually nothing in their pockets as a result of the decisions of her government and her cabinet over the last decade.

I didn't agree with that. We decided to give teachers a raise. My father was a teacher, and I can remember sitting around the dining room table with him many nights when he would be marking papers. That was extra time for him. I can remember sitting around

the dining room table many nights when he wasn't there at all, because he was out coaching basketball or doing some other volunteer activities.

I know how hard teachers work. I know what they contribute to the system. I'm proud of how much they've contributed to making our system one of the best in the world, and that's why we decided to give them a raise.

J. Kwan: The minister certainly didn't give this speech when we were going through Bill 27 and Bill 28 about how proud she is of the government's action in legislating the teachers back to the table.

Yes, the previous government didn't give the teachers raises. It was zero-zero-and-2, absolutely. There's no doubt about that. But do you know what? It was traded by the teachers on reduced class size. They had the reduced class size, and they didn't take a pay raise. They deemed it more important to see reduced class size to benefit the students in the classrooms. They traded that with their sweat. Yes, they didn't get big increases, but they understood that by reducing the class size, it was making a better learning environment for the students. That's where the funding came from.

The government funded reduced class size in British Columbia and funded it to its fullest, not only the teacher who is out there doing a tough job on an everyday basis, investing their compassion, investing their energy and their beliefs into making the best education system they could for the students in their classrooms. Not only did they do that, but the government also funded the increased class size that resulted so that the learning environment could be better for all of the students.

Yes, government is about decisions. It's about choices, and it's about priorities. At the end of the day, the previous government chose to reduce class sizes so that the learning environment would be better for students. It's been documented, especially for younger children, that if you have a smaller teacher-per-student ratio, they actually learn better. In fact, the member for Delta used to be a principal, and he and I actually had a conversation around what the optimal class size is.

J. Kwan: It's not a misquote. I spoke with the member, and I asked him: "What is the optimal class size for students?" He said that from all the research he has engaged in, it's 15. I believe he said 15 to 17 would be the optimal class size.

Even with the previous government's reduction in class size, we still have some way to go. We still have some way to go. Now we're in a situation where class size is actually put in jeopardy. I know the minister is going to get up and say it shouldn't be bargained away and so on and so forth, but do you know what? That was an issue in terms of the teachers themselves giving up their salary. They pay for reduced class sizes on their backs on behalf of the students in British Columbia, to make a better learning environment for the students.

I know there is a member who is itching to get up and ask questions of the minister. I will relinquish the floor so that other members in this House will be able to do that, and I'll resume my line of questions with the minister.

R. Hawes: Because I've heard the same question asked at least 100 times, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. You're going to sit down with the school boards in Vancouver and Victoria and discuss these discrepancies — are you?

J. Kwan: No wonder we're having such difficulties. These members seem to think we've been going over these issues about 101 times. I challenge both members to check the Hansard to see how often we have canvassed this issue. The fact of the matter is that I find it very difficult to accept the notion that the minister or the ministry has come out with the educational budget without assumptions of her own in terms of how it's broken down.

This is a government that says they're accountable — and fiscally accountable, no less — yet they have zero assumptions of how these dollars come out to be. They have zero understanding of how the deficit dollars have been arrived at from these various school boards. How could that be, from a government that claims to be very fiscally responsible, from a government that says they're going to be held accountable?

I'm simply asking the minister to provide information, to expose that accountability, that transparency that she has refused to date to provide British Columbians with. I don't know why the minister is refusing to do that. Maybe it's because she's trying to hide the fact that she's simply cutting educational funding because of additional pressures in this era of protection. She's cutting educational funding as a result of the increased pressures that school boards will be faced with. When those pressures have not been funded, then school boards will have to make a choice in having to cut programs.

Is it because she doesn't want to come out and have to cut the programs? Therefore, she's come out with a different scheme to say, in the name of flexibility, "It's your responsibility, school boards. You're supposed to do that," so that she can wash her hands of any responsibility in having to make those tough decisions. That's what I suspect.

I'd like to ask the minister the question about…. I'm going to give the minister some time, because the other thing I know she's going to say is that she hasn't had time to look at the full documents. I'm going to table this document to the minister, because we pulled it off the website. This is a document that contains all of the budget numbers for every single district in terms of the breakdown of how much they're getting and so on. It was released by the superintendents of schools, and it

I'll let the minister look at the document in terms of what it shows, because it shows a variety of different things. I know that once the minister has had a chance to look at this information, then we can go through it in more detail tomorrow. I know I'm not allowed to table documents. I'm simply going to ask for the document to be passed over to the minister. Then we can go through this in more detail at a later time, once she has had time to digest the information.

I'd like to ask the minister a question around the provincial government on the provincial standards for delivery of services. Whereas previously the provincial government ensured that all British Columbia's schools had to meet provincial standards, under the current government's plan this is no longer the case. How will the minister compensate for the effect of removing provincial standards on the education that students receive in this province?

Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps the member could clarify what she's talking about when she speaks about provincial standards.

J. Kwan: Is it the case that the current government's plan is to no longer use the provincial standards that were established by the previous government?

Hon. C. Clark: We are certainly setting more standards, I think, as a government. Part of our service plan is to ensure that we set standards and goals through accountability contracts and ask school districts to live up to those.

J. Kwan: I'm trying to draw a comparison in terms of the previous standards that were established and the current government's decision to have a change. I know that the minister speaks fondly of these accountability measures and, of course, of student outcomes through the standardized testing and so on as a measure of the standards that apply for the delivery of education.

The previous government set up provincial standards that apply to students in the classroom. The current government, as I understand it, is no longer proceeding with that plan. Maybe the minister's not anticipating any negative effects. Is the minister anticipating any effects at all on students from this change?

Hon. C. Clark: We're still maintaining a centrally prescribed curriculum; those standards will stay in place. We are still very strongly supporting — as the member knows, I think — standardized testing in grades 4, 7, 10 and, of course, 12. We are building whole new standards through accountability contracts. If she looks at our service plan, she'll certainly see that we've set very, very clear goals and standards for ourselves to meet and for the system to meet. It's the first time any government's done that in education. Next year we'll be able to say: did we meet our goals? Did we not? How can we do better? I think that's an important part of standards.

J. Kwan: We canvassed this earlier in terms of the Kootenay-Columbia area. From their budget calculations, the district there is facing a 4.9 percent reduction. How will the Kootenay-Columbia community — with the school district being one of those hardest hit, I think, by cuts to their education budget — maintain their standards in light of these cuts?

Hon. C. Clark: That school district, we predict, will have substantially fewer children to educate next year. As I've said a number of times, the policy on that hasn't changed from the previous government's. When enrolment declines, funding declines correspondingly.

J. Kwan: When enrolment declines, that will impact the various school districts. When the dollars come down — and yes, there are buffering dollars and so on — are these school districts going to be faced with school closures?

J. Kwan: If the school districts come forward with school closures, would the minister agree with that decision or support that decision?

Hon. C. Clark: It's impossible to make a comment on that until we have a request from a school district.

J. Kwan: But broadly speaking, is the minister supportive of any request for closures of schools? Would the minister just say: "Hey, you know what? Don't bother looking in that area, because I don't support the closures of schools." What is the minister's perspective on that?

Hon. C. Clark: The policy with respect to school closures hasn't changed. If a district decides to close a school, they must undertake a consultation. That's still required.

J. Kwan: I'm just asking a simple question. Would the minister herself support school closures as a rule?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think that's something that there's a hard-and-fast rule about. Certainly, the policy with respect to school closures hasn't changed from the previous government.

J. Kwan: While there is no hard-and-fast rule, under what circumstances would the minister support a school closure? The minister is not prepared to answer the question about closures, yet we know school districts are going to be faced with that.

If the minister is going to be clear on that question, she could send a signal out now for school districts who are contemplating as high a closure as ten schools. She could say to them: "Don't go there, because that's something I wouldn't support."

When school closures take place, especially in the rural and small communities, the students would have to travel quite a distance to get from one school to another and spend quite a lot of time on the bus. The minister could get up and say: "You know what? That's something I don't support, so don't go there. Look elsewhere."

This government has created the cost pressures as a result of their freezing of the education budget over three years. Of course, the minister, as we know, is not prepared to take on that responsibility for these tough decisions. That's why she's off-loaded those decision onto school boards. That's why she has changed the formula and says: "Hey, you know, in the name of flexibility, choice and autonomy, it's all up to you. You decide, even though we know the funding we gave you is insufficient to cover all the costs that are required and that were provided for previously, even though we know it does not cover these expenditures and that means you will have to cut educational programs. Don't come to us. Don't come to us, because I'm not prepared to make those tough decisions. You decide, and you take the blame for it in the community."

I'm going to save for another time the rest of my questions around the funding formula in terms of the impacts on schools for the various different districts until the minister has had some time to look at those documents I have just handed over to her. I'm going to go on to a different line of questions for the minister.

The fact is that some districts benefited from the school equity funding, which included the decision-making process regarding the new formula. The minister said social equity funding is not her responsibility, but we know social equity funding impacts student outcomes. I would presume the minister has some concerns around the social equity funding as it impacts student outcomes. I know that in next year's budget the social equity funding is being transferred to the Ministry of Education. Is the ministry anticipating there will be full transference of the social equity funding from the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. C. Clark: I think it's always a mistake to try to prejudge the decisions that the Finance minister may make next year. Those are his decisions to make.

I certainly do want to speak to this issue of school closures, though. The member gets up and talks about how she supports increased programming, maintaining current programming and all those sorts of issues. I'd like to make two points about that with respect to school closures.

In an era of declining enrolment, I wonder if the member is arguing that it is wise for us to maintain the same kind of square footage of basically empty school spaces that are unoccupied. Is that the choice she would rather school districts make when they could be spending that money funding programs? I think that's what she's arguing. While earlier today she was arguing that school districts would be wise to put more money into programs and make sure programs for special needs children are supportive, she now appears to be arguing that the priorities should be making sure every square foot of school that is open should remain open, whether or not students need that.

I want to just draw the chamber's attention to the contradiction in the member's comments. It seems quite apparent to me that it would be unwise for school districts to maintain exactly the same amount of square footage to educate fewer children. It means that they heat, maintain and supervise whole areas that don't have students in them. I, frankly, don't think that's a very good use of taxpayers' money.

The second point I would make is this. While she stands up and tries to wax eloquent about the fact that it's wrong for any government to allow a school district to shut a school, I could read her a very, very long list of school closures that her government allowed. Many of those school closures happened in years when there were not enrolment declines, when in fact there were enrolment increases. I want to draw the House's attention to the contradiction in the member's comments. Perhaps she would be prepared to address that for the House so that she could clarify what exactly she meant when she said she didn't think school closures should be something that any government should consider.

J. Kwan: This is definitely a case where the minister's putting words in my mouth, but I think there are some cases where it applies, where school closures shouldn't take place — as an example, in the transition communities, communities that are faced with tremendous difficulties around resource-sector economy issues. There are some communities that were faced with the potential of having to shut down. If the government went in there…. Because of the decline in enrolment, because of the decline in usage for hospital services and health care services and the like, the government could choose to go in there and just shut all those services down.

I know that in my previous discussion with the former Minister of Education on this issue, I advocated for these communities that the government should not shut down these schools. If they did, it would effectively create a ghost town. It wouldn't be good for those communities, and it would create a problem. So yes, there are instances where I would argue against shutting schools down.

I will tell the minister that I've been travelling the province in the last couple of weekends. Parents and students have come forward and made presentations to me around their concern around school closures, as an example. This is particularly the case in the rural communities, where parents are worried that their children will spend a lot of time on the buses travelling back and forth, back and forth, because of the distance

between schools, because of school closures. There were very concerned about that.

It's not to say that the previous government didn't shut any schools down. It's not to say that, but we have a situation now where the pressures on the school boards and school trustees are even more heightened because of the flat-line funding over three years for education, meaning the three-year freeze on the Education budget.

I wonder how the minister squares the notion with herself that she's protecting education when, in fact, what she has just expressed is that she now knows that schools will be closed for students. She knows that programs will be reduced. Because she's not prepared to make the tough decisions on this, she's off-loading all those responsibilities onto the school boards.

J. Kwan: You know what? I wonder how the minister can get up and say that they're protecting education when in fact the minister is not, hon. Chair.

Getting back to the question around social equity funding. I know, as I said, that the minister is going to say that social equity is not part of her envelope and that it's the Minister of Children and Family Development. The fact of the matter is that social equity funding impacts learning outcomes for students. One would have thought — but maybe not; maybe the minister only works in silos, and she doesn't see beyond her borders — that the minister would have some thoughts around social equity funding and whether or not that funding should be maintained to ensure that children who are faced with multiple barriers have access to social equity funding, including inner-city school funding. When those programs are transferred into the Ministry of Education's budget next year, as she stated yesterday they would be, would she agree with a reduced budget for the social equity funding? Eliminating $5.4 million for inner-city school funding would actually suffice to ensure the educational outcomes for students who are faced with multiple barriers in the inner city.

Hon. C. Clark: I have thoughts on a whole range of issues unrelated to the Ministry of Education estimates. At the appropriate place and time I'd be delighted to explore some of those thoughts on a whole range of issues out there, from A to Z, with the member opposite. However the Ministry of Education estimates for '02-03 are an opportunity to discuss the estimates for the Ministry of Education for '02-03. I'm looking forward to continuing that debate.

J. Kwan: There's another place in which the minister's hiding in this open, accountable and transparent government. The minister herself says one of her primary responsibilities is to ensure that educational outcomes for students are met. She knows very well that the educational funding cut in the social equity envelope in relation to inner-city schools would impact the educational outcomes for students, but she's not prepared to talk about it.

She's wanting to use some rule to say: "Hey, you know what? This has nothing to do with the Ministry of Education." She knows very well that inner-city school funding, the social equity envelope funding, has everything to do with the students' educational outcomes. She knows that very well. She just wants to hide and say: "Hey, you know what? Not my responsibility. Talk to my colleagues about it. He's going to make those cuts." Just like the school boards are going to make the cuts. Just like all the other people who said: "Hey, what about the funding for these programs?"

What happens to the children's educational outcomes that these reductions of programs would impact? What are we going to do about that? The parents are already worried about it. When they want to raise these matters with the minister, she's saying: "Hey, you know what? Don't talk to me. Go and talk to somebody else. Not my responsibility." Wash her hands and abdicate her responsibility: that is the new era under the Liberal government for education. That is becoming increasingly clear with this minister.

I will definitely canvass the questions on social equity funding with the Minister of Children and Family Development around that. I was under the impression that the minister would be working intergovernmentally across ministries. Obviously this minister is suggesting that is not what she's doing here. I think that's a disservice for the students in British Columbia.

I'd like to ask the minister another question. The minister has frozen the budget for education for three years. In the government's quest to balance the provincial budget, they have effectively passed the costs on to school districts with no ability to pay — increased pressures. In spite of all the flexibility jargon the minister would want to throw out by saying they have the flexibility to do this and do that and to find savings here and there, school boards have already said that at the end of the day they would not be able to meet this challenge and that education program funding is going to be cut. Does the minister think it is appropriate, in the Liberal government's quest to balance the provincial budget, to pass the cost on to school districts, especially when they said they were going to outlaw off-loading?

Hon. C. Clark: The member will remember, if she was listening when she was in government years ago, that school districts have been asking for increased flexibility for many years. They asked the previous government and were rebuffed. They asked this government, and we've obliged. We are giving them increased flexibility and the tools they need to be able to manage their cost pressures. I'm very confident that over the coming years we will be able to build an education system that is not just different but is better than the one we have today.

J. Kwan: Yes, if only the minister would actually comply with all the requests from the school boards. She's saying: "Oh, well, they asked for flexibility, so we gave them flexibility." Well, they've also asked for more money from the government, and you know what? This government is not giving them more money, but they have given them more pressure, increased pressure, in the educational system. There she is, saying: "You go find the money to fund these increased pressures. It's not my responsibility."

You know what? This is all the quest of this Liberal government's agenda: to achieve a balanced budget. Quite frankly, the government's off-loading the costs onto local governments — something they said they would outlaw and something they have not done. Another broken promise from the Liberal government. Thank you very much. To the people of British Columbia, yet another broken promise from the Liberal government. That's what people are faced with.

Does the minister think it is good management to force the school districts to create deficits in some situations and cut programs in some situations just so the Liberal government can finance their own deficit in their budget projections?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said a number of times, we've protected education funding in an era when there is declining enrolment. It's the same amount of money available in this budget and the Advanced Education budget, even though there are fewer students to educate in the K-to-12 system. I think that speaks to the government's commitment to making sure we have a top-notch education system in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I know the minister is sort of like this. It's like an ostrich, the analogy I'm going to draw. You stick your head in the sand. You don't look up, and then you say: "Yes, there are no education programs being cut. Yes, children will not be hurt. Yes, children will be able to access programs." You know? The minister's approach is to stick her head into the soil just like an ostrich. See no evil; hear no evil. Therefore, there are no problems out there. Good approach, minister.

I'll tell you: in the communities out there, I know children will be hurt as a result of this government's budget. I know that. I know, with this government's euphemistic analysis and approach to education and protecting education, which means a cut in education programs, that the educational outcomes for students will be jeopardized. Some students will fall through the cracks, and the costs to society will only have to be paid for somewhere else down the line.

This is, of course, in the midst of legal aid cuts, you know. If you can't get legal aid services to get representation for you to ensure that your legal rights are protected, to heck with it. The Attorney General says: "I don't really care."

That's really the approach this government's adopted. Hear no evil; see no evil. Stick your head in the sand, and you won't see any of the damage that's being caused by this government.

The funding documents indicate that a review is underway and that new guidelines will be made available this fall. What is being contemplated? What is being reviewed, and why is it being reviewed?

Hon. C. Clark: I want to be clear about what we're trying to achieve with the funding formulae. We, as a government, are doing something very different from the way the previous government approached this. It's something that the school districts have asked us to do. They said they don't want Victoria to make decisions about what they should be doing locally, that we should leave those decisions up to them. We've complied with that request.

Now, we could say, as the previous government did, that we are going to decide what we're going to pay for, right down to the toilet paper, as the former Premier liked to say. We are not going to do that. We're saying to school districts: "You make the decisions about what best meets your local community."

When the member talks about a review of the funding program, I think she may be referring to — and I'm guessing here — the review of the buffer grant, which I've referred to earlier in debate.

J. Kwan: There are no other reviews, then, taking place within the ministry other than the buffer grant review?

Hon. C. Clark: We're always reviewing to make sure we're doing things better. I'd refer the member to our service plan. Objective No. 3, which is a top-notch performance-oriented education system, is to reduce burdensome and/or inefficient regulations in the ministry policy or legislation. We're constantly undertaking those kinds of reviews, making sure we don't have barriers in the way of school district success so that they are able to go out and create a performance-oriented culture that's student centred, that makes sure students achieve more year after year.

J. Kwan: The minister gave one example of another review. Are there any others, or is that it?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we're always reviewing how we do things. For example, we're looking at something we call the "dumb rules" that are out there. We're always on the lookout to make sure we don't have unnecessary rules and regulations in place that hinder school boards. There's a whole range of those things going on.

J. Kwan: Will the minister review the dumb rule of cutting inner-city school funding for children who are most in need?

Actually, this just came in from a parent, on special needs. I guess parents out there are listening to the debate on this. A letter was sent, copied to the Minister of Education. In this instance, this one letter that I'm

referring to right now — and I'll be referring to others later — is the letter from Donna McKenna, who is the executive director of the Autism Society of B.C., who expressed urgent concern about the new funding framework.

Her concern is that children with autism have very complex and unique educational needs. The society is very concerned, even alarmed, that the ministry has now removed targeted funding for particular categories of students with disabilities. How will the new flexibility given to the school boards, which we now know are going to experience massive deficits, meet the needs of children with learning disabilities?

Hon. C. Clark: As I mentioned previously — and I'll say it again — we have increased the funding for children in that level 2 from about $12,500 to about $15,000 per child. Depending on the number of children, that money is increased. That's assigned based on the number of children identified in that category by the district. That's actually improved quite dramatically over last year.

The other thing the member may want to know is that many, many children with autism would fit into that category too.

J. Kwan: I know the minister is saying that levels 1 and 2, I think she said, had increased, but level 3 did not increase. Of course, with the different funding aspects of the previous formula, there were some reductions in some of these places as well.

You know, I have to say that's small comfort, quite frankly, for the parents who are faced with these challenges. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the minister to account for the needs of the children in our education system. Can she guarantee that children with special needs, with autism, will receive the help they need?

Hon. C. Clark: I see where the member is getting back to some of her questions from yesterday. I'd certainly refer her to our service plan, again, where we set goals for ourselves. Objective 1 is to improve student achievement. That's to improve student performance in areas of intellectual development. That certainly applies to all students, whether they have a special need or not.

We are, in order to achieve that, setting in place accountability contracts, setting in place very, very clear goals for improvement. Next year we'll be working in specific goals for special needs children. As I've noted, as well, we in the ministry are beefing up our ability to retrieve and then use data that will allow us to better analyze how well we are doing in supporting special needs children.

J. Kwan: I'm asking a simple question of the minister. Is she prepared to guarantee that the children with special needs like autism will receive the help they need? It's all very well and good for the minister to say: "Hey, you know what? It's the school board's responsibility. They're going to be held accountable." Ultimately, the school boards are going to have a tough time providing for the services.

We have already seen it in the Vancouver school board. They are expecting a $2.5 million deficit. We see it in the Victoria area. They're seeing an $8 million deficit situation. In the islands in total, in Sooke and Victoria and Saanich, they're faced with a $50 million deficit situation. We have seen that these school districts are going to be faced with huge deficit dollars. How does the minister expect these school boards to maintain the proper level of services to children with autism and to any other child, with special needs or otherwise, when they're going to have to cut staff and programs to deal with these budget shortfalls?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the Ministry of Education budget is protected, even though we're in a era of declining enrolment. The education system in British Columbia has excellent results. Obviously, we can do better. Certainly, we can graduate more students. Certainly, we can improve results for first nations students in particular, which is a big concern of mine.

That's why in our service plan we've set out very clear goals for improvement. I can refer her to page 5 of the service plan, where we talk about improving completion rates and setting those kinds of goals for ourselves. Certainly, we are trying to ensure that we are doing better for special needs children.

We are bringing in new protections and bringing in new abilities to retrieve and use data that we never had before. As I've said a number of times, information is power. We are going to make sure the information is available to the parents of special needs children. They will be able to use that to hold not just their school boards accountable but hold us accountable as well.

J. Kwan: Indeed, information is power, yet the minister refuses to provide the information her ministry has developed around the assumptions of how she has come up with these allocations of funds to the various school boards. She has refused to do that. In the new open and accountable era of the new Liberal government, the accountability, it appears to me, is nil at this level. I think the minister has now resorted to her habit — perhaps it has become a bit of a habit — of the ostrich approach. See no evil. Hear no evil. Stick your head in the sand, and everything will be all right.

The fact of the matter is that the minister keeps referring to how enrolment has decreased, but the other factor is that cost pressures have increased substantively. School boards are now being asked to take on these pressures without additional funding. Isn't that the case, or does the minister see no evil and therefore does not see the increased pressures being put on the school boards?

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, we have recognized that school districts will have pressures. That's why we've given them the ability to manage those pressures. We

J. Kwan: On the flexibility that I know the minister likes to reference, I'd be hard-pressed to think those flexibility provisions would actually yield the kinds of dollars to meet the pressures this government has placed on the school boards. These are tremendous pressures. Every day now we're seeing school boards coming forward to say there is no way they can meet these pressures without cutting education programs.

The minister refuses to acknowledge that education programs are going to be cut as a result of the pressure that has been caused by this government with the shortfall in the funding under the euphemistic new-era approach of protecting education. The minister refuses to give a guarantee to parents who have autistic children that they will receive the help they need and deserve. Can the minister tell this House how many autistic children are currently in the B.C. school system?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't ask school districts to specifically identify which diagnosis each child has. We simply ask them to class them by category 1, 2 or 3, and we use that as a basis for our funding. For children with autism, many of them would fit into category 2, but there may be other students as well.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell this House how many special needs children there are in the B.C. school system now?

J. Kwan: How does that break down with the three categories the minister has outlined?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts haven't got back to us yet. We don't know what their predictions are going to be for the various categories of special needs children in '02-03, but we're going to continue to work with them to establish what those numbers are. Of course, in September we will go back, and we will still have our contingency fund because, as I said, we have no intention to raid it this year. We will use that contingency fund to ensure we are funding the students that are there.

J. Kwan: If the minister doesn't have the breakdown for levels 1, 2 and 3, yet she has a total figure of 65,701 students with special needs, how did the minister come up with the 65,701 special needs students?

Hon. C. Clark: That's how many special needs students were identified to us by school districts in '01-02. As I said, the categories 1, 2 and 3 will be new this year, so we'll certainly see how school districts decide to identify the children in their districts and what those numbers will look like when those predictions start coming in.

J. Kwan: Can the minister articulate what their needs are? What kinds of needs do these special needs students have?

Hon. C. Clark: There's certainly a wide range of special needs: dependent handicapped, severe behaviour, mental illness. There's a whole long range. It's a fairly complex breakdown and identification process, but I can certainly get that document from our special needs department and make sure the member has a chance to have a look at it.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that document. I would also like to know from the minister if she can describe any plans or programs she's working on to improve education for autistic children and for children with special needs.

Hon. C. Clark: We can quite proudly point to the fact that this government has created a Minister of State for Early Childhood Development who has responsibility for building an autism strategy for government. It's the first time any ministry has been specifically tasked with that. Looking at that across government, of course children with autism receive services from a whole number of different ministries, not just the Ministry of Education. I think that's certainly something we can quite proudly point to.

In addition, I'd refer the member to many of my previous comments about supporting programs for special needs children, particularly enriching our data analysis capability, our monitoring and our reporting functions that happen out there. Of course, in addition to that, the requirement for individual education plans for every single child are still there. We recognize — I think it's a different view from the previous government — that every child is unique. They should be treated as unique. We're going to continue to require those IEPs for children. I think our approach to supporting special needs children will mean a real enhancement of our ability to make sure they get the service they require.

J. Kwan: One specific plan the minister has identified falls outside of her ministry. She didn't have any trouble talking about that ministry's plans, but when it came to inner-city school funding cuts, she had great difficulty in referencing that, saying: "Hey, you know what? Not me. Don't talk to me. Not my responsibility." I guess when it comes to saying there is a plan, then the minister is delighted to engage in that discussion. Interesting approach.

I know that as an example…. I learned this from the parents in my riding. I meet with them often, because they're desperate to get assistance from government to

ensure that their children have an opportunity to realize their hopes and dreams and to maximize their potential. In talking with these parents, they tell me that they have a need for special pathologists, as an example, for some of the children, to assist their children to learn. Some of them have behavioral issues. I actually also learned this from travelling around the province with the Education Committee. Members and professionals have come forward to identify to us how important the funding is in these areas.

Can the minister tell me what the typical cost is for a child with severe learning disabilities, someone who, let's say, needs one-on-one support in the classroom, someone who perhaps needs a special speech pathologist? What is the typical cost for such a student?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm glad the member was able to glean some information from the public in the two-thirds — or one-third — of the meetings she attended for the Select Standing Committee on Education. I'm pleased she was able to hear from some of the many, many parents of children who require special education services in the few meetings she showed up for.

In answer to the question, we provide $6,000, $15,000 and $30,000, depending on the category that the child's in. The cost associated with providing services to each of those children will depend on the child.

J. Kwan: I know the cost will depend on each child. I'm just trying to get a sense of how the minister arrived at the $30,000, $15,000 and $6,000, respectively, for the different levels. I know it's very expensive. It's very expensive to have a speech pathologist, for example, in the system. It's very expensive to fund a child who has severe behavioral challenges on a one-on-one basis in the classroom.

Maybe the minister can tell me this. What is a typical cost for the different kinds of assistants that are needed in the classroom for children with special needs? Let's start with speech pathology. What is the typical cost for a speech pathologist to provide support for a student?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said previously, the numbers we've used for this funding formula are based on the numbers that the previous government — her government — applied. The difference is that we've recognized that it is more expensive. School boards report that it's more expensive for the category 2 students, so we bumped that up a little bit. Actually, we bumped that up substantially.

J. Kwan: I know the minister has said they've bumped up one category in terms of the cost, but they've also reduced another category in terms of dollars.

I'd like to know, irrespective of the minister saying she's used the previous government's numbers. They've changed the system. It's a completely different system now. It's three categories versus four. I'd like to know from the minister: does she have this information? What is the average cost right now for a speech pathologist to work with someone with a disability in the system? How much does it cost? Maybe it's an hourly rate. I don't know how it works, but maybe the minister can enlighten me.

Hon. C. Clark: The new approach we're taking in the Ministry of Education is to recognize that children aren't widgets. Children aren't all the same. In fact, every child is unique and deserves to be treated as unique. I think it betrays the member's view that children are somehow all the same when she asks questions like that. What she is implying is that somehow the cost for providing a speech pathologist is exactly the same for every single child. It simply isn't because every child is different, and every child with a special need requires a different level of support.

J. Kwan: The minister has just spouted a whole bunch of nonsense in terms of my line of questioning around this. The fact of the matter is that I'm trying to determine how the minister arrived at the dollars attached to each child for the special needs requirements in the school system. How did she get there? I am interested in understanding that and breaking it down. Is that a realistic figure, which would actually provide the support needed for the child?

It is true that every child is different, and it is true that every pathologist charges a different rate, but surely there is some sort of average rate that applies. Maybe there's a range that applies. How did the minister come up with the $30,000, the $15,000 and the $6,000 for the different categories, and would it actually pay for the costs that are required to meet the needs of the students?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we based those numbers on the amount that boards reported they were spending — what it cost them, on average, in those areas.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know what is the cost or the range for a speech pathologist for one hour of support for a student in the classroom?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we provide the money for school districts based on the amount that they report they've spent. That's how we came to the conclusion about these numbers. In terms of the range for a speech pathologist, that will depend on the speech pathologist. It will depend on the service that's being contracted, and it will also depend, for example, on things like how far the speech pathologist has to travel in order to provide the service. There is a huge variance there. If the member would like to get that information, I'm sure she can look up a few speech pathologists on the Net.

J. Kwan: I would have thought the minister would be interested in this number, as well, as one area in which special needs children may need the services. It goes right to the heart of the Education budget. How did the dollars derive to meet the needs? The minister says categorically that the children are going to get their needs met, but I'm not so certain about that at all. Maybe the minister just says that those are the numbers given to us from the school boards, so therefore, they must be okay. In the process of trying to determine that the funding formula the government has devised — in this instance it applies to special needs children — and the change of $6,000, $15,000 and $30,000, and whether or not that's sufficient funds to support the needs of these students….

One would have thought the minister would be interested in trying to break down some costs and in getting some understanding of how much it costs to provide those kinds of support for the students in the classroom. It appears to me that the minister has no idea, nor is she interested in it. If I'm wrong in that, please rise up and tell me. What kind of range does the minister expect for a speech pathologist? How many special needs assistants are required for a child who has a severe learning disability and behavioral challenges? How much does that cost? How many aides does one need in a classroom of 20 to ensure that the other children — the ones who don't have special needs — have their educational environment protected as well?

This is the line of questioning I'm trying to get at. Hopefully, the minister will shed some light on her understanding around these issues.

Hon. C. Clark: As with most of her questions so far this afternoon, the member is really missing the point. We are providing money based on the amount that boards reported they spent on supporting those children. The range of services they might have built around an individual child would be a decision that they made based on the needs of that individual child. It is impossible, and I think actually wrongheaded, for the provincial government in Victoria to start being so prescriptive that we provide money based on a school district giving us a bill, service by service. It can't work that way; it shouldn't work that way. School districts build a set of supports around a child. Then they have reported to us on average what that costs. That's how we came to the numbers of $6,000, $15,000 and $30,000.

J. Kwan: The minister refuses to acknowledge the line of questioning. I think it just goes to show her lack of understanding and willingness to understand the needs of special needs children in the classroom. Nobody's suggesting that the school board should be prescribed on how many dollars should be given to a pathologist. I'm simply trying to understand whether the minister has any understanding herself on what costs are associated with children with special needs or the range of services that they have, whether it be on speech pathologists or on the issue around special needs assistants.

The other issue that comes to light with the educational deficits that school boards are going to be faced with, as a result of the freezing of the budget from this minister and increased pressures that the school system will be faced with, is that these pressures are going to create a loss of programs in the school system. They are. The minister has demonstrated that she has zero understanding whatsoever on what costs are associated with special needs children.

She has come up with figures of $30,000, $15,000 and $6,000, but she has no understanding of how that's broken down in the most severe level — in one case, a scenario of $30,000 to support a child and what that covers. If a child needs a speech pathologist, how much does that cost? If a child needs a special needs assistant, how much does that cost? If a child needs ongoing monitoring during school hours, how much does that cost? If the child needs counselling, how much does that cost? The lists go on, and the minister has just demonstrated that she has zero understanding whatsoever on the needs of the children in our system who require these services from the government.

Maybe the minister's answer is like that of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Maybe her answer is just saying to people: "You know what? If the services are not there and don't provide for your needs, go and make more money." Maybe that's her answer, because that's the Minister of State for Women's Equality's answer for women. That is the answer from the Minister of State for Women's Equality for children and parents who have children with autism. I know that the Minister of State for Women's Equality's estimates are going on in the big House right now, so I won't ask these questions of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. But the fact is that she stated this on the record, hon. Chair.

The question around funding and supports for children with special needs, particularly autistic children…. I'd like to ask the minister what is more important to her. Is it driving her responsibility to achieve the bottom line — that is, a budgetary bottom line — or is it more important to her to ensure that the quality of education is protected?

Hon. C. Clark: If the member wants to understand what's important to this ministry, she should have a look at our service plan.

J. Kwan: I'm asking the minister what is important to this minister. What is it? If push comes to shove and you have two competing demands — the goal of achieving the bottom line versus improving the quality of education — which would it be?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll reiterate: if the member wants to understand what's important to the Ministry of Education, she should have a look at the service plan. I would think that's an important part of preparing for esti-

mates. You know, when we come back tomorrow, I'm sure she'll be prepared, having had a look at some of the homework she should have done.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm prepared. Yes, I may not have looked at every single service plan, because there are only, what, 28 of them out there, with the different ministries, the Premier's and so on.

There are only the two of us, the member for Vancouver-Hastings and myself, who have to go through every set of estimates, including the bills being tabled. There's a lot of work to do. I would admit we don't have the resources to go over every single detail of everything and have all the questions answered.

What we've also learned is this: even if you read the documents, you have to read between the lines. Things are hidden and not readily obvious or available. In fact there's a lot of things that are hidden. This is why we have the thing called the estimates process. We go through each of these items so we can canvass it thoroughly in the interests of accountability, which this government has claimed it has prioritized in the interests of answering questions.

No doubt not only I have these questions. No doubt the public has these questions. No doubt the general public would not have time to go through all the service plans and every single detail the minister has put forward. They are lacking information in trying to understand this. The purpose of the Education estimates process and the questions I'm asking is to shed some light, not just for myself, but for the broader public as well.

I ask the minister to be patient. We will have to go through the items line by line as we try to expose the real hidden agenda of this Liberal government.

I ask the minister once again on the question. I know the government has committed the ministers to a bottom line. That bottom line is tied into the fiscal bottom line. They must meet their budget. They have even tied their salary into it. If they didn't meet their budget, they would have their salary reduced. I know there is a huge incentive to reach the bottom-line objective. That is the objective of balancing the budget.

I'm asking the Minister of Education, whose primary objective, I would assume, is not the bottom-line objective of balancing the budget but rather the bottom line of ensuring quality of education in British Columbia: which will it be? Will it be fiscal challenges and demands or the quality of education?

Hon. C. Clark: There we have it. There we have the perfect illustration of what happened over the last ten years in British Columbia. There we have the perfect example of why British Columbia now enjoys one of the lowest standards of living of any jurisdiction in our neighbourhood on this continent. There we have a perfect example of why British Columbia enjoys the distinction of having a $4.4 billion deficit.

Members like the one opposite didn't understand that you can provide quality government services and keep a bottom line at the same time. Members opposite didn't understand that you didn't have to say yes to every special interest that came to the door. Members opposite thought you could somehow continue to sustain quality services even though your debt service costs were going through the roof.

What this member did over the last ten years is to create a situation where they eroded government's ability to be able to support our important social programs. That includes education and health care, the things the previous government used to say were important to them. They were responsible for eroding our ability to pay for those. They made those decisions. They made those decisions because they refused to say no to any special interest that came through the door. They refused to understand that it was important to balance our budget. They refused to recognize that sustainable social programs depend on sustainable spending. Here we have a perfect example of why we're in the trouble we're in today. I don't intend to be a minister who contributes to the problems they created.

J. Kwan: Well, it is indeed clear. This government is in the habit of calling everybody a special interest group. You could be a student, and you're a special interest group. You could be a woman, and you're a special interest group. You could be a parent with autistic children, and you're a special interest group. You could be a parent with gifted children, and you're a special interest group. You could be a parent with gifted children, and you're a special interest group. You could be a parent of children with special needs, and you're a special interest group. You could be a parent who has, I guess, just regular children. Those, too, are special interest groups. You could be a trade unionist, and you are a special interest group. You could be a teacher, and you are a special interest group. You're a doctor? You're a special interest group. If you're a nurse, you're a special interest group.

Every single category this minister can imagine is conjured up to be a special interest group, with the exception of one. What would that be? It would be the richest British Columbians and the biggest corporations. Those are never special interest groups under this government's definition. They are somehow exempted from that identification.

I have a news flash for the minister. Women are more than 50 percent of the population, and no, they're not a special interest group. Yes, I know the Minister of State for Women's Equality thinks that. She just said to women that if they don't have support from government and they need the services, they should go and make more money. If you're a parent who needs additional support from government for autistic children and you have two jobs, go and get a third. That's her answer, and I imagine that's probably the answer for this minister as well. Everybody else is a special interest group.

You know what? With the deficit question the minister has raised in terms of the pressure for children

and the education system, for health care, for everywhere else, a substantive amount of the pressure was created by this government with their big tax cuts to the wealthiest British Columbians. Make no mistake about it.

J. Kwan: Yes, the minister says we've been through this before. Gosh! God forbid someone should remind her of this government's record for the eight months they've been in office and where their priorities have been placed. Of course it has been clear. Even though in the throne speech it talks about the priority being that if you're the most vulnerable, the most challenged and the poorest people in British Columbia, you're their top priority, the reality is that it has been shown otherwise. It is certainly showing in the education budget we are going through in terms of the estimates process right now.

The minister has said…. Actually, no. The minister has answered the question I asked on which it would be, quality of education versus dollars. Her answer is dollars. That is the minister's approach to education. I know that somehow, in the world the minister lives in, she thinks you can achieve the same kinds of programs and the amount of services that are needed with fewer dollars. She somehow thinks that could happen.

In the area of school funding, even school trustees, the experts this minister says she relies on, say: "No, that is not the case. With this funding pressure, we will not be able to deliver those kinds of programs." Even with the so-called flexibility the government has given them, they would have to cut educational programs. The fact of the matter is that somewhere along the line, something has to give. The pressure of funding and the lack of funding will cause a reduction in educational programs. That is the reality the minister is refusing to acknowledge. She is refusing to acknowledge that with the funding from this government and the freezing of the education budget over three years, with increased pressures, the school boards would not be able to meet the funding pressures and wouldn't be able to fund all those programs. "Pass the buck," is the minister's answer. See no evil. Hear no evil. The ostrich approach.

I'd like to ask the minister this question around autism. Information I've received indicates that the number of children with autism in the British Columbia school system for 2000-01 is 1,312 students. Is the minister anticipating an increase in special needs students for this year's budget, next year's budget and the following year?

Hon. C. Clark: I normally wouldn't do this, because the member so consistently misquotes me, and I assume the record is going to show that. When people look at it, they'll be able to see quite clearly she has misquoted me. I do want to point this out, though. I do not believe for one second that parents are a special interest group. Parents and students in our education are not a special interest group; they are our clients. They are the reason we have an education system. They are the single most important factor in everything we're doing. They're at the absolute top of our agenda. We are putting students first. Students and parents are not — I repeat, not — a special interest group to this minister and this government. Quite frankly, that is a dramatic change in our thinking from the way the previous government approached this.

The number of autistic students in '01-02 was 1,311. Our predictions about that will be confirmed in September. We'll certainly see how many special needs children there are in the districts when districts come and report to us how many autistic students they have. However, I would say this: those numbers have consistently increased over the years, and I don't know why they wouldn't increase over this year as well.

J. Kwan: Wow, this is how we can get information from the minister. I said there are 1,312 autism students, and she said 1,311. At least we got a number out of the minister on this issue, because when we asked her that information earlier, she didn't know. She didn't know, and she wouldn't present that information. Obviously, she does have the information.

J. Kwan: The minister is eager to leave the House. The minister is eager to end the estimate process for Education. Let me just remind the minister what she said on April 6, 2000. This is the minister's quote: "Every single time this government touches a budget document, they do everything they can to obfuscate, to mislead, to somehow make it impossible for the public to get the information they need. Will the Premier tell us today what happened to his commitment to transparency? And why doesn't he think that the public has the right to know where every single penny of their money is spent?" This is from the minister on April 6, 2000.

I'd like to ask the minister the same question in her anxiety to get out of the estimates process so that she won't be held accountable to all British Columbians. Every single time the Liberal government touches a budget document, they do everything they can to obfuscate, to mislead, to somehow make it impossible for the public to get the information they need. Will the minister tell us today what happened to her commitment to transparency and why she doesn't think the public has a right to know how every single penny of their money is being spent?

Hon. C. Clark: I think it is without dispute that this government has had the most open and transparent budget process in the history of our province. The Finance minister has made a very firm commitment, and lived up to it, to let British Columbians know the state of the provincial finances as soon as he knows. He's done that. We've had an open and transparent budget

In terms of our budget, we've created a service plan which has been out there for everyone to see. I know the member will avail herself of the opportunity to have a look at that tonight before we come back tomorrow. In addition, the allocations will be available on the web for anyone in British Columbia to see. I think that's a pretty open and transparent budget process.

J. Kwan: With the exception that none of those documents actually tell British Columbians the real intentions of this government. As we learned from the election, when this government says they're not going to rip up contracts, they're going to rip up contracts. As we've learned from the election, when this government says they're not going to increase taxes, they increase taxes by way of the provincial sales tax, the property tax and the fuel tax.

We've learned from this government when they said they're not going to off-load. They are off-loading right now in the area of education to the local authorities. In their New Era document they said they would outlaw off-loading to local governments. What are they doing? They're off-loading to local governments. In the education area they are absolutely doing that.

What have we learned? We have learned from this government that none of those documents actually tells you what the real hidden agenda of this government, including this minister, is. That is why we have to go through the estimates process in detail to expose exactly what the agenda of the government is and to share this information with British Columbians.

The minister just can't wait to get out of the estimates process. She's dying to get out of the estimates process, because she doesn't want to be held accountable. She is afraid of her own accountability that needs to be held for all British Columbians.

I'm going to continue to ask these questions, because they're pertinent and people want to know the answers — real answers, not rhetoric from this minister, not rhetoric, not puff, not information that does not help the people of British Columbia understand the budgets that apply to the students in British Columbia today.

We were talking about autism — 311 students in 2000-01 with autism and an anticipated increase. What was the percentage of increase over the last nine years?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't have the numbers going back ten years here, though some of those questions might be questions she would have wanted to ask of her own government when she was sitting around the cabinet table. As I said, we do know there has been a steady increase.

J. Kwan: The information I have shows that there is an increase of 786 percent over the last nine years in autism. It's substantive. There's no doubt about it. The increase is substantive. That yielded a total of 10.94 percent of the total student population with special needs in the school system.

I would assume that the minister would have some anticipation of what the increased percentage is over the next three years in this area. Could the minister tell us what her projections are on that?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the predictions in this area are always dicey. We will see what districts bring us back predictions for this year when we get those, and then we'll confirm those in September. It's even more difficult to make those predictions three years out, but I could say it's steadily increasing.

J. Kwan: The reason why I'm asking what the projections are is that the minister has also put forward the budget over the next…. It's a three-year plan. The budget is not going to go up over the next three years, and if the numbers go up, how is the minister going to meet the demands? I'd like to know from the minister what her projection is in terms of the increase. She knows it's going to increase, yet the budget is frozen. The budget is frozen, so that means that irrespective of increasing demand in this category, the school boards will not actually get an increase in funding.

Hon. C. Clark: While the number of special needs children may increase, the number of children overall in British Columbia may decrease.

J. Kwan: The minister is acknowledging that the special needs children numbers will likely increase. What is her projection for the percentage of increase in this category?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, it's difficult to make those kinds of predictions. We will wait for school districts to give us their predictions for that, and for the coming year we will work with those predictions. Looking further ahead than that is a very imprecise process indeed.

J. Kwan: Then given the fact that the minister doesn't have those numbers…. She's going to wait and see what happens, although she does expect an increase. Yet the budget is frozen. Even in spite of the increase, the budget is frozen. Even if there is increased demand, is there going to be funding associated with the increased demand? Will the minister guarantee that there will be funding in association with the increased demand for special needs children?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. One of the features of this funding formula that's different from previous years is that it's stable.

J. Kwan: I hope it is not another scenario whereby with increased demand…. The minister has just committed that there would be additional funding to meet the increased demands for special needs. Would that be new additional funding to meet the special needs, or is she going to rob Peter to pay Paul?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, while we anticipate that the number of special needs children in the system will increase, the number of children overall in the system is predicted to decrease.

J. Kwan: What if the case scenario is where the enrolment numbers don't actually decrease? The minister and the government are proud of saying that they're going to go out there, and they're going to drum up investment. They're going to create jobs, and they're going to have this province explode in growth. It'll be fabulous if that happens. You know what? When that happens, the enrolment numbers are going to go up. They are not going to decrease. When that happens, is there going to be more money into the education system?

Hon. C. Clark: When revenues to government grow, so will the Ministry of Education budget. That's been the Premier's commitment all along.

You know, I get so excited when I hear the member talking about this province starting to boom again. I mean, that's what we're all working towards here: bringing back some prosperity and some optimism to British Columbia. Get small communities stable again. Bring futures back for all those young people who've had to flee, those 50,000 people who have fled British Columbia to Ontario and Alberta alone because they couldn't find a future in a province where their government had created a recession for them.

Yes, we want to get British Columbia booming again. That's what we're all working toward, and when we do that, it will mean we have more people coming back to British Columbia. It will mean we have more people paying taxes. It will mean that revenues to government grow, and the Premier's commitment is that when revenues to government grow, so will the Ministry of Education budget.

Those are exciting days to look toward. I wait every single day in anticipation of the time when we can once again say: "British Columbia is back on track. We're number one. We're the best province in this country, and we are leading the world."

J. Kwan: I'd like to just remind the member that when the previous government left government, we actually had the lowest unemployment rate in the last 20 years.

The minister is so excited about growth. I hope, actually, that British Columbia does grow, but you know what? One of the big factors this government is relying on is that tax cuts will pay for themselves. So far, tax cuts have not paid for themselves. This is during the election, when this government was challenged on tax breaks, when they made these big, dramatic tax cuts that they said would only go to the two bottom brackets but which now we find have gone to the highest-income British Columbians and the biggest corporations. Well, economists have come forward to say that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. In fact, the reality is that they haven't to date.

One of the predictions that the minister is, I think, banking on is that these taxes will pay for themselves, somehow, with the potential growth that may or may not take place in British Columbia. When the increased pressures and demands take place in the Ministry of Education, where will the ministry fund this from? Is it just that the ministry will commit to funding education with increased demands if there are additional revenues to government? What if there aren't additional revenues to government and the increased demands are still there? Will this minister commit that she will then fund the increased pressures?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I've answered those questions. I'll add this, though. This is the first time in a long time that we've had stable funding for three years.

J. Kwan: Stable funding doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it when you have increased demands. Stable funding doesn't cut it when there are increased pressures for the educational system, when the school boards would have to look at how they're going to fund these programs. The question to the minister again is — and I'll bet you she won't commit to this: if there are increased demands in the education system and there is not increased revenue to the provincial government's coffers, will she still commit to ensuring that the funding for the increased demands is met with additional dollars from this government?

Hon. C. Clark: I must say, it is indeed hard to imagine a scenario where we have more taxpayers in British Columbia, more people moving in, and don't start seeing our tax revenue grow at the same time. That's a difficult scenario to imagine.

J. Kwan: It may be a difficult scenario to imagine, but it may well be that the hopes and dreams of this government — the notion that tax cuts will pay for themselves — may not be realized. Economists today are saying: "Hey, you know what? They're not going to be realized." We're experiencing that right now, which is why we have a record-breaking deficit in the history of British Columbia — $4.4 billion — created by this Minister of Finance, by this Liberal government.

There is no guarantee that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. So far, history has proven that they haven't. The minister's not prepared to commit to ensuring, with increased pressures and irrespective of the revenues in the general revenue coffers, that there are sufficient funds to support the increased pressures in our educational system. That's what she just said.

I stand corrected. I hope I'm wrong and the minister will stand up and say: "No, that's not true. Irrespective of what happens with the general revenues and whether there's more money or not, the government is going to protect education in the real sense, and when there's increased pressure, we'll fund the increased pressures accordingly." Her first priority is actually in protecting education and not the bottom line.

I asked the minister the question around autism. The increases over the next nine years have been established at 786 percent, which is 10.94 percent of the total student population that have special needs. We're anticipating an increase in this area. The minister won't say what percentage she anticipates the increase to be. Is it the case that the minister doesn't have this information at this time, or is it because she won't say?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, it's always dangerous to make predictions in the absence of school district predictions. We're going to wait and see what the school district predictions are, and we will work with those numbers.

The Autism Society of B.C. I quote from a letter to the superintendent that Donna McKenna has written. Clair Shuman, the program director, has written as well. I'll quote parts of it into the record.

I'd like to ask the minister. I know she's going to refer to the accountability act, but in an environment where school boards are faced with funding pressures and they're not able to meet those pressures and they would have to cut programs and children would be impacted as a result of the funding cuts in these programs, how can the minister assure the Autism Society of B.C. that the needs of children with special needs in these different categories will be met? What is the minister's explanation with respect to the Autism Society's concern over the new funding formula that no longer recognizes students with severe learning disabilities, moderate behavioral disorders and mild intellectual disabilities?

Hon. C. Clark: The member asked me how we will be working to ensure that those students' interests are protected. Most importantly overall, we will be monitoring results and acting should they not be met. In addition to that, we will be requiring that districts report publicly to parents how they deploy their resources, including resources for special needs children. We're using accountability contracts.

I think the fact that the member quotes from a document that was written to a school district about an accountability contract, holding them to account for the goals they set for themselves, speaks volumes about what we've already achieved with accountability contracts. This member loves to minimize the importance of those documents, but I think the fact that she would use this document in the House as evidence of how one group of parents is holding their school districts accountable speaks volumes about the accomplishment of this government in this department so far on holding boards accountable.

In addition to that, as I've said, we are continuing to require individual education plans. We will be monitoring IEPs and ensuring they're in place for the children that need them. We'll be beefing up our ability to mine data and use that data to ensure that students are indeed getting better services year after year. We've brought in legislation, in Bill 27, that will allow the government to intervene when there's a problem with bumping learning assistants for special needs children, something the member opposite voted against and spoke against.

I think these are incredibly important changes. These will make it much easier for all of us in the system to support the needs of special needs children. I'm delighted that by using a letter that was intended to hold school districts accountable based on their accountability contract, the member is, I hope, prepared to admit the importance of some of the things we've accomplished in this department in the short eight months we've been here.

J. Kwan: Actually, the letter was written to the superintendent. It's copied to the minister, the deputy minister, the accountability monitoring and reporting person of the ministry, the school trustee, the Coalition

for Special Education, the BCTF, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association and the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. The list goes on. There are many people that the group has sent the letter to. If the minister actually listens to the letter, she would note the concerns raised about the actions of this government, of the Minister of Education.

Let me just go through some bits of the letter around that. I'm asking the minister to respond to these comments from the Autism Society of British Columbia:

It goes on to talk a little bit about autism — what it is, what the challenges are, how many exist in British Columbia and the increase in percentage. Then it skips to this:

What is the minister's response to the Autism Society of British Columbia on these issues?

Hon. C. Clark: Hon. Chair, the member has read that into the record for the second time. I believe I've answered her questions.

J. Kwan: Here we are once again with a minister who refuses to acknowledge the concerns from parents and from the Autism Society of B.C. around their funding cuts and changes to children with autism and special needs — the funding pressures that this government has created to further disadvantage these children who have severe learning disabilities. She's not interested in providing an answer to the Autism Society of British Columbia on why they have removed the targeted funding in these particular categories, even to address the concerns that have been raised by the society.

It seems to me that the issue around flexibility here, this government in their approach to flexibility, is being challenged by the Autism Society. It recognizes that the different categories, levels 1, 2 and 3, are of concern to people who have children that would fall into these categories. It recognizes that there are these concerns because extra supports for these students would be required. They are concerned that those extra supports will now be gone, but the minister is not interested in being accountable to the Autism Society of British Columbia on these issues.

I'm pausing because we have a visitor, and I'm just wondering if there are some directions that he's going to give us. Anyway, I'm going to continue on, hon. Chair, around this.

I share those concerns of the Autism Society of British Columbia. I think there's going to be growth in this area, irrespective of the fact that the minister doesn't know what the growth projections are. She has frozen the budget, so that means the Education budget is not going to go up. It means there would be additional pressures for the school boards, and they are going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Somebody, somewhere along the line — students who depend on educational programs that are being delivered — will be hurt by this government's action.

The Minister of Education has stated that education funding would not be reduced, that enrolment is declining and that the current funding formula is based on the number of enrolled students. What will be done with any money that is left over due to a lower enrolment and maintained education funding?

The Chair: I want the record to show that the Sergeant-at-Arms is always welcome in our chamber.

J. Kwan: The minister says that the funding would be redistributed into the system.

Actually, just before I go on, it wasn't that the Sergeant-at-Arms wasn't welcome in the chamber. I just thought that maybe he had a message for the Chair and therefore for the committee, so I paused for a moment to see whether or not there was a message. It appeared not. By no means is it any indication of not welcoming the Sergeant-at-Arms.

The minister said the funding would be redistributed into the system. How would it be redistributed?

J. Kwan: Could the minister break down how that would work? I know the minister likes to say that it will be equitable and it will be done right and all that kind of stuff. As I said, we've learned to read between the lines. We need to go through every detail in terms of how that is being done by this government, because I suspect that her definition of equitable would very likely differ from that of many British Columbians.

Hon. C. Clark: It'll be done through the funding formula, as I have outlined. I've outlined how that works a number of times already in this committee.

J. Kwan: It would be the same formula as the funding formula that has been in place for distributing the funds through the different districts for the Ministry of Education budget? There's no other, different formula that would apply?

J. Kwan: There is no other formula. It's just the one formula that the ministry will be using. We'll be checking on that to see whether or not that is in fact the case, if there are funds to be redistributed throughout the system.

Will the Minister of Education please explain what provisions are made in this budget for capital projects?

J. Kwan: What provincewide standards exist to ensure that each school meets certain safety and resource standards, such as adequate library space, gym space, gym facilities, etc.?

Hon. C. Clark: We build schools to the Building Code. We build them to comply with WCB regulations and those other kinds of regulations. In addition, we have space standards.

J. Kwan: It'll take me a few minutes to look through this, because there is a specific question, which I know a parent is particularly concerned about, around the safety and resources standards. I have to go through my binder to find that letter.

Before I find that letter, I'm going to ask the minister this question: how many schools in B.C. are at risk of causing injury in the event of an earthquake?

Hon. C. Clark: We have $133 million in our budget for seismic upgrades. We're continuing to do that. We want to make all of our schools as safe as we possibly can.

Hon. C. Clark: It's a $133 million pilot project that was started a year ago.

J. Kwan: Is there no change from the previous budget allocated for seismic upgrades?

J. Kwan: Does the minister have continuous plans to address seismic upgrades? This is a pilot project. What's the next phase?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, it's a three-year project. When we get to the end of the project, we'll be into the next phase.

Hon. C. Clark: We are working on our plans for the next phase. We've got two years until we get to that stage.

J. Kwan: The schools and the parents can anticipate that there's no increased funding for seismic upgrading between now and the next three years?

Hon. C. Clark: The $133 million was put in place for three years. Everybody knew that at the time we did it. That hasn't changed.

I should note for the hon. member that the seismic upgrade program is managed by the Ministry of Finance.

J. Kwan: Earlier the minister, with another member in the House, talked about the capital projects, and there was a list that was read out in some of the areas. I'm interested in the capital projects myself, as well, not just in my own area but, rather, provincewide in terms of what those capital projects are, how much is being allocated and what the renovation is. Is it a renovation? What capital project and dollars are to apply? Will the minister provide that information?

J. Kwan: I understand, as well, that there will also be schools that have applied for capital dollars that likely wouldn't be getting the capital dollars from the ministry. Will the minister provide that list, also, and how much, etc., for the school districts that did not get their capital funding?

Hon. C. Clark: Every school district provides us with a list every year based on their priorities. We judge that list against the needs across the province and within the available budget.

J. Kwan: I know that's the process the minister goes through. I'm asking if the minister will provide the list of capital projects that have been rejected by the ministry.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, so far, all the rejections that would have happened would have happened under her government. We haven't introduced a capital plan yet. We've only been in government eight months.

J. Kwan: Under the new era, as the minister often likes to say, the government is reviewing everything, every capital project.

I know that in the area of housing, as an example, the government has cancelled 600 units of housing that have been allocated. They have just announced that they're going to cancel 1,000 units that have been allocated in projects to community groups. They're cancelling those. They're only proceeding with 700 units.

I know the minister is going to be looking at the review of these capital project applications. Surely, the minister is going to take on the responsibility of what projects they're going to refuse and reject. I'm simply asking the minister for a list of those projects that she'll be rejecting.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said earlier, we'll be announcing our capital plan in April.

J. Kwan: Can I take it from the minister, then, that her commitment is that she will indeed, when the announcement is made, provide the list of the projects that have been rejected from the ministry's capital plan announcement?

Hon. C. Clark: Every school district produces a list of priorities every year. We weigh those priorities against the needs across the province and within available resources. That hasn't changed. Our government is doing it the same way that her government did.

J. Kwan: It doesn't have to be this complicated. It's a quick question — just a yes or no. Will the minister provide the list of the projects she'll be rejecting for the capital project initiative?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't reject projects. We can only fund so many in any given year. That's the policy her government had. I'm surprised she doesn't know that. That's the policy we're continuing with in this government. I'm sure she'll look forward to the announcement of our capital plan in April.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that when the government announces the capital plan, there will be some projects that will not get their funding. Is that not the case? If it is the case, will the minister simply provide the list of projects that will not be getting capital funding from this announcement? Maybe it's saved for the next announcement. Fine. I'm simply asking for a list of all the projects that have made application to the ministry for capital funding.

Hon. C. Clark: We think all of the plans that school districts come up with are important. There's no question about that. We're only able to fund a certain number of them in the school year. If she's interested in getting documents from school districts about what their priorities are, she can certainly go to school districts and get that.

J. Kwan: Obviously, the minister is not going to answer my question, so we're going to have to canvass this some more tomorrow.

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