Hansard -- Tuesday, May 7, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 6 (HTML)

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

Committee of the Whole House		3227
	School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) (continued) Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail J. Kwan L. Mayencourt R. Masi

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. C. Clark: I move the amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister, for the record, please explain the amendment?

Hon. C. Clark: It's a typographical error. It replaces the words "Division 2 of Part 1" with "Division 2 of Part 2."

J. Kwan: I just received a letter dated May 6 from a parent who's concerned about the changes in Bill 34, particularly in relation to the school planning council. I'm going to read the letter into the record, and there are some questions within it that I'd like the minister to address. The letter reads as follows:

The letter was written to the Minister of Education, so I'd like the minister to respond to Ms. Jane Usher on her concerns as well as her questions.

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, when I receive the letter, I'd be delighted to respond to her in writing as well, but I can respond to her verbally now.

Her concerns seem to me to centre around the issue of whether the school planning councils — because they have three parents, one teacher and one principal — will be able to fully represent all the interests in a

school community and whether they'll be able to adequately consult and have all input that they need. I think it should provide her with some comfort to know that the school planning councils will really be an addition to the current planning process that is supposed to happen at most schools now anyway. As I'm sure the member is aware, principals right now will consult with the school community quite extensively when they're putting together their plans. There's a whole number of committees that exist in the schools, of which teachers are almost always a part, to talk about the plan for the school. Those will continue to happen.

There is a requirement in the legislation that the planning council must consult with the PAC so that you have broad input from the parents as well. Broad input from the teachers will be happening through the principal. There is also, of course, nothing to prohibit the school planning council from consulting more broadly than that if they choose to. For example, I've heard from a lot of students and from a lot of parents that they'd like students to have some input on these councils. There's absolutely nothing prohibiting the council from consulting students in an organized way — in the school as well. There's nothing that prohibits them from consulting support staff or the business community or whomever they'd like to consult in putting together their plan.

The purpose of the school planning community, however, is really to make sure there is a place in the system that's guaranteed for parents to be able to plug in, in an official way, so that the PAC doesn't ever experience — as they sometimes do — the sense that they're shut out of the planning process and they don't have access. We want to provide this guaranteed access through the school planning council.

J. Kwan: The issue that's been raised by Ms. Usher centres around several things. One is the issue around workload. The other is broader representation, including the representation and the need for representation for not only just one teacher but also for non-enrolling teachers, as well as the non-teaching staff. This act precludes their participation in the school planning act.

The other issue is around the cost of doing the work, even on the issue around the election and how that would be held. Would it be by mail-in ballot? Who pays for the expenses, as an example?

She also raised the issue around the time line, having to bring the school planning council together in such a short time frame in light of all the many changes, including cuts in educational programs in the school system. Those all pose tremendous challenges. This person, who's been a PAC president, is raising these issues as a matter of concern.

Hon. C. Clark: Teachers volunteer on a whole host of committees in schools, at the moment, that affect their workload. That's a pretty common thing that happens. This will be another committee which they can choose to volunteer in.

The act lays out quite clearly that the teacher will be elected by secret ballot from amongst the teachers at the school. I presume the person who puts their name forward to run for office will be someone who chooses to want to do this.

We aren't anticipating that the school planning councils will be something that consumes unlimited amounts of time. We've tried to set this up quite carefully so that it doesn't become a long bureaucratic process. That certainly doesn't serve the interests of the committee, I think, in trying to keep its focus. It certainly doesn't serve the interests of the parents, in particular, who may have trouble finding the time to take part in volunteer activities — in every part of their lives. If this is something that is important to them, we don't want it to be something that consumes huge amounts of time.

The principal, of course, will be the person responsible for implementing the plan and ensuring that the goals are met. The roll-up-your-sleeves work will be done on a day-to-day basis by the principal.

I think that answers the rest of the questions. Perhaps the member could put the rest of the questions again, if I haven't answered them.

J. Kwan: Let me just break down the questions for the minister. The first question she had centred around the issue around the time line. Having been a PAC president, Ms. Usher says: "I can vouch for the fact that the introduction of the proposed school planning council as early as this fall poses many challenges, such as when to hold the election" — is it to be held after the accountability contract is finalized? — "and how to carry it out." Is it a mail-in ballot, and who pays for the expenses?

Hon. C. Clark: This year, as I said in our debates earlier, will be a transition year. We don't necessarily anticipate that every school planning council will be functioning as fully, come this September, as they will next September obviously. But this year we hope they will be elected in September. We haven't put a strict time line in the legislation, though. The only firm date in the legislation is October 31, which is the date we require the accountability contracts.

I hope the school planning councils will find themselves elected in September or before, at least, October 31. However, this year we recognize there's a lot of change in the school system. There's a lot of change for parents. There's a lot of change for teachers, principals and students. We certainly recognize this is a transition year.

J. Kwan: What happens when the school planning councils are not in place? Again, on the question: who pays for the expenses?

Hon. C. Clark: If the PAC chose not to be involved in this or decided that they didn't want to elect somebody, the legislation provides for the school board to be able to appoint. I was speaking to the parents on

BCCPAC, B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, on Friday, and I can assure the member that they are very excited about the school planning councils. They are initiating a provincewide training program to go out and touch base with parents in every district across the province and help them understand how the planning councils work and help them gear up for electing members to sit on these councils. I don't have any doubt in my mind that parents are going to be taking up this offer in droves, to be involved in their children's schools.

J. Kwan: My question was: if people were unable to organize themselves and to have the school planning councils elected for this year, what will happen this year if they're unable to do so? Will the ministry then have the school board appoint a school planning council immediately?

Even if the parents wanted to participate, I'm saying — as Ms. Usher had identified, having been a PAC president for two years; she can vouch for the fact — that the introduction of the proposed school planning councils as early as this fall poses many challenges such as when to hold the election and how to carry it out.

It may well be that people want to do this, but they may not have the resources or capacity to do it. What will happen in that instance? Will the minister then decide right away that the school board would appoint someone to take their place? And the minister still hasn't answered the question on expenses.

Hon. C. Clark: I can answer the question on expenses again. I think we talked about that last week. There is no provision in the legislation for expenses, and I think we were pretty clear about that last week.

The issue of the appointment of parents or of a school planning council if the PAC decides or is unable to elect people is also provided for in the legislation. But remember, we are debating this legislation in May. We've had an opportunity to talk to parents about it pretty widely. We've informed every district parent advisory council across the province about it. They met and talked about it extensively this weekend. They're all going back to their communities now. They're all back there talking to their PACs about it. The BCCPAC will be travelling the province and training parents on how to be involved and what it means. When school starts, we know that traditionally PACs are anxious to get together and have their first meeting. I expect that by October 31, two months into the school year, PACs will have had an opportunity to be able to elect members to the school planning council.

J. MacPhail: One of the issues that we've heard from teachers, particularly in terms of the school planning council, is in schools where there's French immersion. While there is some integration, there's a substantial community interest among French immersion parents and teachers and then a community interest among parents and teachers who are not French immersion. How does that get reflected in the school planning council?

Hon. C. Clark: When there is one school, they'll have one planning council. The teachers will elect from amongst their number. Someone, I'm sure, that they trust will represent them well, as with the parent advisory councils. As I said, though, the principal will continue to consult with the entire school community to make sure that the broad range of input is reflected. That's what happens at the moment. The difference with this legislation, however, is that parents' involvement isn't guaranteed.

The other thing about this legislation that I should point out is that there are many situations across the province where you have a school within a school. We shouldn't be confined to thinking about a school as a building. If it is a school within a school, you could conceivably have two school planning councils in one building.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I just assumed that where the CSF has a school within a physical school, they would definitely have two school planning councils. That's a given.

I'm talking about the programs where…. Let me describe Hastings School in Vancouver-Hastings. I think it's the second- or third-largest elementary school in British Columbia. It's working very hard at integrating its students at several levels. One is the multicultural level, which we explored last week. I might add that the PAC from Hastings School is still very concerned about that. The other level is the French immersion and the non–French immersion parents. That's not a school within a school. Those are two streams within one school where at least a third of the students and more than a third of the faculty or staff are in the French immersion program. How would the election process work in those circumstances where there's one teacher and, I think, three PAC members?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, there's currently only one PAC there now. From the member's comments, I think they appear to be amply able to represent the broad range of interests in the school, immersion and non–French immersion. I expect that same interest in being reflective of the school community would bear itself out in the election of parents to the school planning council. Again, the teacher will be elected from amongst the teachers. It would be someone who will, I assume, be representative as much as possible of the broad interests of teachers in the school.

I should point out too, though, that the school planning council won't be the only place and isn't the only place in the system where teachers and principals have a lot of influence over what happens in the school and over being a part of the planning process. There will continue to be the whole range of other committees which exist now in schools that contribute to the planning process, of which teachers are an integral part.

J. MacPhail: Well, we'll just put this on the record for the minister to monitor. The concern is not that they were properly reflected in the PAC but is the new duties of the school planning council that deals with the allocation of staff and resources in the school. Despite the discussion that occurred the last time we approached this issue — that that's what the board must consult on, the minister said — everyone in the world is interpreting the school planning council as being the area where allocation of staff and resources will be discussed. They can't find any role for the school planning council other than that.

There is concern, which we would urge the minister to monitor, that the schools which are organized so there is a substantial French immersion program being offered are restricted in their representation, particularly at the teacher level, on the school planning council.

The minister said that if teachers at the school do not elect a representative, then it will be up to the board to appoint a person to fill a vacancy. There is an employer-employee relationship between the board and teachers. Does the legislation override that employer-employee relationship, then?

Hon. C. Clark: The legislation isn't designed to affect the employer-employee relationship between the board and the teacher. If teachers choose to be involved in it, they may. If they choose not to, they don't have to. It's not going to be required work. The legislation is pretty clear, though, that it doesn't necessarily have to be a teacher. If all the teachers in the school refuse to participate or no teacher in the school has an interest in participating, the board could appoint a retired teacher or someone else to fill that vacancy.

J. MacPhail: My questions don't come from any teacher. There has at no time been any suggestion to my colleague or me that there's going to be any sort of refusal to participate. However, I as a parent just anticipate that there may be substantial changes in the requirements to teach over the course of the coming three years, and there won't be any time for them to participate in this. So we're quite clear, then, that a board cannot use the legislation to impose requirements on any teacher in relationship to the school planning council.

J. MacPhail: This is changing the wording of what a teacher's job is. "Providing instruction to" has gone now, and a teacher's responsibilities now include "instructing, assessing and evaluating." I just might note that where one might — with many pieces of legislation — turn to the explanatory notes for help, I find no assistance in these explanatory notes about how to interpret the act. Perhaps the minister could suggest what the effects are of adding "assessing and evaluating students." What does that mean in the real world for a teacher, a parent and a student?

Hon. C. Clark: The real-world effect of this will be to ensure that students who are not currently having their progress assessed by a teacher do get that progress assessed. Specifically, this applies to students who are in distance electronic learning. That was a bit of a loophole in the current act, and we've decided to amend that. Every child who is being fully funded by the ministry has a right to have their progress assessed, and their parents have a right to be informed of that progress. That's what we're attempting to address here.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister can suggest what effect this will have on changes that occurred recently around essential services.

Hon. C. Clark: This is not designed to address a labour relations issue. This is really to address an anomaly that was in the act, where some children who were being fully funded by the ministry to receive an educational program were not being regularly assessed by a teacher, and their parents were not being informed fully of their progress through the school year. What we're trying to do here is just ensure that all students have an equal right to be able to assessed in the course of their educational program.

J. MacPhail: Any effect of legislation in which duties are added has a bearing on labour relations matters, whether those be in court or outside of court or not. In terms of legislation that changes or clarifies — even taking the minister at her word that it clarifies — has a direct effect on labour relations legislation…. Is it the minister's view, then — or is it her commitment, let me ask — that the changes to this section will not be introduced in any labour relations matter in terms of essential services?

Hon. C. Clark: I can't prejudge what will happen outside the Ministry of Education's jurisdictional purview, but I can say that the intent here is just to ensure that all those children who are getting an educational program are being properly assessed and that their parents are being informed of their progress. Those kids have an equal right to that, just as a child who is attending in the classroom every day does.

J. MacPhail: Is there any situation that the minister knows of outside the distance education program where students are not being assessed and evaluated?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, our thinking in designing the legislation was aimed at distance electronic learning. I suppose there may be other anomalies out there, but our purpose in this was to address that specific issue.

J. MacPhail: What is the intent, with boards that are required to prepare accountability contracts, for boards that don't meet the targets set out in the accountability contract?

Hon. C. Clark: We intend to work with them and help them get toward their goals. We intend to work with them to ensure that they are improving student achievement, help them identify areas of strength and areas of weakness, and make sure that, as much as possible, we can help them along should they need it.

J. MacPhail: Are all of the accountability contracts that are signed now on the website?

Hon. C. Clark: Summaries of every accountability contract are on the website. All of them are linked to the website.

J. MacPhail: I was searching the website to look at the accountability contracts. The way I was pursuing this when my colleague and I were pursuing this the last time was to talk about inputs into the accountability contracts, where one is setting outputs, achievement levels, etc. I'll be frank; I couldn't find any. I did my homework. We did go back and do our homework.

Let me explore this again. These accountability contracts are now legislated, and there has been some concern about the accountability contract being the establishment of the relationship between the boards and the ministry. Concern is still there. If there is no determination of the level of input, how can one possibly judge the output? That relates specifically to boards. I think every single board in this province is now making cuts — program cuts, teacher cuts.

Let me say that here are the questions that arose out of that. If an accountability contract is not met as a result of actions by the government, then what happens to the accountability contract? The question is: is the accountability contract a two-way street? Are the inputs being judged as much as the outputs?

Hon. C. Clark: This year my deputy sat down with every single board or every single superintendent and talked to them about the context they were working in, talked to them about the inputs and had a discussion about where they were at and how they were doing. They certainly did have a long discussion about the context, and that sort of set the table for the outputs that were decided upon. Those things were taken into account when they set their goals for improvement for themselves.

We can't, I don't think, assume that the education system will always improve if we don't always set goals for improvement. The accountability that the ministry has set for itself is set out in the three-year service plan that we've set. That is publicly available. It was tabled with the budget. That is our accountability contract that we've set up with the public as well.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and believe you me, no one has ever suggested to me that they're not going to participate in the accountability contract. But people are concerned about a contract being two parties — at least two parties to a contract. That's why I think these statements — they're called accountability statements in the ministry because they're not contracting with anyone; the minister's making their statements of accountability…. A contract has a very different meaning.

I know the minister hates it when we talk about funding cuts, but all I can do is talk about the boards that have already approached us and the parents about program cuts that are occurring. It isn't about declining enrolment; it's about inability to continue to fund programs. For instance, learning assistance. One of the areas where achievement is greatly enhanced for students across the spectrum is through learning assistance programs. Boards that will now have to reduce or eliminate learning assistance programs believe that the lack of that particular input will affect the output of student achievement. In a contractual arrangement, it seems to me that both parties would have to be held responsible for that. Does the minister see that?

Hon. C. Clark: When we sit down with school districts and talk to them about what would be appropriate goals to set for improvement, it's a cooperative, non-confrontational discussion that we have. It's not a hard bargaining negotiation that we have across the table.

Perhaps the way that might be most useful to think about this is the accountability contract as a covenant with the public, with the students and the parents and the citizens in their district. Ultimately, that's who they serve, and that's who we serve. When they set goals for improvement and they report publicly on whether they've met those goals, I think the most important aspect of that agreement is the covenant they've made with the public.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so is this just a…? What legal weight does the accountability contract carry then?

Hon. C. Clark: The legislation requires every district to sign one, and the purpose of that is to require districts to publicly set goals for improvement. I think it's probably fair to say that some districts haven't consistently set goals for improvement, and many that have haven't been public about those goals. I think everyone's interest is served when we set goals for improvement as government at any level, and then we make those goals public so that we can be held accountable for whether or not we've met them.

That's a fundamental way of approaching management of any large enterprise, whether that's a public enterprise or a private enterprise: to set goals for yourself and measure yourself against those goals. Ultimately, that's the only way anyone at any level can be accountable to the people who all pay our paycheques.

J. MacPhail: Well, the issue here is: why legislate it? Clearly, the minister had something in mind when this contract was put into legislation.

I'm trying to figure out what moves this beyond a mission statement, objectives and goals of an organization to a legislated contract. That's why the issues are arising around what legal weight it carries. What legal weight does it carry for a board to meet the terms of the accountability contract, and on which basis do they have to argue reasonableness? There's a legal test: reasonableness in terms of meeting the accountability contract.

Hon. C. Clark: The difference between this and perhaps a mission statement, for example, is that the goals change every year. We are being quite specific about the goals that school districts are asking themselves to meet. It may be literacy in grade 4 that they decide they want to improve. They will set a very specific goal of improving that by 2 percent over the period of a year. Then they will lay out the baselines they'll use to measure themselves. Then they can hold themselves accountable, and the public can hold them accountable for those goals.

It's very different from a mission statement. It's very different from just a general statement of where we hope to go. It's a very specific — district-specific, issue-specific — goal-setting exercise that will be constantly built upon and changed every year as we move from one goal to the next goal.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't comparing it to a mission statement. I was asking what moves this beyond a mission statement and a set of goals and objectives.

Our office is extremely busy, and therefore we may have lost it, but both my colleague and I have looked for the details around what constituted an annual report. We got the ministry's annual report but not the details of what constitutes an annual report from a school board. Perhaps we didn't receive it. If it's there, we can send it across the floor.

The reason why it's related to section 21, Mr. Chair, even though it spills over into section 22, is that we were advised that the requirement for accountability contracts replaces the board's requirement for an annual report that is now being repealed under this legislation. I'm wondering what the difference is. Perhaps the minister, because we would just read it into the record anyway, could read into the record what the differences are between what was required under an annual report previously and what is required now under an accountability contract.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm happy to send another copy over. We certainly did deliver that to the office a couple weeks ago, but I'm happy to send another one over.

As I said in our last discussion about this, the annual report includes, for example, school completion rate. It also includes grade-to-grade transitions, but it doesn't include, for example, school safety or student safety. That's often something that would be included in an accountability contract.

Accountability contracts will vary from district to district. They will depend on the different circumstances and the different school population of that district. I expect that as years go on and accountability contracts evolve for each district, each one will become more and more individualized.

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much for this information. We had not received it, or if we did, it got waylaid. I appreciate the minister sending it over.

Here's what's being repealed under this legislation now — what is required in a school district annual report. It's called the school district annual report order.

What is in schedule 1 that's now required? Column 1, on reading, writing and achievement:

Under mathematics achievements, they must provide provincial examination results; school and district results for the last five years; percentage of students who have achieved A, B, C; percentage of students who participated in provincial exams; number of students who participated in provincial exams; assessments other than grade 12; provincial learning assessment program results as provided by the ministry; and local information.

Student achievement in other disciplines. In the four strand areas of science, mathematics, humanities, fine arts and practical arts, the same information is required. There are set key indicators for assessing scientific technological literacy. There are key indicators for school completion rates. Then, under column 2, there's information that now has to be provided on student transitions — students who enter the workforce directly or under post-secondary studies.

The board has to provide the percent eligible for university, the percent going to post-secondary education, local information. Here's one on client satisfaction: measures indicating community satisfaction with the effectiveness of the programs in the districts. Measures could be direct or inferential, such as financial support or participation rates in various activities or survey results.

The indicators are results of district client surveys, school accreditation surveys, local information. Here's one. Student preparedness for employment: the measure of success in preparing students for employment. Measures could be direct, such as employment rates, or inferential, such as survey questionnaires or financial support or participation rates in various activities by employers. The key indicators are career plan program enrolments, provincial employers surveys, local information.

Next indicator is school quality: measures that indicate the quality of programs in the districts. Measures could include results of school accreditation, school annual reports, district-level evaluations. Key indicators now are class size, current status of school growth plans, school accreditation status and results, student surveys, parent surveys, local information.

Finances: measures that describe spending in the district in relation to district and provincial goals, an actual indicator about finances. A key indicator is budgeted cost per pupil. Learning resources, operating capital, total expenditures and local information.

This is the information that now is being repealed by this minister and replaced with the accountability contract. So what in the accountability contract will differ from what was included in the annual report that I have just read into the record?

Hon. C. Clark: The difference between the annual report and the accountability contract is that the annual report provides for school districts to tell the ministry how they've done over the last year. The accountability contract requires districts to tell us publicly — not to tell the ministry but to tell the public — how well they've done, then how much they're going to improve based on what they've done, and then to set out strategies for how to achieve those improved goals.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, all that is already being done under the annual report. Every single one of those is being done under the annual report. The minister wasn't listening, then. There's complete parent involvement. There's actual student involvement in this. There's community involvement. There's comparison of finances, and there's reports.

Here's what it says: a statement of the board's mission, a statement of the board's goals or objectives to realize the mission, vision and purpose, and then information relating to the key indicators.

All I'm trying to understand is this. With the repeal of all of this very detailed information with complete public input, student input, parental input and financial input, what's going to be added that makes it better than what's already required under the annual report?

Hon. C. Clark: The member has just had a chance to look at this for the first time, so I can understand why she may misunderstand it.

In 1(b), for example, which she read into the record, it says: "A statement of the board's goals or objectives to realize the mission, vision or purpose." That is not necessarily…. In fact, in most cases, it was not at all specific. The accountability contracts will require a level of specificity that was not required under the current order. We will be requiring districts to set out, for example, what their goal is for literacy and how they are going to get there — not just a broad explanation of the mission.

Let me give the member an example from school district 61. They set out their Dogwood completion rate, for example, for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000. Then they set their targets for improvement for 2001-02, 2004-05, 2006-07. Then they go through the strategies to achieve the target. This is far more detailed information than we have previously received in annual reports. In fact, I'd be happy to send over some examples of the annual reports we've received over the years.

There have been a couple of districts who have, at times, put together really terrific annual reports that have had a fair amount of detail and that have, to some extent, tried to do what we are doing with the accountability contracts. There have also been a lot of districts who have sent in annual reports that have had almost no data in them at all. Then there have also been a lot of districts, a third of districts, who don't bother to send them in at all.

J. MacPhail: Let's just work back, then. It seems to me that the current legislation provides for all of the information that I've read into the record — all of it. The accountability contracts that the minister is somehow saying will be better than the annual reports are not at all. Here's what she is saying: school districts didn't comply with the previous legislation. That's what she's saying. In fact, she just reiterated that.

That gets right back to my question. What is the legal ramification of this section that adds nothing in terms of accountability that isn't already there under the annual report? What are the legal ramifications for a school district now, given this change?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I appreciate that the member hasn't had long to look at this or think about it, so I'll just quickly reiterate something she read into the record. I'll give you an example: reading and writing achievement. This is reading from the current ministerial order that was issued under the previous government for annual reports: "Provincial examination results must be listed, and those must include school and district results for the last five years, percentage of students who have achieved, percentage of students who have participated, number of students who have participated, assessments and program results."

None of that is looking forward. All of that tells us where the district has been. That is useful information,

but it isn't nearly as useful as information that tells us where the school district wants to get.

What we're doing with accountability contracts is not just asking school districts to assess how well they've done in the past. We're asking school districts for the very first time across the province to set out exactly where they intend to get. We want to make those goals public. Then school districts and the public will be able to measure themselves against those goals.

J. MacPhail: It isn't only me looking at this for the time. By the way, my office again just said we did not get this information. It isn't only me looking at it for the first time; it's the minister as well.

I can understand why the minister doesn't want to examine this document, because this document shows there's nothing new under the accountability contract other than some sort of hammer the government can use over a school board. That's all that's added.

What the minister is reading from is one-third of the requirements under the annual report. The annual report consists of three parts: (1) a statement of the missions, vision or purpose; (2) a statement of the board's goals and objectives to realize the mission; (3) a list of the key indicators listed under schedule 1.

All I can say is the minister stands up day after day and says: "Oh, thank God, we've got the accountability contracts now. Thank God." I go to the website to see the substance under those accountability contracts, and they vary. We can only look at the summaries of them, but they vary. There's no question. You know what? Various districts have different levels of resources available to them. There's no question about that.

I'm trying to figure out…. Well, here's the annual reports that require an incredible amount of missions, goals, objectives and indicators that had input from across the board. Then I look to see under the accountability contracts where those same sorts of requirements are fulfilled, and they're not there. I ask the minister what it is, and she stands up and says: "Oh well, some school boards are good, and some are bad, and some are just absent." Then I ask what's going to be different under the accountability contract, where nothing is added in terms of the information required but there may be a different approach on how to get the information. The minister says: "Well, it's going to be one of cooperation, etc." Well, that existed before. The minister stands up and says: "School districts have the best of intentions."

Well, those school districts are the same school boards that were in place before. None of them threatened to take us to court or threatened a kind of legal action. It's the same people, same relationship. Some of them, the minister may say, didn't do a good enough job filing the annual reports. Given the same school boards, the same school districts and the same requirement for the same range of information, what happens, now that the legislation is changed, if they don't do it? That's what people are asking. What's changed here? The only thing that's changed here now is the legislative tool for the government to impose on school boards perhaps — a heavy hammer.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the difference, as I pointed out, is that for the first time we are requiring school districts to set very clear and specific public goals. That was not necessarily required under the old order. In fact, it wasn't. A statement of the board's mission, vision or purpose for its school district and a statement of the board's goals and objectives to realize that mission…. Some districts interpreted that to mean there would be a high level of specificity about the goals they would set for themselves. Some did not.

Previously, though, under the old order, as I pointed out…. You know, I think the member is — I hope not — intentionally mischaracterizing what I said. I don't, for a second, blame school districts for the fact that annual reports didn't always come in. The reason that annual reports didn't come in is because school districts very quickly realized, over the last ten years, that the ministry did nothing with the information, did nothing to hold them accountable for the goals they were asking them to set for themselves. The ministry didn't even ask them to set goals and then didn't even hold them accountable for those goals, if they didn't meet those goals. In fact, what happened was that annual reports sat on the shelf, so districts often…

Hon. C. Clark: …didn't even bother to send the reports in. It was a level of work for them that they quickly recognized wasn't something that was going to be well spent.

What we've done is reorganize the ministry internally — we talked about that in estimates — so that we can have a new focus on accountability and a new focus on standards. That is the unit that will be able to hold districts accountable for the things they set out in their accountability contracts. It is very, very different. Instead of just asking districts where they've been…. It is useful information, but it's not nearly as useful as asking districts where they intend to go and asking them to set goals for improvement.

I understand that the member is getting frustrated because she hasn't had a chance to digest this information. I would suggest, though, that over lunch, when she has a moment to have a look through it, she will be able to understand more fully the difference between the order for annual reports and the requirement for accountability contracts that we're working into this legislation.

J. Kwan: The minister said that the accountability contract is meant to set out goals and that it also establishes how those goals would be met. I think the exact words she used were "how to get there" — for the goals to be reached.

Now, I want to ask the minister this question. If the goal of getting there requires additional resources — i.e.,

more teaching assistants, more special needs assistants in the classroom, more speech therapists for the children, more behavioral psychologists for the children, more outreach workers, more school counsellors to help students stay in school to lower the dropout rate — what role will the minister play in assisting the board to achieve these goals in the context of the accountability contract?

I hope that the minister's not going to get up and say: "Well, we gave them flexibility so that they can reach all these goals." The reality is that every school board is having to cut educational programs. That, in my view, will compromise their ability to reach the goals.

What role will the minister play in assisting the boards in reaching the goals, and how will she, the minister, be held accountable as a result of the funding cuts? How will she be held accountable in assisting the boards in reaching those goals?

Hon. C. Clark: One of the innovations of this government is the creation of three-year rolling budgets for school boards. That gives them a new ability to plan, which they haven't had in the past. Certainly, they will be relying on that.

Will there be more money to add to the education budget in addition to the $20 million we added this year? I can't predict next year's budget, but I don't anticipate any more money for this current fiscal year.

School districts are continuing to innovate. They are continuing to be creative. They are continuing to find new ways to offer programs. I anticipate that they will continue to do that.

J. Kwan: I know that from one school district — my own school district, the Vancouver school district — Barbara Buchanan is already on record saying that with all of the cuts that are coming forward in terms of programs…. The Vancouver district is faced with a $25.5 million shortfall. They have to cut extensively in the programming for students. That will compromise the students' achievement and student outcomes. No doubt it will compromise the accountability contracts in terms of reaching the goals that they have established for their students.

In that instance, the school board would be faulted for not reaching and achieving the accountability contract goals as set out. However, they may well establish the tools that would assist them in getting there, which require additional funding.

To what extent will the minister be held accountable? This minister says that she will be held accountable per the accountability statement that is tabled with the budget. The statement does not address the issue of when the minister does not provide the tools to the school boards to do the work they need to do, therefore compromising the outcomes of the accountability contract. To what extent would the minister be held accountable for not assisting the students and school boards in achieving the outcomes that are desired?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, certainly we've set out a service plan for the Ministry of Education, the first one that's been done over a three-year period in a long time. It's been done across government. We'll certainly be held accountable for those concrete measures we set out for ourselves.

We are in an ongoing dialogue, of course, with school districts, with parents and with folks across this province. As democratically elected representatives, we will all ultimately be held accountable. I have no doubt about that.

J. Kwan: It goes to the question on these accountability contracts that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings started. This is a one-way street. It doesn't go both ways.

The minister's saying that the accountability contract will be made public in terms of what goals are established, what goals have been achieved and what needs to be done to get to those goals. That is how the board will be held accountable, but if the board identifies the shortfalls and the lack of tools around resources that the minister is providing to them to do that job, there is nothing in the accountability contract that will hold the minister accountable. The minister has to be held accountable in the accountability contracts within that context. It has to go both ways. It can't go one way.

For the minister to say, "Well, we gave them three-year planning…." The B.C. School Trustees Association, at their annual general meeting, has already said that the tools the minister provided for them are very much lacking and therefore create a very difficult situation for the boards and the students. That, in my view, will no doubt compromise the student outcomes and compromise the ability to reach goals that the school boards will be setting out in the accountability contracts.

To what extent is it in the accountability contract that the minister will be held accountable? How will the boards get the minister to respond to their needs?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts are going to be setting these goals in cooperation with the ministry. It's certainly not going to be something that we impose on them. As they set their goals, we know they will be setting goals that they will be able to meet.

L. Mayencourt: First off, the Leader of the Opposition read a very impressive list of items that were put under the school boards' annual reports. I know that the minister spoke to the fact that many of those items will come under the accountability contract.

She also mentioned something that is very important — and I just don't want it to get lost — on the issue of school safety. We've had many examples in this province of school bullying, intimidation and harassment. Those things really speak to how safe a school is for a child and their right to have a safe environment to learn in. That's one of the things which has been added here. I wonder if the minister could speak to that for a moment. I think it's a very important issue in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Clark: I know that's an issue the member is passionate about and has been very deeply involved

with in his community. The issue of bullying in school is something that I am also very, very deeply concerned about. We have, in the satisfaction surveys that we've sent out to parents, students and staff across the province, offered the first opportunity for people to tell us anonymously whether they feel safe in their schools, whether they are bullied in their schools, and whether they are taught to respect different cultures and different views in their schools — all very important questions.

We are asking students so we can get their individual perspective, and I think it's quite easy to believe that a student who's being bullied may not necessarily tell their parents or a teacher. Often these things happen secretly, and that's part of the reason that it's such an awful, insidious thing to happen for a young child. We're also asking a parent's view of it, because a parent may be able to provide us with a different perspective.

We are interested in getting all that information because we need to know what's happening at the ground level in schools. It's one thing for the Ministry of Education to publish books and support materials, and those things are useful, but it's another thing altogether to be able to determine where the problems are specifically in a school. We will, we hope, as a result of the surveys — we haven't finished tabulating them yet — be able for the first time to identify if there are specific schools where bullying and safety issues are really acute. We will be able to go to districts and give them that information and ensure that they're able to act on the information. This, as I said, is the very first time we'll have that information available.

From my perspective, that's one of the most important pieces of information that we will be gathering as a result of this survey, because no child can learn in an atmosphere where they don't feel safe. We've seen some just horrific incidents of bullying in British Columbia. They've come to public attention recently, but it's not a new issue. It's been going on for a long time and, I think, been swept under the carpet in some cases for too long, although there's a lot of people in the system — a lot of teachers, principals, students and parents — who are actively trying to combat it. We hope that this will be another tool in the arsenal for fighting the bullies — well, I shouldn't say it that way — or for changing bullies' behaviour and ensuring that schools are safe places not just for students but also for staff, who I know have a real, profound concern about their sense of safety in their workplace as well.

This morning's newspaper had a story in it about Ontario, in which one out of four students in their public school system had been the victim of bullying or some form of intimidation that impacted on their ability to learn, and about a third of those had experienced serious depression as a result. Of course, we've had examples here with Dawn-Marie Wesley and Hamed Nastoh as striking examples of where that can lead.

I'm grateful that the ministry is, first off, helping schools and districts assess where we're at in terms of that very, very important issue. I'd just like to find out what resources this minister has in mind to support schools which decide to make that particular promise or covenant with their community, that they're going to create safe learning environments for the kids who go there.

Hon. C. Clark: This is something we intend to include in the accountability contracts, once we have results. That's where we want to start with it. We want to look at this, use this baseline data and include it in accountability contracts. I suppose school districts can also look at other baseline measures to assess whether or not their schools are sufficiently safe. I can think of things like police reports, I suppose, or feedback from police who are involved in schools, community police liaisons and things like that. They may be able to gather data that way as well.

That's certainly where we will start with the information. The reason I'm so concerned about this is because, for me particularly, I think about what happened with Dawn-Marie Wesley, a young woman who decided to commit suicide because she was bullied at her school. It is impossible for me to imagine how bad a situation would become for a child to decide to take their own life, but situations like what happened to her probably happen every day in our schools in British Columbia. Just because they don't gain the notoriety or because they don't come to the attention of a teacher or a principal or anyone in the law enforcement community doesn't mean that they're any less serious or that they don't need to be addressed, so we're focused on this. We're working on it.

When Aaron Webster was murdered in Stanley Park, a victim of gay-bashing, we made some extra efforts to make sure that school districts educated kids about homophobia. We made sure they knew about a video that had very recently been released from the National Film Board, called Sticks and Stones. We had it reviewed in the ministry to ensure that it was appropriate for a grade level.

I should pay tribute at this stage to Dave Williams, who was the former director of curriculum, who sadly passed away recently. He made every effort to ensure that it was done quickly and was out at schools as fast as we could get it. We are always on the lookout for ways we can assist districts in making sure that bullying is eradicated from our schools, because every child deserves the right to be able to learn in a safe atmosphere.

L. Mayencourt: Before I yield the floor to the other members here, I just wanted to say that I think one of the most important tools would just be that: the results of that survey — to bring home for parents, for teachers, for students and for community leaders just how prevalent the issue is for kids and how important it is that we do that. I thank the minister for conducting that survey, and I thank the Solicitor General for his

role in providing the Focus on Bullying resources and the Focus on Harassment and Intimidation resources to schools as well.

J. Kwan: I have a couple of questions to follow up on the issue around the accountability contracts as they relate to the issue of safety around the schools. In my own area in Vancouver east, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, we have schools that are faced with many, many different challenges. On the issue around safety we have issues around scattered needles in the schoolyard, condoms in the schoolyard, johns coming into the schoolyard trying to solicit young girls, particularly, and boys now too. We have situations with drugs being hidden in the bushes, and the list goes on.

The minister says that the accountability contract will be addressing issues around the safety of students. These issues, in my view, fall within that purview as well. Could the minister please advise what role the school boards, through the accountability contracts, will be playing in addressing these kinds of issues of safety for students?

Hon. C. Clark: The things that school districts can include in their accountability contracts are any number of a broad range of measures of human and social development. Those kinds of things can certainly be in accountability contracts. If that's an important issue in Vancouver, and it's something that the school district would like to pursue, we certainly will pursue that.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister what resources the ministry will be providing to assist the school boards in achieving that goal, in achieving that safety outcome. The fact of the matter is that in school boards now they're faced with a budget crunch. There's no denying that. The minister can say that they protected the education budget all she wants. There is no denying that education programs are being cut — to the tune, even, that crossing guards are being cut. Students are crossing the roads, and whether or not they'll actually get to their school safely…. The crossing guards are being eliminated because the funding is not there.

I'd like to ask the minister: how come, then, there's two processes of safety? I agree that bullying is very important and that resources should be provided through the ministry to assist the schools, the students and the teachers to enhance the school environment to address the issue of bullying — so, too, with the issues around prostitution and drugs and those kinds of safety issues that school boards are trying to deal with. How come the ministry is not providing resources in those areas directly to address these issues?

Hon. C. Clark: The focus of the accountability contracts is to ensure that school districts set goals for improvement. That, first of all, means recognizing what you've done well and what you haven't done well in your district. If it's the member's view that Vancouver needs to work to improve in the area of school safety and bullying…. Perhaps the district shares her view; I don't know. It may be something they want to include in their accountability contract. Those, I would guess, would be measures they want to include under the specific focus of bullying.

Again, accountability contracts are there to ensure that districts set goals for improvement. That means they go through the process of having a look at how well they've done in the past, doing a thorough assessment — their own core review, if you like — to see what they've done well and what they've done badly. They then set goals for improvement and then, of course, set out a plan to meet those goals.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to outline for the record the position my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I are going to take on the issues of section 21, the accountability contract, and section 22, which repeals the requirement for an annual report — all the details of which I read into the record earlier. Here is what's going on.

The government of the day has repealed the requirements for the annual reports. The annual report was a two-way street. It talked about all the indicators of success, laying out a mission statement, laying out how they were going to achieve those goals and objectives, but it was a two-way street. It was also a report on how one was going to support those goals financially. It required parent involvement; it required student involvement; it required community involvement. It was a ministerial order. It also required that finances be measured, measures that described spending in the district in relation to district and provincial goals. That's why this government's done away with the annual reports and imposed accountability contracts instead. Nothing new is being added for parental information or student information except that there's no longer any requirement to report on finances to support those goals.

Here's why. This government has made it quite clear that they're taking no responsibility for properly funding our education system. It's up to the school boards. And if the school boards can't do it, the Minister of Education says they're not thinking outside the box; perhaps they could think outside the box. It doesn't matter that over the course of the next three years there's a quarter of a billion dollars of funding cuts for the pressures on school boards.

Here's what the goal of this government is: remove the requirement for an annual report that allows for a discussion of inputs as well as outputs for student achievement and replace it with accountability contracts that have no obligation.

I've asked the minister over and over again. A contract is a two-way street, but not according to the Minister of Education. It's a one-way street. Government gives nothing; the school boards will determine everything. The parents will receive no new information that wasn't available in the annual reports. In fact, they'll receive less information. There'll be no information on

finances. And the accountability contracts, if not delivered upon, will be used as a basis to fire school boards. That's what the goal is. That's exactly what it is.

The minister repealed this order in November because she knew that her budget was going to result in program cuts. So the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will — and because there's so much work to do, Mr. Chair, it will be on division — vote against the accountability contracts because they lessen the information available to parents — lessen it. We will vote against section 22, the repeal of the annual reports, because that's the real place where more information is required. If the minister were sincere, all she had to do was say to school boards who aren't filing annual reports: "Start filing your annual reports."

Hon. C. Clark: If the members opposite want to vote against accountability contracts, if they don't believe that school districts should be accountable to their public, if they don't believe they should be setting goals for improvement and coming up with plans to meet those goals — fine. Have at it. But that's not the position of this government.

We believe that school districts should be held accountable. We believe that they should be setting goals, that they should make those goals public and that they should put in place strategies to meet those goals. That is fundamental to the competent management of any enterprise, public or private.

I don't expect that the members opposite, with their decade in government behind them, would understand that fundamental principle. In fact, when we look at the evidence from the last ten years, when we look at a convention centre without a business plan or fast ferries or any of the other fiascos the previous government got involved in, we can firmly understand exactly how much this government believed in accountability and how they could care so little about planning, how they cared so little about setting goals and about making sure the public had a transparent view of how their money was being managed.

We take an opposite view in this government. That's why we are bringing in accountability contracts for every district in the province. The member can stand up and try to cook up and concoct some lame excuse to be opposed to this, but I don't think she will be able to hide from the public the real reason she's opposed to it because fundamentally, ideologically, she differs from the government on this issue.

We are firmly committed to the principle of competent management, the principle that says if you don't set goals for improvement and you don't plan strategies to get there, you may not see consistent improvement. If we are spending almost $5 billion a year on this public enterprise, surely the public has a right to know that we are constantly improving.

When she stands up and says that this is about cutting out the public, I would ask her to cast her mind back to last week when we had the debate about school planning councils. That's precisely what that debate was about: guaranteeing an avenue of input for parents where they would be able to ensure that they were part of the planning process for schools.

Not only that, I would ask her to cast her mind back again and remember our debate when we talked about the fact that the school planning councils would have to be consulted about matters that were in the accountability contracts. Now, for the first time, parents are not just guaranteed input, not just guaranteed to see where the school district has been; they are guaranteed to be a part of setting goals for improvement, guaranteed to be a part of setting the plans for getting there. That is a huge improvement on where we've been in the past.

I understand why the opposition wants to oppose this. I understand that they will desperately try and concoct any excuse to try and oppose it. The fact remains that the accountability contracts will provide far more information, and far more useful information. They will be required, and they will be monitored. The data will be made public, and parents, most of all, will be included.

R. Masi: I just wonder if the minister could clarify the situation with accreditation relative to the accountability contracts and if in fact accreditation is still a process of evaluation in the school system.

Hon. C. Clark: The accountability contracts will be premised on the school plans that will feed into it, and the school plans will be a yearly, ongoing, guaranteed accreditation process at every single school. We are taking the accreditation process — because there were many elements of that which were excellent — and moving it, really, from every six years to every year, because I think parents have a right to be involved much more frequently than every six years.

J. Kwan: Well, let's just be clear in terms of what the ministry is doing and what this minister is doing. On the issue around the accountability contract, the minister is establishing a one-way street. One of the most important issues that relates to achievement outcomes for students and therefore for the boards to achieve those goals…. The minister has left out the accountability that she needs to be held accountable for, and that is providing sufficient resources, the financial resources for the teachers, for the school boards, for all the educators and for the students to achieve their outcomes so that the parents can see the difference that could be made for their children.

Parents are already coming forward to say that they're very worried about their children's outcomes, because the funding cuts are already taking place. I speak with parents all the time, and they advise me. On the issue of special needs, as an example. When we were off just a couple of weeks ago, visiting my own community, I met with many PACs and parents. They advised me they don't know what is going to happen for their children, because the funding cuts have already taken place. The resources they need for their

children will not be there for them to achieve the outcomes. They want to know how they are going to hold this government accountable.

The fact of the matter is that the accountability contracts do not address this issue. That's exactly why this minister has brought in the accountability contracts so that she could off-load her responsibility and say: "Hey, you know what? When these cuts take place in the school system, don't blame me. Blame the school boards." Then she'll hold up the accountability contracts and say: "See? They didn't achieve the outcomes."

The one thing that's been left out of the accountability contracts that was in the annual report are the financial resource matters. They are linked, and they go hand in hand. Those things must be looked at together to form the picture. The minister has purposely left it out, to say: "Well, it's not my fault when they don't achieve these goals. Blame somebody else."

That is the agenda, in my view, of what the minister is doing with the accountability contracts, and she has completely — completely — shirked her responsibility as the minister responsible for education, the minister who ought to make sure that there are provincial standards, who ought to make sure there are sufficient resources to be provided to the school boards so that those goals of educational outcomes would be achieved in the school system. She's completely ignored that, and she's completely passed the buck. She's saying: "When those goals are not reached, don't blame me. Blame the school boards." She has cast it under the false pretence of more accountability and public accountability when in fact there's none.

I just want to touch on one more issue, Mr. Chair, on the issue around flexibility. The minister likes to claim that she's given the school boards more flexibility to achieve their goals, that they have more tools in the box. You know what? Parents, school trustees and educators are now looking at the word flexibility with new meaning. What that means to them is the government off-loading responsibilities. The government is saying: "Don't blame me; blame somebody else." Ultimately, the new "f" word — flexibility — means cuts in educational funding, cuts in educational programs and negative impacts for the students and the parents in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: On section 23, I just want to ask the minister this question. Instead of the annual reports, the board is required to submit reports and statements to the minister when the minister requests them. Will these reports be available to the parents and students? How often will the boards be expected to submit these reports?

Hon. C. Clark: This, I'm informed, is a minor amendment from the current act, which reads: "In addition to its annual report prepared under section 80, a board must prepare and submit to the minister reports and statements in the form and at the time required by the minister." I understand that it's not a part of the act commonly used by previous ministers and that this just amends it to add the words "with the information," so it says: "A board must prepare and submit to the minister reports and statements in the form, with the information and at the time required by the minister." It isn't a dramatic change from current practice.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I didn't get an answer at all from the minister. I asked the questions: will these reports be made available to the parents and to the students, and how often will the boards be required to submit these reports?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said in my answer, from time to time ministers in the past have required this under the current act. We don't anticipate that it will be any more frequent than it has been in the past. It's not a regular request, so the question of how often isn't something that I can answer with any specificity. Will the reports be made public? We intend to make as much information available to the public as we can.

J. Kwan: But will these reports be made public? Let me just ask this one question first, and then I'll go to the other.

Hon. C. Clark: They may be. It depends what the subject of the report is. If it contains confidential or personnel information, they may not be. It would depend, again, on the contents of the report.

J. Kwan: It is the minister who is requiring the boards to submit these reports, so the minister ought to have some sense in terms of what the content would be and what is the nature of these reports and these statements. Surely the minister has some sort of sense in terms of what she is bringing forward. This is the new Minister of Education now. How often will the boards be expected to submit these reports? Does the minister have any sense in terms of that requirement, or does she have no idea — like much of the rest of the bill?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I do have a pretty good sense of the bill. I hope I've demonstrated that in the course of our debates here today.

The specific amendment is a very minor one. It doesn't change in any great way the current circumstance, as I said in my previous answers. The minister can ask for these from time to time. It's impossible to predict what the contents of the reports or the subject

of those reports might be, so it's very difficult to give the member the kind of specific information she's looking for.

If she is looking for a historic view of how often this has been done in the past, she may want to ask her colleague. I don't know if she ever requested any of these reports under the current legislation, under the current School Act, while she was minister, but I'm advised by staff that it's not something that's necessarily regular or frequent.

J. Kwan: You know, it just demonstrates, I think, once again how this minister wants to take no responsibility for anything. The minister is the Minister of Education. She is requesting these reports. I am asking her what her intentions are with respect to these reports. How often does she expect these reports to be submitted to her as the minister? She's saying: "Oh well, you know, I don't know. If you want to know what the past practices have been, check it out with the previous government."

Mr. Chair, this minister is now the Minister of Education. I know she doesn't want to take any responsibility whatsoever for the educational cuts, in terms of program cuts. We've already established that through the accountability contracts issue and the annual report issue.

Now I'm asking a simple question. With this change, what are the intentions of this minister? Basically, she has no intentions because she doesn't want to have any responsibility whatsoever.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd ask the member to perhaps listen to my answers, because I think I've been pretty consistent. I can offer the same answer. Again, it's impossible to predict what might be in the future, so it's difficult to give her the kind of specificity she's asking for.

The changes to the legislation will require new kinds of regular reporting that's laid out in the legislation quite clearly. This amendment to the current act, which is a small amendment as I've said, allows the minister to ask for reports on different subjects at different times. It's not necessarily regular, and the subject of those reports is not laid out in the legislation, so it's very difficult to try and offer her the kind of specifics she's asking for.

J. Kwan: I'll just wrap up with this. Let's just be clear. I asked the question: will the reports be made available to the parents and students? The answer is: "Maybe, maybe not." I asked the question: will the boards be expected to submit these reports? How often will they be expected to submit these reports? The answer is: "I don't know." That's what the minister said. She has no idea.

The Chair: Now, section 32 is a very large section. Would the members like to deal with some subsections or just with one as a section 32?

J. MacPhail: Perhaps we'll ask some exploratory questions, and then we could decide on how to proceed.

J. MacPhail: I'm curious to know what the incorporation of the Company Act in a School Act bill changes for individual school boards.

Hon. C. Clark: The amendment to the act creates a vehicle for school districts to engage in entrepreneurial activities. The vehicle it creates allows them to engage in those activities while protecting the public assets of education from any potential liability that might arise.

J. MacPhail: Yikes. It sounds like it's going to be a risky business. If one has to protect….We're talking about public assets here: a public school system to deliver services for children, by law, in British Columbia.

All sorts of fundraising activities go on now by school boards. School boards sell their curricula. School boards raise money in every way possible. What is it that school boards need to be incorporated for? What is going to be allowed now that would otherwise not have been permitted?

Hon. C. Clark: First, school boards won't be incorporating under this legislation. They will be creating companies. It's a different concept under the law, as I'm sure the member knows. Second, the legislation will…. We've heard this from districts. They asked for this change in legislation. I'm advised that they've been asking for it for a long time. I understand that some districts were asking for it as long ago as 1988.

The legislation allows them to create a vehicle, as I said. Importantly, it gives, I think, a signal to school districts that government is no longer going to be actively discouraging them from engaging in entrepreneurial activities. In particular, as I've said publicly many times, school districts want to focus on the issue of creating offshore schools, in some cases, or recruiting offshore students to our districts because that means money flowing from overseas directly into the classroom for the benefit of B.C. students.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister distinguished between forming a company and incorporation. The definition of a company is a corporation incorporated under this part.

Look. All I'm trying to figure out is why the Company Act is being transferred into the School Act, which is to be about our kids' education and universally provided education for children in this province. That's all I'm trying to figure out here.

It will be, I think — unless Ontario has moved in this direction, which is not necessarily a model I would like to follow — pretty unique here in British Columbia. If it's about protecting the public school assets against any risk that a school board may take and,

therefore, if it requires protection of assets, the risk may fail — protect against liability….

What I'm trying to figure out is what kind of business it would be that a school board would be involved in. Secondly, what possible reason would there be for a school board to be involved in business like that when they're supposed to be in the business of education?

Generally, the provisions governing companies under the Company Act apply and have been incorporated by reference into this bill. There are, however, some very important differences designed to ensure that the school board has and will continue to have control over the actions of the company. That is the reason we've incorporated what is essentially part of the Company Act into the School Act.

Let's be clear, though, that this is very much incorporating up of school board activities. We have, under 95.4(1), that the company will have directors. One wonders who the directors are under 95.4(1). Who determines who those directors will be? What's the relationship between the corporation, its directors and the school board? What happens if resources…?

Let me start with those questions. It's leading to this: about the mixing and mingling of resources. Pursuits under this section and resources in pursuit of education under the rest of the provisions of the School Act.

Hon. C. Clark: If she looks forward in the section we are debating here, she'll see some answers to the questions she has asked. It says: "Subject to subsection (3), if a board is the member of a company, the secretary treasurer or a trustee of the board must be one of the directors of the company."

I suspect she would say: "Well, then if a board could appoint a lot of other directors who aren't necessarily members of the board, what would stop them from having control over the assets or the business the school board was engaged in?" That's also addressed elsewhere in these amendments. If she'd be prepared to read forward, it says: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, a member must not encumber or dispose of an interest in the share of a company." There is one share in the company in this legislation.

J. Kwan: The companies that are established under this act — would they be entitled to take out loans for business ventures?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, they could. The board would be able to engage in a range of activities. That is indeed the intent of the act: to allow school districts to do this in a way that ensures that they are protecting public assets. One of the things I'm advised that we've seen over the last ten or 12 years is school districts engaging in more and more entrepreneurial activities without the protection of a corporate vehicle that ensures that public assets aren't held liable. That's what we're attempting to do with this act.

J. Kwan: The minister said that there have been examples where more and more school boards are at risk because they're engaging in business ventures, without protection. Could the minister give some examples?

Hon. C. Clark: I can get the member some examples, but the issue is not necessarily a current one. It could be an issue that has arisen in the past with school districts. The point is, though, that we do know — much of this is often anecdotal — that school districts are engaging in activities or contemplating engaging in activities that could put public assets at risk. We have a responsibility, I think, in government to ensure that those public assets are protected.

J. Kwan: It sounds to me like the minister doesn't have any examples. That's troubling.

I want to ask the minister this question. The business ventures that would be established under this act — the risks associated with this act because loans will be taken…. What happens if the business venture fails? Who pays?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the damages that might arise from a business failure would be confined to that company.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.