Hansard -- Thursday, March 6, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 12, No. 9 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5351

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5351
	International Women's Day E. Brenzinger S. Brice French immersion R. Stewart

Oral Questions		5352
	Impact of gasoline tax increase on public transit J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Tolls on inland ferries J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid School closings and education funding R. Stewart Hon. C. Clark Placer mining J. Wilson Hon. R. Neufeld Monitoring of government photocopying J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori Okanagan-Similkameen school district review D. Chutter Hon. C. Clark

Committee of the Whole House		5355
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5357
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13)

Committee of Supply		5357
	Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
		Page

Committee of Supply		5375
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued) J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail

S. Orr: I would like to say bonjour to 23 grade 7 students that are in French immersion in one of the schools in my riding, Doncaster Elementary. With them they have four adults, and with them is their teacher. Her name is Miss Jensen. Would everybody please make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I am very pleased to welcome to the House today Jason Johnson. Jason is originally from Penticton. He's now living in the Victoria area. He's a nice young fellow in the hospitality and tourism industry. Would the House please make Jason very welcome.

E. Brenzinger: I'm delighted to introduce to the House today two outstanding women who, in their work, help women to reach their full potential. Janet Fairbach is the director of the Women's Intercultural Network for Women Today, and Lewiza Youssef is actively involved with the Arabic women's community. It is indeed a pleasure to have them join us today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of people from the Comox Valley. John and Lynn Marinus are host parents and Rotary Club members that are hosting some exchange students with us today. We have a German Rotary exchange student, Thekla Zeit; we have a student from Switzerland, Ursina Hottiger; and we have a Rotary student from Brazil, Carol Sabron. As well, we have Lindsay McCormack, who is accompanying them today from the Comox Valley. Lindsay is the granddaughter of John and Lynn. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

J. Kwan: I'm particularly happy today, because some 31 years ago the Leader of the Opposition was born on this very day. We're here today….

J. Kwan: You know, in the Chinese community there is a saying, as I understand it, that as people become wiser, they tend to lose their hair. I'd like to know, and I'd like the Leader of the Opposition to share with members of this House what her secret is because, as we can see, she has a full head of hair. There is no doubt from any member of this House, I'm sure, about the level of wisdom that my colleague has reached, so the secret is to be shared, hon. member, and I wish that you would share it with all members. It might well enhance the scenery in this Legislature.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all that talk about hair, one's got to be concerned about barbers and cosmetologists as well. I would like to wish the Leader of the Opposition a happy birthday. I thought you and I were of the same age, but obviously I was completely incorrect in that. I've got a good 20 years….

At any rate, noticing how quiet it was yesterday in the House, I thought it was important that we have a visitation from some of those great constituents of Cowichan-Ladysmith. In the House today are the Winters brothers, Wayne, Lee, Kim and Rob, and their mother, Lill. They're in the construction business, and they were telling me at lunch that they are having one of the best years they ever had in British Columbia.

E. Brenzinger: I am delighted to rise today to focus the attention of the Legislature on International Women's Day. This special day provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality, to assess the challenges facing women in contemporary society, to consider full steps to enhance the status of women and, of course, to celebrate the gains made in these areas.

The very fact that we have so many women in this Legislature representing constituents from around the province speaks volumes for how far women have come. Women have a voice in this province. In British Columbia we have much to celebrate as women have considerable opportunities for education, for pursuing business and professional interests, and for raising their families in an environment of peace and freedom. Indeed, women have come to Canada from many nations of the world specifically because of the opportunities here.

I am particularly excited about this year's theme — Worldwide Women, WWW: Surfing the Digital Divide. The advent of new information and communication technologies has revolutionized the way people communicate, access information, create networks and develop business opportunities. Just this week the Minister of State for Women's Equality launched a web-based directory for women, which makes it easier for women to access information about programs and services that can provide them with valuable support. If knowledge is power, then the Internet offers a wealth of information, and I believe the Internet can and, in fact, already is empowering women and promoting equality.

This week is a chance to celebrate and recognize those women who have played a positive role in our lives — a teacher, a mother, a friend or a colleague. It is also a chance to recognize those groups and leaders in each of our communities who play an important role in supporting and encouraging women to reach their full potential.

S. Brice: Like my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, I, too, rise to recognize International Women's Week and

to celebrate the achievements of women. These achievements, of course, cover all aspects of our lives — in our families and in the workplace, in communities, in institutions of learning, on the sporting fields and in the legislative chambers around the world.

International Women's Day is rooted in women's fight for the right to vote and the declaration of women as legal persons. I think it is most appropriate that we honour both the struggle and the achievements in the Legislature today.

The theme for this year's International Women's Day is Worldwide Women: Surfing the Digital Revolution. As has been acknowledged by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of State for Women's Equality this week launched a women's directory. This is an electronic directory of government services that are available to women or are used primarily by women. The directory is a single window to a wide range of services for women, including information on parenting, women's safety, services for immigrant and visible minority women, women with disabilities, housing, women's health and employment.

This is the first time this kind of directory has been available for women's programs and services in British Columbia, and I expect it will be well used. This initiative will be especially useful to the women in British Columbia's heartland communities who may be living a considerable distance away from government services.

Women have come a long way. I encourage all members of the House to join me in celebrating those accomplishments this Saturday, which is International Women's Day, and indeed throughout the year.

R. Stewart: It is my pleasure to announce that the government of B.C. has proclaimed next week, March 9 to 15, as French Immersion Week. This important program enhances the intellectual growth and career opportunities for students and helps to strengthen the bond between communities in our French- and English-speaking neighbourhoods.

British Columbia's French immersion program continues to grow in popularity. Enrolment is up 7 percent in the last ten years. This year 32,000 students across B.C. were enrolled in French immersion. That's an increase of almost 1,000 over last year. In fact, 44 school districts offer either early or late French immersion in 228 schools throughout the province.

En tant que Député responsable des affaires francophones, j'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que la semaine de l'immersion en français en Colombie-Britannique se tiendra cette année du neuf au quinze mars. La langue française fait partie de notre grande culture ici en Colombie-Britannique comme tout partout d'ailleurs a travers le Canada. Le programme d'immersion en français offre aux étudiants la richesse de la langue et culture françaises ainsi qu'une opportunité unique pour leurs avenirs.

I think it's important to recognize the contribution of this program and its dedicated teachers and staff to the French language education of young British Columbians. As a francophone and as a parent, I am encouraged by the continued interest shown by parents to enrol their children in French immersion. As my eldest daughter Christina approaches graduation, it is clear to me that her French immersion education has provided her with a world of opportunities.

Education is this government's top priority, and we want to provide students with the kinds of choices that will make our education most relevant to their needs. French immersion plays a key role in achieving this goal.

J. MacPhail: Today TransLink is asking the government to exempt it from the 3½-cent-a-litre tax grab. That tax is going to add at least $1.4 million to its fuel bill and lead to even further cuts in transit service. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us if she will entertain this request to protect public transit service in the lower mainland?

Hon. J. Reid: As I mentioned yesterday, the serious nature this government has with the funding of transit services and our commitment to funding transit services and the necessity to be able to provide transportation services all over this province…. We just announced $209 million going into transportation around the lower mainland. That benefits everybody. We believe in working with the communities and in working with Transit to find the efficiencies that are going to be delivered to provide the services people need.

J. MacPhail: The announcement this government made in terms of choosing roads over public transit not only harms the environment but reduces the services upon which people have to rely for public transit.

J. MacPhail: We'll get to what this government's doing for public transit in the interior.

So far the only thing this government's done for public transit is raise the gas taxes or force increased transit fees and cuts in service. It's not just the bus service in the lower mainland that's on the chopping block because of the government's tax grab. In Victoria the fuel tax means an increase in fuel costs of $250,000 a year, a cut of 5,000 hours of bus service. That's on top of the already 35,000 hours cut under this government. In Kelowna they are now talking about also cutting bus service because of this gas tax increase.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell us why seniors in Victoria and why those great citizens in the interior have to lose their bus service because of this minister's tax grab?

Hon. J. Reid: We are improving services in many ways across this province. In transportation there's a wide network of services required. Supporting the infrastructure is absolutely necessary as part of transportation services, and that includes transit. There are efficiencies that need to be found in the transit system. We are working with municipalities to find those efficiencies, to improve the services and to move ahead, working with municipalities to find the best funding formula to meet their needs.

J. MacPhail: In the year 2003 this is the only government in Canada that hasn't invested one red cent out of its pocket into public transit — the only jurisdiction. In the lower mainland public transit is going to be cut. On the lower Island public transit will be cut. In communities from Kelowna to Kamloops and Prince George, transit service is being threatened, as we speak, by this Liberal tax grab. In Nanaimo alone transit fuel costs are expected to rise by 38 percent at the end of this month. The result: service will be cut at the end of March and again at the end of June.

Again, can the Minister of Transportation tell us why it is that commuters, students, seniors and those that live in the interior and on the coast are being told that buses just don't get any recognition from this and that there are just no buses left to get them where they need to go?

Hon. J. Reid: This member opposite knows that there is a commitment to rapid transit in the lower mainland, knows that this government is working with TransLink, with the federal government to be able to fulfil that commitment. There is ongoing commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars to further transit projects. So we are working with the different partners…

J. MacPhail: You're doing zero — zero. What are they? Just tell us what they are. What are they?

Hon. J. Reid: …on the priorities that TransLink has established and maintaining the commitments that the government has inherited.

J. Kwan: In the Premier's televised infomercial, he said that there would be no tolls on inland ferries, but it looks as though…

…tolls are going to be put on the McLure ferry. Can the Minister of Transportation explain why her Premier is breaking his promise?

Hon. J. Reid: When we first looked at the efficiency of the inland ferry system and ways of being able to provide a cost-effective service for the people for British Columbia, we realized that there were a number of ferry routes that had alternate roads service. Those ferries, indeed, were only used for part of the year. We made an announcement many, many months ago that it wasn't necessary for the government to provide those services and that those services could be provided by an alternate service provider, if indeed there was interest. We put out an expression of interest to find out if there were other parties who want to take that on. We have received expressions. We are going through an RFP process shortly.

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

J. Kwan: The new-era definition for the Liberals: efficiency means cuts. Same thing for ferries; same thing for transit. Let me read the Premier's words back to the minister. He told interior residents: "There will be no tolls on inland ferries." He didn't say: "There will be no tolls because we're shutting your ferry down." He didn't say: "There will be no tolls except on those that are being privatized." He said: "There will be no tolls — period." People in McLure believed him, and now they're outraged. They say the Premier is breaking his promise. So again to the minister: who is right — the Premier or the citizens of McLure?

Hon. J. Reid: As I said, this announcement was made many months ago. This is a service where we have taken the interests of the people using it. We have consulted with the people. There were some comments…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. J. Reid: …and concerns about the road. Those comments and concerns are being addressed. Again, these ferry services have good alternate road service. It isn't necessary, and there are private ferries that operate in the interior — in the heartlands — of this province right now.

R. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last month the Coquitlam school board voted to close three elementary schools including Montgomery Elementary, the school that two of my children attend. There are some people in my constituency who are blaming this decision on budget pressures, despite the fact that these schools are not even close to being at capacity. Montgomery, for example, is currently two-thirds empty and within a kilometre of three other schools that also have space. In fact, Montgomery's principal urged that the school be closed.

To the Minister of Education: for the benefit of school boards across this province, could she please clarify that when she asked school boards to direct more of the money into their classrooms, she meant the classrooms with children in them?

Hon. C. Clark: I know it's a difficult decision for school boards to decide to shut down a school or amalgamate a school. It's difficult because schools often feel like they are a part of a community, no matter how close that community may be to other communities. And that's certainly the case in Coquitlam. In Coquitlam, though, they have an acute change in demographics, so while they're talking about closing down three schools, we in the ministry are paying almost $9 million to build a new school for secondary students. While there are 15,000 fewer students in kindergarten than there are in grade 12, we have to recognize that some of those secondary schools are absolutely bursting at the seams.

It's a difficult decision for the school board, but we're encouraging school boards to take all of the money we grant to them and focus that on student achievement. Instead of spending the money on empty spaces, spend it on teachers, spend it on textbooks, spend it on computers, spend it on teacher aides — spend it on things that will really benefit students. So when we granted the Coquitlam school board $2.7 million at the end of this fiscal year, when we granted them $2 million at the end of last fiscal year and then when we granted them their portion of the $100 million that will be flowing to school districts over the next three years, we said we have one condition — that you spend this money on improving student achievement.

Earlier this year the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced even greater restrictions on placer mining operations in British Columbia. These new restrictions will have devastating consequences. Placer mining, while only a small part of mining operations in B.C., contributes greatly to the economy and is a valuable employer for many of my constituents. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us how he intends to address this issue and how he plans to protect the placer mining operations in our province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The placer mining industry in British Columbia is very important to the province, and we want to make sure it survives the onslaught of what takes place with DFO changing the rules.

My ministry officials met with the DFO last fall to talk to them about the setback requirements. I recently met with the Premier of the Yukon and the minister of mines in the Yukon and have asked to participate with them in lobbying the federal government and DFO to relax their standards. We want to work together with them, because placer mining is very important in the Yukon also.

I've also met with the Cariboo Mining Association, and they have just recently forwarded to me a number of requests on how we can actually help the placer mining industry in British Columbia not just with DFO regulations but with some of our own. So we're working hard to make sure that takes place in the province.

J. MacPhail: Not only is B.C. Stats doing secret performance evaluation of cabinet ministers, they're also working on another top secret Liberal project. According to B.C. Stats documents, the Minister of Management Services has contracted B.C. Stats to ferret out photocopies in government that violate copyright. It looks like a big project. According to B.C. Stats's worksheet, its target is to monitor every photocopy made by government.

Can the Minister of Management Services tell the House how many staff it takes and how much it costs to look at every photocopy made in government to make sure that no one may be doing something illegal, like photocopying pages from the New Era document?

Hon. S. Santori: This government respects the rights of publishers, and we are undertaking an exercise to make sure we are adhering to the rights of those publishers and will continue to do so.

D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Education. I understand that the Education ministry has undertaken a new process for reviewing school districts in order to increase accountability. The Okanagan-Similkameen school district was one of the districts involved in the review process. Can the Minister of Education explain the purpose of these reviews and advise us how the Okanagan-Similkameen school district is performing?

Hon. C. Clark: We're sending out district review teams to a third of the districts every year to have a look at how well the districts are living up to the goals they've set for themselves and their accountability contracts to make sure that they're focused on student achievement and that they're spending every taxpayer dollar as well as they can to maximize student learning in the classroom.

The results from this district came back very positive. They talked very positively about the leadership in the district. They talked very positively about the fact that the district has set clear goals for its local schools. They did, though, suggest some improvements, and perhaps some collaboration would be required to make sure that classroom assessment is working well. Overall, this district has done an absolutely tremendous job. The district review team membership is drawn from across the province and from all stakeholder groups. They bring a valuable outside eye to make sure everything in the education system is functioning as highly as possible. The good news for this member is that his district is doing an absolutely tremendous job.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In this House, I call committee stage debate of Bill 13.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: This is a section that I addressed in second reading. I think by now the minister will have received a letter from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, written by John Dixon. A signatory to the letter is also Gerry Fahey, who is with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. That letter outlines their concerns with the changes to the act made by section 10 of this bill.

I'll take this opportunity to acknowledge that I was remiss in not acknowledging the work that the Civil Liberties Association and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association had done. Their letter assisted me in my debate at second reading, and I was remiss in not acknowledging that. I want to put on the record today that their direction was of great assistance to me in second reading.

Specifically, these organizations believe that the discretionary power of a public body to release personal information needs to be maintained, but the act has to be clear that this authority — discretionary authority — extends to third-party contractors engaged by the government to take on public services. I'll read into the record what section 10 is doing.

Section 10 is amending the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, section 33, by striking out "a public body may disclose personal information…." It's now substituting that with: "A public body must ensure that personal information in its custody or under its control is disclosed." That's the change with which we are dealing.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions on this. At present, British Columbians have their privacy rights protected by law. There is recourse in law if those rights are breached. By failing to ensure that the personal privacy rights of British Columbians are protected when the government shares or allows personal information to be collected by non-government entities for a government-directed purpose, the government is really saying, "Trust us. The contract we have will protect your rights."

In other words, by this section 10 amendment to section 33 of the original act, the legislated protection is gone, and it's now back to the government — that they will incorporate that protection through a contract. Is it the minister's view that a contractual agreement really

will be sufficient to protect the personal privacy rights of British Columbians? Does he really believe that that will happen?

Hon. S. Santori: That's precisely what we're saying. The change that we are making, in fact, strengthens that obligation of government to ensure that work being done by a third party under contract will, in fact, comply with the legislation.

Also, I do acknowledge the letter that was received by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. There was significant consultation. I believe our staff met a minimum of two times with the Civil Liberties Association. We feel that we have met the requests that were bestowed upon us, as well as through the privacy commissioner. I believe the member has been copied with a letter from the privacy commissioner, whereby he has no concerns or objections with respect to the amendment that I've brought forward.

J. MacPhail: Well, why is the minister exempting the contractors from the same level of scrutiny and review that previously applied to the public sector doing exactly the same work? Why is the minister not holding the private sector to the same code of conduct that he holds public sector delivery of services to?

Hon. S. Santori: That is exactly what we are ensuring that we are doing. We are making this amendment to directly ensure that third parties do in fact comply under the same rules and regulations as we do, as government, with respect to the freedom of information and the protection of privacy.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister can explain to the public how that actually is occurring, because here's my view of what this amendment does. More and more of government services are being outsourced, which is this government's term. My term is "privatized" or "contracted out." Whatever you call it, outsourced or contracted out, it's giving services that were previously in the public sector now to the private sector. Yet in practice, and in the view of the public, the services themselves remain public services so that the public thinks of them as those kinds of services, regardless of who's delivering them. In fact, the funder of those services remains government revenue.

In addition, the delivery of these services, which are often mandated by policy or sometimes even statute, is overseen by a government authority, government entity. As such, personal information under the control of this third-party entity must continue to be treated as if the information was under the control of a true public body such as a government ministry.

Let me just give one example. What if the contract with Pacific Blue Cross in relation to Pharmacare changes? Let's use that as an example of what we're talking about. Pacific Blue Cross will be provided with access to a wide range of personal information from tax returns right through to medical history, yet the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as this amendment stands, doesn't apply to Pacific Blue Cross. They're providing a public service, and they're using and have access to personal information collected by a public agency.

I submit that it's vitally important that the act be very clear when it comes to who has control of the information and the procedures that must be adhered to if it's to be released in any way. It's got to be absolutely clear that the release of personal information remains discretionary and used only for statutorily defined purposes.

With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I put forward an amendment to section 33. I think the Table has a copy of the amendment, and I believe the minister has a copy of the amendment in my name.

I'm proposing, under section 10 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, that section 10 will amend section 33 in the following fashion:

Section 33.1 is an expansion of my argument that currently is not addressed in the legislation at all.

Hon. S. Santori: I believe it's very explicit. Once again, the contractors who are doing work on behalf of the government, which is where the material is under the custody and control of government, will abide by the same rules as outlined in section 33 of the act.

J. MacPhail: I hope the minister is going to expound upon this point of view about why he thinks it applies directly, because my argument is exactly the opposite — that it's been changed from permissive to mandatory in the legislation. The minister just stands up and says it doesn't do that. Perhaps the minister could walk the public through his explanation of why I'm inaccurate. Then point No. 33.1 in my amendment also adds the fact that the information will be treated as personal information when it goes from a public body to a non-public entity contracted to perform the duties

Hon. S. Santori: The point I want to make here in response is that the government does maintain control even when in the hands of a contractor.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair, my apologies. Could the minister please repeat that?

Hon. S. Santori: The government retains control even when the work is in the hands of the contractor.

J. MacPhail: How does it maintain control? I'm actually even less clear with that answer. If personal information is requested from the contractor, does that request for the release of the personal information then go to the public agency or the ministry? How does it remain in public control?

Hon. S. Santori: In response to the member's question, the ministry will receive the request. The ministry will respond to that request. Even though the private contractor may have the custody and possession of that information, the request goes to the ministry, and the information is made available by the ministry.

Hon. S. Santori: I rise for the committee to report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 13, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I also seek a brief recess while members attend in the House for that purpose.

J. Kwan: Yesterday we were discussing the general funding issues in the Ministry of Education. I'd like to continue on with some of the questions in that area. Just to recap a little bit, we were able to establish that there is a series of areas for which funding would not be in place. There would be no new funding in place in the education system for increased pressures such as the gas tax increase, such as potential hydro rate increases, such as school buses which may be faced with a tremendous, dramatic increase in costs as a result of, again, the gas tax. Those kinds of increased pressures would not take place. The government would not be providing additional funding in that area.

What we were also able to establish was that when the minister says there's $100 million in addition to the budget for education in '04-05, '05-06, up to $50 million would be injected into the education system in '04-05, bringing the total to $3.84 billion, and up to $20 million in '05-06, bringing the total to $3.86 billion. That brings us to $70 million, not $100 million. We're still short on some of those amounts. That's what we were able to establish yesterday in estimates with the minister.

I'd like to actually follow with the line of questioning on this. Now that we know this magical $143 million is not the amount of money that will be directed to the school district grants…. In fact, it is less than that, because there's also a significant amount that would go to adjusting the general accounting principles. What people have been saying about the impacts of this money, in short, is that, yes, it will help a little, but the system remains poorly funded.

I'd like to look at another couple of articles in the Times Colonist. It talks about a coalition here in Victoria. "Coalition Urges More for Schools," it headlines. The article is dated February 14, 2003.

The article goes on to quote him saying: "But I would like to see more stable funding." He adds that the current practice leaves boards and parents constantly in a reactive mode. "I would like to see a vision for education."

The article goes on, but we get the thrust of what the individual is trying to say — that the one-time injection of funding does not provide for stability. People are feeling it in the system — school trustees, parents, teachers. Everyone who is an advocate in education feels that. I'd like the minister to respond to this issue of stable funding and really the lack thereof.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said a number of times yesterday, for the first time this government — which is a huge departure from previous governments — is providing stable funding. We're providing three-year planning envelopes for school districts. That's something they begged the previous government for and were refused. We've lived up to our commitment during the election to provide stable funding to school districts. We intend to continue to do that.

It's interesting to hear the member complain about a lack of vision. In fact, we probably get more complaints about the fact that we have too much vision, because school districts aren't always ready to undertake the kind of momentous change that we're talking about: more parental involvement, absolutely critical to making sure kids have a quality, sound education; more autonomy for school districts, so they can design programs that meet the needs of their local communities; more accountability, so everyone in the public knows how well their money is being spent; and, of course, more choice, so students can choose and vote with their feet and decide what education is best for them.

J. Kwan: The issue that I raised is not just from the opposition. It's from the parents, from people who are in the system, from school trustees, teachers and educators. They all are saying, in spite of what the minister is saying herself — and she may well believe it herself…. I'm simply pointing the minister's attention to the issue — that out in the public, people do not feel there is stable funding. There is no stability in the funding.

If the minister actually heard what I said, the coalition of people who have come together to advocate for better education — a coalition of parents, educators and school trustees — says that there are problems with the way this minister is addressing the education system and funding within the education system. They are the ones who are saying they're exhausted from trying to reach out and to react to cuts. They're exhausted with what this government is doing, and they would like to see more stable funding. They have not seen that. They would like to see a vision for education. This is a direct quote from the Greater Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the people that this minister puts so much emphasis on and has high regards towards, which are the parents — and rightly so.

Yes, you can easily just discount what they say by sloughing it off. I think that's a shame. I hope the minister at some point in time stops and listens, because I think that may well do our education system some good. It may well do our parents, who are working so hard in this system, the school trustees who are working so hard in our system and the teachers who are working so hard in our system to enhance education for our students in the public sector.

I want to raise another issue with the minister relating to funding in education. That is the issue around the technology grant. Aside from the funding formula itself, which we will get into in a little while, there remains some unanswered issues around other funding commitments. First, it is the technology grant.

A release from the BCSTA explains the issue. I'll just read part of the release for the minister. The release — September 25 to October 9. BCSTA president Gordon Comeau gives several media interviews speaking to the shortfall resulting from non-payment of the final 30 percent of the technology grant. In the Province clip attached to the news release and on Shaw Cable's Voice of B.C. hosted by Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer, Comeau asks the Minister of Education to see that this funding is forthcoming. BCSTA has not received a response from the ministry to date. That was, of course, September 25 to October 9.

Then on September 12, 2002, BCSTA president Gordon Comeau writes to the Minister of Education pointing out that no district has received the remaining 30 percent of the tech grant due in June 2002. He asks if the ministry staff have indicated that the funding was included in the per-pupil allocation of 2002-03. This is a serious problem for boards as funds budgeted and spent in 2001 and 2002 must be accounted for in a dedicated reserve for that year. These accounts now show deficits.

On July 23, 2002, British Columbia School District Secretary-Treasurers Association president Joan Axford writes to the Minister of Education, drawing her attention to the non-payment of the final 30 percent of the tech grant for '01-02. Then in October of 2001 the minister notifies school boards that they will receive 70 percent of the funding in November 2001, with the remainder transmitted on or before June 30, 2002. Then dating back to April 2001, the Ministry of Education notifies school boards that they would receive $5 million in technology grants for 2002-03.

Can the minister please explain why the ministry failed to fund the final payment of the tech grant? Why was it cancelled?

Hon. C. Clark: We were rolling all of the available dollars that we have into the per-pupil funding. I think only this member would try and suggest that $42 million more last year, $50 million more this year, hopefully another dividend at the end of next year and then $100 million would translate into a cut.

Let me just give her a little picture of what this looks like in terms of per-student funding. That means per-pupil funding has gone up by $109 in '02-03 — that's last year — $51 per student in '03-04, $139 per student in '04-05 and $88 per student in '05-06. How she characterizes those increases as a cut is absolutely beyond me. All I can conclude is that she's deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts to gain her own political advantage.

J. Kwan: When the minister just wants to sit there with her eyes wide shut, she can choose to do so, and she obviously has continued to choose to do that.

The reality is this…. And this is not just me who's raising these concerns. The reality is that there is a cut in the classroom for students. Make no mistake about it. How that adds up…. I would challenge the minister to add up her numbers, and she will know the difference. By her own admission last year, where she did not fund fully the teachers' salary increases, that left a hole of some $16.8 million of shortfall. That is a hole.

Then you have increased pressures in other areas as well. You have MSP premium increases imposed by this government — only partially funded. Then there's also the increase of the pending gas prices that's going to be put into the system. Now we have the tech grant that.… Even though the government actually promised — promised after they were elected — that school boards would receive it as full funding…. All of a sudden, you know what? That's all accounted for within the per-pupil dollars, and there are no additional dollars. All of a sudden these cuts started to take place.

If the minister actually went out to the classrooms, talked to parents and saw for herself, she would see the reduction in services that is the result of this minister's and this government's action. Make no mistake about it. The budget for education — the dollars — has actually remained constant. They did not go up. Then when you have added pressures in the system, what you've got is a reduction in education funding. That's how it adds up. It's not that difficult to do the math.

I know the minister had a tough time dealing with the math yesterday on the $100 million, and I understand that, because she is still short on the 100 million bucks. We're still short some moneys on that. I'm going to leave that, because obviously that's where we're at. The minister sees it differently, and the numbers add up differently. There is a math problem here that everybody else acknowledges except for the minister.

For the minister to sit there and say: "Hey, everything is fine. Don't worry about it. The school board will manage everything, in spite of all these increased pressures, without increased funding into the system…." There is a problem. That $50 million the minister is so fond of saying…. That one-time grant money — you know what? — actually didn't increase the education budget. It didn't. The education budget actually stayed constant, and this year the budget is staying constant as well.

The minister can sit there with her eyes wide shut and say: "Everything is fine; it is not our problem." But then everybody else, according to the minister, is wrong, including the BCSTA, who wrote to the minister, who contacted the minister on several occasions in spite of what the minister had promised, and that is that the tech grant would actually be paid. All of a sudden they have clawed back those moneys. I would say that is misleading to the public to suggest that the tech grant was paid for when all you have done is roll that money into the per-pupil funding, like everything else has now been rolled into the per-pupil funding. Maybe she can explain to the BCSTA how it is she can justify cutting the tech grant.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to correct some of the assumptions the member has made. In fact, we did fund the MSP increases. We overfunded them to the tune of $3 million actually; we didn't underfund it or not fund it at all. Second, I do go to classes. In fact, I was just in some classrooms this week. I travel to classrooms all across the province and meet with teachers, meet with parents, meet with students — most importantly — and meet with administrators to get a chance to talk to them about what's going on in their schools.

I am really fed up with the member across there running down our public education system and trying to telegraph to the public how rotten our public education system always is. You know what? It's not. We have a great public education system. Our students are doing better this year than they have ever done in the past. We have some of the most qualified, dedicated, caring teachers in the world in British Columbia. We have some of the best leaders in the principals and vice-principals that work in our system, some of the most committed volunteers on our school boards, and of course we have some of the brightest, most capable, most able students you will find anywhere on this globe. So I am fed up with hearing that member run down our public education system.

Yes, there are areas where we can do better. Certainly, we can make sure that more than three out of four students graduate from high school. Certainly, we can make sure that more than 40 percent of aboriginal students graduate from high school. Yes, we can work on our reading and our writing and our numeracy numbers, and improve those. But let's not forget, when we're talking about trying to do things better — all of us in the system, from the ministry to school boards to classroom teachers to students — to also give ourselves a collective pat on the back, because we have one of the very, very best public education systems in the world.

The issue I take issue with is her approach to education. I take issue with this government's approach to education. Everyone in the system is doing the best they can. In spite of the cuts and the kinds of pressures this government has foisted onto the education system, school trustees are doing the very best they can. They're charged with a huge responsibility. It's this government that is underfunding education, and they — the trustees — in turn have to go out to explain to parents why schools are being shut down, why their ESL students are not getting the support they need, why special needs children are not getting the support they need, why the hallways in the school system are dirty. In some cases, principals are required to clean up vomit from children who have not been well.

Those are the tough things that people in the system who are advocates of the system are doing, not this Minister of Education. She likes to claim she is the one who's protecting education when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The minister is not doing her job and living up to her responsibility. She said yesterday: "My commitment as minister, our government's commitment and our Premier's commitment is to do all we can to try and make sure that no child in our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks, because that is our obligation to the next generation."

She said that yesterday, hon. Chair, and do you know what? Children are falling through the cracks, not because people in the system are not doing their job, but because this minister's not giving them the tools to do the job. There are now huge problems in the education system, and everybody seems to know it. Everybody seems to know it except for the minister.

I had the pleasure of receiving a videotape from a parents group known as Save Our Schools. It was a videotape documenting a variety of issues and challenges that parents are now faced with. There were parents who highlighted situations where their child was in need of special needs support, and they have had that support reduced by half because of funding pressures. We have other parents who talked about ESL support, which is now not there in the education system — urging the minister to pay attention to that.

I understand a copy of that tape has now gone to the Premier, and he has promised to watch that tape. In turn, he will make sure that the minister will watch that tape. I hope the minister has taken the time to watch that tape. It's the hundreds of thousands of voices of the parents who are on that tape, who are saying to this minister that she is underfunding education and that problems exist in the education system as a result of that. I urge the minister to take a serious look at those issues and not just simply to write them off.

I want to get back to the technology grant. We have a case where the minister cannot, in my view, get her act together and provide stable funding regimes for the districts. They're always being left in the dark by the minister.

In an article from the Province that was dated September 26, 2002, Gordon Comeau further explains the situation. I'd like to read this article onto the record for the minister, so that she actually gets who is having a problem with this minister. Yes, as the opposition, what I'm doing is bringing the voice of the public into this Legislature, because the minister obviously is not prepared to go out there to hear the public. I'm going to try and bring that voice into this Legislature. Here's what the public had to say in this article. The headline is this:

What the government is doing is, well, actually, reneging — reneging on what they promised. It's not me who's making this up. People from the School Trustees Association, the secretary-treasurers, are the ones who are raising these issues. Can the minister explain how this missing money — the fact that the dollars for computers are now rolled into the base allocation amount — helps students improve performance and achievement? The point is, as Mr. Comeau illustrated, that the money was already allocated; it was already spent. Now all of a sudden school districts have another deficit. How does that help students in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said the first time the member asked this question — and I can answer it a third time if she likes…. I could probably answer it a tenth time if we get there too. The money that was dedicated for technology grants had the conditions untied from it, and we disbursed it to school districts in the form of the grants that we've provided to them: $42 million, $50 million, and then there will be a further $100 million, which I should point out dwarfs — absolutely dwarfs — the tiny cost outstanding from the technol-

ogy grants. That was rolled into those millions of dollars. In some cases, districts are talking about thousands of dollars — $3,500, for example, in one district. We're not talking about big amounts of money, but what we are talking about is a government that trusts school districts to be able to make the right decisions.

So instead of — and this is a big departure, I know, from the last decade — a government that says, "We think, we know in Victoria that we can spend your money better than you can, so we're going to make the decisions about how you should design your local programs and tell you exactly what you should be spending money on," we're saying to districts: "Look, you're locally elected. Here's the money. You decide how you want to spend it within the parameters that we set as the ministry. Make sure you meet the standards. Make sure you live up to your accountability contracts. Make sure you're open and transparent in the way you spend your money. But go ahead and design programs and your money in a way that meets the needs of your local communities."

I want to make another point, too, while I'm up. Some schools are closing because there's been a dramatic demographic change in British Columbia. There are 15,000 fewer students in kindergarten this year than there are in grade 12, and district 43 in Coquitlam is an excellent example of what's happening out there. They are talking about closing three elementary schools at the same time that we're spending almost $10 million building a brand-new secondary school for them because the kids are in secondary school, not in elementary schools. That's no fault of mine. I'm doing my best to contribute to fight this demographic trend, as I know the member opposite is. Goodness knows, people aren't having kids at the same rate that they used to, so schools are configured differently. That's another issue I want to raise.

I want to point out, as well, that we've increased the funding that we spend on special needs, not decreased it. Our funding for English as a second language has remained the same, not decreased.

Lastly, I want to close with this. The member feels free to get up and quote people and talk about interest groups and things like that. She talks as though I as minister never get out there and talk to anybody. The fact is that I do. I get out there and visit schools all the time. I've been in a whole bunch of different schools in a whole ton of different parts of British Columbia in the last several months, including many in my own district. I've talked to parents. I meet with parents on a regular basis. I met with a whole broad representation of students who advise me in my riding just last week. I meet with principals, vice-principals and teachers.

I want to quote from a letter that was sent from the SOS group in Vancouver, which I know the member is fond of quoting. They put together their video before the announcement was made on funding by the government to grant $50 million and then a further $100 million to the education budget. Here's what she says:

And to her I say bravo. Well done. Your work has been worth it, and your kids are worth it.

J. Kwan: It is interesting to note, as well, that since that time I've also received lots of correspondence from parents and advocates in our system who have now deciphered some of those numbers and seen what they really meant in the school system. In fact, many people were initially relieved, as was I, when I first heard that the Ministry of Children and Family Development — as an example — would be funding the social equity envelope funding for the school-based funding. That was until we actually went through the budget book in detail and found that — guess what — there is about $7 million cut for the social equity envelope funding.

Further to that, not only is there going to be a cut, but there will be more school districts that are going to be wanting a portion of that funding. That means that districts across B.C. will have to fight each other for a reduced amount of resources. As one example, I also know that since that time when everybody thought there was an additional $50 million base injection into the education funding — not the one-time grant funding that the minister is talking about, but an additional $50 million base injected into the education funding this year — and then when people find out, in fact, there isn't that $50 million….

Over the next two years, in spite of the fact that the minister claims there's $100 million, the numbers that I've been able to add up, based on yesterday's estimates information, are only $70 million. I want to go back to ask the minister where the other amount is, because it's

not reflected anywhere. When people find out that, in fact, there aren't going to be new dollars on the base funding injected into the system this year, all of a sudden the picture changes.

This government, Mr. Chair, is very clever. I have to admit that. They are very clever in providing information that, quite frankly, is very misleading. It actually doesn't reflect the true picture of what it is. At the initial glance, the initial information that you receive, you would think that some of that is good news. All of a sudden when you get down to the details, the entire picture changes. As I said just this morning in my correspondences — and I haven't had time to go through all my correspondences — letters were already coming in from people who are concerned with the education funding and who felt, quite frankly, that they were misled by the government on what the real situation is.

What we know, then, is this. The technology grant is not going to be funded by the government. Money has already been spent by the school boards. They have to simply eat that deficit somewhere, and those moneys will simply have to come out of the per-pupil funding. That's what this government's doing. That's what this government has done, irrespective of the fact that they have promised that school districts would get that money in full and that that money was not to come out of the per-pupil funding. That's the reality of it. When they actually award a grant or say that here is a program we are funding, most people anticipate that they would have the dollars that go with it, especially after it's been committed. They don't anticipate after the fact that all of a sudden they say the formula has now changed, and, by the way, that grant that we gave you is incorporated in this amount that we said that we would. That is what this minister is doing. There's no denying that. There's no denying that dollars will have to come out of the classroom to fund the technology grant because money has already been spent, in spite of the fact that the minister had promised the money would be there, and it simply is not there at all.

I want to just go back and touch on the $100 million for a minute because the minister brought it up once again. The numbers, as I said, simply don't add up. For 2003-04 the budget is $3.78 billion; 2004-05 is $3.84 billion, an increase of $50 million; 2005-06, the minister said yesterday, is at $3.86 billion, an increase of $20 million. That's for a total of $70 million, not $100 million. Where's the other $30 million?

Hon. C. Clark: I went through all this yesterday in some detail, and I'm happy to go through it again. I've been through it a number of times in the past, and I believe the member has also been briefed on it, but I can go through it with her again if she likes.

If independent school enrolment continues at the clip that it's at, we are anticipating — and I hope this is an overestimation — that in each of the two years there will be $10 million that we're bound by formula, which was adhered to even by the previous government, to go to independent schools. We're anticipating that $10 million will need to be put aside for capital as well. I don't need to remind the member, I'm sure, that when it's building classrooms, it's actually going into classrooms.

I appreciate that as a member of the opposition, she feels obliged to try and reduce any good news into something bad. She tries to take $143 million and reduce it to zero, but I think for anyone watching or anybody reading Hansard, it's pretty obvious that her attempts are getting increasingly desperate. Perhaps she should move on to another subject where she might have a little more luck in making her point.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the numbers that the minister gave simply don't add up. They simply don't add up. The minister likes to claim that all this money is going to the education system, in the classroom for the students. Well, it doesn't. The $35 million established yesterday is going to general accounting practising principles. It doesn't go directly into the classroom.

So, please, Mr. Chair, the minister can pretend all she wants that somehow there's some $140 million going into the education system, into the classroom, when in reality there isn't. People are not stupid. Please don't treat people as though they are. People see through what this government's doing. They are trying to hold this government accountable, and so is the opposition.

These numbers simply don't add up. That is the reality of it. The minister can laugh and pretend and say everything is just rosy and she's doing a great job and everybody else is wrong. She can do that all she wants, but people know the difference. People know the difference, and that's what these numbers are about. They don't add up. That's the reality of it.

It's shocking. We're in such a state of denial that the minister simply refuses to acknowledge the problem that her government has created in the education system. She simply refuses to acknowledge that the education system is severely underfunded, that children are getting hurt. Parents are constantly worried. It's funny, you know. As I mentioned earlier, I have new information, but I'll wait for a minute before I go to that.

I want to ask the minister this question: what is the total teachers' salary cost pressure to the school district?

Hon. C. Clark: Teachers' salaries make up, I think, a little bit more than 50 or 60 percent of school districts' total budgets. Their pressures from that would make up the majority of their budgets.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a global number for the province? What is the total teachers' salary cost pressure for school districts?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have that on a per-district basis with me, but I can provide that to her.

J. Kwan: I would like to receive that on a per-district basis. Does the minister have a global number for the province?

Hon. C. Clark: It's a round number, not an exact one. It would be around $2 billion.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise that's $100 million? I'm just going to give her the $100 million that she claims is there and not debate the point, because the numbers don't add up. Let me ask the minister this question: does that $100 million cover the shortfall for teachers' salaries, which the minister advises is about $2 billion?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm so delighted I finally persuaded the member that the money is there. After a day and a half of debate, I must say I appreciate the discussion and how the discussion's gone and the fact that we've finally come, apparently, to some understanding about this. That's terrific.

The total wage budget for teachers is $2 billion. The $107 million that will be available to the education budget over the next three years, as it flows to school districts, will be able to be spent by school districts on whatever their priorities are. I imagine that wages will be high on their list.

J. Kwan: I just want to correct the record. The minister suggests that I've accepted her numbers. No, I'm giving her that in this debate so we won't belabour this, because the numbers don't add up, as I have said. If you do the math, you can see it for yourself. Everybody else is saying that the numbers don't add up, except for the minister. The minister will just close her eyes and say: "That's the way it is." That's the direction in which the debate is going. Instead of wasting time trying to get the minister to admit where she has gone wrong or look to see where she has gone wrong…. She's obviously not going to do that. I don't want to waste that time and then move on. I want to be very clear that the minister is not providing the money she says she is providing to the education system. I want to be very clear about that. That is the truth of the matter, as the numbers show.

I do want to move on in the discussion. Not to say that the minister is right, but I do want to move on and simply say the minister is refusing to acknowledge that the numbers don't add up. You know what? It's kind of funny. There's another number that doesn't add up: teachers' salary pressures. Oh, the amount is $2 billion. But hey, the minister says there's $100 million in the system, and it's paid for. Guess what. It isn't; $100 million does not pay for a $2 billion cost pressure. She can say, "Oh well, districts can adjust the numbers to whatever they want," but the reality is this. When you add up all of the pressures in the system, including the salary increases — and not just for the teachers; there are also other staffing salary pressures — the situation is that the per-pupil funding will decrease. Money in the classrooms will decrease. Why is that? The per-pupil funding moneys in the classroom will have to be taken out to pay for some of these pressures. Therefore, resources in the classrooms will decrease.

The minister, by her own admission…. Last year alone, there was $16.8 million worth of shortfall in the salary increases. By her own admission…. Hansard quotes her acknowledgment of that. Maybe she's already forgotten that, but that's what it is. I will refer the minister to Hansard dated March 13, 2002, where she said that the funding for teacher salary pressures is about half what this government is paying for and covering.

I want to actually put this on record. Earlier I touched on SOS, and the minister then read out a release from SOS. Well, since that time SOS has brought themselves together again. As I said, this one just came recently, after people had a chance to see what the budget numbers mean, where the cuts are and what the true impacts are. They now have a consensus position on three points relating to funding.

Then it goes on to say that at their meeting, where 25 percent of Vancouver schools sent a representative, the group endorsed the plan. Of course, they made a video. The video is now out, and the SOS has collected over 14,000 letters and has delivered them to the Minister of Education and has never heard back.

Then it goes on to say that in a letter received from the Premier, who responded to the concerns expressed by the thousands of Vancouver parents anticipating deep cuts in basic services for their children, he stated: "It is not appropriate for me or for the Minister of Education to become involved in local education matters. Therefore, we regret we are unable to meet with your organization." Then following this date, people were quite shocked — quite shocked, actually — that they didn't get a meeting and that the minister refused to meet with them. The Premier says that it's inappropriate, somehow, for the minister to meet with parents.

The issues around concerns continue. People are talking about cuts in the libraries, cuts in buying supplies — basic things that would make the school system workable for their children. They're doing this because of their kids; they're not doing it because it's fun. As I had identified earlier in other articles, people

are exhausted. They're exhausted by having to react to this government's cuts in education funding.

I want now to turn to the buffer grants issue. During a meeting with the ministry staff, I was informed that districts that were negatively impacted by the Liberals' new-era distribution system received buffer grants in an effort to assist while they cut down their spending level to what will become lower spending levels under the Liberal allocation system. I also understand that buffer grants are reduced each year. What amount of buffer grants were given out in 2002-03, and what will be given out in '03-04?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to be clear about the numbers. The member keeps saying I'm obfuscating or implying I'm obfuscating or something. I want to be absolutely clear, just in case she hasn't heard the many times I've said this. A hundred and forty-three million dollars is referred to in the budget, and $35 million of that goes for GAAP, which won't be seen in the classroom. It's to ensure that districts can comply with generally accepted accounting principles without having to, through the accounting change, change their budgets. That leaves about $108 million remaining.

Of that, we anticipate that $10 million will be spent each year for independent schools because we are bound by a formula which even her government complied with. We're anticipating that $10 million will be spent actually building classrooms, which I think can qualify, even in her mind, as spending money on classrooms. Then $70 million will go into operating budgets for school districts.

That leaves $17 million or $18 million outstanding. That's quite correct. We hope that money will be able to go into operating budgets, but, again, we are a prudent government. We comply with all the principles of good planning, and because we are doing that, we are setting aside this money in case there are interest rate increases or some other unexpected circumstances. We want to make sure we are protecting students, the education system and taxpayers, as we are obligated to when we are elected.

J. Kwan: The minister can add up the numbers in the way she wants, but the reality is that there isn't $100 million in the classroom. There just simply isn't.

J. Kwan: She told me how. But you know what? You can account for the money by saying that you claim those moneys are going directly into the classroom when, in fact, they're not. They are not. General accounting principles are not dollars going into the classroom. It isn't. It doesn't take a genius to see that. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand that. Those dollars don't go directly into the classroom. When you look at the $100 million the minister talks about that she says is going directly into the classroom….

For this year the pressure on wages, salary increases, is $300 million. There is a significant shortfall no matter how you look at it. Those are the numbers people are dealing with, not selective numbers that the minister would like to look at. In the real world the school trustees don't have that choice. They have to look at all of the pressures associated with it. Then, when you look at that $100 million that the minister is so proud of, even though a significant portion is not going directly into the classroom, and even what remains…. It remains a big question mark whether any of it will actually go into the classroom, because those are going to be paying for fixed costs, I would presume.

Just for salary increases it's $300 million. A hundred million dollars does not cover the shortfall of $300 million, and the minister knows that. If she doesn't, she's just pretending, or she's just completely ignorant about it and doesn't care about the situation. If that's the case, well, how can you argue with that? It's the minister's prerogative. Maybe she'll order a survey with B.C. Stats and see how satisfied her colleagues are with her performance.

I do want to go into the buffer grant question. I asked a question about the amount of the buffer grant given in '02-03 and '03-04.

Hon. C. Clark: The member quotes what's going on in Vancouver quite a bit, because I understand it's her constituency. I just want to go through the history of Vancouver's budget-making process, which always includes predictions of doom and gloom. In 1997-98 they said there were $16 million worth of funding cuts. In '98-99 they said they were going to have a $7.1 million deficit. No deficit was incurred. No deficit was incurred, by the way, in '97-98 when they predicted it was $16 million worth of funding cuts. In '99-2000 they predicted a deficit of $11.8 million. They didn't incur a deficit, as I understand. In 2000-2001, a $5.2 million deficit; no deficit came in. Last year, '02-03, $25 million; no deficit came in.

This is part of the budget-making process in Vancouver. It's a tried-and-true tradition in her district. I would advise the member not to get too worked up about it at this stage. We'll see what happens as a result of their budget-making deliberations.

With respect to the buffer grant, however, the buffer grant was $25 million and was being redistributed from within the existing envelope. That will be reduced by 50 percent, and 50 percent of that will be redistributed within the system to school districts. Next year the buffer grant will cease to exist, and that $25 million will be entirely redistributed through the per-pupil and the funding allocation system.

We came up with this solution based on the recommendations of school districts, who came together from across the province — urban and rural, ones that received the buffer grant and ones that didn't receive the buffer grant. They found some level of consensus about how they wanted to proceed with this.

J. Kwan: I'll get into the impacts of the shortage of funds in education with the other school districts one by one. There are tremendous pressures. I've met with trustees both in Vancouver and in Victoria, and some elsewhere, about what their concerns are. It's true the school trustees have not yet received their district-by-district budget, although they have projections already in terms of what the impacts are going to be. They are going to be significant; make no mistake about that — again, not just in Vancouver, not just in Victoria but elsewhere throughout the province. Articles have come out across the province where people are seeing tremendous pressures in their school system because of the lack of funding.

The minister may be very proud of her record, but the sad part is that students, teachers, parents — people who are advocates of the system, who care about children and their learning opportunities — don't feel the same. We will get into the school district-by-district outcomes, but I want to finish up on the issue around the buffer grants right now.

Prince George, North Van, Richmond and Victoria are just four school districts that have been hit hard by the Liberal government's underfunding. These districts have substantial buffer grants for this current school year. We know, then, that their buffer grants are going to be cut by half. The ministry called this cut a gentle phasing-out. Could the minister please advise what is gentle about a 50 percent cut?

Hon. C. Clark: As I just described, and I'm happy to describe again for the member, the money will be redistributed through the system. The money is not being cut. It is being plowed right back into the system. As a member of a government in 1997-98 that — according to the Vancouver school board — imposed $16 million worth of funding cuts, I would be curious to know if at the time she might have also referred to that as shocking, as she does the actions of this government when we've devoted new money to the education budget. We've announced another $100 million. This year we announced $50 million. Last year we announced $42 million. I wonder how she would contrast the government that she was a part of when the Vancouver school district accused her government and her cabinet of subjecting them to $16 million worth of cuts.

J. Kwan: The education system under the Liberal government, under the new-era regime…. What we've had so far is a budget that has been frozen and an increase in pressures that far exceed the actual cost of what this government is paying for. We know that we're going to run into those problems again this year as a result of this government, this minister's direct action. By increasing gas taxes, by increasing hydro services costs, by increasing these costs are a direct result of this government's action…. In addition to those, this government's going around now collecting residential school taxes as well as rural school taxes. Those moneys are being collected now, but none of those moneys will be flowed into the education system this year. We know that is what's happening with this government.

The minister can just sit there and laugh away and pretend that everything is fine, that everything is wonderful. When everybody else tells this minister, she insists on closing her eyes and shutting her ears so that she will not see the reality. You know what? The proof is in the pudding. My intention is to actually continue to hold this government, and particularly this minister, accountable when she says: "My commitment as a minister, our government's commitment and our Premier's commitment is to do all that we can to make sure that no child in our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks, because this is our obligation to the next generation."

You know what? This minister is going to be held accountable to her own words. She can sit there and laugh away and pretend everything is fine, but there will be problems in the system, and her words are going to come back to haunt her. I look forward to the day when she actually acts to make sure that her words are held accountable. I sure don't want to see children fall through the cracks. But at the rate at which this minister and this government are going, I am very afraid and very concerned that children are falling through the cracks. This government — and this minister, in particular — will be held accountable. She'd better be ready. It is the parents who will bring these issues to the table.

J. Kwan: The minister sits there — "bring it on, bring it on" — as though she's actually looking forward to seeing children fall through the cracks. The accountability measures will be there.

J. Kwan: The minister thinks that the only way to hold her accountable is through an election. You know what? When you put out words like this, "my commitment is to do all that we can to make sure that no child in our education system, in our social welfare system, falls through the cracks," the judgment is not on election day. The judgment is on the performance on a day-by-day basis of this minister. Maybe she's nervous now. It's the commitment that she's made. She's going to have to own up to it.

It's not about election day. It's not about electioneering. It's not about who wins and who doesn't. It's not about partisan politics. It's about children. It's about the lives of children and their future, and this minister better be ready to be held accountable for that.

I want to also say this. The deficit situation that the minister was saying the Vancouver school board was faced with…. As I said, we're going to go into a district-by-district account of the budgets that school districts would be faced with. I already have a preliminary budget from Vancouver, although they have not yet finalized their numbers. I already have that, and I have

a preliminary budget from other school districts as well. We'll go through that in detail with the minister.

Let us not forget the threat that this minister had put to school districts. She had basically, in my view, threatened school districts that if they do not balance their budget, that if they bring in a deficit budget, they would be replaced and people would actually have to cut services. That's what this government threatens, and that's what this minister threatens.

For her to sort of sit back and say: "Hey, don't worry. Everything will be fine…." People have no choice but to make cuts. I would like to remind the minister that last year the school boards cut more deeply than they wanted to and than they cared to. Why? Because they didn't have the funds. It wasn't until the ninth hour that the government all of a sudden said: "Hey, guess what. We found some money. Here's some additional one-time funding for you."

School districts were coming to say: "I wish we had known that. Then we would not have made that particular cut in the school. There would have been less impact in the school system, but we didn't know that until the ninth hour, and then it was too late." So much for stable funding. So much for the minister's commitment to ensuring that children have the best education opportunities. She's failed on both those scores.

I want to get back to the buffer grant issue. The minister says that this is a gentle phasing-out, a 50 percent cut for those who receive a buffer grant. She justifies it by saying: "You know what? The money would be distributed back into the system." The reality, of course, is that those districts that are faced with this drastic cut will be scrambling. It is a drastic cut when you're looking at a 50 percent cut to their buffer grant. I'd like to ask the minister: why would this government make such drastic cuts to the school districts? Why would the Liberals say that they are creating more equity in the system by cutting to such an extent in these school districts? At what point will all of the buffer grants be phased out? I presume it's next year. Will the minister help those districts that continue to face severe adjustment problems after the buffer grants are gone, or are they just simply on their own?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, Mr. Chair, for years and years and years, the previous government took the funding formula and used it like it was their own little political slush fund. They would go in, and they would change the funding formula to try and redirect money to the districts that they thought were deserving. Guess what. Those districts all turned out to be in NDP communities. They did that over the years, and they ultimately built a funding formula that was flawed and unfair.

We ran in the election, in our platform, on a promise that we would move to population-based funding — that we would move to a fair, equitable, transparent, easy-to-understand funding formula — and we did that. Now, when we moved to the funding formula, we recognized that it would mean that some districts were going to lose money. What we did, so that school districts could plan around that, was build in a buffer grant so that they could have three years to plan around phasing it out — not a sudden yanking away of the money, not some unfair sudden change that was unexpected. School districts have been planning around this for a couple of years, and if she would actually go and talk to somebody out there instead of drinking her own bathwater in her office, she'd know that people out there are prepared for this. Yes, some districts are facing difficult decisions. There's no question about that. Some districts have dramatically declining enrolment. There's no question about that as well. But there is also no question about the fact that we have been open and transparent in allowing school districts to plan around the funding formula that they're going to be facing over the next couple of years.

For her to stand up and talk about how this is for the kids, when she's prepared to resort to the cheapest kind of politics, with her amateur theatrics, and stand up here and talk about how the government is cutting funding for special needs, how there's no new money in the education budget, how kids are doing badly, how our public education system is doing a rotten job…. Well, that's just disgraceful, you know. It's absolutely disgraceful for her to stand up here and say that somehow this, for her, is about the kids. If it's about the kids, then let's start having a rational discussion. Let's start having a discussion that includes some of the facts. Let's start actually having a dialogue that includes some opinions from people out there who want to be heard. Let's start talking about this in a sane and rational way instead of standing up and using children and our education system to try and further the political goals of her party. We need to start having a rational discussion about this, and that means that we have to put students first. It means putting the facts on the table. It means telling the truth, and it means being up front with British Columbians rather than putting her interests ahead of the interests of children in the classroom.

J. Kwan: You know, as we sit here and see the minister frothing at the mouth with her rhetoric, you wonder who is actually engaging in theatrics and who is actually engaged in politicking. It doesn't really take much for people to see, and people will judge for themselves.

The reality is this, hon. Chair. I know the truth really does hurt. It really does hurt for the minister when the opposition rises in the House and points out to her how underfunding of the education system is hurting children. Maybe that's a hard fact for the minister to accept. Actually, I can see that it is a hard fact for the minister to accept. That is the reality of what people

are faced with today. She can just froth away all she wants. It doesn't change the facts.

The minister says, "Hey, you know what?" — that I'm just sitting in my own office drinking my own bathwater, as she likes to claim that I'm doing. It's funny how when I travel the province and when my colleague travels the province, the information comes to us — the concerns people have about what's going on in our education system. It's funny how the media reports that. Well, maybe I'm drinking their bathwater too, because the media is reporting how the education system is causing problems and how people are reacting to it.

Yesterday I actually put forward a range of communities, including those in the heartlands, who are having a tough time with the education system from this minister underfunding education. Everyone who actually has the problems includes Chilliwack, Hope, the interior, the Kimberley area, the North Island, the North Shore, Kamloops, Kelowna. These are just a few selections of the news clips where people came forward to criticize the government and to highlight, more importantly I think, the concerns they have.

You know, maybe the newspapers themselves are drinking their own bathwater, because they are printing these articles and are highlighting these concerns for people. I read them out yesterday already, so I'm not going to reread these articles onto the system.

The minister would like to say there are no problems. Actually, to my staff, who is downstairs watching the debate, I would ask that you bring up the box of material we have received — documentation from children, teachers and parents. There's only one box that has arrived in my office. There are other boxes that are coming — letters, testimonials, if you will, from individuals about their concerns about the education system. I would simply like to bring it up and perhaps point the minister's attention to the words and testimonials of not me but the broader community on the concerns about education.

Getting back to the buffer grant, we know the buffer grant is going to be phased out. There is a 50 percent cut. There is nothing gentle about it. The minister says that somehow the funding formula favoured various ridings in the previous administration, which, of course, is false — completely false. The buffer grant. Who are actually having a tough time here are a range of school boards across the province.

The question I asked the minister that I'm most interested in, because she didn't answer any of the questions, is: will the ministry help those districts that continue to face severe adjustment problems after the buffer grants are gone? Or are they just going to be on their own?

The Chair: Could I remind the members that I've heard some language this afternoon that…. I'd ask the members to be mindful of the way in which they use characterizations of other members in the chamber and to ensure that those characterizations are respectful.

Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to help districts. We have appointed a rural task force, a student achievement task force, who are going out and looking at ways we can assist in making sure a quality education is available to kids across the province no matter where they live. We're continuing to pump money into the per student, and as I said earlier, we're pumping another $100 million in over the next three years.

J. Kwan: I think I'm going to give an award to this minister, who's famous for not answering questions. The question was actually a very specific one that says: for those districts who are going to face a severe cut with the phasing-out of the buffer grant, who may face adjustment problems, will they actually get assistance from the government? Again from her answer, she didn't answer the question. One can only deduce from her answer that no, they will not receive support from the government and simply that they will be on their own.

I'd like to ask the minister…. If I'm wrong, I would ask the minister to refute that, to say: "No, there will be special assistance from the government for those who are faced with severe adjustment problems." If I'm wrong, I'd like the minister to correct me on that, but I suspect I'm not wrong.

I'd like to ask the minister, then, this question. We know that the buffer grant is going to be phased out. The minister says that the money will be redistributed back into the education system. By the way, that doesn't mean there is a lift in the education system in terms of the money. It's just the same money being redirected here and there and being reallocated within the same budget. There's not a lift to the budget. I just want to be clear about that. How will this impact the per-pupil funding? Will it go up across the board? Across the province? Perhaps a better question is: would the base amount actually go up? The base amount right now is $53.08.

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to that question is yes. My question for the member would be this: if our plan with the buffer grant benefits the Vancouver school district, would she still continue to oppose any change in it?

J. Kwan: I don't think the minister has grasped the nature of estimates just yet. Estimates is the process in which questions are put to the minister. The process is such that it is the job of the minister to be held accountable and to answer the questions. As I mentioned earlier, I'd be very happy to answer the questions if I were the Minister of Education. Perhaps if the minister doesn't like answering the questions, maybe she should step aside and let other people who can take up the job and who want to be held accountable sit in that seat and answer questions from the opposition.

I want to get back to the question around the base amount of funding. How much, then, does the minister anticipate the base funding will increase by phasing out the buffer grant?

J. Kwan: When the minister says $22, does that go directly into the classroom, or does it go into readjusting accounting practices or other things?

J. Kwan: As we have established in the process so far, what the government does is that, yes, it goes into the per-pupil funding. But the reality is that, all at the same time, what the minister is actually doing is cutting funding they have already promised. We've established that with the technology grant, as an example. We have already established in the areas around pressures in which the government will increase costs. We see costs going up, but that is all to be absorbed by the per-pupil student funding. At the end of the day, it is questionable how much money actually goes directly into the classroom for the benefit of the children. I suspect that the $22 the minister claims would be there will also be part of that entire process whereby money will be siphoned away from the classroom because of increased pressures from costs elsewhere, which have been underfunded by this government.

J. Kwan: There wasn't a question there. I simply made a statement to see whether or not the minister wants to respond to that. I want to actually move on to….

J. Kwan: Yes, actually. Now I'm going to continue on to ask questions. Do not worry about that. Through the estimates process, from time to time, members have also made statements, which I have done.

The funding formula. I wanted to touch on this just a little bit. Earlier I asked the minister if she thought there was a problem with the funding formula. Here is one view. "By any objective measure, the current funding for our schools and our kids is not meeting the needs of our children." This is a quote from John Walsh, president of the Greater Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, from the February 14 Times Colonist.

I've had a meeting with staff on this issue. However, it is appropriate to get into it again. Just for the record and for the people at home, could the minister explain the funding formula?

Hon. C. Clark: It's based on a per-pupil amount, and then there are supplementary grants that are attached to that: ESL, special needs, aboriginal students, adult learners, geographical considerations.

J. Kwan: Well, here's the information that the staff has given us during our briefing. By the way, I see that the deputy minister is here, and I'd like to thank him personally for arranging the briefing for the opposition. We had tried to make arrangements through the minister's office for about three weeks prior to that and were unsuccessful, but when we phoned your office, you responded. We very much appreciate his rapid response in arranging that. We actually got the briefing one day before the estimates, and I appreciate the deputy minister's response.

J. Kwan: It's quite obvious, actually. We requested the meeting about three weeks ago, and we had no response from the minister's office, so we went another route. Then we actually got a response from the deputy minister's office. There you have it.

The minister is actually now saying: "Oh yes, well, the deputy minister's office talked to my office about it." Then it's good to confirm that the opposition had asked for a briefing from the minister three weeks in advance of the estimates for education, to which we had no response until the day before the estimates were to be discussed. It's good to know that the minister was actually involved in that, in making sure that there is such advance notice for preparation for the opposition to get ready for the estimates process. We had less than one day of briefing before the process began.

It's good to know. It's good to know that the minister is very interested in sharing information, and it's good to know from the minister that this is her approach. This is her approach in cooperation and, therefore, bringing constructive discussion into the House.

I can only anticipate from the minister's point of view that nobody has any right to ask any question. You know what? Even when you request a briefing, she will do everything she can to prevent that from happening until the last minute. That's good to know. I'm glad that is on the record as the minister is now advising.

Let me just get back to the funding formula, Mr. Chair. Here's the information from our meeting with the staff a couple of days ago. I'd like to confirm this information.

This is just a few of the documentations, testimonials, that people have. This is only from one school district, from Richmond — not exactly an NDP stronghold. Just from one district, people, children…. That's kind of cute, actually. They've put their little faces onto their testimonials with letters they have written.

This is only some of the information we have received. Then if we have time in the estimates process, I will read some of this on to the record. This is only about 1/10 of what's sitting in my office, only 1/10 of the testimonials that have come in from the community with their concerns in the last week or two. I'll get back to these when we have time, because it is a lot of in-

formation that people want to bring forward, and I don't want to take time right now to deal with them. As I said, this is only about 1/10 of what's sitting in my office.

J. Kwan: Actually, no. The minister is very excited. "Here comes a question." So far she hasn't answered any. Notwithstanding that point….

Actually, I just received…. You know, interestingly, this is the case, you see, Mr. Chair. As people watch debate in the Legislature, our staff do run information in to us, questions that the public has. People are e-mailing us and phoning us, asking us to ask these things, and they bring it up. So, yes, we get new questions as debate goes on.

This, incidentally, of course, is a letter. It's a letter from Richmond, actually — a letter of non-confidence for the Minister of Education. It's a letter calling for the minister's resignation, and it's from the Richmond Teachers Association. Surprise, surprise. After all is said and done, the minister says, "I want to thank the teachers for the great work that they're doing," and so on and so forth. Yet God forbid, should the unions on behalf of the teachers….

J. Kwan: No, actually, it's a motion that's been passed by the teachers from that particular district, and they are asking for the minister's resignation because they have no confidence in the minister. All of a sudden that discounts everything. All of a sudden the teachers' voice is diminished. All of a sudden they actually have no voice at all. All of a sudden they actually have no validity in this whole discussion. It's funny how the minister can blow and suck at the same time. That is what the minister is doing, and it's quite shocking. It is absolutely shocking.

The minister will carry on the way she will; there's no doubt about that. The public will continue to hold this government accountable; there's no doubt about that. More particularly, in the area of education the public will hold this minister accountable.

I want to get back to the funding formula. I want to confirm that the total grants for this year will be $3.79 billion — that's what we've been advised — and that school boards will not have their final amount until around March 14. The ministry staff did advise that they did have the enrolment figures for the school districts. They are not yet totally finalized, but they do have them. We did request that the minister's executive assistant, who attended the meeting, release those numbers, even though they're not finalized, so we can get a ballpark figure in terms of where things are at. The minister's response, in her own swift way, to that request was a quick no. However, on the question around receiving a briefing, it took three weeks for an answer to come about.

I'd like to ask again, though, in this forum for the minister to release the preliminary figures on enrolment.

The Chair: I'd like to ask both sides, when the questions are being asked and the answers are being given, to listen for the questions and the answers.

Hon. C. Clark: I would be delighted to release that information. She will receive it on March 14.

J. Kwan: I was actually asking if we could receive it earlier than that date. As I understand it, the unfinalized numbers are already available. There's no reason why the minister is not releasing that. There's nothing confidential about that information. It's simply statistics in terms of what's going on around the province on a district-by-district basis. I would like to request the minister to release that number prior to March 12 — in fact, to table it in this House, instead of on March 14.

Hon. C. Clark: I certainly wouldn't want to give the member any information that's incorrect, and until it's finalized, we can't be sure it's correct. I also want to make sure that school districts have the same rights that members of this House do. We will be releasing it to school districts at the same time that we release it to members of the opposition and members of the government.

J. Kwan: I understand those numbers will be preliminary numbers, and therefore they may be subject to change. We anticipate that with preliminary numbers. Before the final figure comes out, we're okay with receiving preliminary numbers. So it is on that basis and with the understanding that those numbers may well change that we're making the request for the minister to table that information now. Then it is available for everyone. Surely the minister, if she wants to make that available and if school districts want to have that number, can also make that available to school districts — or anyone else, for that matter.

Hon. C. Clark: It's important that we make sure the numbers we release are correct. School districts make their budget planning based on these numbers. They need to be correct, and I don't intend to show any disrespect to school districts by making sure that the member opposite has them before they do.

J. Kwan: That is why these numbers are known as preliminary numbers. Under that scenario, people understand that those numbers may change. I've already stated that it is okay to release numbers that may change. We have full understanding of that.

If it should change, then we'll receive the changed numbers and review those at that time. It would be very useful just to see what the pattern is and what

kind of situation is happening across the province on a district-by-district basis. I don't think it would be disrespectful to the school districts for us to receive the number. As I said, the minister could easily remedy that by simply making those preliminary estimate numbers also available to the school districts and, as I said, to anybody else for that matter.

Why wouldn't the minister release it? It's not confidential information. They're preliminary numbers, and we know they're subject to change.

Hon. C. Clark: Until the numbers are finalized, they may not be correct. We have an obligation as a ministry to make sure the information that we provide to school districts and to the public is correct.

I don't know why the member is in such a desperate state about getting them so quickly. March 14 is not far away, and even if she doesn't hold her breath, I'm sure she can wait.

J. Kwan: I know the minister takes the perspective that it's not too late to give the opposition a briefing the day before the estimates come up. She thinks that's not too late. I have a different opinion than that. It's my decision to determine when it is timely and when it is not. The opposition would simply appreciate receiving those numbers at an earlier time rather than at a later time, with the understanding that those are preliminary numbers.

I not sure what the minister is afraid of, but I suspect that she's not going to change her mind, because transparency is not paramount in this government's agenda. We now know that under the new-era agenda.

Enrolment is forecasted at a 4,700 decline. We've been advised of that by the staff. We know the public school averages about a 0.8 percent decline and that the private school system is estimated to increase by about 4 percent. Increased ESL funding is about $1,100 per pupil for five years. Aboriginal funding is the only dedicated funding at $950 per pupil. Level 1 high incidence is $30,000 per pupil, level 2 is about $15,000, and level 3 is at $6,000.

That takes us to about 80 percent of the moneys to the boards from the per-pupil grant, and that was confirmed by the staff. I'd like to ask the minister: what is the other 20 percent? Is it transportation, salary differential, enrolment decline, geographic…? What is the other 20 percent?

J. Kwan: I'm sure the minister's staff actually took note of the question that I asked, because they were busy conferring with each other. But I will certainly repeat it for the benefit of the minister, if she stops working on her PalmPilot — it looks to me like — and then I don't have to repeat questions over and over again.

The information I've received…. Maybe I'll just wait until the minister's attention is all there.

The Chair: Member, would you sit down, please. This is an opportunity for members to ask questions of the minister. If you have a question, could you please put it to the minister.

J. Kwan: I was just simply trying to avoid having to repeat questions over and over again. Sometimes it's difficult to see whether or not attention is being paid. It looks to me like the minister is busy working on some PalmPilot. I'll chance it anyway, because I'm sure her staff will listen and provide the answer to the minister.

The information I have received from our meeting with the ministry staff indicates that the total grant this year will be $3.79 billion, and that was confirmed from the ministry staff. School boards will not have their final amount until March 14 or so — the school-district-by-district breakdown.

The staff did admit they have enrolment figures. They apparently are not finalized yet, but of course the minister already established that she would not provide them. The enrolment is forecast at a 4,700-student decline. The public school average is a 0.8 percent decline. The private school is estimated at a 4 percent increase — hence, the increase in the funding. ESL is at $1,100 per pupil for five years. Aboriginal is at $950 per pupil. Level 1, which is high incidence, is at $30,000 per pupil. Level 2 is at $15,000 per pupil. Level 3 is at $6,000. Aboriginal funding is the only funding that is targeted, in the sense that it must be spent for that purpose.

Eighty percent of the moneys of the boards from the per-pupil grant are the things I've listed. I'd like to first of all confirm that. Second, I'd like to ask the question: what is the other 20 percent? Is it transportation? Is it salary differential, enrolment decline, geographic? Would the minister advise?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll just go through it for the member. Basic funding allocation is $3,880,831,323; home schools is $77,750; enrolment decline, $2,292,968; unique student needs, $361,850,249; salary differential, $81,300,536; geographic, $132,529,900; transportation and housing, $85,705,613; and the formula buffer grant, $25,771,635.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise how these affect the different school boards?

J. Kwan: If the minister can give enrolment targets even with B.C. Stats, which I understand the minister

has, then we can actually figure out — right? — more precisely the district-by-district breakdown in terms of their actual funding. Then we actually have a better sense of the situation they are faced with. Could the minister provide that information based on B.C. Stats?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that B.C. Stats does make that information publicly available. It's available on their website. I would, though, caution the member that in using that information, when you break it down on a regional basis, it becomes fairly inaccurate. But she can certainly avail herself of it if she goes to the website.

J. Kwan: The reason why I went into the funding formula is that there are issues around equity in the formula that have been raised by the broader public. The new-era funding system is based, to a great extent, on a per-pupil funding basis. In fact, more than 80 percent of the funding is distributed based on the per-pupil funding. All districts get the same amount per student. Is the minister satisfied that this is the most equitable way to distribute education funds in a large province like this when the differences in districts are also so great?

Hon. C. Clark: That's why we provide a category for unique geographic factors.

J. Kwan: Yet the funding for that component is a very small percentage, as I had established earlier. Some 80 percent, at least, of the funding is based on some other factor. Then of that remaining 20, it goes to a number of different areas which that 20 percent is to be distributed amongst. Of course, one factor is geographic, so a very small component of the funding formula goes to geographic consideration. The minister, then, is saying she's satisfied with that. In spite of the big difference from district to district, she's satisfied with the funding formula, even though geographic consideration is only a very small component of the overall funding formula.

In an article about Surrey the ministry spokesperson said that the funding formula was under review. What has been the feedback about the formula? Who is the minister consulting? What changes is she contemplating?

Hon. C. Clark: As I mentioned previously, we convened a committee of people from school districts, and they gave us advice, which we've accepted.

J. Kwan: My question is actually more specific than the answer the minister gave. The question is the feedback about the funding formula. Who is the minister consulting, more specifically, and what changes is she contemplating? What feedback did she get?

Hon. C. Clark: The secretary-treasurers were from Nechako, Penticton and Vancouver, and we had three superintendents: Prince George, Peace River and Surrey.

Hon. C. Clark: We are considering their feedback right now. They've recommended some technical changes to the way we do the funding formula, to tweak it to make it work better. Those changes, when we bring them in, won't be effective, though, until '05-06, because we've made a commitment to a stable funding formula.

J. Kwan: The minister actually didn't answer the question in terms of what their feedback is. Perhaps I'm anticipating the minister saying that that information is confidential. If that's the case, would she just simply state that and say that that information is confidential.

The follow-up question: if it is not confidential, I ask the minister to share that information in this House so that we all know what changes are being contemplated and how people can provide input outside of the list of people that the minister considered. There are a lot of people who are concerned about the funding formula and will want to provide input to the minister.

The other thing that is critical, of course, is this. Will the minister ensure that the changes in the formula would not lead to further cuts for districts across the province?

Hon. C. Clark: Any changes to the formula will be intended to make the system fairer. That's the advice we received from these people. The member will be made aware of the changes we make when we announce them.

J. Kwan: I've come to learn, since this government has been in office, that words such as "fairness" and "equity" and "efficiency" mean something else altogether. We just learned today, for example, that efficiency really just means cuts. "Choice" and "opportunity" and "access" really mean ability to pay. Under the new era, these words actually ring hollow. They actually don't come with real a sense of what they really mean. When the minister says these things, I have no confidence that it actually would be fair. The only way to judge that is for the minister to be forthcoming with the information. Why won't she provide that information now?

Hon. C. Clark: Again I'd advise patience. The member will be made aware of what the changes are when we announce them.

J. Kwan: Here's another principle that we have now learned in the Ministry of Education estimates: secrecy is another approach. There is no transparency; there is no accountability. The approach the government likes to take is: "Don't blame me; blame someone else." Secrecy is now another one that's been added to the esti-

The BCTF reports that only about 3½ percent of the total funding for the K-to-12 system is distributed based on unique factors such as climate, geography, rural characteristics, sparseness and low enrolment. Is this interpretation correct? If not, what is the real figure?

Hon. C. Clark: We also provide money for transportation, which benefits rural districts probably more proportionately. We also provide money for special needs, which may not actually disproportionately affect or assist rural districts. Certainly, the support for aboriginal students does.

We continue to support rural districts. It's something I'm concerned about. That's why we appointed a rural task force. Rural districts have seen a declining enrolment over many years. Previous governments haven't seen fit to do anything about it, so we have decided we want to do something about it. Rural schools, rural communities — the heartland of British Columbia — are important to this government, to this Premier and to me as minister, so that's what we're working on: making sure we can support those communities as they continue to try and support their schools.

Before the member gets up and starts talking about secrecy and all that stuff, I can quite amply remember standing over there on that side of the House in opposition and getting up in estimates and asking the government, pursuing questions about capital funding. As long as I could talk, I would go on about it, and the government would say: "No, just wait for the announcement." Well, that's the way it is in opposition. That's sometimes the answer you get from government. Welcome to the other side of the House, Madam Member, because that's the way it works.

J. Kwan: From a government which actually promised openness and accountability and all of those kinds of things, and for the minister to be so proud that she's not living up to that…. Well, I suppose, good on her for her reneging of their New Era document. I think the minister responsible for checking out the photocopies is busy checking out who is trying to photocopy the New Era document for copyright purposes. I'm sure people are busy doing that, and the minister is proud of that fact. So be it. She's proud of a lot of things that, quite frankly, I wouldn't be, but that's beside the point.

The issue around the 3.5 percent is this, though. The minister says there are other factors being considered, such as aboriginal, etc. We established earlier that 80 percent of the per-pupil funding — which includes the aboriginal funding, which is targeted funding — is the 80 percent of the per-pupil funding calculation. It's not the rest of it. It's not that remaining 20 percent. Therefore, it doesn't make sense. The minister's answer actually doesn't make sense, for her to say those were the things that are being added to unique factors such as climate, geography, rural characteristics, sparseness and low enrolment.

I want to ask the minister this question again. Is that interpretation correct — that 3.5 percent of the total funding for the K-to-12 system is distributed based on unique factors such as climate, geography, rural characteristics, sparseness, low enrolment?

Hon. C. Clark: I've enumerated the numbers in quite significant detail for the member already.

J. Kwan: Well, the fact is this. The minister hasn't — not to my own surprise. I don't know why I'm surprised every time I am. When a question is asked of the minister, no answer is forthcoming — evasiveness. One can only deduce from that fact that the minister is defensive. The minister does not want to provide information to British Columbians who wish to know.

It's really quite stunning. This information is not, I think, so secretive that it shouldn't be shared. People are often wondering how this funding formula works, but the minister is not sharing that information.

I'm just going to assume it is the case that that 3.5 percent covers these areas. The minister will stand up, I'm sure, to correct me if I'm wrong.

Is the minister then satisfied that she has allocated funds for such unique needs of our rural communities when she provides only 3.5 percent of all the funding for districts based on these factors?

Hon. C. Clark: The balance that any government is always struggling to find when recognizing unique rural considerations, and the fact that it's more expensive to provide an education in a rural setting than an urban one, is between making sure that there's enough money going into those rural districts to recognize those costs while at the same time not unduly penalizing urban districts on their per-pupil funding. If we redistribute money to rural districts, districts like Vancouver will certainly see a drop in their funding. That's the balance we're always trying to find. That's why we're continuing to work through the technical review committee on trying to improve the funding formula. We're continuing to do that every year, and that's an ongoing process, but again, those changes won't come in effect until '05-06.

J. Kwan: The government's so-called heartlands strategy acknowledges that rural and interior B.C. has been hard hit by the government cuts, particularly in terms of….

J. Kwan: Actually, the only thing you've got to do is look and see where the court closures are happening, where the hospitals are closing, where the long-term care facilities are being shut down. Those communities are in dire straits because of the government's support.

However, due to the government's defunding of public education, many school districts in these areas closed public schools last year and are struggling with decisions to lose many more now. We know that families stay in and move to areas that have a strong and stable public education system. How can the minister reconcile a program that purports to address the issues facing the rural communities, the rural areas, with the defunding and undermining of the public education system that will continue to drive families away from these regions of the province?

Hon. C. Clark: This is the first government in a long time that has recognized the issues rural districts face. The previous government totally ignored it. This isn't a new problem. The deruralization of British Columbia isn't something that's new. It's not something that's new in Canada or around the world, but the previous government chose to turn its back on it. Frankly, the previous government couldn't find the heartlands on a map if its life depended on it.

In fact, when its life did depend on it in the last election, guess what happened. The folks from the heartlands said: "Sorry, folks, you're out of here. Don't let the door hit you on the way out." They were fed up with a government that didn't listen to the heartlands, and finally people in the heartlands do have a government that's concerned about their issues.

J. Kwan: You can always tell when the minister is getting defensive, because she has now, once again, elevated…. Mind you, it's not that she hasn't really elevated herself throughout the entire estimates process to a high level of rhetoric and started to froth and foam at the mouth, but, hey, there we are. It's the…

The Chair: Member, we've asked before that characterizations in the House be dignified. I wonder if you could please keep your comments about other members to a dignified manner.

J. Kwan: I certainly try to reflect what is actually happening in the House, and I will continue to do that.

The reality is this. The minister moves into a high level of rhetoric. There's no doubt about it, and it's very defensive. The fact of the matter is this. The heartlands that the minister likes to purport she's being very supportive of…. You know, it's kind of curious. I would hate for the minister to say she's supportive, perhaps, of programs that I need or are in my own community, when the net result of that is closures and cuts.

That's what we see with the so-called support from this government. How else do you explain court closures, hospital closures, long-term care closures and school closures? The question to the minister around the education system is this. The minister can evade the question all she wants, but I'll repeat it for the minister one more time and give her a chance one more time to answer the question.

Given the defunding and undermining of the public education system, which will continue to drive families away from these regions of the province, how can the minister reconcile such a program and then say she's actually helping in addressing the issues and concerns that the rural communities are faced with?

Hon. C. Clark: When the member accuses me of getting up and answering her questions in a more lively manner, it's only because I'm trying to be creative and innovative in answering the same questions in a different way. Forgive me if I try and make sure that the debate carries on and that the answers continue to come, but for goodness' sake, I can only answer the same question the same way a couple of times before I have to start speaking, perhaps, and expanding the debate into other areas.

When she talks about what's going on in rural communities, let's recognize the truth of this. The previous government cared so little about rural communities that they have literally shut down rural British Columbia. Because of their economic policies — because of the fact they decided that mining should cease to exist in British Columbia, that forestry wasn't a priority for them, that all of the resource industries our province has so long depended on weren't a priority for her government, that her government didn't even know where the heartlands of British Columbia are….

The fact is that we as a government intend to revive the heartlands of British Columbia, to give back to people who live in rural B.C. some hope and give them back some assurance that the place they were born and grew up in is the same place their children can grow up in, find jobs and raise their grandchildren in as well.

J. Kwan: It is interesting to note the minister's response; it's almost laughable, really. Under the new-era regime, here's what we've got. We have investment down last year, and we have projections of investments to go down further by 3 percent this year. We're number ten in terms of economic growth across the country. Unemployment has gone up. How is it going with the forest softwood lumber dispute? Jobs are being lost. Only this minister and this government would just sit there and cheer how well they're doing.

Earlier today we had a debate with the Minister of Enterprise with his bill, Bill 3. He says: "In the heartlands over three years, we expect that there will be about 66 businesses that would actually get…."

The Chair: I just want to remind you that we're dealing with the Ministry of Education estimates and not softwood lumber or VCCs. I just caution you to get back on track.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was just following the track that the minister has brought into the debate and following that track just like the minister is doing.

I know there's a very proud fact from the Minister of Enterprise, who says that over the next three years there will be some 66 small businesses in the heartlands that will receive investment credits, of which about 70 percent of that 66 will be new, so….

The Chair: Member, would you please take your seat. I once again caution you that these are the Ministry of Education estimates and that we stay on track and not re-debate a debate we had this morning.

J. Kwan: As I said, I'm simply following the line of response from the minister, who actually brought this debate into part of the education system in the rural communities.

It's interesting to note that 66 small businesses — divide that by 3, and it's about 22 per year — and about 70 percent of those will be new. Well, there's a great advancement in economic development in the heartlands. That is very interesting indeed. I can only assume, on the basis of the minister's answer, that she is happy with the funding for the rural communities and that she's satisfied with that.

I want to actually go into another report which deals with some of these issues more specifically. I don't think we actually have time to do that. So I'll reserve that, because it's a big report, and I want to go through it very carefully with the minister.

The question I have for the minister…. I'm going to jump a little bit. I know I've been following on the financial side to date, on the general funding side and the funding formula. I'm going to jump just a little bit from that and then go back to the financial side in a little while, because there's still a lot more to do on that front, and we're running short of time. I understand that we're going to adjourn the House at about quarter after five, so there's actually not enough time to deal with this other area that I want to touch base on.

Let me just begin some of the debate on that. Earlier the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington had been advising the Chinese media that the province has no plan to cancel the examination in languages, particularly, in this instance, around Chinese languages. Yet during the minister's recent visit to the Chinese Cultural Centre, which was on Saturday, March 1, the minister did not rule out that possibility at all.

The newspaper quotes the minister as saying that the province was considering reform to the system of examination for the secondary schools. One of the proposals was to reduce the number of examinations from 21 subjects to eight subjects. The Sing Tao reported that the examination for Chinese would most likely be abolished because of this, and the newspaper quoted the minister as saying that the proposal was not trying to target Chinese-as-second-language education — that the class of Chinese would not be reduced, only the examination might be cancelled. She further admitted that the cancellation of the exam might have an effect on those students who want to enter universities and colleges with good marks on Chinese exams.

The article goes on to suggest that the minister denies that the reduction of examination limits the choice of students. She says that B.C. has more exams than other provinces. Alberta, for example, had only nine subjects for examination, and during the tour of the Chinese Cultural Centre the minister ran into many people requesting her to maintain the Chinese examination. She said she would meet with more people to discuss this issue in the next few weeks, and she would make a final decision in the spring.

The minister further said it was unfair that the same group of people teach and conduct the examination. The chair of the education committee of the Chinese Cultural Centre, as well as the principal of the Vancouver Beijing Chinese School, both said it was a technical issue that could be overcome easily.

Similar to the coverage of the same Sing Tao paper, the newspaper also quoted an education expert as saying that many immigrant students rely on the Chinese examination to supplement the sometimes not-so-good marks that they receive in English. The abolishment of the Chinese examination will increase the difficulties for the students to obtain higher education.

My question to the minister is this. There are a lot of people who are very concerned about it from my own community, the Chinese community, which is my natural heritage. People have raised with me their concerns. One of the issues around allowing for languages to be exammed is to encourage students to gain the extra language. It allows them to be more competitive in the global economy.

We know what an advantage it is in a global economy if you have another language, particularly if you're aiming at working overseas in Asia or in other places. Cantonese and Mandarin, Japanese — these are extremely valuable. Those subjects were added by the previous administration to our school curriculum, and examinations were to be considered — and are part of the process — so that it is all incorporated into the education experience.

Given that that is the case and it allows students to compete better in the global economy, why would the minister consider actually cutting out these examinations?

Hon. C. Clark: She is the last member of the Legislature to offer me advice and suggestions on this. I must say that every other member of the Legislature who is of Chinese extraction has been lobbying me and speaking to me for weeks and months about this and lobbying very, very hard on behalf of their communities. That's not to mention the other MLAs who are from other ethnic backgrounds and other mother tongues, who have been speaking to me about their concerns. I'm glad she's finally getting into the game on

this one. I'm happy to answer her question in the same way that I have answered it with other people.

Certainly, though, I want to pay tribute to the MLAs who have worked so hard in making sure that I thoroughly understand the issues involved here. The MLA for Vancouver-Kensington and the MLA for Burnaby North invited me to tour the Chinese language school down at the Chinese Cultural Centre — an absolutely sterling example of what people can do to make sure their children are in touch with their heritage, people who truly value the importance of language in communicating culture and truly understand how important a diverse and pluralistic society is. I really appreciated the opportunity to go down there and talk to them, and certainly appreciate the work of the members in this House who have worked so hard to try and make sure I understand those issues.

Now that the member opposite has read about it in the newspaper and is also offering her concern about it, I'd like to offer this assurance. I have received advice from the consultations we've done that perhaps one of the things we would consider is reducing the number of exams. I've also received, though, a lot of advice from people who are concerned that those exams shouldn't be eliminated. Both of them make very passionate, very legitimate and very good arguments in support of their view.

I haven't made a decision about it yet. The decision I do finally make about it will be announced when we announce the changes from the grad requirements review that we've been doing, which has been an entirely open, very broad, yearlong process.

I certainly have, as I said, welcomed the input of the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the MLA for Burnaby North, the MLA for Burnaby-Willingdon, the MLAs from Surrey, the MLAs from Vancouver, Vancouver East and Vancouver-Kensington and all of the members who have different mother tongues, who have worked so tremendously hard to make sure I thoroughly understand the issues that are facing children who may have a different mother tongue and want to access those exams when they're in school.

I'm actively considering those issues before me, and I certainly appreciate all of the members of the House in their efforts to raise them.

J. Kwan: The appropriate motion would be to move that the House report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

J. Kwan: We were discussing, earlier, questions related to the report To Serve and Protect from Pivot and some of the recommendations related to it. We acknowledged that some of the recommendations, of course, don't necessarily fall within the realm of the Solicitor General in that some of them should really be referred to the police complaint commissioner. There are some other recommendations, though, that do fall within the realm of the Solicitor General, and I would like to just canvass with the minister some of the thoughts on these recommendations.

The other piece I would want to highlight is this: the issue, of course, related to a complaint as such. I know that the avenue for people who have faced police misconduct should be to file with the police complaint commissioner. However, from this report it is rather interesting to note that there were affidavits taken from people in situations where individuals were faced with various misconducts and attempted the process of filing a complaint. Of course, that was not successful for a range of reasons.

I would like to actually just put that on the record for the context of what we're discussing. One of the affidavits cites that this individual was "thrown against a wall and heavily bruised" when he refused to allow police officers to enter his apartment without a warrant. He complained to the Vancouver police department. I'm quoting from the report.

The issue, of course, is that the police officers can be disciplined for using excessive force to carry out their duties, and that police complaint investigators are obliged to accept all complaints and that police complaints, by their very nature, often call into question the truthfulness and integrity of officers. As a result of that, according to an excerpt of the affidavit here, no complaint was ever made.

Just to illustrate another point, another affidavit. This individual was beaten during his arrest and during his stay in jail. He was hospitalized afterward.

As we know, 911 does not accept police complaints. The duty of the clerk was to refer the individual to a senior officer. The Vancouver police department has a duty to provide access to complaint forms. As a result of that situation, no complaint was made.

The reason I put these scenarios on the record is to simply illustrate part of the problem in terms of the police complaint process. Some of the recommendations relate to the fact that perhaps we can enhance some of the challenges that people are faced with relative to police complaint procedures.

One of the recommendations from the report…. There are actually nine recommendations in total. Some of the recommendations are relevant for the minister's consideration. As such, I'd like to ask the minister what his thoughts are about these suggestions.

Let me start with this recommendation. On the mandatory reporting of force, the recommendation is that all officers who use force should be required to file a report documenting the reason for and extent of the force. These reports should be made publicly available with identifying information. That seems to me to be a reasonable recommendation and is one that would be a decision that falls within the Solicitor General's office and not necessarily the police complaint commissioner's office. I'd like to just canvas the minister's thoughts on that.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just before we proceed, I should advise the member that the Vancouver police department contacted the authors of this report with regard to the allegations. It asked them to provide them with information, because some of them were serious allegations that they would like to investigate with regard to criminal activity. They have not responded with any information to the Vancouver police department.

The police complaint commissioner's office has also asked for details from the people who drafted this report. They have failed to provide the information, as well, to the police complaint commissioner.

The process we have established is so that people, when they make an accusation, can provide the information to be investigated. It's pretty hard to investigate when they just write a report and refuse to provide the details so that we can actually go look at the problem or deal with the individual incidents.

They continue to say they're not going to provide that information, which is a concern to me relative to making a public report with a number of very serious public allegations with regard to law enforcement and not being prepared to back it up with the details so they can be properly investigated. That is a concern with regard to the people who may have done this report and how it was put together.

With regard to the member's comments, there are processes in place for excessive use of force, both internally for reporting in police departments and with the police complaint commissioner, and how we deal with that.

Most of the things this report actually touches on were dealt with in some way or another with the Oppal report as we moved forward to the police complaint commissioner process. We've just completed, as the member knows, a review of that process.

I have a variety of recommendations — some of them are not dissimilar to this — on my desk both from the committee and from the acting police complaint commissioner, who was acting for a number of months and who has made some additional recommendations. We are reviewing those now, with a view to looking at whether there has to be some regulatory or legislative change. We did put a place holder in place for the Police Act with regard to this legislative session, but as the member knows, drafting can sometimes take a while.

At the same time, the new police complaint commissioner has asked for a period of time, at least, for him to review it so that he can make his recommendation, now that he has the office in operation on a full-time basis, from his perspective.

Looking back on the three and a half years since we actually put a police complaint process in place for our municipal departments, which deals with this particular police department, there is obviously an evolving relationship, an evolving ability for us to investigate and deal with complaints about the police. I think we'll let that continue. We will look at the recommendations as they come forward. We will compare these recommendations to those that we have as we go through our process to decide on the future of what other things we might want to do.

J. Kwan: The issues with the information that is to be provided to the police complaint commissioner and to the Vancouver police department. I will simply let Pivot sort that out. I certainly hope they will make the information available so that work can be done in terms of reviewing the allegations.

I do also want to flag and understand some of those challenges related, because some of the individuals who filed the affidavit with Pivot are very marginalized individuals. They fear repercussions, and the report goes on to talk about that. Some people even went so far as to file a complaint but to no avail, and to simply have, as I read out earlier, actions taken against them in return. In that light, it really does cause a lot of problems for people in moving forward.

That was something the police complaint committee, when we looked at some of these issues, acknowledged was part of the problem. It really rests upon the government to make this system as easy as possible for people to register their complaints and to be taken seriously without further repercussions, particularly those who are most marginalized in our community.

The recommendation I read out was on mandatory reporting of force. Others include the documentation of detentions, which would suggest a receipt should be given to all individuals who have been confined in paddy wagons or detained in jail. A copy of all receipts should be filed with the records department and be made publicly available.

Another recommendation: access to public reports. A copy of the police report used as the basis for arresting and detaining a person in jail should be provided to that person on their leaving jail regardless of whether charges were approved or not by the Crown counsel.

The fourth recommendation deals with the complaints outreach for the office of the police complaint commissioner to invest resources to create community-based outreach programs designed to collect complaints from persons whose access is compromised by drug addiction, mental illness, low literacy or extreme social marginalization.

The fifth one deals with complaints intake at the jailhouse, and the sixth one deals with external investigations for all criminal offences. The seventh one deals with professional conduct audits, and the eighth one seems to be missing, according to my page.

J. Kwan: Okay. It's missing in yours too. I'll just head on to the ninth one, which is a public inquiry whereby a commission of public inquiry should be convened and a commissioner appointed for the purposes of investigating the nature and extent of misconduct by the Vancouver police department against marginalized persons in the downtown east side of Vancouver.

I will simply end, then, with this note and ask that the minister ensure that this report and its recommendations be taken into consideration. I would urge the minister to do that — in particular to take into context some of the situations that people are faced with and the barriers they are faced with when they are in our community, from those who are very marginalized and from a power position or lack thereof and their inability to ensure that fairness and justice is ensured.

The problem is simple. I don't think any one of us would want to see any officers of the law in their conduct or perceived conduct to be compromised, because they are people who are vested with very important roles and responsibilities. We as individuals and citizens in our community rely on them to carry out their duties for our safety, for our own protections. Yet if our segment of a community is not receiving that and they're not receiving the kinds of protection they should receive and there's police misconduct and behaviour for any individual in our community, then I think that compromises our police force for every one of us. I'd urge the minister to please take a look at this report seriously, look at the recommendations seriously, and I look forward to legislative changes in that regard.

Hon. R. Coleman: The outreach aspects of the police complaint commissioner office, as the member knows, is…. This is an officer of the Legislature. I know that some of those discussions took place in the hiring process of the new commissioner, so I would imagine they would be looking at that.

I also know that in those discussions there were some recommendations from the committee with regard to location of office — not being in a tower in one area of town versus…. Maybe being more at street level, it would be easier accessed by the people that are affected by the police complaint process. I understand there may be some discussions going on about that as to how that office would be structured. Of course, that is the call of the independent officer of the Legislature.

I don't want to leave this discussion, though. I realize there are problems at times, and there are faults. We try and deal with those. We should also remember there are a lot of very compassionate, caring and hard-working police officers in the city of Vancouver who

really do care about the clientele — be it in the downtown east side, those people who are marginalized or whatever the case may be — and actually do try and build programs and relationships with the community to help push back on some of the problems they're facing.

I wouldn't want to leave the discussion about this Pivot report out there at arm's length without actually having made that statement. If there are problems, I would like Pivot to come forward with the information, particularly when they make a statement about somebody not following through on an investigation. We need to know that information so we can see who stopped it and how come they didn't follow through on those issues so that we can address them.

At the same time, we should recognize that there are a lot of people in law enforcement that are actually doing a pretty good job out there and we have a complaint process in place to try and strike a balance between these issues.

J. Kwan: Yes, indeed. I certainly don't want to leave the impression that all police officers are engaging in misconduct. What has been brought to light certainly raises a lot of concern, and there needs to be serious consideration in terms of some of these issues. Being the MLA in the community, I myself often run into people who tell me the situations they're faced with. I've also witnessed some situations where inappropriate conduct is being carried out.

On the flip side of it — absolutely as the minister has suggested — there are police officers who are very caring and who do their very best to support our community in every way they can. This is not meant to be a brush that is to be painted across all officers but rather to simply highlight, when there's a situation where questions and doubts are cast, that it actually compromises all of us in that regard.

We need to make every effort to prevent that — to curb that — and to make sure that kind of misconduct and behaviour, where it does occur in our community, is challenged and refuted and disciplined and ultimately curbed. I think that is the goal we all strive towards. I certainly will be writing a letter to the police complaint commissioner myself with respect to some of the concerns that have been raised and will be looking forward to his response and his review on the matter.

At this juncture, I'm advised that the big House has now finished their bill, and Education estimates have now been called. I'm going to go to the other House and engage in the estimates debate on education. My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, will then carry on with the issues on this ministry.

J. MacPhail: I have a couple of questions on the gaming. I have read all of the Hansard Blues on gaming. Then I have some questions on the privatization of liquor and community policing. I noted from Hansard that the minister has confirmed the threshold of 75 percent. In other words, a charity can't have any more than 75 percent of its funding coming from government in order to qualify for charitable gaming revenue. I'm wondering how this makes sense, if indeed, agencies may also be applying to federal government for funding and would be deciding about whether to apply for funding at the federal level. Given that there's only one taxpayer, how does having any threshold make any sense? Or is it that federal moneys will be exempt from the threshold?

Hon. R. Coleman: Any municipal grants are exempt. Federal and provincial grants are all we're talking about with regard to the 75 percent threshold. Also, we're getting societies to now say…. I'll give you an example. We don't think anybody has actually been negatively affected. What it's going to do is allow for us to get some reporting as to the level of community involvement and commitment to the organizations and their broad programs within the community.

Basically, because any volunteer time is allowed to be charged back as a contribution to the society, any goods and services in kind are allowed to be charged back to a society to reach their 25 percent threshold. Any municipal grants are also exempt in the 25 percent threshold. At the same time, this does not apply to bingo money or any other charitable gaming money that's actually earned by the society. This is just about the direct access program, which is a grant program, basically, for programs within the communities.

We have some concern about people relying 100 percent on gaming funds for their operations, because those funds can change from time to time, particularly given that there's no question that we have more and more applicants every year. We're trying to make the system sustainable to the point where we can actually fund the charities. Last year we managed to do about 400 more charities than we did the year before. The first year I was minister we actually ran out of money by the first week of October. This year we managed to make the fund sustainable.

There's a limited amount of money here, and it's not the panacea for everybody's operational capacity. It is a program where you apply for a grant for a purpose, and you get the grant.

J. MacPhail: In terms of grants from Crown agencies — maybe ICBC, or from health boards or legal services — is that considered government funding with the 75 percent threshold?

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have any idea how many organizations who have historically received grants but would now not meet the 75 percent would be above — I guess I should call it a ceiling; the ceiling

has to be 75 percent of funding — the 75 percent ceiling of government funding as you know it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Very few, actually. We think it may be way down at minimal. We did look at the 50 percent threshold when we were trying to get to the sustainability of direct access. It's a credit to the staff in the branch that they actually tightened up how they were reviewing applications so we could actually make sure the money was going where it was supposed to go — that it wasn't ending up in a savings account. I explained to the member's colleague the other day — or whatever the case may be — that it was actually going to the programs that were designated for the funds.

The reason for it is that we believe it's pretty important that there be some involvement in an organization that's delivering to a community, that's asking for grant money. At the same time, we're hoping it will make people recognize that, just in itself, living off a singular grant program is probably not of benefit to the long-term sustainability of the organization, simply because those grant programs over the years can change. At the same time, the pressure on them because of other applications coming in could reduce funds to certain people because there are so many more that need money.

It's one of those sustainability challenges. We've looked at the 50 percent. We've talked about it. We took it out and discussed it with the charities and different groups out there. We came back and looked at 75 percent versus 50 percent, just because we felt that that would impact too much. We felt this would actually — because of our ability to allow for the volunteer labour and the goods in kind — have a very small effect on people but actually help them be more sustainable operations long term.

J. MacPhail: Just a couple of points for the record. I'm told that a lot of the agencies, most non-profits, who were getting grants had government funding in the range of 80 to 90 percent. Perhaps the minister's clarifications on what is excluded from determining that 75 percent threshold will assist the agencies in understanding that they are below the 75 percent ceiling.

On the minister's point about ensuring that agencies who did receive funding become more self-sustaining, there are consequences to that. I'll just read one. It's from my own riding. It's from the chair of the parent board of the Hastings Townsite Child Care Society, which operates several child care facilities in my riding. Because of the change in funding from the B.C. Gaming Commission, the centre had its funding cut in the grant from the Gaming Commission from $27,000 to less than $7,000.

While the minister says it'll help them to become more self-sustaining, it does mean, in this particular case, that the daycare…. That funding will be made up one of two ways. That funding will be made up one way — out of the pockets of the parents, which is a huge chunk of money — or secondly, the child care centre will drastically reduce its services. Or perhaps, with a loss of $20,000, it may not be able to be sustained. It's not like there are a lot of resources other than the parents' own pockets to make up this difference. I have no doubt that it will cause hardship.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so the member understands, we're going into a transition here. We're going to mitigate those impacts in the first year and work with these organizations to get them to the level where, over a period of time, they'll be fine. It's not a matter that we're going out this year and are just going "boom." We're actually going to mitigate and phase this in across time so that we can get the organization to understand how they can restate some of their information. Your daycare, for instance, may have a large volunteer parent component that isn't being stated financially in their statements. We're going to allow them to give us that information so we can mitigate them across time.

It's not that this is just all of a sudden happening on April 1. We've said to all the charities that this is the phase-in year. We're going to mitigate any concerns. We're going to work with them to see if there are any major impacts, and we're going to deal with those. It's not our intent to dramatically affect them, frankly. At the same time, what we will do in the case of the Hastings Child Care Society, just like I told the hon. member's colleague the other day: if you have a society that does have that concern, that has some complexities in and around it, we will contact and them and walk them through to make sure they're being handled properly.

My last question around gaming funding for organizations has to do with the arts organizations. I understand from an organization — it's not in my riding, but it's a neighbourhood arts organization — that the gaming revenues for arts funding are included under community organizations. Is that right, or is there a separate category for arts organizations?

Hon. R. Coleman: The category would be arts, culture and sports and one of the quarterly intakes. At the same time, if one of the arts organizations is actually more involved in training than in putting on an event that has a community benefit, they could end up in the community program because we would classify that as training and we would fund it out of that form of the grant. There are two streams available, depending on what the organization delivers to the community.

J. MacPhail: Let me just put this on the record, then. This is from Artspeak, and I'll just read into the record their concern:

I think what they're saying here is that they are kind of what they would determine as penalized because they are arts organizations, but they're included under the broader category of community organizations. Then the government — and I expect this occurred when I was in government as well — in order to make shiny their funding stats to arts organizations, includes that gaming revenue in that funding. It's kind of like a catch-22 for the organizations. Is there something, then, that these organizations need to know about how they can apply directly for the arts funding?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think this concern gets straightened out in this fiscal year when we go to the quarterly intake. The way it has been reported out in the past is: if it was in community, it was reported as being in community, and if it was in the arts, it was actually reported in the arts. There were the two categories that you could actually apply for grants in. Now it's arts, culture and sport. They would be under arts, culture and sport. I don't know who else reports on what the figures are. Maybe in Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services they have some grant programs in sports and culture, etc.

We don't take those into account when we are doing our grant side. We would communicate out, depending on where people apply and to which stream — for whatever programs they are applying to. If they are an arts program now, they would be in that quarterly intake. They would be measured in that quarterly intake with arts, culture and sports and funded in that quarter.

I do want to give the minister feedback I've had from my parent advisory councils on the change from funding those who apply to funding parent advisory councils across the board. I know the minister is well aware of this, but I'd like to put it on the record. There is a difference in parent advisory councils, depending on what school they are the parent advisory council to.

There are many of us who have inner-city schools with parent advisory councils that simply do not have the ability to raise funds the same as wealthier neighbourhood schools. Just to give you one example in my city of Vancouver. Recently Queen Mary School on the west side of Vancouver — I think it's in the Vancouver–Point Grey riding — had a $95-a-plate fundraiser. The parent advisory council did. On the east side in the inner-city schools they're still doing garage sales, and they barely…. Anyway, I won't dramatize it any more than that. They're doing garage sales. The point is made.

Parent advisory councils in my riding, or parts of my riding anyway — and I think I speak for many areas of Vancouver and throughout the province — are very anxious that equal funding doesn't necessarily mean equitable. Schools that are able to raise tens of thousands of dollars a year through the fundraising efforts of their PAC now get the same gaming revenue as a school that can barely raise hundreds of dollars per year. Will the minister be monitoring this, the impact on schools, to determine whether the replacement system is as effective as the system it has tossed out?

Hon. R. Coleman: The system it's replacing is not effective. The member describes a $95-a-plate dinner. I would suspect that if you look, the sophistication is also there on that PAC to make the grant application to get the $40 a student.

What I found when I did my review, what led me to this decision was the concern about inner-city schools, about schools in rural B.C. in smaller communities. We weren't getting applications from those folks. Even though there was $40 a student available, we weren't getting the applications. If you did an overlay, you would find that most of the applications were in the affluent areas of the school districts in the province. Some of it is because there is a process involved. There's the application process and all the accounting issues we put on these things and everything else. We found we weren't getting the applications from those schools.

When I looked at this, I thought the first thing we needed to do was to understand that for a small rural school of a hundred students to get $2,000 in September, it might be the kick-start for them to be able to do something in their community, whether it be uniforms or a school field trip or whatever the case may be. It would have a huge impact on the ability of that school because it hasn't been applying to get any money.

It's the same thing in inner-city schools. If you have a 500- or 1,000-student inner-city school, they're getting $10,000 to $20,000 in September to help with their PAC and their school, etc., that they weren't getting in the past because they weren't applying. My concern was that we did have a bit of a pendulum shift in the wrong direction. We will monitor it very much so, but I think we'll see that a lot of schools that have just not accessed funding over the years will take this funding and do great things with it.

I think we'll also see a balancing-out among the other schools. When we did a review a few years back, we did find that some schools got money one year and not the next. They would get $40 this year, and next

This actually lets them all know they're getting $20 a student as long as there's a PAC in place. We're not going to send it to the principal and let the principal spend the money. If there's no PAC in place, then we'll contact the school and advise them how to set up a PAC through the provincial PAC before we will fund the money to a bank account for the PAC. We want this to go to the parent advisory councils of the schools, and we want it to be used according to some fairly broad guidelines so they can be beneficial to the students.

I've walked this around the park a few times with different groups. In my district in particular, where a large proportion of my school district, frankly, does very well — they're probably at the two-thirds, maybe even three-quarters, of the schools to get PAC funding — I thought that might be the hotbed to see whether this could be accepted by PACs. They were totally accepting of it, feeling that there was balance and fairness. They also sort of heaved a huge sigh of relief that all this paperwork burden about having to get a grant application in within a certain time of year — year-end, usually the way it was working was in June or July — so that you could get your PAC funding for next year…. They were actually supportive of it.

We're measuring everything we're doing because we're trying to make this thing sustainable. Admittedly, we're also putting more money into PACs as a result of this change. Last year we gave out about $9 million to PACs. This year that will be $12 million, because there are about 600,000 students. I think we're going to see some positive impacts to the change, and we'll monitor it to see how it goes from there.

I have one question on victims services, and then we'll switch to liquor privatization. On victims services, there is a report out, No End to the Pain, and it suggests that victims' families…. I'll quote from the report. It says: "Government is hypocritical in extolling victims rights but not providing sufficient resources or funding to support them." Perhaps the minister could give an update on what this government's support for victims services is.

I will also say this. The document also said that Crown victim-witness services was the best agency they had encountered, yet I think this agency has been eliminated. What are the plans? What are the actualities? What's the feedback?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm very familiar with the No End to the Pain report. It is actually a three-phase report. The first phase was a study that was completed in consultation with over 40 service providers from 21 agencies. Most of them are government-funded organizations.

Phase 2 was a needs analysis involving a consultation with surviving family members in cases where there had been death due to a criminal event. That was a study in which No End to the Pain was distributed to participants in December of last year. There is a third and final phase to the study that will develop specific action plans to enhance the accessibility and responsiveness of the services the province provides to surviving family members.

Our funding levels in this ministry were maintained for victims services at $9.3 million. In addition, there is $17.3 million allocated for direct financial benefits for victims: travel costs, counselling, legal costs, wage loss and that sort of thing for victims of crime. The total allocation this year is $26.6 million.

The challenge I faced when I looked at victims services as a minister — that was after the Attorney General had removed the court-based victims programs that the member mentioned — was to find a way to have a look at all our programs in B.C. to see where we had placed programs that did or did not make sense. I actually conducted a lot of that review on my own, as well as having my staff do it. I found communities, frankly, where I had a specialized victims program and a police-based victims program in one community that was under 4,000 people. Then I looked at another community of 100,000 people that had no specialized victims programs at all and had a substantial number of stats with regard to sexual and spousal assault.

We looked at it; we revamped it. As a result of that, we were able to put in 18 more police-based victims programs across the province in communities. Anywhere there is an RCMP detachment of four members or more would now have a victims program.

At the same time, we looked at some different models as to how we can do some better community policing in our aboriginal communities. Then in addition to that, about five specialized victims…new ones, will be produced in the province.

We also found about 21 different victims lines, 24-hour crisis lines in B.C. with varying levels of service: some where the recording came on at nine at night, and basically you got a recording and somebody checking the voice mail; some where it was more along the lines of a paging service; some where they were actually manned. We made the decision to transition through the beginning of this year to a 24-hour victims line for British Columbia. Then we could access, from that victims line out to all our victims programs we would have in our databases, who the people are in every community with regards to victims and who we can refer people to. We're out with an RFP on that. I think we're very close to doing it. We've said to all the victims groups that we would transition until the line was up and running so that we can make the transition over.

The other thing I found when I got to discussing No End to the Pain with some of the people that have been in and around and involved in some of these studies and discussions…. One of the comments that came to back to me was that people at the front end of a victims disaster — especially in the case of a serious sexual

assault, violent crime or murder and that sort of thing — are at their highest emotional level as well. The first people they deal with, in the case of the victims programs, are not usually the ones that they find in the long-term are the ones that have been best for them. By the time they were getting to the court-based victims program, the toughest part of the program was being handled by either police-based or specialized victims services, because they were right there at the height of the highest emotional aspect of the victims programs.

We're very aware, as we go through this thing, that we're going to, frankly, look at the recommendations out of phase 3 as we do this project — it is with two levels of government — and address our victims programs. I think we've done a pretty good job of stabilizing them and getting them to the point where we're actually getting some support out there where they need it.

I'll give you an example of Golden, which has one of worst pieces of highway that we know of, probably, in western Canada — lots of fatalities, lots of serious injuries and no police-based victims program. The community did not have a high sexual assault rate but actually had a specialized victims program. The police and even community people were telling us: "We really need a program that takes care of the victims of the highway and other people. The police need the support." We switched it to a police-based program because we actually talked to the community.

I had conversations personally with Crown counsels, with police officers, with detachment commanders and with lawyers that were doing things like legal aid, as I went through my questions with regard to communities to see how they were feeling about the programs that were being delivered. We all came back with that. We looked at it and said: "This is where we think we can improve." We had to look at our duplication and look at how we can improve our efficiencies. We've done an awful lot of that. We didn't cut any of the money out at the same time. We've protected that funding

We will go forward from here with this study and others. Frankly, I'm pretty committed in this ministry to victims programs and the ability…. They help support every type of tragedy that can take place, whether it be a suicide, a fatal accident, a sexual assault, a murder or whatever the case may be. I've seen the effectiveness of those programs personally. We will monitor it. We will look at phase 3. If there are recommendations in phase 3 that we think should be implemented, we will go forward and make the efforts to implement them.

J. MacPhail: How is the public reporting of that? Is it through this kind of dialogue? Does the minister have an advisory board that he reports to? How will the changes be made public — through government announcement?

Hon. R. Coleman: We actually have two pretty good operations, both in the specialized victims programs and the police-based victims programs, which are groups that actually give us feedback. Those groups actually give us feedback as well. We'll make phase 3 public, frankly. We're prepared to have a public dialogue on this. We're not afraid of any discussion in and around what recommendations could be there and how they can be implemented. This could be a forum. Without this forum, certainly, we will go back to our victims programs people and the people that are out there actually delivering them on the ground and see what they think.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. Liquor privatization and then community policing, if that's okay.

I believe that as of January 1 of this year, the Solicitor General has approved 76 new private liquor store licences, and 188 have been ruled eligible for approval. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: These are the licensed retail stores the member is referring to. As the member knows, we made the choice to go with our liquor primaries, as far as allowing them, after we raised the moratorium, and only them to apply. We actually have 30 stores operational. There are 53 that are approved to construct. There are 11 that have been denied, and 168 of them have preliminary approval granted. That basically means that the applicant has been notified that their application is approved in principle, and they may now prepare plans and submit. Some of them are waiting at this stage to see what government will do next — making additional policy on liquor — or are waiting to see what happens with the local government with regards to zoning.

The speed with which the applications move past this stage depends upon the applicant and the local government. That 168 may be a group of people who actually have a liquor primary in the community but won't get past a rezoning, for instance, or whatever the case may be. We don't know what will come out of that. Seven have what we refer to as compliance issues which is, basically, that they have some possible criminal records or are related to an owner or a shareholder. We are not letting those people get into the business if we can help it.

One hundred and twenty of those applications are incomplete, and they've been notified what they have to provide. We did find a number of them didn't come in with most of the information. Some of them are waiting for their actual liquor primary licence to be granted — there's about 36 of those. There is another 100 that have been received but haven't been processed because there was a flood of applications in the last 48 hours before we cut it off at the end of November. That's the status today.

These will go forward based on a lot of issues that will actually, over a period of time, determine how many there really are. Just because you can apply to us…. We put some rules at the front end of this as far as zoning. And other compliances at the local govern-

ment level and the community level have to be dealt with before we'll actually issue a licence.

J. MacPhail: I have mixed views, personally, about this change. My views are mixed because while this expansion is going on, the public liquor stores run by the LDB are being closed down. I have to say that I'm surprised at how controversial this is, and I'm surprised because it's not often that the broad public shares my point of view.

Maybe there are two parts to the controversy. One is the expansion of the licence retail operations so that they will be solely the deliverers of alcohol, spirits, wine and beer in this province. There is no assurance that those private operations will have the same quality of delivery — either from safety or product or price points of view — that the current, publicly owned system has.

I think the majority of the concerns with the public, while that's the range, revolve around safety issues — safety consumption. Are the right people, legally correct people consuming? Is the monitoring for abuse of the use of the product in place? I note that I just researched two. Nanaimo city council has passed a motion for the government to put a moratorium on changes to their liquor policy, and I see that yesterday the Kamloops city council passed a resolution that said: "Be it resolved that Kamloops city council requests the provincial government to put a moratorium on further privatization and hold public hearings throughout British Columbia to examine the impact its perceived plan to privatize liquor sales will have on communities." Those are the two big ones I've found.

I know there are concerns in Vancouver as well. I don't take the media as gospel, but it sounds like there is some sort of controversy inside the Liberal caucus as well. Perhaps the minister could address those concerns.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, there are always questions when there's change, and you have to walk people through it. I think that's pretty much human nature.

The LRSs, which were known as cold beer and wine stores out in the public but which have always been called LRSs by our licensing side, were there. There were 290 of them in the province. There was a moratorium put on them. Yet there were other people, when the moratorium went on many years ago, who felt that they were not — for lack of a better description — treated fairly by having the same opportunity as their competition.

When I was dealing with the liquor file, which were the two licence classes — the licensing side and what have you… The member knows I don't have distribution of the liquor stores. We were pretty focused on a couple of things. First of all, we knew we wanted to go to two licence classes. That had been a consultative process started by the previous government over a period of a couple of years. There were a lot of participants at the table: industry reps, as well as UBCM, etc. Part of that discussion was ongoing. Some of these things were done as a direct result of that consultative process.

The other thing that I was very concerned about was within the liquor infrastructure in B.C. on the licensing side. There were a lot of rules that were being inspected by inspectors simply because they existed. We had a lot of what we call "silly rules." We can all tell the story of some rule that we've heard about in liquor that was having an effect.

We moved to changing the focus of an entire branch over a period of a year. That focus went from that inspection-type focus to a compliance and enforcement focus. The compliance and enforcement focus has been drilled down to our people on four issues as being our priorities. One is any sale of liquor or service to a person under the age in the province. Overconsumption, which is intoxicated patrons in the stores or in the establishments of our bars, hotels or cabarets — the overcrowding of establishments that leads to a lot of physical difficulties when people are drinking. When it's well overcrowded you will get people who will react violently and those problems that go with it, and that leads to a lot of other difficulties. And the illegal sale of liquor. In B.C. we estimate that we lose about $50 million in taxes to liquor that's imported here that we don't actually distribute into our system and that's being distributed by being basically — you'd call it for lack of description — smuggled across the border and brought in from another province.

To the member's concerns: we've actually added inspectors to our branch. We're actually, as a result of that, now focusing on the primary areas of enforcement. We are paying attention to that. If there's a complaint out there today — coming up to December 2, when we went to two licence classes…. All the complaints were in about protection of territory: "Why should I have to have a liquor primary versus a food primary? Why do they get a lounge seat and I get this?" All these are very much personal territory–driven.

After December 2 the complaints were that you're enforcing too much. We make no apologies for that. We are out there. We are shopping stores. We are shopping bars. We are making sure, and we're very, very aggressive about the fact that we want people to have the two proper pieces of ID before they get served if they're an under-age person in a liquor establishment in B.C. Failure to comply will result in measures against people.

The next step is for us to go to a ticketing regime at some point. We would like to be able to get where we can tie it into the driver's licence for collection. Our liquor tickets in the province, I've found as minister, have not necessarily been that effective, because less than 70 percent of them actually ever get collected. You have 30 percent that you might get. The rest of people don't pay attention, because there is no means of disciplining them; whereas 90-some-percent of our traffic tickets actually get collected in B.C. because you're tied

On the enforcement side there's going to be a shift, but I think the industry is starting to get the message that we're dead serious about the enforcement side of liquor. That was the first choice. The second choice with regard to the LRSs was…. I looked at Alberta; I looked at Ontario. I visited the jurisdictions and talked to the people and what their mistakes were. Alberta opened up and went "boom." They have a liquor store on almost every corner, it seems, in that province. I didn't want to go there.

I felt it was important that we would…. By dealing with the existing regime of liquor being on an LRS side, where our pubs and hotels…. We know the compliance records of those people. We know the criminal backgrounds, or not, of the people. We know who they are, how they operate, and that allows us to place some discipline on the management of the LRS side of the industry.

Subsequent to us moving through this, the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise is dealing with the liquor stores. Their public statements have been pretty clear. They're looking at, possibly, 30 to 50 stores that would close this year, but they are going to do a community-by-community analysis. We'll be part of that analysis, because as we approve, we'll be able to do an overlay in communities to see where the communities are served or underserved or overserved. That way we'll be able to make some of our decisions as well.

Now, it is not the intention to have the customer not have the service. There's obviously $600-and-some million dollars in revenue to government that needs to be looked after and watched. At the same time, the infrastructure will have to be an evolutionary thing versus something like in the other jurisdictions of our neighbour, where it just went. Today you would be told that the competition level without the compliance section…. I mean, they would tell you today that when they did it, even though some people say it was all great, there have been some problems with going that route.

I think, from our end, we picked a pretty disciplined approach on licensing. We stuck with it from the standpoint of staying with the people whose compliance records we knew and how it could be managed, versus going out and just opening up the market. I'm pretty comfortable with what we've done so far. I'm also very pleased that we are out in the field.

Frankly, I'm not happy with the statistics I'm seeing on the under-age side. I've made it very clear to the industry. It's not in the liquor sales side that the problem seems to be. It seems to be in the bar and cabaret side. I met with Bar Watch a few weeks ago, and they were complaining to me. It's an organization in your area of the country.

They were upset because we were doing this — going into their stores and into their bars and what have you — and then giving them warnings on compliance. I made it clear to them: "Until you get your compliance up, don't come and whine to me. You have a problem. Go fix it. Follow the rules we've set out for you." Those are the four public safety issues, which from this ministry's perspective are the key to what drives liquor licensing.

J. MacPhail: I saw that statistic about something like two-thirds not being in compliance about under-age serving, etc., and that's good.

J. MacPhail: Worse. Okay. Well, it's good that that kind of work is being done. The liberalization of rules around what a place has to look like in order to serve liquor is just fine with me. I support that 100 percent — so enforcement: excellent. In terms of the question of the actual delivery of the product — and these may be questions for the Minister of Competition and Science — what has the government done in order to assure that the best aspects of the liquor distribution system are still there?

I'm thinking of the Fort and Foul Bay store. I'm thinking of the Cambie and 39th store. The Kelowna store, to me, is unbeatable — the Orchard Park…. It's not like I know every liquor store in the province. I want to make it clear. What are the applicants? Frankly, I haven't seen a cold beer and wine store that matches those anywhere. My apologies if this isn't your jurisdiction.

Hon. R. Coleman: You're right. It isn't my jurisdiction, and you're right about…. I think there's an evolution that has to take place on the cold beer and wine store side. I think there are some issues in and around that, as we move forward. They'll be issues in and around if you want that sector to make an investment in, let's say, a little larger store. Then the issues will go back to what the markup is. You know, what is a markup available within that sector? Today it's 10 percent or something like that. There aren't the margins there for people to look at some of the larger investments, perhaps.

Then on the whole infrastructure in and around the distribution and what have you, any discussions I've had is that they are looking at how they can make sure that's stable. It is not my ministry, however, but I do know that in some of our discussions, it is important that the branches…. It wants to operate from the standpoint of maintaining the choice and the service and the distribution at the level that British Columbians expect.

We will be working through that over the ensuing months as we see how this all sort of shakes out. We're not in a hurry. I think we want to do it right. That's why the community-by-community analysis, and that's why the overlay. There are communities that are concerned, like Nanaimo, and when they do get concerned, we actually go out and meet with the local

councillors and sit down with their people and discuss their issues and concerns.

With regard to how they're operating, we also have the opposite side, where some communities have actually made it unfair in their own rules for some of their own operators within their community versus each other. Over a period of time that all has to adjust so that we can actually have a sector that's well disciplined, well policed and at the same time provides a variety of choice that the member's referring to.

J. MacPhail: I assume that the issues of revenue, the changes, are directed toward the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, because we don't actually get taxes and stuff through this. The money that's made by the liquor distribution branch on its markups and taxation is all put through the liquor distribution branch. We're a thousand-dollar vote in liquor licensing, so we live off the fees of people renewing and what have you, as far as being able to manage the sector, which is really the licensing and discipline.

J. MacPhail: I'll ask the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise those questions, then.

My last question on this is…. I was doing a radio talk show yesterday in Kelowna, and there had been some story about a Shuswap pub, I think it was. The hotel had been shut down, but the wine and beer store was continuing. Has the minister got an explanation for the allegations that arose around that? Apparently the off-sales was operating in what someone was alleging was an illegal fashion.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm familiar with the file. I'd just tell the member that we're actually in the process of doing an investigation into that particular one. There are periods of time where we have allowed LRSs to stay open while somebody was renovating or remodelling or rebuilding portions of liquor primaries. Under our format you are required to have a liquor primary to have an LRS.

The branch is in the midst of investigating that, dealing with what offences may have taken place, so I won't comment on the context of the investigation, but I assure the member that the particular matter is being looked into.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to policing now — policing aspects. The first issue I want to talk about is the relationship between costs borne by municipalities and the assignment of costs between the provincial government and the municipalities.

The local jails. The government is moving to reduce the funding of local jails. Can the minister give the status of that in terms of who's paying for what and what change has occurred?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is another one of those anomalies I found when I became the minister. What we found was we had different prices in jurisdictions all over the province for keeping prisoners. Some of them were, frankly, profit centres for the local communities, rather than having what we would consider to be a fair cost for keeping prisoners.

We undertook a process to look at how we would balance off keeping prisoners with real costs. What we've done is reduced the budget, and we've given communities, based on their prisoner count from the previous year, the amount of money we're allocating for keeping prisoners.

We do have some anomalies out there. Our branch is actually meeting with communities where they feel that. We've met with Nanaimo and Terrace and others that have some concerns, and we're continuing to go through that with our branch.

In addition to that, our intent is to get to a number where we are paying a reasonable dollar per hour for keep-of-prisoner so that people will actually be able to understand and budget for it. We found we were actually paying for prisoners who weren't our jurisdiction to be paying for. We were paying, in some cases, staggering amounts of per diems for keeping prisoners in some communities versus what would seem to be fair — or not even close to fair, in some cases — in other communities.

The whole project has been to try and strike the balance. I recognize there's going to be some bumps in the road as we do that, and we're working through those bumps. The whole idea is to get a fair formula for keep-of-prisoners, for provincial prisoners, when they're in lockups in local communities.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister give an update on the issue of funding for policing in communities of 5,000 or less? I believe he put on hold his policy to assign charges to communities of 5,000 or less. Could he give an update on what is happening now?

Hon. R. Coleman: I would be happy to. I think this is one of the toughest portions of the file. When I became the minister in 2001, I went to UBCM and we actually met, myself and the Premier, with 14 communities that thought they were going to go over 5,000. They asked us to look at how that was arrived at, because they were going to get this big, huge lift in costs to their communities because they'd start paying 70 percent of their policing costs. I was given direction by the Premier to look at it, to see if we could come up with a formula. We went away and started the work. When the census came out the following spring, most of them did not go over 5,000, so their concerns evaporated.

At the same time, having recognized the issue, we went forward. We looked at a couple of formulas that we could take. We took it to a session at UBCM on the

Monday of the UBCM this year. Frankly, I don't know how we ever get consensus on the issue, because 50 percent of the members of UBCM are under 5,000, and 50 percent of UBCM are over 5,000 so they're paying. It's about 700,000 people of our total population whose policing is actually paid 100 percent by the province.

Going through the fall and getting the response back from UBCM and the concern of communities, we've decided to step back for this year — we're not going to bring in anything to do with the funding formula for policing this year — and to revisit the issue. We'll revisit it from the standpoint of whether it should be phased by number, versus going to the whole 70 percent, and maybe looking at having communities of 1,000 pay a certain percent; 2,000 pay a certain percent; and that sort of a thing — how we would deal with regional districts and how we can actually look at that being a fair formula and somehow get the fairness of balance back into the whole discussion of policing.

We have a couple of areas of the province that jurisdictional-wise have pressures that are brought as a result of the relationship with the regional district or the community next door. In one community, every time there is a call outside of the community — which still has a fairly large population base — the city that is paying 90 percent of the policing gets upset that its members go out there to handle the caller to assist with the call. They're not being paid for that time of those officers. We have a concern about that whole sort of cross-germination of relationships in policing. The formula of funding is part of that aspect.

The second aspect, though, is that I have given direction to our provincial force and the RCMP to work on regional models for policing so we can take down those borders and average our personnel back and forth, and so that we can get the fairness in the service out there in the relationship, even within our current funding formulas. We're actually having some success with that.

I'm pleased about that, because I think it's important that we don't have the attitude of: "I won't go over there and deal with that call because it's just outside my municipal boundaries." That's not good for policing and not good for public safety. We will walk through another process in the next number of months leading up to UBCM this fall to see if we can get there with something that is palatable, with something that is fair, and that people buy into. I don't anticipate that's going to be an easy process.

J. MacPhail: I assume the funding is status quo until that time. Has the minister set a deadline for funding changes, if any? Is there a dispute resolution mechanism?

Hon. R. Coleman: It would need legislation, first of all. In order to do it, as we understand it, it would be a police tax act or something along those lines. In addition to that, we're funding policing, and we haven't cut the police budget. We've actually added to the police budget in a number of ways, in addition to having to cover off other contingencies such as the major investigation we have in Port Coquitlam, which has put significant pressures on policing in the past 12 months.

The future policing isn't tied to a funding formula. We will police the province. We are committed to it. If we're successful, we're successful. That would go to general revenue but we have the commitment to funding of policing from Treasury Board for the future.

J. MacPhail: The other area in terms of sharing of costs is: has Bill 12 actually passed, the Police Amendment Act? Okay. I will ask in the House how it will work, but it does seem there will be costs borne for the new information management system by the municipalities. I'm wondering whether that is forming part of the discussions with UBCM.

Hon. R. Coleman: PRIME-BC will change policing. It will also increase the efficiency of law enforcement so we actually think we're going to get savings in policing to those communities. We're paying for the capital. We're paying for the setup and the infrastructure, and we're paying for the first year of operations.

As we go forward, it is anticipated the costs will be approximately $300 per officer per year. That will be the maintenance of the system. There isn't another system you could possibly put into information management that is even in some of our police departments yet. Today you can get that efficiency of dollar level simply because of the sheer size of the project and the volume of people that will be using it. We're pretty comfortable, and they currently pay about $300 per member for PIRS, which is the existing records system. It really comes pretty close to a wash.

J. MacPhail: The last area that is particularly close to my heart is community policing. The minister knows well that community police offices in Vancouver are very concerned. I happen to be a huge supporter of the community policing offices that exist in my riding. They've made an unbelievable difference to the neighbourhoods in which they exist. I think the other Vancouver MLAs would say the same about their community policing offices. I've heard the minister's argument that it is not a reduction of funding, that it is a redistribution of funding. Nevertheless, in Vancouver it does mean a reduction of funding.

Maybe the minister does know how well it's working in my riding, but it is working so well. The community police office is actually part of the business investment association office. It has made huge changes to the safety of the neighbourhood. It has an excellent working relationship with the beat cops, the city bylaw enforcement officers — the ones who go in and kind of enforce residential tenancy laws, etc. It's got a great relationship with the schools, and in my riding if children get a chance to be on the street, crime rises.

I'm not necessarily making a cause and effect there, but it seems to happen. I worry terribly about my

community police offices not continuing. I know that is true in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I know it to be true of the one in Vancouver-Kingsway. If I've left ones out, I apologize for that. What commitment can the minister make to ensure that community policing does not suffer in Vancouver?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so the member understands the history. In 1996 there was a one-time grant of $150,000 made by the then Attorney General with an announcement and press release done, etc. It actually, for some reason, continued. It was supposed to be a one-time grant to the city for community policing offices. It was the only community in the province that was receiving a $150,000 grant for its community policing office. Every other community applies for their grant for their offices, which is $5,000 per office. We have the funds set aside for Vancouver, just like for any other community that wants to apply for the grants for the community policing offices.

You're right; there are some very, very good community policing offices in Vancouver that are functioning very well. I'm told there are others that there is some concern with in the police department as to how they are functioning. They will work through their process internally to make sure they put community policing on the ground.

Basically, it is effectively a $3,000 per community policing office reduction in the city of Vancouver. They're entitled to the first $90,000 because there's $5,000 per office available to them. The city is committed to making up that shortfall in relation to how the number of offices sort of shakes out and how community policing goes from here in the future of the city.

I think you have a very good working relationship in most of your offices with your police departments. That's my understanding. There are some that they've had some concerns about. I think you have seen a change in your police departments, too, with a new chief, a change in some of your senior management and the direction they're going in working with the community. I think it bodes very well for the future of community policing in the city of Vancouver. The historical perspective will be fine. We'll continue to put up the same grant for community policing offices in Vancouver as we do anywhere else in the province.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I am aware of the history of the funding of community policing offices, particularly in Vancouver.

The reason why a one-time grant turned into continuous grants year after year is because they were effective. It was announced by the previous government, of which I was part. The first announcement was that it would be a one-time grant. They were successful. Therefore, the funding continued year after year.

I mean, it's just one of many situations where you can die by a thousand cuts. What I want to do is urge the minister to ensure that the effectiveness of community policing remains viable all around the province and particularly, in Vancouver, which has the longest history of community policing in the province.

It's fine that the city of Vancouver is going to work with community police offices to get them all up to the highest possible standard, to the highest common denominator, but when that occurs — and all the community police offices will be effective — funding then must flow. I know, in my own community, that if my community police office closes, the community will be worse off from a safety and security point of view. I guarantee it.

I'm pleased that our new city council has agreed to continue the funding. Again, for a government that wants to make sure they're not downloading costs, this is an area they have to keep a close eye on.

Hon. R. Coleman: Community policing isn't just an office; it's a philosophy. I'm sure the member is aware of that. There may have been early successes in 1996, but some of the comments that were coming back from people who were in government when I actually discussed this with the municipal government a year and a half ago had some concerns and were not opposed to us phasing out the grant or cutting it.

At the same time, I think what we're talking about is, possibly, $60,000 in a community where the member should know we actually picked up a cost in excess of $3 million, which we gave to Vancouver when we took over the major investigation with regard to the downtown east side. I think there has been fairness from my ministry in relationship to the city of Vancouver and policing, and we have a very good working relationship with that police department. I have a lot of confidence that the police department will have very good working relationships with these community policing offices.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that we rise, report resolutions and seek leave to sit again.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY