Hansard -- Thursday, March 13, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 12, No. 14 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5505

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5506
	Procurement Services Act (Bill 23) Hon. S. Santori

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5506
	Journée Internationale de la Francophonie R. Stewart NoRooz celebration R. Sultan AMBER alert system B. Penner

Oral Questions		5508
	Eligibility review for disability benefits J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell B.C. Hydro agreement with Accenture P. Nettleton Hon. R. Neufeld Seniors facilities and non-profit sector W. Cobb Hon. K. Whittred Early childhood development S. Orr Hon. L. Reid Eligibility review for disability benefits J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell

Petitions		5510
	J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents		5510
	Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report for year ending March 31, 2002 Hon. G. Collins

Committee of Supply		5510
	Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) V. Anderson Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail B. Suffredine R. Nijjar I. Chong R. Hawes

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: I am pleased to welcome to this chamber the Hon. Stéphane Dion, president of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the government of Canada. Minister Dion is in British Columbia this week to talk about the new federal action plan for official languages that was announced yesterday in Ottawa by the Prime Minister and Minister Dion. We look forward to expanding the Canada–B.C. partnership with services to the francophone community and French-language programs in British Columbia.

He is accompanied in the gallery by three staff members: Robert Asselin, Dan Hurly and Anne Scotten. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: Today in the members' gallery we have special guests from New Zealand. His Excellency Wade Armstrong is the high commissioner for New Zealand to Canada, and he is accompanied by Tony O'Brien, consul general of New Zealand at Vancouver. High Commissioner Armstrong will be leaving Canada shortly, and he is visiting Victoria to make some goodbye calls. We wish him well. Would you please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

R. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to introduce several members of B.C.'s francophone community, who joined us in the legislative rotunda this afternoon for a celebration of the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. I'm pleased to introduce M. Claude Provencher, the president, and Yseult Friolet, executive director, of Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Jean-Yves Defay, the consul general for France; Christopher Natuik from Heritage Canada; Diane Tremblay from Societé francophone de Victoria; Chantal Lefebvre from Regroupment des gens d'affaires de Victoria; Vincent Portal from Societé de developpement économique; Andrée Chenier et Paulette Bouffard from Éducacentre; and Nancy Taylor from Canadian Parents for French. Would the House please make them welcome.

Also, it's my pleasure, on behalf of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, to introduce the choir from l'École Brodeur in his riding. L'École Brodeur choir was able to sing some songs for us in celebration of the francophone community. Joining the students are Danielle Dupuis, Josee Paris, Jacques Gareau, Gisele Samson, Sandy Gaudet and Bertrand Dupin as well as Alain Robert. Je demande à l'Assemblie de les accueillir chaleureusement. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the House today are the grade 5 students from Holy Trinity School in North Vancouver, led by their teacher Ms. Iacus and guided by principal Chris Sumner, parish priest Terry Larkin and parents who dig deep into their pockets to support this fine institution. Holy Trinity is first and foremost a Catholic school developing a full range of spiritual, intellectual, social and physical skills. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: With us today in the gallery are teaching assistants from the University of British Columbia. They're here to declare their respect for the power of the Legislature: Alex Aylett, Carey Hill, Kevin Gould, Stacy Bulloch, Meaghan Enright, Martin Duarte, Ben Friedland and Randal Clark. They're here to show, actually, how upset they are with the most recent legislation. They only took strike action as a last resort and would urge this government to take much different action in terms of urging the employer to do the right thing and bargain in good faith.

Hon. C. Hansen: Genome B.C. is an organization that is part of the leading edge of research in Canada in making sure B.C. takes its place in the forefront of high-tech research and advanced research in Canada. I'm very pleased to welcome today Allan Winter, the president, and Bruce Schmidt, the vice-president. I hope the House will join me in welcoming them today.

D. MacKay: Today, visiting from the northwest, I have two guests from the Burns Lake area and one from Prince George, I believe. I have Richard Peters, chief of the Cheslatta band; Terry Kuzma from Prince George, who is the Cheslatta Forest Products director; and James Rakoshy, who is the forest manager for Cheslatta Forest Products. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

K. Stewart: I would like to make a short tribute to the Pitt Meadows Secondary School grade 8 basketball team, the Pitt Meadows Marauders. Under their coach Jim Haworth and the mentorship of Rich Goulet, they managed to lose only one game for them in their whole season. Fortunately, it wasn't in the finals against the Delta Pacers, which they beat 54-52. I'm sure that as pleased as Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are with the Pitt Meadows Marauders, Delta may be feeling the pinch a bit, so my sympathies go out to them.

We all know that all the great athletes come out to Maple Ridge. I won't bore the House and make them jealous by listing them, but I would just like to ask the House to join us today in giving this group of young gentlemen a well-earned round of applause.

R. Harris: Somewhere up there today we're joined by a very good friend of mine from Terrace: Frank Cutler. Frank is one of those breed of loggers that's been around forever and does just a tremendous job of eking out a living in one of the toughest forest districts in this province. It's really a pleasure for me to have Frank

Hon. M. Coell: I would like to welcome to the House three former members: Peter Rolston, Art Cowie and Hugh Curtis. I've sort of followed Hugh Curtis for many years as an alderman in Saanich, mayor in Saanich, chair of the capital regional district and a minister of the government of B.C. I'm very pleased to welcome them all here today and hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: I had the great pleasure this morning of joining Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in opening certainly the biggest and what I suspect will be the most successful exhibition ever held at the Royal B.C. Museum: the Chinese Dragon Bones exhibit. It is huge and it's spectacular, and I'm sure it's going to be a great success.

I'm delighted that there are so many kids in the gallery today because what I have here — Mr. Speaker, with your generous dispensation — is a dinosaur fingernail from approximately a hundred million years ago. It's slightly larger than my own, as you may note. For kids of all ages, this show is going be spectacular. British Columbians get to see, before anyone else in the western world, these Chinese dinosaur treasures — some up to 250 million years old, if you can imagine.

I'm also advised that one of the three rarest fossils in the world is part of the show. It's a dinosaur egg. No, it's not the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. I take strong exception to that suggestion. It is in fact a dinosaur egg, perfectly intact. It's a fascinating exhibit. I know it's one of the three rarest fossils in the world, because I've been told that by one of the leading experts in the world on dinosaur bones, or paleontology, Dr. Don Lessem, who is in the gallery today. I do want to say that Don is not only one of the world's leading authorities on dinosaurs, but I think he's also the world's funniest leading authority on dinosaurs. Although, I guess I'd have to say that I've only met one, but that doesn't necessarily diminish how funny he is.

While I'm at it, could we all join together in a huge welcome for Dr. Don and wishing the Royal B.C. Museum spectacular success on their very spectacular show.

Mr. Speaker: It's apropos that this be followed by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

In the gallery today is Wally Smith, who is the president of the B.C. Milk Producers Association. Please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: I just wanted to point out to the House that Wally Smith is actually one of my friends.

Mr. Speaker: I also, hon. members, wanted to point out to the House that the three former members who were introduced earlier are all members of the Association of Former MLAs, and they wish me to remind some of you that you may want to join their association at one time or another.

Hon. S. Santori presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Procurement Services Act.

Hon. S. Santori: Bill 23 introduces new procurement legislation to replace an outdated Purchasing Commission Act in response to the new-era commitment to promote fair and open procurement in government. The changes in the bill remove a commission structure that has not functioned for many years. It removes or replaces obsolete terminology and authorities, provides statutory authority for acquisition and disposition activities on behalf of ministries and those public sector agencies choosing to participate. It provides statutory authority to recommend procurement practices, to support fair and open procurement in government. It supports government's shared service initiative and supports government's deregulation initiative.

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

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Stewart: I'm pleased that the Speaker and many other members of this Legislature were able to join in the celebration of Journée Internationale de la Francophonie over the noonhour. As the MLA responsible for francophone affairs in B.C., I want to thank the representatives of the francophone community, the wonderful choir from L'École Brodeur and the many other francophones and francophiles who came out for this joyous occasion.

Each year we recognize the Journée de la Francophonie in honour of an international agreement signed by francophone countries on March 20, 1970, in Nigeria. This time of year is a opportunity to embrace the francophone culture and celebrate diversity. For exam-

ple, a few weeks ago I participated with the member for Nanaimo in the festival de sucre d'érable in his community, and my family and I spent most of last weekend celebrating the Festival du Bois in my community of Maillardville, celebrating the richness of our heritage and culture.

Of course, this week was designated as French Immersion Week in British Columbia.

Il me fait grand plaisir d'annoncer la proclamation du 20 mars comme Journée de la francophonie. Notre gouvernement travaille en étroite collaboration avec la communauté francophone et le gouvernement fédéral pour mettre en place des services publics de qualité en français dans des secteurs clés comme la santé, la justice et le développement économique. Aujourd'hui nous avons lancé une page bilingue sur le site web du gouvernement pour faciliter l'accès à l'information et aux services en français pour tous.

[It gives me great pleasure to announce the proclamation of March 20 as the Journée de la Francophonie. Our government is working closely with the francophone community and the federal government to offer quality public services in French, particularly in key areas such as health, justice and economic development. Today we launched a bilingual web page on the government web site to facilitate access to information and services in French.]

I want to thank the francophone community and their regional and provincial associations for their commitment to their language and culture and for working constructively with this government to make services more accessible to all British Columbians. I want to recognize my caucus and cabinet colleagues for their support and thank my federal counterparts — especially Minister Dion, who joins us in the House today — who have been working with us to provide better services to B.C.'s francophones through our framework agreement.

There are many celebrations taking place around the province. This week many members of caucus were able to share poutine and tourtière. I ask you to join with your francophone communities around the province this week. Merci.

R. Sultan: I rise to ask this House to acknowledge NoRooz or new day, or the first day of the new year, which our Iranian community will celebrate on March 21. NoRooz marks the spring equinox, when the sun is, shall we say, equally north and south. It's an ancient celebration of the renewal of life. NoRooz has its roots going back at least 3,000 years in the religions of ancient Persia. It's been celebrated by Persian-speaking cultures from ancient Mesopotamia all the way to Badakshann and Bokhara on the borders of China. Persian society has a legitimate claim to having produced one of the world's first working democracies and an ancient code that cherishes peace, justice and beauty, while regarding all disorder and threats to life as evil.

Today the Iranian Canadian community has a large and rapidly growing presence in British Columbia. Our more than 30,000 citizens of Iranian background bring culture, advanced education and superb business skills to many communities, particularly those on the North Shore. We are pleased to join these remarkable people in the celebration of NoRooz.

B. Penner: Yesterday many of us rejoiced at news that 15-year-old Elizabeth Smart of Utah had been found and reunited with her family nine months after being abducted from her bedroom in Salt Lake City. This truly is wonderful news, but sadly, it's not the usual outcome of this type of child abduction. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, in 74 percent of abduction homicides the child is killed within the first three hours.

I'm sure we would all like to do more to protect our most precious resource, which isn't oil. It's not gold; it's not even our forests. It is our children. Today Elizabeth Smart's father challenged U.S. legislators to get on with implementing a national AMBER alert plan, a voluntary partnership between law enforcement agencies and the private sector. Following an agreed-upon protocol, police quickly alert commercial radio and television outlets during the critical first few moments following a child abduction to provide vital details. As of today, 39 states have announced intentions to adopt or already have adopted AMBER alert plans, and a number of Canadian provinces have also announced such plans.

The systems in the U.S. are credited with recovering 49 children so far, including a high-profile case last August when two teenage girls were abducted in Orange County in California. The girls were found about 12 hours later, just as it appeared their abductor was getting ready to kill them.

With the provincewide implementation of the new PRIME information-sharing system for police in British Columbia, we will soon have a solid foundation for such an AMBER alert plan here. A comprehensive AMBER alert plan in B.C. would provide another tool for police by alerting the public and using their eyes and ears in the search for missing children.

Beyond PRIME and an AMBER alert plan for B.C., there's still more that can be done, including tougher sentences for child abusers and an expansion of Canada's federal DNA database for convicted criminals to give police additional opportunities to catch and identify criminals before they strike again.

Let's be thankful for the safe return of Elizabeth Smart, and let's all work to make our province a safer place for children.

J. MacPhail: Earlier throughout this week, we've learned how this government is attacking seniors who are poor, students who are poor and foster kids who are poor. For days now, the Minister of Human Resources has given confused and contradictory answers to some simple questions about the disability review. He said the budget for the program has gone up this year. Wrong. It's being cut by $4 million. He said 6,000 new British Columbians have the assistance that they need. Wrong. His latest stats show, at best, a minor increase.

He said the purpose of the disability review is not to take benefits away. Wrong again. The opposition has obtained an internal ministry communications plan that I'll quote from: "The ministry expects that about 9,130 disability 2 clients — 20 percent of the caseload — will not meet the new criteria." Will he now come clean and admit that his plan all along was to kick people off disability benefits to save money and keep his bonus?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that we changed the legislation last year, that 90 percent of the people who were on then disability 2 were moved directly into the persons with disability, and there was no review necessary. She also knows that 14,000 needed reviews due to the lack of information on their files either because of new eligibility requirements or because the old files had not been updated for a long time.

I think the member should also know there are only approximately 500 people left for us to contact. We have contacted, and…. The rest of the review forms have been received, are in doctors' offices or health assessors' offices or are on their way in, so we have ample time for assessments to be done and further contact to be made. I would also like to comment that 6,600 new applications have been received. That's 6,600 people who believe the new designation fits their needs.

We also have 3,200 more cases who are receiving disability assistance since we took office. We've also increased from $200 to $400 the amount of dollars that people with disabilities can earn and keep. We also have the third-highest rate of disability assistance in Canada, and we've increased the disability employment programs by $11 million.

J. MacPhail: Clearly, the minister spends too much time reading his own news releases, but I'll tell you, the spin just doesn't fly. He has spent millions forcing disabled people to go through this review…

J. MacPhail: …with one purpose in mind: to kick them off and cut costs so that he can keep his bonus. It's all very well and good…

J. MacPhail: …for the minister to try to spin backward when he gets caught out, but the document proves exactly what they had in mind. Again to the minister, a simple question: how many people does he expect will lose their benefits to meet his budget targets?

Hon. M. Coell: I think what the member fails to realize is that we're trying to focus the moneys we have on those who are most in need. The disability caseload, and she should know this from being minister, is fluid. There are people who come on and go off every year. I think that at the end of this review….

Hon. M. Coell: At the end of this review process, I think you'll find there are actually more people receiving disability assistance.

J. MacPhail: It is incredible that this minister stands up and repeats statistics and claims that because he says it, it's true. His own stats from his ministry show he is not accurate. The budget has been cut, and there are a few more who have been on DB-2. A political appointee in the public affairs writing a communications plan doesn't just pick a number like 9,130 out of the air. A political appointee doesn't say the caseload will be reduced by 20 percent.

It must have been based on an analysis that the minister did to justify his cost-cutting exercise. The minister should just tell the truth. He should admit what his own documents reveal. From the start of this exercise, it was about kicking people off benefits, but…

J. MacPhail: Absolutely. If the minister says it's not true, is not accurate, all he has to do is prove it. Table the documents he used to convince his cabinet that they should spend $3 million to force disabled British Columbians to submit to a review of the benefits. Will he table that document now?

Hon. M. Coell: Right from the beginning, this member has just fearmongered….

Hon. M. Coell: Right from the beginning of this process, which is six months old now, this member has fearmongered with her friends and has frightened people with disabilities. I can tell you that at the end of this process, some people will come on, and some people will go off. There will be more people receiving disability assistance.

P. Nettleton: I have a question for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. To the minister: I have made a formal request of the office of the auditor general of British Columbia to investigate the nature and circumstances of the B.C. government's recently signed contract between the private company Accenture and B.C. Hydro. Minister, are you aware that people all across this province have serious concerns about the deal B.C. Hydro and this government have made with Accenture?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro has entered into an agreement to outsource some services with a firm named Accenture British Columbia. This deal will save ratepayers of British Columbia Hydro $250 million over the next five years. This contract will guarantee that service levels will be no less than they are today and in fact will get better in time. It is a new business in Vancouver that can secure other business from around North America. This is a good deal for B.C. Hydro, and this is a good deal for the ratepayers of British Columbia Hydro.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Omineca has a supplementary question.

P. Nettleton: Minister, are you then saying that the people of British Columbia are happy that the government has handed over control of their public utility to a private company named Accenture, which was called Anderson Consulting before 2001 — an American company which is blacklisted in California, registered in the Bahamas to avoid paying taxes and is now registering in British Columbia? Is your government now making B.C. a banana republic and a tax shelter for every disreputable company that needs a place to hide and profit outside of their own country's laws? Is that what this government means when it says B.C. is open for business?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, as usual, this member is ill-informed. This company operates in over 40 countries around the world. It operates in Canada, has a business office in Canada and now has a head office in British Columbia where they will pay British Columbia taxes, where they will be able to access $58 billion worth of outsourcing in North America in the future, which will grow that business and create jobs in British Columbia — private sector jobs. That's the kind of investment we need in British Columbia.

I would say to the member, who tries to talk about a company that's registered in Bermuda, that he should look around a little bit and see how many companies are registered in Bermuda. I mean, if you own Sun Life Assurance, which owns Clarica…. Their head office is in Bermuda. Just because of that, this member assails that company, but this is a good deal for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order, please. The member for Cariboo South has the floor.

W. Cobb: …is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. For years, non-profit societies around B.C. provided health care services for seniors through community-owned facilities. Unfortunately, under the previous NDP government and their no-direction-in-health-care, they expropriated many of these facilities with little or no public consultation or compensation. Can the minister tell my constituents if there's any hope that these facilities may be returned to the societies that started them?

Hon. K. Whittred: Our government values the extremely important role that non-profit societies play, unlike the previous government, which was interested in taking over their property. We have committed to building 5,000 beds with the assistance of the non-profit sector.

Hon. K. Whittred: That is the reason that one of the very first actions this government took was to amend the Health Authorities Act to repeal the right of health

authorities to expropriate the property of societies. In specific answer to the member's question, we have in fact developed a policy where both parties are interested in transferring property from the health authority to the non-profit society. We have developed a process to accommodate that end, and I would be happy to work with the member in this process.

S. Orr: My question is to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. A child's early years are critical to the course and outcome of their life. It has been shown that children's development from birth to age six can affect their schooling, their job choices and their lifelong health.

Can the minister please tell us what her ministry is doing to ensure that our children have the best possible start in life?

Hon. L. Reid: I have the privileged position of having a Premier who's prepared to go forth from the base of good science. Many of you will know that Dr. Clyde Hertzman has come on to assist this province in driving better public policy regarding the best learning for youngsters in our province.

The human early learning partnership in British Columbia goes forward and involves…

Hon. L. Reid: …more than 100 university researchers today who are all about discovering what, in fact, should be on the résumé of a typical five-year-old when they cross the threshold into their first kindergarten classroom. That work, the mapping work across our province, the EDI — early development indicator — will drive the best public policy that, indeed, will guarantee a very, very fine outcome for our youngest learners in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Back to the Minister of Human Resources. I guess he's trying to deny this document. Maybe he'll try to deny this document, his own monthly statistics from January 2003. At least a few British Columbians are being told they get to keep their benefits, but thousands of others are being forced to wait. His own ministry has acknowledged that. They have no idea what criteria will be used to boot them off disability — a permanent designation, by the way. The legislation doesn't tell them. The minister didn't tell them what the criteria were in the debate in this Legislature. The minister certainly won't come clean during question period.

So again to the minister: what criteria are front-line workers using to determine who loses their benefits, and will he table the manual that contains those criteria today?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, the review forms are filled out by clients, medical doctors and health professionals. The individuals are adjudicated based on that information. I think the member has to…

Hon. M. Coell: …go back a few years to when her own government was in. In 1991, when unemployment rates were going down, what happened to the caseload for people who were on temporary assistance? It doubled. The management of the former government, without any studies, without any checks and balances, could have built 12 fast ferries on the welfare experiment they used. This government is working with people to make sure they find employment. This government is working…

Hon. M. Coell: …with people to make sure they achieve their highest potential.

J. MacPhail: I rise today to table a petition signed by 2,500 people living in Salmon Arm who are opposed to the closure of Pioneer Lodge. They point out that the health of 75 seniors is being threatened by forced relocation and that the community is losing valuable long-term care beds.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the twenty-sixth annual report of the Public ServiceBenefit Plan Act, year ended March 31, 2002.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

V. Anderson: I'm looking at the minister's service plan. I'd like to ask for clarification on some items, if I might. On page 15 of the service plan we talk about surveys of students to understand where they are at in their development. One of those surveys is the survey on social development, the percentage of public school students that report overall satisfaction in human and social development.

I'm wondering if the minister would explain to us what the human and social development category covers in that survey. That's over against stewardship on the top, surveyed environment and academic in the others.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that the topics we cover in that questionnaire, which is conducted in conjunction with the foundation skills assessment in grades 4, 7 and 10, cover off much of the research that has been provided by Clyde Hertzman in some of the work he's done. We've tried to learn from that — questions about integrity and how they view ethical questions, racism and how they view some of the questions around multiculturalism, how they think about democracy and civic involvement and those types of questions.

V. Anderson: I was curious because I noticed that the percentages in those particular areas are the lowest percentages we have, and they seem to decrease with the age of the young people and the grade they're in. Is there a particular plan in the curriculum to relate to these items as they are developed in the curriculum program?

Hon. C. Clark: It's difficult to compare the percentages in this human social development questionnaire with the percentages we get, for example, on foundation skills assessment. It's impossible to compare testing tools that way. This is, though, a baseline year, and we're always looking to tune up the questionnaire and make sure it works as well as it can. I'm sure we'll be making some changes this year to make sure it works better.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that this is a baseline in this current year, and we'll look forward to it in future years.

It's a simple question perhaps. On page 17 — again, we're looking at developmental process, talking about the percentage of principals who are satisfied with school bandwidths — I'm not sure if the general public will understand what is meant by school bandwidths, so I thought it might be useful to have it explained for them.

Hon. C. Clark: We're trying to make sure that all schools are connected with more than just dial-up access to the Internet. Anybody who uses the Internet, who has an Internet connection and has had one for some time, will remember when they had to push a button and it would dial a phone. You might get through; you might get a busy signal. In some communities that is their only access to the Internet.

We want to make sure all communities have the broadband access, which means they have that instantaneous connection to the Internet, that is not just important for regular access but important for the size of documents that one can transport through the system as well. You can't download big websites, for example, or even sometimes medium-sized or small websites, if you only have dial-up access. We want to make sure that access is equitable across the province. We have a few hundred communities that aren't hooked up and don't have, we think, sufficient broadband access, and we're working on that.

V. Anderson: Moving on to page 18 in the plan, talking about the satisfaction of the parents with the school process. I realize that community schools aren't funded under the Ministry of Education at this point, but I'm wondering if the minister can reflect on the significance that community school programs have had in involving parents and families of the community in the total school process.

Hon. C. Clark: Community schools have had varying levels of success in involving parents in schools. Some have had tremendous success; some have had a little more limited success. Not every school is designated a community school, either, and receives funding for that. I believe that every single school should involve parents as fully and meaningfully as possible. That's why we created school planning councils, one in every school, with a majority of parents on the board. They will have, for the first time, guaranteed, meaningful input into the plans for growth for each of their schools.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering, then, if the minister would also elaborate for people the purpose and scope of the community planning council, which is a new program and very little understood by the community at large as yet.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm guessing the member was referring, perhaps, to a school planning council as opposed to a community planning council. We have a school planning council at every single school — one principal, one teacher and three parents at the secondary level. I've stated my intention to try and make sure we can add a student, so that it's actually six people on the planning council. They do a mini–accountability con-

tract for every school. That means they go out, they look at their results, they set goals for improvement on those results based on the foundation skills assessment and other kinds of assessments they do in their school, and then they put together a plan to try and reach those goals.

V. Anderson: Another question on page 21. I noticed the survey of principals and vice-principals indicating the amount of time they spend in the classroom. Is the suggestion here that they should be teaching in the classroom? Is this visitation in the classroom? I'm wondering what the relationship is with both principals and vice-principals that you're expecting as a result of this question.

Hon. C. Clark: We believe that instructional leadership, which is the role of a principal and vice-principal, means that they are in the classroom working with teachers, making sure the instructional methods are sound and assisting teachers where the instructional methods could be improved. That's part of the regular supervision of a school. Parents expect that kind of leadership from principals and vice-principals, and frankly, so do we in the ministry.

V. Anderson: Another area in which the parents are very concerned in my area of the city, where we have many older schools, is plans for earthquake upgrading. That's a major concern among many of my school parents.

Hon. C. Clark: We provide $100 million a year to school districts for money to upgrade schools. It's a lot of money. We distribute it throughout districts, and they are able to use that for whatever purpose they want to try and improve the capital infrastructure of their schools. The Ministry of Finance manages the seismic mitigation program, and I understand there was some discussion of that in those Finance estimates.

If I could carry on, on the issue of seismic upgrading, we did have some discussion in the Ministry of Finance estimates about seismic upgrading, and I understand that the seismic upgrading has been prepaid to school boards.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't want to stray too far into the Ministry of Finance estimates, and I don't want to really set a precedent in this discussion where we're talking about Ministry of Finance estimates. Those questions are better put to the Minister of Finance, if the member would like to explore those questions further. I know she did have some opportunity to talk to him about that during his estimates. My understanding is that the Ministry of Finance is prepaying those.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I made a statement; I didn't ask a question. That is my understanding. The minister is quite right; we had that discussion. But what the Minister of Finance couldn't answer and referred me to these estimates is…. The prepaying of the seismic upgrading which the Minister of Finance says was the full prepay of the $133 million over four years program that was started in '98, which is fine…. But the prepay to the school boards leaves the decisions for determining seismic upgrading to the school boards. I'm wondering whether the minister can say whether her expertise…. Let me ask this, then. Is there any expertise that remains in the Ministry of Education that assists school boards in determining those priorities?

J. MacPhail: I'm going to do a little bit of MLA casework here rather than the broader issue. For instance, there's one school in my riding that's been quite vociferous. I laud them, the students. I think ministry staff will know it's Vancouver Tech. In terms of working with my school board…. So I'll now work with my school board on ensuring that that's paid. But does the school board still have access to…?

Let me put it this way: when I go to my school board, can I refer the school board experts in this area to information that can be gleaned from the Ministry of Education in order to come to a satisfactory conclusion to upgrading? I'm not in any way suggesting…. I will be going there strictly as an advocate, not in any other capacity.

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, there certainly are. The ministry, I think, has been in contact with the Vancouver school board, so they know who the relevant people are to talk to about that.

J. MacPhail: That was not as part of the order that I had given the minister. Now we're going to move to targeted funding. We did have a discussion about that in the context of the Rozanski report. Under this government there has been a change so that in terms of funding, am I correct in saying there's one area left of targeted funding, which is aboriginal program funding?

J. MacPhail: I want to explore what the consequences are of the change in the system. Under the previous funding formula…. I think the system of targeted funding expanded under the New Democrat government, but it certainly was in place in the 1980s, as well, under the Social Credit government. The previous governments had a system to target funds to special needs students. Those funds were monitored by government, and in the monitoring, special education programs were protected. As a matter of fact, there was certainly a challenge made in the 1990s that school boards were spending beyond the targeted programs. I know that the school boards still receive funding for special needs children, but as the minister acknowledged earlier this morning, there are no

strings attached now. What is the monitoring, if any, around spending for special needs children?

Hon. C. Clark: We do random audits of school districts and make sure their numbers are what they say they are.

Second, we are doing random audits of individual education plans, not something we've ever done before. We're going to be going out and just checking that schools are actually putting in place the individual education plans that they are obliged to put in place under the law. That's been a big source of complaint we've heard from parents of special needs children. We want to make sure those IEPs are in place.

Third, accountability contracts will focus on outcomes. There will be, in each accountability contract, recognition of the fact that we need to disaggregate the data for special needs kids and make sure special needs kids are doing better year on year, just as we expect typical kids to be doing.

Hon. C. Clark: We've done seven districts so far. We found varying levels of compliance with individual education plans. We expect that the actual content of those reports will be made public within the next couple of weeks.

J. MacPhail: Let's just take the seven districts, then. I'd appreciate information on this question across the school system, but I'd be happy to do it just for the seven districts. How many fewer teachers are there now allocated to those districts that are teaching special education programs?

Hon. C. Clark: We're looking at the outcomes for special needs kids — that's our focus — not just the inputs, which I think are less relevant than what they're actually achieving. Some districts have decided to manage this differently than others. Some will say, "This child needs a teacher and a couple of aides," or, "These students need just a couple of aides," or they may need a couple of teachers. Different districts manage those things differently, and it depends on the needs of the children in those individual classrooms.

J. MacPhail: With respect, that's a little bit glib. There is an acknowledged role for special education teachers in every education system across Canada and, in fact, across North America. For those special needs programs that require teachers in the seven districts — I actually would prefer the information across the system…. Has there been a reduction in special needs teachers doing special needs programs?

Hon. C. Clark: The audits didn't make a special note of what the staffing levels were. They were interested in the outcomes.

J. MacPhail: What kind of audit addresses an outcome that doesn't include who's delivering the services?

Hon. C. Clark: The audit looks at the number of children in the school who are declared to be special needs by the school district and makes sure that the children actually being funded are there. There have been cases where we've overfunded districts, but there are also cases where we've underfunded districts, based on the number of special needs children in their schools. How they decide they want to teach those children is a decision we have decided is best left up to the school district.

J. MacPhail: How does an audit come up with outcomes if, indeed, you're not looking at the children themselves but just the funding of those children?

Hon. C. Clark: The external review teams also go out and look at the outcomes for special needs children. They go and look at individual education plans and make sure those individual education plans are appropriate for the kids they're being built for and that the drawing up of those plans has involved the parents, the teachers and all the appropriate members of the community that need to be a part of the planning for that child.

J. MacPhail: I am less comforted by the minister's answers at the end than at the beginning, because the audit that the minister is doing is a funding audit. Those are not new, but with funding audits in the past, because they were targeted funding, the ministry then had to deliver the services attached to that funding. The auditing now is just to make sure, I guess, that the boards are getting the right amount of money, but there's then no follow-up to how the children are treated. How is it that people are supposed to know about how special needs children in our system are doing?

Hon. C. Clark: Clearly, there's a philosophical difference between the government and the opposition on this question. We believe, as a government, and the philosophy that we ran on in the election is that school districts would have the autonomy to decide how they wanted to manage their budgets, including staffing for their schools. We are interested in the outcomes they are producing in terms of standards and making sure that kids are doing better year on year. We set those in place, and we monitor them.

How school districts reach those goals, however, is up to districts, and that is, I think, a philosophical difference between the government and the opposition. We could have a debate about the value of one approach over the other, but that's the approach our government has been taking for the last year and a half, and it's the approach we said we would take during the election.

I'm not sure why the minister suggests there's a philosophical difference at all. I'm just trying to seek information, with the shift from targeted funding to general funding, about how that affects children. That's what I'm trying to find out. Is it that parents are supposed to go school district by school district to figure out how many fewer or how many more teachers are allocated to special needs programs or what the outcomes are? The minister just said she's more interested in outcomes than inputs, but how does she know what the outcomes are?

Hon. C. Clark: We'll make sure that information on outcomes is available district by district and across the province. Parents can access that information.

J. MacPhail: Is there a standard report form that the school boards use to report outcomes for students with special needs?

Hon. C. Clark: Monitoring outcomes for special needs children is a little bit different than monitoring outcomes for typical children. They don't necessarily engage in a provincewide testing exercise like the foundation skills assessment that's comparative and based on the expectation that kids are starting from much the same level. Special needs kids are all much more unique. That's why we call them unique kids. It's difficult to say: "Well, we've got a standard form for these very unique kids." What we are doing, though, is…. In accountability contracts we will be able to disaggregate the data for special needs kids. We'll be able to have a discussion with each district about how those kids are doing this year and set goals for their improvement overall in the following year. It is a little bit different from the foundation skills assessment exercise that we base much of our accountability contracts on for testing the whole system in general.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm aware of that. That's why I'm trying to seek out this information. What's form 1530? Would that be a form that would be available to get information on special needs teaching?

Hon. C. Clark: That form is submitted by districts. They talk about their different staffing levels. Different districts call different staff different things. For example, some districts will identify administrative staff differently. Some will throw in principals, vice-principals; some won't. So it's not a fair measure across the system.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm just trying to find out what is. The minister just referred me to school boards. I know the minister has suggested that parents are going to have greater choice. So, how is it parents know where to enrol their children? Based on what information? I'm trying to seek that information out. If parents have a special needs child, where would they go to find out how many special needs teachers there are, how many SEAs there are and what the programs are in that particular school district? Is that form 1530? Where will this information be available?

Hon. C. Clark: I wouldn't suggest that any parent decide to send a child to a school based on staffing levels which would necessarily be from the previous year, before their child registered. Schools and school districts respond to staffing needs based on the students that are in their schools, and that shifts around year to year. That's how school districts decide what their staffing levels are going to look like. I wouldn't really suggest that a parent go to a school district, for example, and say, "Well, I want to find out where these teachers were last year," because it won't necessarily be the same thing the following year. That's why we track enrolment, and that's why school districts need the power to be able to shift staff around.

When I talk about provincewide, though, and I talk about outcomes, I'm referring specifically to accountability contracts. Those are available provincewide and set goals for improvement we're expecting over the years. This year, in particular, we'll start being quite a bit more specific about the outcomes for special needs kids.

J. MacPhail: Well, I wouldn't limit a parent's method at all on choosing where to send their children. I'm just trying to get the information about what parents look for. I think it's probably safe to say everything is retrospective, including accountability contracts. So is it that the accountability contracts will have, on a district-by-district basis, outcomes for special needs students including staffing levels, including programs offered?

Hon. C. Clark: There are goals for improvement that will be based on their results from the previous year. Those results will be accessible. More important is the goal that they'll be setting for the next year. Different accountability contracts will have different plans for being able to achieve those goals, and that will be up to the individual districts.

J. MacPhail: I take it that the minister is saying form 1530 is not useful in this area. I think that's what she said.

Teacher-librarians. What's the dialogue between the ministry and the association of teacher-librarians? Has there been any information provided to the ministry in terms of the number of teacher-librarians working in the system?

Hon. C. Clark: We've talked to the association of teacher-librarians. Well, it's more that they've talked to

us and made some submissions to us. I can't tell the member categorically off the top of my head what those submissions have been and how recent they've been. If the member has some correspondence she'd like to share with me, I'd be delighted to have a look at it. Again, staffing decisions are made at the school district level, and those discussions, where necessary, we've directed to that level.

J. MacPhail: Actually, this is the time when I get information from the government. I don't have any information. I know discussions have taken place, and I'm trying to find out what the nature of those discussions was. It's my understanding — but it's only anecdotal, so that's why I'm seeking out the real information — is that there are fewer teacher-librarians working at every level of the education system. I'm wondering: is there any different information the minister has?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, there are 7,100 fewer children in our public education system this year than last, so it could be true that staffing has gone down for districts.

J. MacPhail: I think the minister is aware that there's a system of calculating how teachers work. It's an FTE system.

I'm not quite sure why this information is so hard to get out of the ministry. It's just information, it's just data, and I think everything would indicate I'm trying to be balanced in my approach here to either put to rest some of the anecdotal stories that are out there or actually seek out what is real information. I mean, I told people that I would be standing up here asking for the real information on teacher-librarians, and I can't get that from the ministry.

Let's move on to counsellors, then. How does the ministry keep track of counsellor services to our children?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, again, we look at outcomes for school districts. We make sure they're meeting the expectations they've set for themselves and in conjunction with us. As I think the member can expect, with fewer children in the system, there are probably lower staffing levels in that area as well.

J. MacPhail: The only way that would result, actually, is if there were school closures. If the minister is acknowledging there are fewer librarians because of school closures, then I guess we can calculate that ourselves — or the parents in Victoria, I should say, will be able to calculate that themselves. The parents in Prince George will be able to calculate that themselves, and the parents in the minister's own riding will be able to calculate that themselves. Beyond that, there are staffing levels that are almost fixed, as I should say, because of the nature of one library per school.

I just was asking the minister whether she has any indication of the staffing levels within that library. I'm finding it a little bit troubling, as I stand here — how much work parents have to do to figure all this out, given the change in targeted funding.

Perhaps the minister could just explain the accountability contracts. I believe that we're into the second round of accountability contracts now. Perhaps the minister could, because I haven't had time to do this — and I make no apologies for that whatsoever — give me an example of an accountability contract that's posted now that would have this information.

Hon. C. Clark: Again, accountability contracts are focused on outcomes, and we're looking…. We very much relied on Dr. Elmore's research, which the member raised earlier, which suggests that you should focus on two or three things. The accountability contracts that she'll see posted this year will focus on literacy, discipline, behaviour issues around schools or numeracy, for example. We're encouraging schools to focus on those specific things.

The issue that the member raises about teacher-librarians and that there's always a teacher-librarian for every library isn't necessarily accurate. Lots of schools and school districts have for many, many years also used CUPE workers, who are not teacher-librarians or members of the teachers union, to help staff those libraries. It's not necessarily fair to say that the number of teacher-librarians is always equal to the number of libraries around the province.

J. MacPhail: I'd be happy if the minister had that information as well. I'd be happy to have that information. That would be a good discussion.

We're in March. What districts can go to the website and see the accountability contract and make decisions about where to put their children next year?

Hon. C. Clark: They're all up on the accountability contracts — the district review teams. We will have done 20 by the end of our process. We've already got five of those up on the web. We expect to have the rest up very, very soon. That's very important reference information for parents.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Could the minister just go through that and maybe just a little bit more slowly?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, there are 60 accountability contracts, one for every district. We also do a district review. We have a district review process. That's got two different prongs to it. We review 20 districts externally with a big team panel of people every three years — right? Well, every year we do 20, and every year another 20 also get a visit from the deputy, where he sits down with them and discusses their specific goals personally. We have a fairly specific review process. The district review is the document where…. There are

five up on the web in addition to the 60 accountability contracts, but we expect we'll have all 20 up very soon.

J. MacPhail: The accountability contracts are — I remember this from the debate last year in estimates — the goals, etc. How are they different this year in terms of outcomes?

Hon. C. Clark: They're much more specific this year. Last year was our first year, baseline year, and we expect to keep improving them and getting more specific. Some districts last year did have a fair amount of specifics. Some were really light on specifics. The accountability contracts this year have had much more focus, been much more specific about the goals they're setting. They are, for the most part, focused on literacy, on numeracy and on outcomes for aboriginal students.

J. MacPhail: So a parent with a special needs student would just assume that her child would have the same outcomes based on that?

Hon. C. Clark: Some districts have done that. Some districts have put in specific goals for meeting with their special needs students. Not all districts have done that.

Any parent that's interested in those specific focuses for school districts should phone their local school or school district, because that's where these decisions are made.

J. MacPhail: What meetings has the ministry or the minister had with parents of special needs in the last six months, and what was the nature of those discussions?

Hon. C. Clark: I have met with representatives of special needs parents on a one-on-one basis quite a number of times. I can give the member a specific number but not off the top of my head, I'm afraid. I have to go back and review my schedule. My deputy has also met with special needs parents quite frequently over the last year and a half.

It is my view, though — quite strongly — that BCCPAC, which is the parent organization, does an excellent job of representing the interests of special needs parents as well as parents of typical children — the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could just give me a sense of the feedback, then, on the changes, because the changes have been substantial in special needs in the system.

Hon. C. Clark: My sense is that parents of special needs children are continuing to monitor the progress we're making. They're watching the changes quite carefully, as the member suggested, as they should. They're pleased about some of the things we've done. Certainly, the opportunity to go out and randomly audit individual education plans addresses a big concern, potentially, of special needs parents. So they're watching carefully; they're cautious, I think. They want to monitor the progress we're making and then hold us to account for that, as they certainly should.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, the parents have to go to individual school boards to monitor the progress. I mean, that's what the minister's been telling me all along, unless that's different.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. The minister gave me an answer that, of course, that's always been the case. Actually, targeted funding has made it so that those statistics are available within the Ministry of Education, so it hasn't always been the case.

Let me try a different approach on this. My understanding is that the limit on how many special students can be in one classroom has been removed — removed by this government. What are the statistics in terms of how many special needs students there are per class now?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, I think we were pretty clear when we brought in Bill 28 that our view as government is that school districts are in the best position to make these decisions about staffing and to support the needs of the children in their classroom. It shouldn't be driven by collective agreements; it shouldn't be driven by policy that's indifferent to the needs of the individual student.

We should be making decisions to support students, based on the needs of that individual and unique student in the classroom. We expect that school districts and school principals will build their classrooms based on the needs of the students that are in the class as opposed to the needs and desires of bargainers at some bargaining table years before.

I should note, too, that while the context for collective agreements has changed for school districts, the obligations placed on them with respect to special needs children have not changed.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't referring to a collective agreement at all. I'm just asking about how many children in a classroom.

It's interesting, because this morning we had this discussion in terms of the Rozanski report in Ontario and about reciprocal accountability. The minister said: "Oh, we do that." I'm trying to figure out how they're doing that in terms of reciprocal accountability, when indeed there's been a huge amount of autonomy given to the individual school boards. Is the reciprocal accountability the minister then refers to the school board

So far the minister hasn't been able to give me any information on inputs. I fully accept…. In fact, it was I who last year brought up with the minister that inputs are only one-half of the equation and that outputs are the key. Unfortunately, you can't have outputs without inputs. So far I haven't been able to get any information on any of the changes this government has brought about, so it will be interesting to see who actually is providing the reciprocal accountability that the minister said they're already doing.

Does the ministry have regular meetings with all school boards on the topic of special needs education?

Hon. C. Clark: We regularly meet with school boards. We meet with them mostly through their representatives on the B.C. School Trustees Association. The agenda is theirs. They often raise the issue of special needs, so we have that discussion with them on a regular basis.

J. MacPhail: One of the things that has the potential of occurring when there is no longer targeted funding for special needs programs or English-language training is that school boards facing a crunch or a deficit allocate funds in a fashion differently than perhaps the original intention was there for. In fact, they — and I say this with the greatest respect to school boards — rob Peter to pay Paul as they face school crunches.

This government doesn't recognize fixed costs going up. We had that discussion around gas prices. In fact, sometimes the pressures around increased gas costs can be in the millions of dollars. One year it was, I think, $9.7 million just in the K-to-12 system. There's every potential that schools that need to heat their classrooms may look for sources of funding in areas like special needs or English-language training. It will be interesting to see how the government keeps track of student outcomes when it seems, so far, that there's no data being kept at all.

Let me ask about another area where there's been a change with this government. There used to be a legislative limit set on administrative spending, and I remember that clearly coming about. It was very much encouraged by the then opposition, who were outraged by the amount of money being spent on administration and the high salary costs of administration. It was well documented in '92, '93 and '94. The government of the day put a legislative cap on administration costs. This government has removed that in the name of local autonomy. Does the minister have any statistics on the percentage being spent on administration versus classroom?

Hon. C. Clark: The issue with funding costs is, again, where I think we part ways ideologically. We don't believe, as a government, in funding on a cost-resource-based model, which is what the previous government used for funding school districts. So if gas prices go down or if enrolment goes down — which is actually happening — we don't take money away. We plow that back into the system. Again, we're hoping that school districts will find efficiencies in things like heating and transportation costs that they wouldn't otherwise have found if we allow them to keep the savings they may find. In terms of administration, we do not target funding. We do not have caps on spending anymore. We say to school districts: "You decide where you want to spend your money, and it'll be up to you to justify that for your public when you go to an election."

J. MacPhail: Well, it's interesting, because I just watched the noonhour news about parents in the Victoria school district, and parents don't have the same view as the minister on this matter. The Victoria school board is facing a huge cash crunch — and we'll talk about that in a moment — and are having public meetings about the potential closure of five schools. One of the proposals put forward by the parents at those five schools was that the government should have a provincewide payroll system, for instance. They came to that conclusion based on the view that there might be administrative cost savings. The parents would have known that specifically if, indeed, the former system had been in place about a cap on administration. What does the minister say to those parents who made that suggestion just last night?

Hon. C. Clark: Two things. One, Victoria's schools are one-third empty. I know it's a difficult decision for school districts, and I do not underestimate how difficult that is for districts and parents, but the school district is faced with a choice of funding empty spaces or funding teachers and programs. That's the decision they have to make. In a place like Victoria, where you could literally uproot a third of the students in Sooke or Saanich and move them into the existing spaces in Victoria, they need to think about what their priority is to spend their money on. Do they want to spend it on empty spaces, or do they want to spend it on teachers and programs?

That's the decision the school district — I know it is difficult — is being faced with at the moment. Certainly, I know that parents whose children are in schools that are being considered for amalgamation have very strong feelings about that, but I know that all parents across the district, whether they are in one of those schools or not, want to make sure the district plows as much money as it can into teachers, teaching materials, resources and curriculum to make sure the schooling their kids actually get is as enriched as possible.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the parents who are protesting the school closures will be interested in the minister's comments. That wasn't my point. My point was that the parents said they shouldn't have to have their schools closed because of administrative cost savings

they thought could be made. This was actually a group of parents making a suggestion. If the minister is in favour of a provincewide payroll system, is it being considered? How would parents know now how much money is being spent on administration, district by district?

Hon. C. Clark: We are encouraging shared services wherever we can across the school system. We're moving to a provincial payroll system for government. We're going to make that available for Crowns. I hope school districts will also decide to avail themselves of it. We are encouraging these discussions with school districts as much possible. Victoria parents should go to their school district. We expect school districts to be entirely transparent about how much money they spend on administration, transportation and all other costs, and that information will be available from the district.

Hon. C. Clark: We happen to actually have that information here, so I can tell the member. I apologize that we don't have this here for every district, but because we talked earlier about the fact we were going to be discussing Victoria, I happen to have it here. Victoria's administration costs are down by 3.19 percent. That's down by $360,974. As a percentage of their operating budget it's 7.7 percent, which is actually the same as it was last year. The total in money is $10,950,146.

J. MacPhail: What's down 3.9 percent? Is that by 3.9 percentage points it's down or…?

Hon. C. Clark: That's the change over last year in terms of dollars. It's down from $11,311,120 to $10,950,146. It's important to remember that in the Victoria school district, that includes their administrative staff — the people that are typing and what we traditionally think of as civil servants — but it also includes principals and vice-principals who are school-based and providing services right at the classroom level.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and that hasn't changed. That was the definition when the administration costs were legislated.

This is very interesting. How do parents now go about discussing shared administrative costs the way that I saw in the news last night? I'm not sure. I have no idea. It was obviously just a news clip that I saw, but I expect that if the minister had said at the school meeting last night what she said in the Legislature today, there would be an interesting reaction to it — probably not that welcome. But the school board was saying exactly the same thing as the minister is saying. What are the next steps?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Did you not understand — about closing schools? Sorry, you're right.

It's about saying exactly the same thing about closing schools that the minister said — that, you know, classrooms are a third empty, etc. However, it seemed like it wasn't washing with the parents. Is the ministry going to initiate, then, a venue where school boards can talk about shared services?

Hon. C. Clark: We have actually already started that and initiated that discussion. We've had that discussion with superintendents at their annual general meeting. We've also had that discussion with secretary-treasurers. The discussion about shared services hasn't been equally welcomed by all districts. There's no question about that. Nonetheless, it's an idea that has value. If we can save money on bureaucracy costs and pump it back into the classroom, that's what we should be doing.

J. MacPhail: There are ongoing discussions about the conversion of K-to-12 to generally accepted accounting principles, and I note that the government has provided funding for school boards in that conversion. Can the minister describe the nature of those discussions? I was just thinking about whether there's a forum there to discuss…. I'll take this in stages.

It's my assumption that in the movement to generally accepted accounting principles, there's a standardization of reporting. I understand that some of that is a bit controversial within the K-to-12 system. Is there a forum there that lends itself in the standardization of reporting for any best practices to be shared?

Hon. C. Clark: Probably not. The better forum to do it is to talk to superintendents, to talk to secretary-treasurers at their meetings and try to push the agenda forward that way. The generally accepted accounting principles discussion, as I understand it, is accountants that are talking about how to categorize the spending of money as opposed to how to control or manage the spending of money. That is a different discussion, and one that we are advancing and going to continue to advance at every forum where we have the opportunity.

J. MacPhail: You're absolutely right. It is an accounting exercise, but it's an accounting exercise the way all accounting exercises take place. There are puts and takes, and puts and takes can change the bottom line.

Also in the standardization, as I understand it from GAAP discussions, is that it does lead to a uniformity of the categorization and therefore may lead…. I don't know. I could be wrong, but it could lead to some

standardization or some general estimate of what's a fair cost for certain services offered — that's all.

For instance, as I understand it, the way you account for staffing levels, replacement staffing levels or vacation can lead to either a bigger put or a greater take, and there's either more or less money at the bottom line. That's all I'm saying. In fact, the acknowledgment of that is that the government is actually promising to make the K-to-12 system whole.

The minister is saying the superintendents discussion would be the place, then, to hold shared services costs. What would be the area of discussion around shared services — the range?

Hon. C. Clark: We've talked to them about payroll. We've talked about maintenance. We've talked about purchasing and procurement. We've talked about a whole range of possible things. It's technically feasible, I suppose, to suggest that almost all the back-office services for a school district could be shared, but I'm not sure it would actually work in practice. We've had discussions, and payroll is an obvious one.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't have an updated act here, so forgive me if I'm getting the wrong sections of the School Act listed here. I think it's section 106.2, as my notes show here, that says on or before February of each year the minister must establish and announce the amount of provincial funding to be paid to boards in the next fiscal year. Have I got that section right?

J. MacPhail: Yeah, and I remember there was always controversy and charges made about how the previous government didn't announce that money quickly enough, etc. We actually, on many occasions, changed the date at which we would announce that by regulation.

The minister this year announced on January 31 the allocation of funding. What discussions occurred with school boards prior to that announcement in terms of funding?

Hon. C. Clark: They had a good preview of that, because we had been working on a three-year plan with $3.79 billion for school districts in operating funding. They had a good view of that a year before, and there had been lots of acknowledgment and discussion about that fact. The member is quite correct that we announced it at the end of January. After we made the announcement, we then announced a further $50 million that was going to be made available.

I suspect previous governments probably extended the date on which they announced funding for school districts so that they could maximize the amount available in that single announcement as opposed to making two announcements, like our government has done. Nonetheless, we intend to be bound by the statutory obligations in the act, which says we must provide the information to school districts before February.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it was a two-part announcement, and the minister is quite right. We made the announcement with our budget having been put to bed, so that there was just one announcement.

When the individual budget letters go out for the districts tomorrow, what follow-up is there with the superintendents or the secretary-treasurers in terms of explanation of budget letters? I actually haven't seen a budget letter. Do they just get a budget letter with an amount, and then it's up to them to determine further action?

Hon. C. Clark: We went through a fairly extensive and in-depth discussion with them last year when we changed the funding formula, so I think all of them have a good grip on how it works. We've been available to them over the last year as they've continued to interpret their funding allocation. I'm pretty convinced that they have a sense of it. We are providing them with an updated operating manual, and of course, we're always available over the phone, and I can tell you this: school districts do not hesitate to call when they have questions about their budgets.

J. MacPhail: I think, Mr. Chair, what I'll do is talk about this in the context of the Vancouver school board, if I may. These are public documents. Then after that we'll go to questions on the service plan.

As the minister knows, there's been a whole range of budget documents released by the Vancouver school board. I mean, I love my new school board, but I'm talking about this school board because it's my school board. It just so happens that I also love them. But it's not on that basis that I'm using them, other than their being my school board. It's something that I can carry through.

They published a document about the actual impacts from last year, and I just want to move…. I'll just generalize. Actually, I won't generalize; I'll give the actual, specific information. They're looking at a reduction of about $12 million. No, sorry. I won't go there that quickly. They're looking at a reduction of 264 teacher FTEs.

As part of the class-size ratios, the international student allotment ratio is proposed to increase from one teacher per 15 students to 19 students. A reduction of approximately 124 FTEs is proposed in the number of non-enrolling teachers at the elementary-, secondary- and district-based levels. Elementary and secondary school–based, non-enrolling teachers include ESL, learning assistants, teacher-counsellors and teacher-

librarians. District-based, non-enrolling teachers include district resource teachers, psychologists and speech-language pathologists.

I'm wondering. Those seem to be pretty dramatic. Where do parents go to discuss this kind of thing — to their school board?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, that's where parents should go and speak. It's important, though, for parents to remember that the Vancouver school district has a history — regardless of political stripe, by the way — of predicting tremendous deficits and always wrestling them down and delivering quality education comparable to anywhere else in the world. So the doom and gloom is always deepest and darkest in advance of the budgets actually coming out and the consultations that the district makes. I think the board will be particularly avid this year, given its political stripe, but that's politics, and that's the way the budget process works.

J. MacPhail: Well, is there some reason to believe that the Vancouver school board has been overly dramatic in its deficit? Perhaps the minister could give me that information, then.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know if I have it here. I gave it to the member's colleague a couple of days ago when I read through the history of Vancouver's predicted deficits and its actual….

In '97-98 the district submitted a budget under protest and concluded that there were $16 million worth of cuts. No deficit was incurred. In '98-99 it requested a $7.1 million deficit. No deficit was incurred. In '99-2000 with an $11.8 million deficit, no deficit was incurred. In 2000-01 with a $5.2 million deficit, no deficit was incurred. Last year it was a $25 million deficit, and no deficit was incurred.

J. MacPhail: That's because school boards have to table balanced budgets, so I'm not sure what comfort…. What point is the minister trying to make? They have to. They aren't allowed to incur deficits, and school boards make cuts to accommodate, or else…. Certainly, in the years '97-98 and '98-99 the then Minister of Education went in and worked with the school board and actually allocated more funding. I don't understand the point the minister is making. Is the minister then suggesting that those deficits didn't occur and no cuts had to be made?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm suggesting that the Vancouver school district has a long and glorious history of doom and gloom before budget period — suggesting that there are going to be massive deficits, which do not occur. I know that's part of the normal budget-making processes for school districts to try and crank up the heat as much as they can. Vancouver school district has a particularly glorious past on that front. For example, in contrast to the suggestion from last year that the school district was going to have a $25 million deficit in 2002, they actually ran a $6 million surplus in their operating budget.

J. MacPhail: Well, okay. I don't challenge the minister's figures on that, but is the minister somehow saying, then, that there's no difficulty in all of this? I'm not quite sure what her point is that she's making. Is the minister somehow saying that there's no cause for concern? Is that it?

Hon. C. Clark: No, I've never suggested that. I had a lot of discussion with the member's colleague about the fact that I know there have been very difficult decisions that districts have had to make. Closing schools in a place like Victoria, for example, is certainly one of them.

I know it's tremendously difficult for school districts to do that. I know that faced with declining enrolment across the province, that's exacerbated the problem for them. It's meant declining revenues for many of them. So, no, I'm not saying that there haven't been difficult decisions to be made. I am saying that I recognize, certainly, that there have been difficult decisions to be made. What I am saying, though, is that as we get closer to the budget process, what often happens is the doom and gloom gets much, much darker than it ever turns out to be.

I wanted to remind parents and citizens out there that sometimes the level of rhetoric around budgets, particularly with highly politicized boards, gets a little bit higher than it probably could be justified to be. I think that often frightens parents and undermines their confidence in the public education system unduly.

J. MacPhail: Well, then this is the place to uncomplicate those matters. Perhaps the minister could say what it was that occurred with the Vancouver school board that moved them from a potential $25 million deficit position to a $6 million surplus.

Hon. C. Clark: The Vancouver school district had certainly made some reductions in many areas. They talked about maintenance. There were teacher reductions; there were a number of other reductions. They have talked about school closures in the Vancouver school district. Those decisions have all been very, very difficult, but again, Vancouver has managed, I think, those decisions very well. They're continuing to give kids a really top-quality education.

The Vancouver school district, particularly over the last year and a half, can pride itself on the fact that they've been focused on outcomes. They've been focused on making sure kids do better, because that's the bottom line: focus on achievement and make sure that children are doing better year on year. That's how we need to judge our progress in whether we're improving our education system.

J. MacPhail: I find it difficult that the minister somehow says that because school boards obey the law

and balance their budgets, somehow they were fearmongering before that. The law says school boards have to balance their budgets, and school boards do that by making cuts. I think it's kind of, well, disrespectful in a way to school boards to somehow suggest that they could be balancing their budgets in a way that didn't involve some tough decisions — or that, in fact, that they were fearmongering.

The cuts they did make were substantial, and they were deep. It's also my understanding that the one-time allocation funding of the $50 million in '02-03, which was made in February, led to the surplus. To that point the board had made their cuts to balance the budget, or am I wrong about that?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, '02-03 isn't over yet, so I was talking about the surplus from the previous year. That's the only information we have so far.

J. MacPhail: The Vancouver school board was never talking about a $25 million deficit for '01-02, so I'm not sure what the minister's talking about. The deficit they were talking about was for '02-03 being $25 million. In fact, the funding for '01-02 was established by the previous government and included a lift. I'm trying to be very factual about these discussions, and the minister is putting forward figures that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The $25 million deficit predicted for the Vancouver school board arose out of '02-03 funding, so perhaps we could just stick to that. I already read into the record reductions that had to be made to balance the budget. There were reductions in staffing levels at the elementary level, the secondary level and at the district level in classroom staffing. There were cuts made to learning resource centres, education technology, the area discretionary fund, career education, career programs, district learning services. Inner-city school funding was cut. International baccalaureate fees were increased, and there was still a reduction in the number of students who could participate. Japanese and Mandarin supplies were decreased. The media resource centre recreational activities budget was decreased, and the career technical centre budget was cut.

These are instructional support budgets. Urgent intervention was cut, and that budget, just so the public knows, deals with money available to provide urgent intervention where student behaviour is dangerous or extremely disruptive. It's interesting that one of the outcomes the minister talks about is citizenship or behaviour in the classroom. Career program cuts. Career information was cut, and these are secondary school support staff that are used for assisting students in going on to post-secondary education. Those are the cuts that the board was making.

Let me just carry on here. There was a cut made to the maintenance operation budget that led to an increased deterioration in building infrastructure. Planned building maintenance work — which included interior painting, painting touch-ups, plumbing upgrade, carpet replacement, window replacements — was eliminated. There are now increased delays in responding to emergency repair breakdowns, and the physical learning environment has deteriorated.

The ministry had provided bus fares for students enrolled in special district classes so that students could travel. There were cuts made there. There were transportation cuts made. There were cuts made in the adult learning centre. The continuing education computer centre was cut, and adult academic course fees increased. Adult education supply fees increased.

I actually did some highlights there of several pages of cuts that had to be made, and I expect that, by law…. I don't think the Vancouver school district has asked to break the law and file a deficit budget, have they?

Hon. C. Clark: No, not formally. They haven't made any suggestion that they want to do that. I want to just be clear with the member. The reason we were talking at cross-purposes about the money and the surplus versus the deficit is that the $42 million that was provided in additional funding last year in '01-02 was probably spent by the district largely in their '02-03 budget, and that's the source of the confusion about this.

J. MacPhail: How many school districts either requested assistance from the special adviser or asked to file a deficit budget for '02-03?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Nobody asked for the assistance? Am I using the right term — special adviser?

Hon. C. Clark: That's correct. The answer is "none" to both questions the member asked.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I think it's good news that districts don't want to file deficit budgets. I think it's good news, too, that districts feel that they're able to manage without additional assistance from the ministry. We're always there to help, though, informally, and we continue to do that through a whole variety of means. In terms of actually appointing a special adviser, we've appointed one special adviser. That's in the district of Gold Trail, I think, district 74. That was at the request of parents in the community, and I think the district has found that assistance quite helpful.

J. MacPhail: So the school boards…. I'm not sure what school boards the minister was referring to in

terms of politicized school boards, but clearly, in the year '02-03 every school district rolled up their sleeves and made the cuts on their own without asking for assistance from the Ministry of Education. I would certainly say that school boards are doing their best to cope with the cuts, but it does lead to meetings that occurred last night at the school district here in Victoria, where the parents…. The interface is between parents and school districts and school board trustees about cuts, not between parents and the government, even though it's the government that has forced the funding crunch.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we've actually increased money. The budget actually announced an increase in money for the Ministry of Education. We're going to be delivering an extra $100 million over the next three years. We delivered $42 million last year and $50 million in addition this year. We hope there'll be another education dividend next year for districts so that we can provide some more one-time funding in '03-04. Given that there's declining enrolment and there's a substantial increase planned in the ministry budget, that's good news.

J. MacPhail: We've got to do the Vancouver school board for this base budget, Victoria, and then we'll move to service plan. As for the budget assumptions on the '03-04 base budget for the Vancouver school board, I'll read into the record what is anticipated. I understand this could change, depending on what their budget letter says tomorrow.

This is what their preliminary base budget is, based on what they were told January 31: elimination of one-time expenditures, $3.2 million for 57 transitional teachers and the corresponding one-time appropriation from the '01-02 surplus, which was used to fund this expenditure. That would have been the $6 million surplus the minister was talking about earlier.

They're assuming the same enrolment level as September 30, 2002. They're also assuming known collective increases for teachers and ALC instructors — that's 2.5 percent, July, of this budget — a 2 percent increase for the operating engineer employees, and salary increases for principals and vice-principals at 2 percent.

They're assuming salary increments for teachers — these are contractual obligations — and known changes to the Canada Pension Plan. Now, that's a 7.68 percent rollup cost on CPP and then an EI rolldown cost — that's the good news from the federal government — a 4.5 percent decrease.

They're assuming an elimination of remaining funding for the 2001-02 one-time enhanced early retirement incentive program, and that's now gone. They're assuming projected benefit rate increases — we've already talked about CPP — to extended health because of the downloading of the provincial government. They're assuming a 15 percent cost increase in April of this year due to changes to Pharmacare, a 15 percent premium rate increase for July 2003 and an increase of the municipal superannuation plan contribution of 1.2 percent.

They're assuming inflation for goods and services of 1.95 percent and natural gas increased prices of 4.2 percent. They're also projecting an increase in interest revenue of $137,000.

On that basis, they've done the puts and takes of the budget. Oh, and there's also projected salary increases for the support staff, based on submissions by the Public School Employers Association and CUPE to the arbitrator, Vince Ready. They haven't actually calculated a cost to that but know that's a cost that needs to be incurred.

Those are all additional costs they have to fund, and therefore they have a structural deficit created by increased costs. The deficit, the structural deficit — this is the language that they use — is determined to be between $8.23 million and $11.98 million. The differential is based on the decision by arbitrator Vince Ready with respect to support staff salary increases. Then there's a chart with that.

They also acknowledge there are one-time funding sources available from '02-03 of $4.36 million and that the projected balance of the local capital reserve is $4.8 million. They've done their puts and takes on it, and they're still coming up with a projected deficit of between $8.23 million and $11.98 million. That's on top of the cuts they had to consider for the budget before that.

In Victoria they've also done the puts and takes of their budgets, and they have operating pressures for '03 of $5.9 million. I want to say that in the puts and takes, the Victoria school board has acknowledged the December announcement of the minister, the February announcement, the social equity renewal, the increased ISP profits, the CUPE award, all other savings and the enrolment decline grant. Those are the revenue increases and cost pressures. Then on top of that, they also believe now that because of the cut to the social equity envelope, the school board will have a reduction estimated at about $1.5 million. After everything is done, there is a substantial deficit they have to make up. So some of the options they're considering — and this is what the school board is going through right now — are what you see on TV in terms of the reductions that are considered. There are five or six scenarios being considered, including school closures. That's what the Victoria school board is facing in 2003-04.

I'm just going to carry on, in terms of putting this…. Unless you want to respond to it.

It's interesting as the minister stands up and says that we've increased school funding. I'm not sure that either the Vancouver school board or the Victoria school board would suggest that it means anything in terms of students in the classroom.

I want to give some information about…. I asked the minister for information about what they have actually meant — the cuts. The minister didn't have that information — fewer teachers and administrative officers.

Oh, by the way, just so the minister knows, I'll be finished Education estimates in about an hour. So if the powers that be up there want to organize that….

On September 30, 2002, when the Ministry of Education and school districts throughout the province collected data on the school system, there were 2,729 fewer educators than on the same date a year earlier. Of the positions lost, 2,654 were teachers and 75 were administrative officers. The 6.8 percent drop in educator head count is almost five times the 1.4 percent decline in enrolment. Just to make note, when educators working in more than one district are excluded, the number declines by 2.152 percent to 5.2 or 5.5 percent. Those figures are on a head count basis. In other words, they refer to actual people, some of whom worked part-time. That's an acknowledgment.

The corresponding full-time-equivalent figures indicate the system experienced a loss of 1,954.61 FTE teachers — that's a 5.9 percent reduction in FTEs — and 74.12 administrative officers. That's a 2.7 percent decline, for a total decline of 2,028.73 full-time-equivalent educators. Again, that equates to a drop of 5.6 over all, while the FTE enrolment is down by only 1.22 percent.

It's my information that the districts actually did close 44 schools this year. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: We have 44 fewer schools and 5.6 percent fewer educators, and those are FTEs. The enrolment decline is only 1.22 percent. The reductions are about much, much more than enrolment decline. I acknowledge that there are serious demographic changes underway, partly as a result of lower birth rates and partly because of people moving out of the province. In fact, this year the enrolment declined by 1.22 percent. That's why there are fewer students. Still, only about one-quarter of the reductions in teaching staff can be explained by reduction in enrolment.

Here's the information that I have on larger classes and more students per teacher, in spite of those real demographic shifts. Maybe I should read this. The grade 11 enrolment is the largest age group in the system, and it's 4.8 percent less than it was last year. The kindergarten cohort is 4 percent smaller than last year and nearly 14 percent smaller than in 1995. There's no question that fewer students are entering the system. In spite of those real demographic shifts, most of the changes still have meant that there are more kids in each classroom.

Elementary class sizes increased by 0.6 FTE students. I know it's kind of dehumanizing. What I'll say is students, and I mean FTEs unless I specify otherwise. The elementary class size has increased to 23.11. The ministry doesn't report class sizes for grades 4 to 12, but the student-educator ratio — the SER — which is an indicator of both specialist and classroom teachers, has gone up to 17.12. That's 0.8 students more than last year's ratio and one full student more than in 1990.

There are fewer high-incidence students and more low-incidence students. This, of course, is dealing with the special needs students. This is important because of changes in the funding formula. Changes in the funding formula and identification criteria apparently had a large impact on the number of special needs students, which was down by 5.3 percent overall. Under the new formula introduced this year by this government, districts received $30,000 for each level 1 student, $15,000 for each level 2 student and $6,000 for each level 3 student.

Just to clarify for the public, level 1 indicates a dependent handicapped and deaf-blind. Level 2 includes moderate to profound intellectual disability, physical disability, chronic health impairment, visual impairment, deaf, hearing-impaired and autism. Level 3 is intensive behaviour interventions and serious mental illnesses. High-incidence, low-cost categories are no longer funded separately, so under the new scheme a population-based amount is included in the base funding.

The big news out of all of this is that high-incidence, low-cost categories showed an overall decline of 8.2 percent, much larger than the 1.4 percent enrolment decline. In other words, there are 8.2 percent fewer students being acknowledged as high incidence and low cost. The enrolment decline is only 1.4 percent. The learning disability categories did increase by 2.9 percent. That was the only category that increased. All other categories of funding declined — mild intellectual disability by 7.8 percent, gifted by 7.2 percent, moderate behaviour-support mental illness by 22.9 percent.

That's why I asked the minister what calculations, what statistics, her government is keeping, because these statistics come from the teachers and the support workers in the system. They're broadly, broadly based, though. What's the explanation for the much higher percentage decline in special needs enrolment as opposed to just overall enrolment decline?

Hon. C. Clark: There was a decrease in the number of high-incidence, low-cost students that were identified by school districts, but there was an increase in high-cost, low-incidence students that were identified to school districts overall. We're investigating the reason for that.

The member's numbers about the increase in class size are generally correct. It is about a 0.6 increase to a 0.8 increase per class across the province.

J. MacPhail: My information is different from the minister's in that the only category that increased in terms of enrolment was the learning disability category, formerly called the severe learning disabilities. Everything else was a substantial decline. It is interest-

ing, though, that the minister can challenge my statistics, when before…. Well, perhaps she would say it wasn't…. Maybe I wasn't asking the right question before, but it is interesting that the ministry does have overall statistics now.

Let's move on to English-language training students. Other people call it English as a second language as another term for that. The number of identified ESL students is down by 1 percent. That's down slightly less than overall enrolments, but I want to bring to the minister's attention changes by grade level, where they're disproportionate. Kindergarten ESL enrolment is up by 0.3 percent, even though kindergarten overall enrolment is down by 3.9 percent. Secondary ESL numbers are down. Enrolment is down by 7.5 percent, and that compares with an overall enrolment decline of 0.5 percent.

Now, I acknowledge that some of those changes result from the five-year cap on ESL services, so that's fair enough. But clearly, kindergarten enrolment is up and is growing, and I wonder whether the minister sees a challenge that needs to be met in terms of capping ESL funding.

Hon. C. Clark: We haven't capped ESL funding. For as many ESL students as the school districts claim, they get an extra $1,100. School districts have no incentive to under-report ESL students. There's no question about that.

The issue of special needs. The reason we have specific information about what the numbers are in the different categories of special needs is because that's the basis on which we fund school districts. As the funding agency, we need that information about the head count of students. In level 1 it's up by 1.2 percent. In level 2 it's 3.4 percent. In level 3 it's 1.4 percent, and it's yielded a total new investment of $24.5 million more for school districts for special needs.

J. MacPhail: Well, that was the kind of discussion I was trying to have earlier on when I asked the minister for those. And of course, at one time I remember being challenged by the minister; "Well, you didn't ask the right question." That was exactly the kind of discussion I was trying to have. How does the ministry glean this information?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts provide us with the numbers of children in their schools, in their enrolment. They provide us with numbers about the composition of the children in those districts, and that's the basis on which we fund school districts.

J. MacPhail: The minister is suggesting that funding for every category is up?

Hon. C. Clark: Funding for level 1, level 2 and level 3 categories is all up. That's why we're spending almost $25 million more on special needs than we were. As I recall, the discussion we were having before about some of these numbers was about teachers, it was about processes, and it was about the way school districts decide to provide services to school districts. That's not information that we have in any complete way across the province. The information that we have that is complete — and this is publicly available — is the number of students in each district and the composition of the school district in terms of special needs, ESL and aboriginal.

We have to have that information because we fund school districts based on those numbers that they provide to us. If their enrolment has fallen or their composition has changed so that there's less pressure on special needs or ESL, then they'll get less money. If their enrolment has grown or the number of ESL students has grown or the number of special needs students in any one of those three categories has grown, then their budget in each of those categories will be up.

J. MacPhail: Well, yes. But perhaps the revelation of that kind of information could have led to a more fruitful discussion with the opposition.

J. MacPhail: The minister shrugs her shoulders. Clearly, I have tried my best to actually carry on this discussion in a way of information-seeking, and the minister shrugs her shoulders and somehow suggests that perhaps the shrug means "maybe you should have asked the right question." Of course, that could have led to me then providing my information about what I have in terms of special needs teachers.

Is it that the minister is challenging…? All right, let me ask this of the minister. I'm trying to be very specific. The high-incidence, low-cost category of special needs students is now funded how?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts tell us how many…. Sorry, I misunderstood. Low-cost, high-incidence is funded based on the number of students that are claimed. Previously government put a cap on the number of students. It was up to 4 percent that they would fund for high-incidence, low-cost. The reality was that every district was spending far more than that. It was a pretty meaningless way to target the money.

What we've done is we've said that we're going to take away the illusion that somehow we as government are funding for the number of students that you have in low-cost, high-incidence because it was really just an illusion. School districts were spending far more than the government ever provided.

J. MacPhail: The minister said funding for special needs, the $24 million…. Is that after you deduct high-incidence, low-cost funding?

Hon. C. Clark: The three categories that we provide funding for special needs — level 1, level 2 and level 3 — are all low-incidence, high-cost categories.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, okay. My understanding now, and maybe I'm wrong, is that high-incidence, low-cost special needs funding is no longer a special category. There is no specific targeted funding or any calculation of funding for it.

Hon. C. Clark: We detargeted that money simply because, previously, when government pretended to provide funding for it, government didn't meet anywhere near the cost that districts were bearing. It was really an illusion to suggest that that money was going to fund the number of kids who were in those categories, because government never has. It was capped at 4 percent. School districts in every case spent more than the 4 percent that was provided from government. It was just a much more honest and transparent way of providing that money to districts and saying: "Look, we know you're spending more than that anyway. Go out there and make sure you're providing for the needs of the students in your school district." It's a more honest and transparent way of doing that. We have redefined level 1, level 2 and level 3. Those are all low-incidence, high-cost students, and the funding for those categories has increased.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but I suppose a much more honest, transparent formula that leads to a reduction in funding would be less welcome. That's what I'm trying to get at here. The $24 million that the minister claims…. Let me just be clear. The 4 percent that used to be funded for low-cost, high-incidence special needs funding is now where?

Hon. C. Clark: The money did not get cut. The money remains in the budget, and it's been rolled into the per-pupil funding that goes out to districts. They decide how they want to provide those services to kids.

J. MacPhail: Did the ministry just give an overall 4 percent increase in the per-pupil rate?

Hon. C. Clark: It's just a different way of distributing it. That money is still there. It's still distributed to school districts. It's just that it's not categorized and targeted specifically, the way it was before, in recognition of the fact that it wasn't meeting anywhere near the real cost that school districts had because government has never funded the number of students that were in the high-incidence, low-cost area. That money is still in their budgets, and school districts have welcomed that change.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm trying to figure out how they've welcomed it. There's been a decline of 8.2 percent in identifying the high-incidence, low-cost category of children. It's hard for me to go from saying, "Oh, they were never fully funded at a 4 percent level," and now there's been a decline that's four times the level of enrolment decline. Maybe we need to investigate this. If the minister is so sure that the previous system didn't work, how is it that once you roll exactly the same amount of money into the base budgeting, all of a sudden there's a quadrupling of the decline in students identified in that way?

Hon. C. Clark: We are investigating it. We suspect that what school districts used to do was drive their reporting based on the cap that government put in place for special needs. What they would do is at least make sure they declared enough kids to make sure they met that cap, and then they would go out and spend more anyway. What we're doing is saying: "Look, it's not a productive exercise to go through." It's not just me saying this; it's school districts saying this.

What they're saying is that they were spending far more money anyway, and we suspect they're probably reporting these differently to us because it's no longer driven by the same kind of rules and regulations in the ministry. Most districts were spending 6, 7, 8 percent of their budget on special needs when the government only funded it 4 percent. It didn't make any difference that the government said it was 4 percent. In most districts it wouldn't have made any difference if the government raised the cap to 5 percent. It wouldn't have made one iota of difference in their funding, and it hasn't made one iota of difference in the funding today.

J. MacPhail: That's absolute bafflegab — what the minister has just said to me. She's somehow suggesting that the previous cap of 4 percent on high-incidence, low-cost didn't in any way meet the real need and, therefore, it was unrealistic and, therefore, they removed that and rolled it into the base budget funding of school boards. One would assume that school boards would now be identifying the real number of high-incidence, low-cost students that previously the minister says weren't funded. Instead, I'm asking her to explain why there's been a substantial decline in identifying those students, quadruple the decline in the enrolment. The minister gets up and says, "Oh well, they were probably just arbitrarily saying there was 4 percent of the student population, and it didn't mean anything" — kind of then, I guess, challenging the boards that they weren't accurately reporting. She uses that as an explanation for why there is now a decline of a full 8 percentage points. Maybe the minister would like to try again.

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, I'd be happy to try and get this point through to the member. We didn't remove the money; we removed the label on the money. I want to be clear about that, because I think the member is confusing those two issues. The money is still there. It doesn't have a label on it anymore.

We suspect — and we're investigating the reason for this, and of course it bears investigation — that school districts, because they no longer are required to meet a certain standard of proof that they've got a certain number of special needs children, just aren't doing the same kind of paperwork in reporting to the ministry anymore.

What we've done is reduced dramatically the amount of paperwork that school districts are required to do, as we have across government, as a general principle of good governance. We suspect — and we don't know this yet because we're still investigating it — that school districts have just decided that if the paperwork isn't required of them anymore to get the money and they can get the money without doing the paperwork…. They're choosing to save the time and not do the paperwork, because they're getting the money anyway.

J. MacPhail: Well, where are parents supposed to go to find out the truth, then? The minister has directed me, and through me the parents, that they're supposed to go to the school boards. Now the minister is saying that school boards aren't reporting it.

Hon. C. Clark: School districts aren't reporting it to the ministry is what I said. That doesn't mean that school districts aren't keeping track of that information. Of course they are. It's part of their basic school-level planning. When they organize their classes, principals think about those issues. There's a range of special needs in any given class. Some of them are very acute. Some of them are not so acute but still require attention. That's a basic part of school district planning. They continue to have that information. All I simply said was that they don't continue necessarily to report that to the ministry as consistently as they did.

Without question, school districts want to lighten up on their paperwork. If the paperwork isn't required by the ministry, they won't necessarily report it to us, but that information is still there at the school district level for parents to be able to access.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure whether the minister thought I got this statistic from the ministry. I didn't. I asked for this statistic earlier, and the minister said she didn't have it. This is information gleaned from school boards. I'm not sure where the minister sort of leaped over to think that I'm dealing with ministry statistics. I've been asking her for them. She hasn't given them. This decline is based on school board reporting.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, and we suspect — and I said "we suspect" because we're still investigating this — that school districts are reporting, in some cases, the number of special needs children they have differently because they're no longer driven by heavy, onerous paperwork requirements that ultimately didn't result in any new money for them, which meant they were reporting consistently and in the same way across districts. We suspect they are beginning to report it differently because they aren't driven by the same kind of imperatives to fill out the kind of paperwork that the previous government required of them.

J. MacPhail: I can't imagine how any parent of a special needs student would be able to understand what the minister is saying, let alone be comforted by what she's saying. Earlier today, in a very calm discussion, the minister, through me, referred parents to go to school boards to find out about special needs programs, special needs delivery of services to school boards. I just told the minister that there's been a quadrupling in the decline of services to special needs students that are high-incidence, low-cost — gleaned from school boards. It doesn't have anything to do with previous reporting. It's got nothing to do with the past. It's the current situation, and it's where the minister directed me to, to find out the information.

I feel a bit disappointed that the discussion on this has to end up in this way, because there's been zero information given to parents in terms of how they can actually find out what's really going on in terms of special needs funding. We'll keep going around. We'll keep going around in a circle and trying to find it.

I am advised, as a result of the debate earlier this morning…. I don't in any way suggest that these numbers are statistically accurate, because they're gleaned from sources that I had to find myself. I was asking the government about form 1530 in trying to find out how many people are working in the system. I will tell the minister that it is my information — these are the only statistics that I can find, and this is going through the website — that there are 162.39 fewer teacher-librarians this year. There are 70.68 fewer counsellors this year, and there are 205.37 fewer ESL teachers in the system.

That is going to the sources of information that the minister offered me. Clearly, if the minister doesn't have her own statistics to provide me with…. I went to the sources that the minister suggested, and that's the information I put on the record.

I'm moving to the service plan now. I'm working from the 2003/04-2005/06 Service Plan, page 5. There's what I think is an omission from last year's plan, but I leave it up to the minister to tell me whether this is accurate or not. In the second paragraph, second sentence, it says: "To support this goal, the ministry is committed to local autonomy for school boards, strong accountability measures and a broader range of choice for students and parents." Last year in the service plan there was a mention of staff in exactly the same statement. Why that omission?

Hon. C. Clark: Not any kind of intentional slight intended — just a rewriting of it.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister note it, or is this the first time it's been brought to her attention? This is the point about how the very important role…. It's the whole issue about student achievement and the overarching goal. The paragraph begins with: "Improving student achievement is the overarching goal in the ministry and in all parts of the education system." So the overarching goal makes a fairly serious omission. Is this on the website, and can it be changed?

Hon. C. Clark: It's on the website. It won't be changed for this year. The reference is to a broader range of choice for students and parents. Generally, we think of choice being provided to those two groups principally, if that's what the member is referring to.

J. MacPhail: No, the minister just said it was an omission. So can it be changed on the website — just adding it? As she said, it was just an unintentional omission.

Hon. C. Clark: I said it wasn't an intentional slight, but this is the final wording.

J. MacPhail: It kind of undermines it being unintentional, doesn't it? Website actually means that you can go in and change it like that — absolutely like that. I expect the unintentional slight will take on new meaning because the minister refuses to change the website.

On page 7 of the service plan the ministry outlines a series of observations. I want to go through some of them very briefly. One of the observations notes that the aboriginal population in B.C. is young and growing at a faster rate than the non-aboriginal population. It also notes that schools have not been serving aboriginal students as well as other groups. The low graduation rate of aboriginal students — 42 percent — that was released earlier shows we do need help. The minister and I discussed that earlier, and the minister also explored this with the member for Delta North, I think, last week. Maybe it was yesterday. No, I think it was last week she did that.

Further to our discussion this morning, I had some feedback from the aboriginal community in my riding. To date, there has been no announced funding for an increase in aboriginal funding, even though the population is growing at a much more rapid rate than the regular population. Is there an increase in funding anticipated?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. The funding will increase as the population grows. That's the nature of the funding formula.

J. MacPhail: So for every student identified according to whatever the proper identification is, then that budget, the targeted aboriginal funding budget, has no cap on it?

J. MacPhail: I also note in this that it says an aging work force will lead to a growing need for qualified young people to meet employer demands. What is happening in terms of the apprenticeship programs in the K-to-12 system?

Hon. C. Clark: We're continuing to work on that. Obviously, the area of apprenticeship programs is an area of big focus for us as a ministry, and we are working through the graduation requirements review on ways we can improve the opportunities for graduates who want to go on to be apprentices. One of the things we're talking about, for example, is perhaps allowing greater access for students in high school to be able to front-end load their apprenticeships with coursework while they're still in high school, which will increase their value for an employer when they graduate. A number of proposals like that are under discussion as part of the grad requirements review.

Hon. C. Clark: A number of proposals like that are under discussion as part of the grad requirements review.

Let me ask this, then. Is the K-to-12 ministry represented in the new structure that will be announced around apprenticeship?

Hon. C. Clark: We've been involved intimately in the discussions with the Ministry of Advanced Education. They haven't announced the board yet, so I'm not in a position to be able to comment on that.

J. MacPhail: What is the enrolment in '02-03 in apprenticeship programs in K-to-12?

Hon. C. Clark: The ministry has those numbers. I apologize to the member, but they're just not readily available around my desk at the moment. I can get those for her.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised it has decreased, but I'm afraid I can't give the member a specific number.

J. MacPhail: My information is that it has decreased substantially. I just want to note for the minister that apprenticeship and technical trades training is an area that is of great importance. Clearly, we are facing a crunch, some of it self-imposed here in British Columbia and then demographics as well. The crunch is in the journey trades as well as in technical trades.

I'm advised there is a substantial decrease, and frankly, the numbers weren't that great throughout the 1990s anyway. As the last statistic I remember, I think there were only about 600 students involved in the apprenticeship program in the high school system. In

fact, I'm also advised that the boards that had technical trades programs, particularly in the rural areas, have taken the opportunity to cut those first in meeting their budget targets.

In the discussions the minister has had on the new system for apprenticeship…. Is the minister advocating increasing the number of people in apprenticeship programs in high school, and is it now up to the school boards themselves to fund apprenticeship programs?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, we certainly are advocating for more apprenticeships in school districts. Surrey school district is a pristine example of how well things can work. They educate far more than their share of the population as apprentices. They have more apprenticeship spots per population share than anybody else in the province.

We are talking to the Surrey school district right now, learning from their best practices. We want to import those across the province and make sure other districts are aware of what Surrey is doing, why it's working and how they can copy that success. I couldn't agree with the member more that the looming skills crunch is a tremendous concern. We need to be focused on apprenticeships.

Another issue that's also of concern to the government is the gender balance in apprenticeships, making sure that young women have equal opportunity and equal incentive and interest in going into those apprenticeship programs as young men do.

J. MacPhail: Surrey is one model, but it's also my information that there's not been any increase in apprenticeships being delivered this year at Surrey, even though they are one school district that actually has a substantial population increase. It will be interesting to see what can be learned from Surrey.

I absolutely agree that the delivery of the program is one to look at — so is Vancouver, by the way; so is the Courtenay-Comox area. They have an excellent one where their career technical centres are associated with colleges. Those are excellent models as well, but it is my understanding that there is decline in enrolment in all of those areas.

Sorry, I remember the question I was going to ask. It was announced about four months ago that the government was weeks away from announcing the new apprenticeship model. Can the minister give us an update on that?

Hon. C. Clark: No. I'd advise that the member talk to the Minister of Advanced Education about that specific topic.

J. MacPhail: Well, I thought that maybe, with the minister being involved, she might know. On page 16 of the Service Plan, I want to talk about objective 4, which is to improve student achievement in career development. I understand that there was a report done in the ministry reviewing career programs. I also note there's data that shows decline.

I've got one report here, particularly in Vancouver area career programs review December 3, 2002, that shows a substantial decline in enrolment. When will that report on reviewing career programs be released?

Hon. C. Clark: More information about the grad requirements, the career programs and the information that we've been collecting as a ministry will be released when we come to a conclusion about the grad requirements review and those decisions are made public.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised — although, again, I don't have a specific number — that it is on the decline but very, very slightly in terms of career prep. I suspect that might quite closely correlate with the declining enrolment.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, just for the minister's information, that's not true in Vancouver. The decline is in excess of the…. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought the enrolment decline in Vancouver is less than 1 percent.

Hon. C. Clark: It went down, I'm advised, by about 100 FTE students in '02-03 over '01-02.

J. MacPhail: On 50,000 students, that's pretty statistically flat then — okay? Just for the minister's information, then, because…. I understand that it's good to do a review of career programs, but enrolment decline is of concern to me particularly because at one of the schools in my riding — a school that I take great pride in its achievements, Van Tech — the enrolment is down from 360 students in '01-02 to 185 students in '02-03. I'm just trying to search…. There's one area where the enrolment is up in Vancouver. That's Point Grey School. In virtually every other school the enrolment is down and in some cases substantially — as I say, in Van Tech. It's much, much beyond…. In Vancouver, of course, because basically the population growth is flat, those numbers should be actually flat at best and would, I hope, increase.

Again, the career program review will be released when the minister announces grad requirement changes. I thought that wasn't supposed to be done until much later this year.

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, with any specific work we've done on reviewing career programs and those kinds of things, we'll make that information available when the grad requirements review is completed. That will be done later this year, but we expect it will be done certainly before the summer. It will be done in the spring.

J. MacPhail: That document is being used to guide grad requirement changes then, is it?

Hon. C. Clark: It's some of the information we've collected in the course of doing the grad requirements review. It's some of the information we're going to need to make the right decisions.

J. MacPhail: My last area of questioning is: what's going to happen tomorrow? I understand that the government tomorrow will be announcing a dollar figure for each school when it announces the districts. Is that still on track?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. We will be making that announcement of notional school funding allocation. That's what we call it, the jargon we use for it. That won't be released tomorrow. It will be released a little bit later in the spring.

Hon. C. Clark: Sorry. I may have misunderstood the member's question. The district allocations will be made tomorrow, and the notional school allocation — am I understanding her question correctly? — will be made later. That's simply because we want to make sure that we have an opportunity to speak with school districts in particular, who are a little bit worked up about this, about how we can make sure that the allocation we make publicly as much as possible reflects their concerns.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday I read right into the record a quote from Don Avison of the University Presidents Council, and he immediately wrote a letter saying something was wrong with me reading his words right into the record from his own news release. I take it that maybe this could change. I'm reading quotes from school trustees dated February 14 on the government plan to publish a dollar figure for each school.

Gordon Comeau, president of the B.C. Schools Trustees Association, said: "It's going to create divisiveness and arguments between school boards and parents, parents and parents, schools and schools. Where is the benefit? " Mary Polak, chair of the Surrey school board, said: "This is the stupidest move ever proposed by an education ministry." Then she goes on to say: "By saying that each school has notionally generated this much money, they're completely ignoring the way instruction functions in a district."

What will the discussions be between trustees from the day, tomorrow, and the time the notional budgets are released?

Hon. C. Clark: We formed a committee. We want to make sure the allocation we are providing, the notional amount we're allocating per school district, reflects what's really going on out there as much as possible.

I know that school districts don't like the idea. I think it's a way to make our budgeting much more transparent, make it much more understandable by the public. Frankly, I don't think it's that much different for them than this process we're going through right now, where we justify every line item through an estimates process, through a debate, and we talk about how we're spending and how that spending reflects the priorities of government. That's what we are expecting school districts will be doing when we make a notional allocation for school districts as well. That's part of the transparency.

Some school districts do a much more transparent process for providing their budgets publicly than others. We want to make sure it's consistent across the province, and we want to make sure every parent across the province is benefiting from what are really some best practices in a few school districts in different parts of B.C.

J. MacPhail: Is it up for discussion that the ministry not proceed with school-based allocation of funding?

Hon. C. Clark: No, we're not considering that, but we are certainly making sure we have the input of school districts to ensure that the notional allocation we do make reflects, as much as possible, the realities of budgeting that school districts encounter through their processes.

J. MacPhail: Why is the minister doing this? Is it in preparation for further moves? What is the purpose of this?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the purpose is transparency and accountability. We want to make sure the budgeting process is as transparent as possible. We want to make sure parents understand why the ministry is allocating a certain amount to each of their districts. I think it will be a huge step forward in terms of public understanding of the budgeting process. I know it will take some adjustment from school districts, because it will mean, in some cases, a different kind of process for them, but I think that's very healthy. I think it's healthy that we debate the line-by-line budget estimates of every department of government. I don't know why it would be any different at the school district level.

Hon. C. Clark: This was a decision of our ministry to do this. School districts haven't been particularly excited about it, as I said. Again, we're interested in making sure there is transparency across the system. It will be an adjustment for school districts, but we're making sure we accommodate them as much as possible. Mary Polak, the chair of the Surrey school board, who the member quoted earlier, is actually on the committee that's working on making sure we do this in a way that meets their needs as much as possible.

J. MacPhail: I'm advised that BCCPAC hasn't asked for this, nor have individual parents asked for this.

With the ministry proceeding with this on its own, is it part of a grander plan?

Hon. C. Clark: No, we're trying to make sure there's accountability and transparency in our budget-making process. We want to make sure that parents have a new tool to thoroughly understand why their school district has attracted the amounts of funding it has. I don't think there can ever be anything wrong with sharing more of that kind of information with the public.

J. MacPhail: Well, in conclusion, it's interesting that this government claims to want to govern for the parents and says that the parents have been left out of the system for far too long. Probably what will be the greatest move of dissension by this government — of proceeding with allocation of school-by-school funding — will actually be something parents will, regardless of the district, come out strongly against.

I understand that the government members are going to take over estimates now. I would conclude my remarks by suggesting that now is not the time to include greater dissension in the education system, regardless of whether there's agreement or not on the change in direction in the education system. The government is exercising what it sees as its mandate. Nobody asked for school-based funding, and everybody — trustees, parents, teachers, principals — has suggested that they not proceed with that.

B. Suffredine: In Nelson-Creston the forced amalgamation of school districts was most unpopular. Nelson and Creston are physically separated by both a mountain and a time zone. It didn't work well in the beginning. It was contentious. Recently the school district has announced its intention to close a number of the more urban schools in both Nelson and Creston to preserve the more rural schools.

Now, there were public meetings on Monday and Tuesday this week — Monday in Nelson, Tuesday in Creston — and I've heard from people who attended both. In Creston in particular they are very concerned. They feel they are bearing an unfair share of closures. I'm being asked by people in Creston what it would take to get amalgamation reversed. Can the minister give us some indication? I know amalgamation isn't a popular topic, and the redrawing of boundaries or creating more school districts is not one that anyone looks forward to. Can she give us some idea of what people in Creston who have those concerns would need to do if they wanted the issue considered?

Hon. C. Clark: I understand that amalgamation has been a very sensitive topic in communities like this member's. We as a government did make, I think, a positive move in reducing the number of collective agreements from 69 down to the actual number of districts, which is 60. I hope this has helped knit together school districts a little bit better. The Premier made a commitment during the election that we weren't going to drive change in school districts from the top, that it was going to be driven from the bottom.

If school districts do want to have change, there are a couple of different things they can do. Obviously, we're pursuing shared services as aggressively as we can, encouraging districts to share all their back-office costs and things like that. In terms of representation, if a school district or a part of a school district would like to join another district or change its status some way, they can apply to the ministry. We will look for substantial agreement amongst the community there. We'll obviously also look to the neighbouring districts — the one that might be getting added on to, and the one that might be losing — and try to have some public discussion about that. We'd review the input that we received. If we were satisfied that there was good reason to do it based on the community input, and if we were satisfied that it wouldn't have a negative impact on student achievement in education in the district, we could move ahead with that.

I'd certainly encourage members of the community, if this is what they're seeking, to start looking for community support for that or at least feeling out all the parties to find out how everybody feels about it and get a sense of whether or not it's worth moving ahead with.

B. Suffredine: At the same public meeting on Tuesday in Creston, I'm advised that trustees attending the meeting told the public that the proposed school closures result from funding cuts by the Education ministry. My recollection of the numbers, as I saw them, was that the Kootenay Lake district actually got a very modest increase in funding for the current year.

I spoke to staff some time ago. That wasn't the topic, but my understanding was that the closures proposed were taking into account years of declining enrolment and planning for the future so that they wouldn't have to revisit the topic, and keeping facilities — not divesting themselves of facilities but making them available so that if the economy expands, some of the schools that are currently being closed can be used again.

Can the minister clarify that? Are these closures in any way a result of funding reductions in the Kootenay Lake school district, or are they as a result of declining enrolment?

Hon. C. Clark: It took me a minute to track the exact information down, but I want to give precise information. The total change in funding is $899,643. That's an increase for the district this year over last.

B. Suffredine: Before I came into the House this afternoon, I actually received a call from a Nelson resident who had a suggestion on how we might save some money in our school district. His idea was specifically that the district look at reducing the number of elementary principals in particular. His way of putting

it was that in Nelson we have a number of smaller elementary schools and that having a principal for every small school — and there are some schools that are particularly small in Nelson — doesn't make a lot of sense to him. Now, is there anything the ministry can do to encourage school districts to consider creating a system where one principal manages and supervises more than one school, in areas where the schools are small and located in close proximity to each other?

Hon. C. Clark: Some districts have done that with a great degree of success. Kamloops is an excellent example. It's hard to speak to the specifics of this district, but it may be something that would work in Kootenay Lake. There's no evidence to suggest it hasn't worked in other districts that have tried it. That's certainly something that the citizen who phoned the member could pursue with their school district — quite a legitimate point to make and certainly a method of saving money that other school districts have pursued.

I have a little more information about the history of block funding in the district. This might also be helpful to the member. In 2000-01 the per-pupil amount we spent in Kootenay Lake was $6,974. This is an expression of the total operating grant that we provide, divided by the number of students in the district. In '01-02 it was $7,271, and in '02-03 it's gone up to $7,479, so it's been a substantial increase on a per-pupil basis.

R. Nijjar: I found through my research that school uniforms in other jurisdictions have been used to make schools safer — create a safer environment — which, as seen in the ministry's service plan, is one of the goals to create a better learning environment and to increase educational outcomes. Would the ministry consider the use of school uniforms as a possible tool to create safer schools and, therefore, increase educational outcomes?

Hon. C. Clark: There's some evidence to suggest, as the member has said, that there is a positive impact on student achievement of introducing school uniforms, but ultimately that needs to be a local school district decision. There are examples of school districts where they only have one school that is required to have school uniforms, and they've done that based on public demand.

Because we're moving to a system in British Columbia where any student will be able to attend any school anywhere in the province, provided there's space, school districts will be in a better position to create magnet schools and attract parents and students to those schools based on the uniqueness of the program they provide. School uniforms can certainly provide a school district or school with a unique magnet to attract parents who are interested in the kind of structure often associated with the introduction of school uniforms.

So certainly, I encourage school districts to pursue it. I very much support increased choice for parents across the province, and I think this is one method to do it. Different districts or different schools that have tried it have seen an increase in educational attainment as a result of that.

R. Nijjar: There have been particular examples in the attempt of parents to try to get school uniforms in British Columbia. The particular examples don't matter, but the point is that school boards had an ability to reject the vote — for example, of a school — based on guidelines that they set for themselves.

I understand, based on the ministry's service plan, that the goal is to give as much control to the school boards…and let them make decisions within their own community and their needs. Is there the possibility of a framework from the ministry that gives parents clarity as to how to interact with the school boards and what is required of the parents and the schools in order to get school uniforms if they wish?

Hon. C. Clark: That's a very interesting suggestion. It's something I'd certainly be prepared to talk to the B.C. School Trustees Association about — how we could make that happen.

It's not just the uniforms; it's the whole issue of magnet schools. How do parents, if they want to have a choice for their children in the district, make sure the district responds to actually providing that choice? It might be a traditional school with uniforms; it might be a fine arts school — a whole range of different choices that parents might want to make available in their districts. Certainly, it's something I can pursue with the B.C. School Trustees Association. I appreciate the fact that the member has been so active in talking about choice, about school uniforms, and has really led the debate, I think, on this specific issue.

The other thing I would add is that school planning councils…. Previously districts and government only had to contend with parent advisory councils in districts. I don't say "only" because they weren't a force to be reckoned with, but because legislation limited them to an advisory role. Districts that were prepared to listen to parents had a terrific interaction, and parents were quite influential, but in districts where there wasn't that same level of communication, sometimes parents felt shut out and felt like their decisions or their needs weren't being responded to.

The creation of school planning councils gives parents a guaranteed and meaningful input at every school. I would hope that some of the discussion about choice in schools will be driven by school planning councils looking at their needs, looking at where they've been and where they want to get to. Perhaps they might decide that the introduction of school uniforms would help them reach their goals in terms of student achievement. They will be much more powerful in making that statement to the student planning council than they ever have been before, because school districts will be required to base their accountability contracts and their plans for improvement on what comes out of the school planning councils and the

planning at that level. It should be a very interesting dynamic that we start to see develop.

R. Nijjar: I look forward to the opportunity to work on a framework to give the parents that choice. One of the things that I've done is through the GCC on economy. I was the chair of a subcommittee on youth employment. In our interim report, we concluded that if we want a workforce that is responsive to the direction our economy is going, then we have to start gearing our students towards those fields. Partly, we need to do that. It cannot start after high school. At 19 and 20, when a lot of jurisdictions do that, it's too late. I think we have traditionally focused on that here in British Columbia.

My question is: how is the Ministry of Education working with the Ministry of Advanced Education to make sure that our system is more seamless? How is the Ministry of Education ensuring that the education in the K-to-12 system is going to realistically attach our children to jobs and/or training and/or education that is going to be where the opportunities are in the future?

Hon. C. Clark: The Minister of Advanced Education, as I know the member is well aware, is working on changing the trades training system. We're intimately involved in that with her and talking about how we can make sure the system is seamless. Another proposal we've put forward is the idea that students can earn apprenticeship credits while they're still in high school — not just apprenticeship credits but university and college credits — and start making that more transferable for students so that when they graduate from high school, they have some more value to employers because they've got a bunch of their training under their belt already. I think that will enhance seamlessness as well.

We've also been talking about pathways through the grad requirements review. That has met with mixed reactions, I have to say. Many parents are worried that the balance we might find in implementing a pathways system might err too much on the side of streaming, where young people are required to make decisions early in life that might be irrevocable later on. Parents have told me they just don't think that suits B.C. It might work in Germany, but it doesn't work here.

We're trying to find a balance with pathways, to provide kids with the information they need, to make sure that they are fully aware of all the opportunities that exist for them and that there's some definition around the course plan that they could choose, so that it's well valued and goal-oriented. Often what we do in our current education system is say: "Okay. There are two streams. You're going to university. Here's what you need to do, or you're not. Good luck." I think we need to provide more definition to that second group of young people who aren't necessarily planning to go on to university. That's what the discussion about pathways has been about.

There's a number of different things we need to do. We also need to make sure that we plug employers into high school better, so that kids can be educated about the job opportunities out there. I talked to someone who runs a mechanics shop the other day — or he's a mechanic. He told me he's seen evidence that suggests you can earn more as a mechanic — it's a very highly skilled job nowadays and requires a high level of mathematics — in your lifetime than you can as a general practitioner in medicine, in some cases. So I think the esteem in which we hold the trades has to rise as well. It's not just a matter of money. It's also a matter of the skill level that's required. That's a whole cultural change we need to talk about throughout the system. There are a whole number of things we can do, and I certainly appreciate the member's interest in that.

I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the education estimates today. First of all, I know the opposition leader has already canvassed the area that I wish to also canvass, and I hope the minister will indulge me. There are some very brief questions I would like to ask, because I am having some meetings with parent advisory councils and parents in my community.

It has to do with school closures, school district 61, and dealing with particularly two schools in my area: Fairburn Elementary and Uplands Elementary School. I think we've all seen those in the news and on television, as well as in print. In speaking with the parents, though, they have indicated their desire to find ways to keep these schools open.

In particular, I want to just ask the minister this question, and it has to do with funding. I understand that funding is provided at approximately $5,300 per student, and if in fact the school enrolment numbers were to change in midyear, there is a possibility that the numbers are submitted and education budgets can be revised. If that is in fact correct, I want to just put this on the floor.

The Uplands Elementary School has done a tremendous amount of work in the recent year with its PAC. They developed a brochure and went out to the community and have been able to, I guess, solicit students from the private schools to possibly come into the public school. This is a fabulous opportunity. It is about choice, and it is about flexibility — exactly what our government is encouraging.

They said that as many as 43 children are prepared to come in, and they now have a wait-list. I multiplied it by $5,300, and that amounts to $227,900. I'm told that the cost of closing Uplands School is $282,000. We're about $55,000 short, but I'm sure they can find other ways to mitigate that. Parents are asking me, if they present a viable option like that, whether the school district trustees could consider that and whether the Ministry of Education would have any input to pro-

vide to the school district. Can the minister provide some clarification on that?

Hon. C. Clark: I want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work this member has done in talking with me and my ministry about education issues in her community. She's been — there's no other way to characterize it — absolutely relentless on behalf of her constituents, and she deserves a pat on her back for that. No question about it.

The school district, though, is ultimately the body that makes decisions about school openings, school closures and school amalgamations. I don't have the power to intervene, and I don't think I should either. School districts need to make the decisions about what schools they keep open, based on the business case they have.

Obviously, if it's going to be more beneficial financially for a school district to keep the school open than it is to close it, well, if I were them, I know what decision I would make. But they need to make a good, solid business case for that. They need to work those financial numbers and make them part of their consideration. I'd certainly encourage the parents who have raised these issues to present these concerns to the school district and ask them to answer those questions, because I'm sure they could have an interesting and probably quite useful debate about it.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that, and I would agree that we want the school boards to have the autonomy to make those decisions. There's no question. The parents just wanted to know that they were going to be heard by their trustees, and I do hope that occurs.

The other issue they raised with me is the development of principles and criteria to guide school closures. What happened in school district 61 is that five principles were developed and some criteria, of which eight have been developed. I don't know whether those criteria and principles have been developed in conjunction with the Ministry of Education or, again, whether these are developed individually, school district by school district, as to whether schools should be closed or whether those should remain open. Could the minister advise whether her office has been assisting in any of these criteria or principles being developed?

Hon. C. Clark: No, we haven't been involved in that. Those decisions are made locally. Obviously, different school districts have different priorities and different local community needs, so we've allowed them to design their own criteria on which to base these decisions. I'm advised — just so the member has a little more information — that Fairburn School has an 86.5 percent utilization rate, which isn't particularly high but not as low as Uplands, which is about 64 percent.

I. Chong: I was aware of the utilization rate, and I'm not sure what criterion — whether 84 percent or 75 percent — is sufficient. Again, I understand that the trustees would have to determine that. However, I was quite surprised — to be very candid — that Fairburn was indicated as a school slated for closure. In all my years as an MLA, I had never heard that Fairburn had been discussed. I know Uplands had been in and out of discussions, but Fairburn never was, because it had some unique issues and socioeconomic challenges. About one in five students there has ESL. I didn't realize until I met with the PAC president that it is a catchment with a fairly large ESL population. For those reasons, it has other challenges that are unique to it.

I'm not going to request much more of the minister. I realize that the school districts are working this out and are going to be making the decisions at the end of the month. It's just that there was a fairly large meeting held last night, and I'm meeting with parents tomorrow and next week. I will continue to meet with them, because they are wanting to find solutions. The bottom line for them, though, is whether or not, in presenting those solutions, the school districts are not wishing to be yielding to those kinds of debate or discussions.

Parents obviously want to know whether the ministry would have any opportunity to question or — I wouldn't even say audit — scrutinize those kinds of decisions being made. When parents go to those great lengths to present what they think is a good and sound business case and can't understand why decisions will continue to be made, they obviously will come to an MLA. I want to be able to provide them with some basis of understanding of what more can or cannot be done from the ministry level.

Hon. C. Clark: We don't meddle in individual, local school board decisions like this one. I know it's a really difficult discussion to have locally, but nonetheless, it should rest at the local level. We do require that there be appropriate consultation about school closures that abides by the principles of natural justice, but that's about as far as we intrude into this debate. It really is a local issue based on local priorities. Local school boards are elected, so they will ultimately be held accountable, as we all will be, for the decisions they make.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister for allowing me this opportunity. She probably well knows that over the course of the next two weeks, I may be in and out of her office on a few more occasions. I want to thank her for this opportunity.

R. Hawes: I have a couple of questions, minister, if I could. This sort of follows along the line of what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was talking about, and that's the capital plan. I'm trying to get it through my head to try to understand this. In those areas where schools are closing because enrolment is falling, utilization is down; yet in other parts of the community, perhaps newer parts of the community, there are new openings planned. Are we, first, encouraging school

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. That's an excellent question, and it is part of our policy to require schools to make maximum use of the school facilities they have. Coquitlam, my local district, is a good example of one where they have high, high utilization at secondary level but a much lower utilization at the elementary school level. They're talking about closing three elementary schools, while at the same time we're spending nine million bucks opening up a brand-new secondary school for them.

Populations shift and populations change. We're seeing across the province a big demographic shift between younger kids and older kids. There's a big population bulge at the secondary level, and there's a real, real shortage of kids coming into kindergarten now, because people just aren't having babies at the same rate. But, yes, we absolutely do encourage maximum utilization. We own hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in public assets, and we should be making sure those assets are used as much as possible, as often as possible, by as many people in communities as possible. That's what good government, good prudent management does.

R. Hawes: That's kind of the answer I was hoping to hear, but I guess I would have to ask if this has prompted a change in the capital planning. When I look at the capital budget going out a few years, I'm not sure how much that has been altered with — I don't know if it's a new realization — the shifting demographic.

That leads me, then, to ask about the School Sites Acquisition Act, which I think is in place. That forces development in all communities to pay money into the acquisition of new sites to build schools. I'm wondering, minister: has there been a look at better integrating the School Sites Acquisition Act with what our real capital plan is going to be if it has been altered?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that the charge is set at the prediction for the number of new kids that are coming into the system net of existing capacity. We are recognizing that in the system, and we're requiring that school districts have very high-capacity utilization before they get new schools.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the House is adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday, March 24.

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