Hansard — Tuesday, November 15, 2005 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		1799

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1800
	Guru Nanak
	D. Hayer
	Medical services in 100 Mile House and Williams Lake
	C. Wyse
	Toastmasters accomplishments by Angela Louie
	R. Lee
	Tigers and Dragons exhibit
	J. Kwan
	Zajac Ranch
	R. Hawes
	Universal Athletics Club
	J. Brar

Oral Questions		1802
	Call for independent review of children's deaths
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	Hon. G. Campbell
	A. Dix
	R. Austin
	M. Farnworth
	J. Kwan
	Manufacturing jobs in coastal forest industry
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	R. Fleming
	C. Evans
	Government action on shortage of skilled workers
	G. Robertson
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Supply of skilled workers to rural communities
	N. Simons
	Hon. C. Hansen
	CN Rail commitments on safety, maintenance and environmental protection
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon

Reports from Committees		1807
	Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
	B. Lekstrom
	M. Karagianis

Committee of Supply		1808
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. G. Abbott
	H. Lali
	J. Brar
	C. Trevena
	C. Wyse

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1826
	Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued)
	Hon. S. Bond
	C. Evans
	R. Austin
	C. Trevena
	N. Macdonald
	J. Kwan
	J. Horgan
	D. Routley
	H. Lali

D. Hayer: Visiting here today in the parliament building, we have Kim Bolan, a reporter with the Vancouver Sun and a great writer, who also wrote a book on loss of faith and who knows a lot about the Sikh community and Indo-Canadian community. Could the House please welcome her.

N. Simons: Today in the House I would like to welcome Chief Stan Dixon of the Sechelt Nation along with councillors and former Chief Gary Feschuk, former Chief Tom Paul and Marita Paul, along with three people who helped the band do the work they're doing: Brian Woodward, Cam Forrester and Allan Donovan. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today what I consider to be three very important people who keep our film industry very competitive in our province. It is such a very important part of our economy. We have Dusty Kelly, who is a business representative of IATSE Local 891. She's accompanied by Howard Storey and Rob Morton, the president and treasurer, respectively, of the Union of B.C. Performers. May I ask the members to please make them welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today in the precinct we have a number of guests here on behalf of the Special Olympics. It is my great pleasure to also have my son Nigel Gamracy here, who works with Special Olympians. He has 15 individuals right now that are going to be competing, and I see some of the members here in the House today. I hope you will all join me in making them welcome and wishing them the very best of luck.

R. Sultan: We have in the galleries today two grade six classes from Ridgeview School in West Vancouver along with ten parents and two other Ridgeview staff members. These children have come today with a special assignment. They are to focus on various systems of government. They've been learning about various forms of democracy, but they've also been learning about dictatorships, coups and anarchy. I'm looking forward to meeting with them after this session to find out their interpretation of what they've seen here in Victoria. Would you please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It is with great pleasure that I, too, introduce students from Delview Secondary School. Not all of them are here now. They were here earlier seeing the stimulating debate during estimates in health. There are still a few that have trickled in. Would the House please make the Delview Secondary School students welcome.

R. Lee: In the House today I have the pleasure to receive a group of distinguished Toastmasters and their families as my guests. Angela Louie from Burnaby Mental Health and Addictions Services recently won a second-place trophy in the Toastmasters International world championship of public speaking. Accompanying Angela are members of her family: Allan de la Plante, Mary Louie, and her children Bajan Oates, India Oates and Keane Oates.

Together with them is Diana Cheng, president of Toastmasters of Today, who has won three Toastmasters of the Year awards in the club level. I'm also pleased to see her husband Peter Lau and Toastmaster Gladys Chiu.

Last but not least, it is my pleasure to meet Anne Krammer, immediate past governor of District 21 Toastmasters. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to make a friend welcome — Tim Bailey, who is a member of the International Association of Firefighters and who has been in the gallery for the last couple of days. I think he has drawn triple duty. Please rise and make him welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know the House has already been made aware of the fact that British Columbia's Special Olympians are here with us today. This is the 25th anniversary of the British Columbia Special Olympics. I want to take a moment to say thanks to all the Special Olympians on behalf of all the members of the House and the people of British Columbia for the exceptional example that they set for all of us.

We have proclaimed the week of November 20 to 26 as Special Olympics 25th Anniversary Week in the province of British Columbia. On behalf of all the House, I would like to say thanks to all of them for their commitment, their dedication, their leadership and, most importantly, the example they set for all of us of individuals striving to be the best they can possibly be.

G. Robertson: In the House today I would like to welcome a friend and colleague from the business world in Vancouver, Mr. Joel Solomon, who joins us — a great proponent of sustainable business and community activism in Vancouver and the lower mainland in general. Would the House please make Joel welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: The students of Ridgeview Elementary School from West Vancouver are here with us today in the precincts. There are two very special students here, Jamie and Michael Heale, who are occupants of the same beach where I am in the summer. I want to say thanks to Jamie and Michael for leaving me alone and getting on with their life in the summertime. I hope the House will make them both welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the gallery we have a very special delegation from the Netherlands. This delegation is on a fact-finding mission to discuss and

learn more about electoral reform. The delegation is led by Jan van Schagen, project leader, civil forum electorate system. Accompanying him are Cora van der Meer, PR advisory for the delegation; Rachel Broekmeulen, project secretary; and Marleen van Fessem, the deputy project secretary. They are accompanied by Joop Corijn, consul general of the Netherlands. I ask the House to please give them a warm welcome to British Columbia.

D. Hayer: Today we are celebrating the birth of the founder of the Sikh religion, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, born in 1469. Guru Nanak represented much of what the Sikh religion stands for. He was a positive leader, embracing other cultures and studying other religions. His devotion clearly showed his deep conviction that people needed a new prophetic message.

The most fundamental shift in thought was Guru Nanak's declaration of the brotherhood of man. This principle formed the foundation of Sikhism. He spent 25 years of his life travelling to Asia and the Middle East, preaching his new religion.

Guru Nanak believed in the casteless society. There would be no distinction based on birthright, religion or sex. He began that common kitchen called "langar" where all can sit together and share a common meal, whether you are a king or a beggar. He showed the true path to humanity with his teachings.

Guru Nanak persuaded the people to lead a moral life. He asked them to follow these principles: always speak the truth; don't take possession of things which don't belong to you; earn your living by honest means; and don't injure the feelings of others. Guru Nanak used to say that goodness and evil both run parallel, but we should adopt goodness and struggle against the evil. Having spread the message of change throughout the world, Guru Nanak was successful in challenging and changing and questioning existing philosophies and laid the foundation of Sikhism which we are celebrating today in this House.

C. Wyse: I rise in the House today to recognize the improvement of medical services provided in the Cariboo communities of 100 Mile House and Williams Lake. It is important to recognize both Interior Health and the Cariboo regional hospital district for their financial contributions to these projects. Equally importantly, the members of this House also must be advised of the contribution made by volunteers to both of these projects.

In 100 Mile House the former health council began the planning and instituted the renovations to develop a community health centre, involving hospital services, public health and seniors care on one site. The newly renovated emergency room and laboratory are part of that vision, developed and started in the 1990s.

Locally the South Cariboo Health Foundation raised about $750,000, with a significant portion of that sum coming from the Elgrin Lockridge Estate. In Williams Lake a CT scanner as well as a new renal unit and tele-thoracic services are added to Cariboo Memorial Hospital.

Likewise, in the 1990s the local health council incorporated in its redevelopment plans a room to house a CT scanner, made for the day a scanner would be purchased. In addition, the Cariboo Foundation Hospital Trust will raise more than $700,000 towards its purchase.

In closing, I ask the House to recognize not only the local foundations and their volunteers under the leadership of Sandy Foster in 100 Mile House and Carol Taphorn in Williams Lake but all individuals and organizations that contributed to both these projects being completed to serve the health needs of Cariboo residents.

R. Lee: Toastmasters is an organization whose mission is to make effective oral communication a worldwide reality. Toastmasters started in October 1924, when Ralph Smedley assembled a group of men together in the basement of a California YMCA to practise the art of public speaking. A club was formed, and now 81 years later over three million men and women worldwide have benefited from the communication and leadership programs that Toastmasters provides.

Toastmasters arrived in Canada during the early 1930s — to New Westminster and Victoria. In fact, the first club chartered outside of the United States was right here in Victoria, B.C. in 1935. Today there are about 200,000 Toastmasters worldwide in over 70 countries. In B.C. alone, there are now 261 clubs serving over 2,000 members.

The most prestigious and recognized competition in public speaking is the Toastmaster International speech contest. Toastmaster Angela Louie has accomplished what no one else before her has done in B.C. — win three of the last four district contests. From there, the district winner competes in the regional level but has to compose a brand-new speech. Ms. Louie competed and won her regional contest in June 2005, defeating competitors from Alaska, the Yukon and the western United States.

Last August the ten regional winners met to compete for the title of world champion of public speaking, an event that can be likened to the Olympics of public speaking. Ms. Louie had the honour of representing her region, but more importantly, she represented all British Columbia when she stood on the world stage and held aloft the silver trophy. I would like the House

J. Kwan: I rise in this House to let the citizens of British Columbia know about an exciting exhibit that will tour Vancouver for eight months next year, premiering at the Vancouver International Children's Festival.

Tigers and Dragons: China and India for Kids is a hands-on exhibit that will teach children and families about two of the most important countries in the world and two of the most prominent cultures in British Columbia. This is the first exhibit produced by Kids Around the World Children's Museum Society, whose mission is to promote intercultural understanding, global citizenship, and environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability.

Children's museums are magical places where children and their caregivers can explore and learn together in a hands-on environment that incorporates the very best in early childhood education. There are more than 200 children's museums in the United States but only six in Canada and none west of Winnipeg. Tigers and Dragons offers a high-quality proof of concept of what is to come in the permanent museum, which will celebrate all the countries and cultures around the world.

Tigers and Dragons allows children to practise a range of important developmental skills and gain a sense of intercultural understanding. The 1,000-square-foot exhibit includes, among other things, an Indian kitchen, a Chinese market and a climbable version of the Himalayas. I'm pleased to advise that Tigers and Dragons is under the distinguished patronage of the Hon. Iona Campagnolo, the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia.

Kids Around the World also has the support of four well-respected honorary patrons — Thomas Berger, Leon Bibb, Ian Hanomansing and Judith Marcuse — and has received many letters of support from key individuals and organizations. Won't you please join me and join those who have been working hard on this special project in helping bring a children's museum to Vancouver. They accept funding from all sorts of people.

R. Hawes: All kids should experience the joy of going to a summer camp, but unfortunately, there are many who suffer from debilitating or life-threatening conditions that preclude them from this adventure. Now one of B.C.'s best-known philanthropic organizations, the Zajac Foundation, is doing something about this. In 2003 the foundation, headed by Mel Zajac and his daughter Carmen, purchased Stave Lake Correctional Facility when it closed. Their vision was to transform it into a camp for these special kids designed to improve self-esteem, confidence and quality of life. Raising the spirits of children with life-threatening illness is the simple objective of this camp.

Set on the shores of Stave Lake in Mission, the camp and its distinctive western theme offer kids experiences including swimming, horseback riding, canoeing, campfires, storytelling and specific therapy programs. There's a fully equipped medical centre under construction, offering everything from first aid to full dialysis. Cost to the camper to attend — nothing. The camp is run as a benevolent, philanthropic venture with no cost to the kids who go there.

I've been there many times, and I can say that every visitor becomes an enthusiastic supporter. Even the hardest heart will be touched by this wonderful project after seeing the joy of young campers — many for the first time — experiencing what normal, healthy kids take for granted. The Zajac Ranch website says it all as it speaks to kids who might want to come.

I urge all members to visit http://www.zajacranch.com and do what you can to help kids with debilitating illnesses by assisting with the fulfilment of this wonderful Zajac vision.

J. Brar: I rise to inform the House about the wonderful youth sports event held on November 6 in Surrey, organized by Universal Health Athletics Club under the leadership of Jessie Dosanjh, a close friend of mine.

I would also like to mention the names of two young constituents of my riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge that were among the sports people recognized for their achievements at this event. Their names are Gurjot Bal, who won this year's Vancouver Sun Run in his age category, and Monica Kang, who was recognized as a high-performing athlete.

As a past sports person myself, I recognize the importance of sports to ensure that the energy of our younger generation remains channelled in the right direction and that they learn the importance of teamwork and team building. My own experience as a national basketball player has given me an added appreciation for anyone that endeavours to engage our youth through sports activity. That's why I would like to say thanks to Jessie Dosanjh and all members of the Universal Athletics Club for all their work and activities and to congratulate them for promoting sports and physical activity among Surrey youth.

The club provides a safe and fun environment for young players, promotes cooperation and better social

skills, and improves the level of physical fitness in my community. However, it is disheartening that whereas our community leaders are making more than their fair share, we continue to remain in serious need of adequate sports facilities and coaching staff. I would urge all members of this House to make every effort to support the work done by organizations such as Universal Athletics Club and make the well-being of our younger generation their top priority.

C. James: My question is to the Premier. Three years ago this government sent letters to 80 families — we now learn today it may be more than 80 families — informing them that the investigations into the deaths of their children were suspended.

My question to the Premier: who made the decision to suspend these child death investigations, and who made the decision to send those letters?

Hon. J. Les: I have been very clear, particularly over the last several days, that our interest is to make sure that these outstanding files are properly concluded. I have given instructions to my staff to, in fact, make sure that happens and to provide the coroner's office with the resources they need to conclude those files in an appropriate way.

C. James: Now, after the fact, we hear that the government is looking at all of these issues. But there is a great deal of concern about how this case has occurred.

In 1996 we heard the Premier stand in this House and demand to know why 49 cases were left behind in the transition period after the Gove report. We heard the Premier call these children "invisible children."

"When a child dies, investigate. When a child dies, pay attention." Those were the Premier's words. Now we hear that there are 80-plus forgotten children. Again to the Premier: you said you cared then. Now it appears you don't. What has changed?

Hon. J. Les: I want to make it very clear that we have set a very high standard, which we expect to be achieved through the child-death review process in British Columbia as administered by the coroner's office. Where there are outstanding files, we will ensure that those files are completed to everyone's satisfaction — appropriately completed. I've already made commitments to do that and to ensure that the resources are available to ensure that happens.

C. James: In fact, there was a high standard set nine years ago when the Premier was the opposition leader. I'd like to quote his words. He demanded that the government of the day "act immediately to appoint an independent children's commissioner and immediately refer all 49 deaths for an independent review."

It's nine years later. He is now the Premier, and this government has lost all control over this issue. It's time for the Premier to step in. My question again to the Premier: why won't he take his own advice from nine years ago and immediately appoint an independent review of all of these deaths?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by saying that when a child dies, I think we should pay attention. When a child dies, we should investigate. When a child dies, that investigation should be carried out by someone who is independent of political interference. That is exactly what took place when we changed the legislation.

My expectation today remains exactly what it was nine, eight, seven, six, five and four years ago. I expect children's deaths to be investigated. If there is a question of resources, we have been very clear as a government that we will provide those resources. If there's a question of review power, we will make sure that we have the proper review power in place.

The issue for us is pretty clear. We watched as the coroner carried on his obligations. In fact, every year — four out of five years — his budget was below what was allocated for child death reviews. Last year in the spring, we were informed that there may be a requirement for additional resources. Additional resources were put in place. The Solicitor General has said that if additional resources are required, they will be put in place. We have a blue-ribbon panel headed by Mr. Hughes that will come forward, and if there are legislative changes that need to be made, those legislative changes will be made.

Everyone in this House is concerned and should be concerned if a child dies in British Columbia. We have established through legislation that those deaths will be investigated. There clearly has been a problem. The problem is going to be fixed, and children's deaths will be investigated in this province so that we learn and improve on the quality of support we provide to children across British Columbia.

A. Dix: The Premier's words say: "When a child dies, investigate." His actions say: "When a child dies, don't investigate." Eighty cases, I say to the Premier, shelved, stopped; investigations stopped — 80 cases. Today we learn from the Solicitor General that that number may be a great deal more. How many? He doesn't know.

Yesterday outside this House the Solicitor General was asked why his predecessor did nothing on this issue, and he said: "You'll have to ask him." Well, I

want to ask the Solicitor General today: has he asked the Minister of Forests and Range why he did nothing on this issue, and did the Minister of Forests and Range provide any explanation for three years of negligence?

Hon. J. Les: I want to make it very clear to all members of the House that today I am the minister responsible for resolving these issues and ensuring that we have a child-death review process in the province of British Columbia that meets all of the high standards that we have set as a government for these processes.

I also want to advise the House that it has come to my attention as recently as noon today that there is possibly a significant number of additional outstanding files. I am having that information developed as we speak, and I will be releasing that information as soon as that is available.

A. Dix: My supplementary is to the Premier, who has appointed three Ministers of Children and Families, two Solicitors General and two Attorneys General who have not acted to be in charge of this issue. The Premier said in this House in 1996, in asking for an emergency debate about 49 cases: "It is now time that this House speak with one voice and give clear direction to the Ministry of Social Services and to the Minister of Social Services. He must act immediately to appoint an independent children's commissioner and immediately refer all 49 deaths for independent review."

I say to the Premier: isn't it time he took personal responsibility for his government's failures and he personally referred all cases to a new independent children's commissioner?

Hon. J. Les: As the member opposite is aware, these matters are being reviewed as we speak by the Hughes committee in terms of any matters we might learn as to how we can improve the process. I want to underline again that we have set very high standards in terms of how these child death reviews should occur in British Columbia. We have the chief coroner of the province, who independently can enter into any appropriate investigations relating to child deaths in British Columbia. I think we have taken all of the measures to ensure that, certainly going forward, we have a process beyond reproach in the province. And where there have been outstanding files from the past, I commit to the House today that all of those files are going to be brought up to date in an appropriate way.

R. Austin: The Solicitor General's version of the story just doesn't seem to add up. He said he found out about the forgotten children a month ago, but in March the chief coroner said his office would look into deaths that took place around the time the Children's Commission was closed. So the chief coroner knew that some cases had been abandoned. The Solicitor General at the time would have known too.

Can the current Solicitor General explain why this information never made it to his desk or why his predecessor didn't take action last March?

Hon. J. Les: While it is clear that a number of files remain outstanding, it is absolutely false for the member to suggest that files were abandoned. These files have not been abandoned. They will be appropriately concluded.

After all the questioning and all the revelations, one thing is clear. Multiple members of cabinet have failed. The Attorney General didn't know his role. The Minister of Children and Family Development acted only after massive political pressure. The current Solicitor General can't answer basic questions, and his predecessor, who is still sitting at the cabinet table, led a ministry that forgot 80 child death reviews. Still, not one of these ministers seems to know what's going on here.

It's time for the Premier to take control of this spiralling situation so the public can move past the incompetence of his ministers. Will he ensure that all 80-plus deaths are referred to a children's commissioner for review and live up to his own standards?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that I am going to take the responsibility to ensure that all of these outstanding files are dealt with appropriately, professionally and to the satisfaction of everyone. Again I say that we have set a very high standard in British Columbia. We want to be leaders in terms of child death review, and to the extent that there are outstanding files, I want to make it my personal responsibility to ensure that those are dealt with appropriately.

M. Farnworth: Today and over the last few weeks we've heard that there was no transition plan. We've learned how the government, the Premier, made cuts that impacted on the ministry — the elimination of the children's commissioner, more than 80 missing files. In fact, they don't even know how many missing files there are. The minister talks about high standards. My question to the minister is: does he believe that those are high standards?

Hon. J. Les: We have already been very clear, I believe, that these outstanding files are unacceptable. I have taken steps and put measures in place to ensure that those files are properly dealt with. We want a child-death review process in British Columbia that is second to none. I'm going to, along with the help of my colleagues, ensure that that happens.

J. Kwan: What's clear is this. Yesterday the Solicitor General called those 80 forgotten children's files drive-by allegations. Today he told the media that there are more cases from 2002 that are lost, but he doesn't know exactly how many children were forgotten in the shuffle through the transition period when the children's commissioner's office was closed.

That completely flies in the face of his comment that he discovered the problem a month ago and that he was doing everything he could to fix it. He doesn't even know how many children's files have been lost through that transition period. Clearly, this minister doesn't know what he is talking about, and he cannot get his story straight.

Let me go to the Premier, who is the head of the executive council — to take some responsibility for the actions of this government to date and to do the right thing. Do the right thing by reinstating an independent children's commissioner and having those 80 files reviewed immediately and ensuring that this never, ever happens again.

Hon. J. Les: We are in fact taking all of the steps necessary, I believe, to ensure that we have a child-death review process that is beyond reproach. We are dealing with the outstanding files in a responsible way. I've already indicated to the House that hopefully as early as later on this afternoon, I will be able to update the public as to the exact state of those files and how many of them there are.

I want to be open and transparent about this process. I would ask the member opposite not to presuppose what the recommendations of the Hughes committee might be with respect to the children's commissioner. I think that together, we should await those recommendations.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests and Range has indicated a number of times in this House that he's working with the Coast Forest Products Association on a strategy for the coast forest sector. To the minister: does the strategy he's working on involve a substantial increase in the export of raw logs to China?

The minister has talked about a marketplace adjustment that is necessary for the coast forest industry. As we found out today in an article in the Vancouver Sun, it appears that this adjustment is simply to shift our manufacturing capacity over to China and then to help China compete in our own markets.

My question to the minister is this. How can we have a strategy that the Coast Forest Products Association is working on, which the minister says does not involve an increased shipment of raw logs? Does the minister support the Coast Forest Products Association strategy and the export of British Columbia jobs to China?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is referring to a PowerPoint presentation that was done by the Coast Forest Products Association on May 6, 2005, to a bunch of international people. It was actually some wood products forum they were at. It has nothing to do with government. It was not a policy of government.

The only thing the member has got wrong is that I'm working with the Coast Forest Products Association on a fix for the coast. That's not what I've said. I've said I'm sitting down with all the industry on the coast, all the participants on the coast, to look for a fix and a long-term strategy for the coast. One of the organizations I've met with is, no doubt, the Coast Forest Products Association. I've made it very clear to this organization that I do not support the points that were contained in that PowerPoint on May 6, 2005 — and will not, and neither will this government.

R. Fleming: That presentation was funded by this government. In fact, the taxpayers of British Columbia have given the coast forest industry association almost $3 million to develop markets for B.C. products. But today we find out that some of this money has gone to a China strategy that would have us abandon manufacturing jobs in British Columbia.

Will the Minister of Economic Development tell us: what other strategies are British Columbians paying for that will send jobs overseas?

Hon. R. Coleman: This was a PowerPoint presentation. This was not a policy of government. What we have done with organizations — and, actually, every government has done it — was work with trade organizations to try and find new markets for B.C. wood products. I think that's important. We are not going to send raw product over to China to be subsidized with Chinese labour to sell product back to British Columbia. It is not a policy of this government and will not be a policy of this government to do that.

R. Fleming: A million dollars to come up with a plan to ship jobs overseas — now, that is what I call value for money. Does the minister support the Coast Forest Products Association's strategy? If not, what will he be doing to counter this strategy and grow our own value-added industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: In actual fact, we do have a value-added strategy that is coming forward very shortly, which has actually come across my desk, for British Columbia. The most important part of a value-added strategy is, frankly, for us to get to a deal with the U.S. and make sure it's a first-mill pricing so that

our value-added sector isn't going to be disproportionately charged a duty or a tax when they ship their product to the United States, which is their largest and most major market. We are actually going to include in that strategy the ability to do that.

As we go forward, frankly, none of this strategy has anything to do with how the member couches it. The money that went to look for markets didn't go to try and find a way to ship a raw product and have it brought back to Canada cheap to buy it here. That is not the position of this government, and it was never the position of yours either. We in British Columbia have been pretty consistent on how we will deal with those aspects of the industry.

C. Evans: Yeah, well, I think those are great answers. So it kind of begs the question: if they were developing a new strategy and not the old strategy, when did the minister communicate that he didn't accept the old strategy? When did he communicate that he was going to develop a new strategy, and who's doing it for the minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: As soon as I saw that PowerPoint, I communicated that it wasn't on and that it was of no interest to this minister or this government to have any further discussion on that topic.

G. Robertson: Speaking of government mismanagement, the skills shortage is no longer looming. It's here. Congratulations.

G. Robertson: Construction sites across this province are running behind schedule and over budget. Businesses can't fill key positions. My question is to the Minister of Economic Development.

G. Robertson: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. When will this government take action and implement a comprehensive plan for the estimated 40,000 new skilled workers that British Columbia will need by 2010?

Hon. C. Hansen: The good news is that the Industry Training Authority is actually exceeding its targets, exceeding all expectations of the number of new registered apprentices that we have in British Columbia today. If you go back just 20 months ago when the ITA was first established, there were 14,676 registered apprentices in British Columbia. Today I am pleased to report to the House that there are over 23,000. They have set as a target that we're going to have 30,000 registered apprentices in B.C. by the year 2007, and they're well on track to exceeding that.

G. Robertson: My farming background brings me to that age-old saying: don't count your chickens before they hatch. The Minister of Economic Development is talking about registrations and not completions of apprenticeship programs, and there's a very, very clear distinction between them.

The reality is that fewer and fewer people each year are getting credentials. Completion rates for apprenticeships are down by a shocking 44 percent since 2001. We need 40,000 new skilled workers by 2010 to replace retiring workers. According to the Industry Training Authority's own service plan, by 2008 the government will come up short by 32,650 workers.

To the minister again: when is the government going to initiate an action plan to accelerate training and completion of apprenticeships for our young people so British Columbians can benefit from our economy?

Hon. C. Hansen: The reason that completion rates are taking a little bit longer is because of the strong economy. You know, when the labour force survey came out just a week ago last Friday, it showed that British Columbia actually has a record low unemployment rate of 5.1 percent, the lowest ever recorded in the province. What we are finding is that for the first time in many, many years — certainly we never saw it during the 1990 decade of decline…. What we're seeing is that young British Columbians who want to get into the trades have opportunities not only for more education, more training opportunities, but they've also got opportunities for jobs. Mr. Speaker, that's great news for British Columbia.

N. Simons: Yesterday we learned about the government's Industry Training Authority plan that will force rural colleges to cut programs. My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. How does this program-cutting approach benefit B.C.'s rural communities?

Minister, just so we can have a little quiet so we can hear what your answer is.

Hon. C. Hansen: …a so-called leaked document that's out there. This so-called leaked document was in fact published in December of 2002 on the website of the Ministry of Advanced Education, which at that time was responsible for industry training. It has since been moved to the Ministry of Economic Development. What that document talks about is the need for some consistency in entry-level trades training throughout the province. What we have engaged in is a discussion with colleges and universities to actually get some standard approach so that a student in one part of the province is going to be facing the same kind of course requirements as a student in another part of the province.

Just to give an example, carpentry. In the College of the Rockies it's a one-year program. In Northwest Community College it's a 16-week program. We are actually endeavouring to bring some consistency throughout the province. It's an open and transparent discussion, and we invite all input, including that from the member.

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the credit for finding the leaked document. I'm going to tell my colleagues about that. My supplemental question is to the same minister. I'm not sure which one, but the same one.

The chamber of commerce is warning that young people from smaller communities are being drawn to job prospects in our bigger cities. Over half of the businesses surveyed said that they are currently unable to fill positions in their communities. This government is failing to address the huge shortfall of qualified workers in small towns across this province. At the same time, the ministry is restructuring the funding for our colleges that will eliminate diverse training programs in those very same communities.

I'd like to know what the minister is doing to ensure that rural communities will be able to attract enough skilled workers to keep their economies viable.

Hon. C. Hansen: We know that what happened during the 1990s is that many of those young workers from British Columbia…

Mr. Speaker: Members, we listened to the question. We'll listen to the answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: I had the pleasure last week of travelling through the northwest of British Columbia through Houston, Smithers, Kitimat, Terrace and Prince Rupert. Up there in the year 2001, when the NDP was still in power, they had an unemployment rate in the North Coast–Nechako region of 12.5 percent. Mr. Speaker, do you know what it was as of just a week and a half ago, when the labour force survey came out? It's down to 6 percent.

Unlike during the 1990s, when the unemployment rate used to go down because people left the workforce or left the province, what we've seen in the North Coast–Nechako region is a significant growth in the number of people employed in that region over the last four years under this government's administration.

D. Chudnovsky: On August 11, I wrote the Minister of Transportation and asked him whether the government had discussed safety, maintenance and environmental protection with CN during the privatization of B.C. Rail. So far, no answer. Will the minister tell the House today whether the government brought these issues to the table with CN, what commitments the government sought from CN, and what commitments were made by CN as regards safety, maintenance and environmental protection?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I responded to the member, as I recall, and I made it clear to the member that I would forward his letter to the federal Minister of Transport, which I did. We've addressed those issues.

D. Chudnovsky: There seems to be a theme developing here from the other side of the House which is: if there is a problem in B.C., we should go to Ottawa to get it solved.

Is the minister — the same minister who never asked CN to shorten its trains from the time of the first derailment to the time that the federal minister finally acted — telling the House that the government didn't once in the entire process of privatizing B.C. Rail mention safety, maintenance or environmental protection — didn't have a discussion, didn't ask a question, didn't seek one commitment from CN? Is that what the minister is telling this House and the people of British Columbia today?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, here we go again. It's time to give the Transportation critic a lesson in the fact that it's actually the federal government under the Canada Transportation Act that regulates the railways. What I

would say to that member is that if he would actually pay attention to the discussions we've had in this House, we canvassed this very, very thoroughly. We spoke to the president of CN, senior executives at CN, and I spoke to the federal Minister of Transport. They made it very clear that the Transportation Safety Board has an investigation underway.

The member opposite apparently has all the answers. He already knows, apparently, what these derailments are a result of. But actually the public doesn't know that. The public won't know that until we get the results from the Canada Transportation Safety Board. I will wait for those scientific results until we know what the real problem is.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 38th parliament respecting the 2006 budget consultation process.

B. Lekstrom: I would ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

B. Lekstrom: Hon. Speaker, I would now move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments. This year the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services heard from 4,436 British Columbians in our consultation process. This was regarding the upcoming provincial budget, and this level of participation sets an all-time record for public input to any parliamentary committee in the history of our Legislative Assembly.

The report, which was unanimously adopted by all committee members, contains 21 recommendations addressing the fiscal and budgetary priorities of our province. Overall, the committee heard and found that British Columbians were calling on the government to pursue a balanced approach when allocating the surplus funds. This balanced approach includes measures to enhance our economic competitiveness, to invest in infrastructure projects, and to support access to social programs for individuals and communities.

The committee report makes specific recommendations in key priority areas, including a long-term debt management plan, investments in transportation infrastructure, fair and reasonable wage guidelines for public sector workers, and a gradual reduction of the provincial sales tax.

In closing, I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and I would like to thank all British Columbians who took time to provide us with their thoughts. As well, prior to closing, I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to all of the committee members as well as the staff that worked so hard to bring this report together in such a short time frame. I'm proud to be Chair of a committee that had such great workers and great help and support, and I thank the members here today.

M. Karagianis: As the Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance, I, along with my other colleagues on this side of the House, would also like to extend my thanks for the committee's work to everyone who participated, including the individuals and groups from across the province who submitted presentations to us. I would also like to thank the Chair for the way in which the committee ran and the way that issues were handled from both sides of the House. I appreciate very much his cooperative nature.

The opposition caucus, in accepting this report, would like to acknowledge that certainly we heard from many people and many individuals across the province who were not included in this report. This, we believe, was a function of time and the structure of the process only. Legislative committees are not a creature of government. In fact, they are the responsibility of the Members of the Legislative Assembly and belong to the province of British Columbia. Therefore, we would join the other members of the committee in saying that we have some suggestions to put forward for how the system can be improved next time around, and we look forward, in fact, to working with the other committee members in finding ways to improve the process so that we can all serve the community better.

I think it is imperative that the committee go to communities with questions that are timely and that reflect the public's desire to have a real role in shaping policy and priorities. We need to work together to develop questions that give individuals and groups the opportunity to contribute to the process, and we must work together to ensure that more is done to facilitate consultation.

There needs to be a strong commitment from both sides of the House to increasing public awareness. There are many examples of important issues in this province that did not make it into the report or get the attention they deserved in the process — groups like the aboriginal community, the ethnic communities. Members who are marginalized, in fact, often do not have a voice with which to present to government.

I think all of us recognize that the process this time around was an anomaly and that we will see a different process in the future. I think we all want to strive to do a better job of representing the people of our province and to allow them to participate in this process.

We do know that the time frame this year was a problem. It did not allow us the kind of consultation across the province that we would have liked. It was

foreshortened. We would actually like to work with all members of the committee to improve the process next time around so that it is a much more productive report.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber it's the Ministry of Health. In the little House it's the continued estimates of the Ministry of Education.

D. Cubberley: So we left off, I think, with a couple of tagged-on questions around long-term care beds, acute care and some other things. Unless the minister is passionate at this point about making further comment on it, I'm going to suggest we go into another area.

Hon. G. Abbott: There were a couple of points I wanted to make around the wait-times information that had been advanced by the member. Perhaps their appreciation of the Fraser Institute is stronger than ours is on this side of the House. I have no brief for or against the Fraser Institute. The members opposite may have a stronger attraction towards the work that's produced by the Fraser Institute. I know they based a news release around the Fraser Institute report, and that's fair enough.

The only problem…. Well, among the problems with the Fraser Institute analysis around wait times is that they drew their conclusions only from the polling of a relatively small number of physicians. In contrast, the data that the ministry has in relation to wait times is based on not only physician consultation but also admissions and discharge data from hospitals, information from health authorities and other sources. It's a much broader-based analysis than one would find in the Fraser Institute report.

Again, people form conclusions based on a variety of things. I do think that what we're able to offer in terms of rigorous analysis leading to conclusions about wait times is stronger from the ministry perspective than the results that are indicated by the Fraser Institute's reports.

D. Cubberley: Well, just on that, I wasn't championing the Fraser Institute per se or the report in particular. Like the minister, I've read it. He's clearly conversant with it, and there were a couple of interesting things in it which I didn't hear the minister actually counter. So I would just come back to them.

One of them is that British Columbia has a longer median wait time for access to orthopedic surgery — substantially longer than the national average of access. We know that orthopedic waits are the most troubling category of waits that we deal with. So I was using it in the sense of providing a reference which was available and not trying to say that those numbers are absolutely accurate. It's more a question of an indicator.

The other thing that we think was interesting in the information provided by the Fraser Institute report indicates that as limited as the sample is — something like 35 percent or 40 percent responding — the access to GP and initial analysis appears to be contemporary with the amount of time it takes people to get through that part of the process in other parts of Canada. But the actual time taken from seeing the surgeon, completing diagnosis and getting approval for surgery, that part of the process is substantially longer in British Columbia than the Canadian average.

I'm not arguing in favour of those numbers. I'm trying to analyze and, through questioning, probe the ministry's understanding of where the bottlenecks in our system are and where the emphasis needs to be placed in order to remedy that.

I do come back to the fact that the context we're in today is one that…. Whether we are directly affected by it or not, public health policy is directly affected by the Chaoulli case at the Supreme Court, which determined that an individual waited too long for access specifically to orthopedic surgery. That decision is hung on a wait for what we deem is an elective surgery, which, I believe, is a class of surgery that tends to get put off more by its nature and to have longer waits because it's deemed to be less medically urgent.

The whole focus is on trying to find where the correction needs to be applied, and I'm simply probing and not championing the numbers of the Fraser Institute. I'll leave it to the minister if he wants to answer that further; if not, I would like to move on.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the conclusion that one might draw from a body of data is going to be…. The accuracy of what is predicted by that analysis is going to be dependent on the accuracy of the data that is put into the model. As I've indicated, the challenge with the Fraser Institute data is that it's drawn from a very narrow base. Just some physicians are polled in respect of, you know: "How are we doing?"

The challenge with that is that it does yield what is supposedly, in their view, the longest median wait time for orthopedic surgery at almost 50 weeks. That is strongly at odds with the discharge and admission data from all the hospitals in the province which forms, along with a number of other factors, our conclusions about what median wait times for hip and knee replacements are.

In terms of hips and knees, we have 29.3 weeks for knees and 23.3 weeks for hips. Again, that's based on discharge and admission data primarily but others as well. Recall, as well, that those numbers reflect a 65-percent increase over four years in the number of procedures that are being done in terms of knees and a 35-percent increase in the number of procedures that are being done for hips. So there's lots more work being done and a lot more procedures being done, and that's good.

As our discussion of yesterday pointed out, there are lots of initiatives underway to extract as much efficiency as possible from the system to ensure that for every taxpayer dollar that is expended in this area, we get the maximum public benefit. But, again, a wait time is going to be a product of two things: not only the availability of the procedures and the availability of the human resources that are required — nurses, doctors, anaesthetists and so on — to do the procedures, it is also going to be a product of the demand.

Again, while the number of hip and knee surgeries is up 35 percent and 65 percent respectively, the demand curve is as strong or stronger than that growth in the number of procedures. So, you know, there is a continuing challenge here. It is rooted largely in the demographic character of our society as an aging society, but all of these factors are at work. I think it's unfortunate that people work really hard to try to reform a system and then they're confronted by studies that are based on partial data that are not reflective of what's actually happening in the system.

People are free to do that. We live in a great democracy, and it is always possible for anyone who has a pencil to tell the world what they think about something, and that's fine. We hope that when they do that, they base it on some empirical relationship to what's actually happening in the world, but it is not always so. Again, I think the Fraser Institute is headed in a certain direction, often ideologically, and I think we'd appreciate them working with more comprehensive data so that the conclusions they formed were based on more compelling evidence than what we have today.

D. Cubberley: I would certainly agree with the minister that paper puts up with anything that's printed on it, and that is a problem in one sense, because anything can go into circulation. I don't defend the methods of the Fraser Institute by any means. I think that last time I looked…. Perhaps I was reading a summary study that Statistics Canada, which releases wait times data, puts a very large caution around the accuracy of the data that it releases on wait times. It is not sure that it is comparing like with like, quite clearly, and I would suspect in a general sense that the problem we face is coming to a uniform set of standards for how we actually generate data on wait times.

So when the clock begins ticking is probably an important factor. Does it happen when the surgeon books the surgery at the hospital, and we calculate the wait time after the surgery is booked, or is it from the time that the doctor does preliminary diagnosis and says: "You need to visit a surgeon, because I believe there's a problem"? That's obviously going to affect how we look at wait times and how long those wait times appear. I think probably over time, as we spell out our assumptions about how we plot wait times, we will come to a better public understanding of what it is we're talking about. But that's an ongoing work, and I don't think we'll wrestle that to the ground this afternoon.

So I would propose that we move into another area of equally interesting discussion, and I believe that we had suggested we'd look at enhancing primary care — primary care reform as another area.

I just wanted to begin with a brief comment. Looking over the service plan update gives you an opportunity to look at the goals for the system, and obviously one of the goals — goal number two — is high-quality patient care. Under "Ministry objectives," which are on page 16, in relation to high-quality patient care, it gives "timely access to appropriate health services by the appropriate provider in the appropriate setting," which is a good objective. Under the "Key strategies," one of them is enhancing primary care. So one of the vehicles for improving the quality of patient care is to enhance primary care and presumably improve access to it.

As a comment, though, in looking at the "Performance measures" section, given the overall importance of access to a physician, the fact that in British Columbia and in other provinces in Canada it is increasingly a struggle for many people to have the kind of access they would like or develop a relationship on an ongoing basis with a GP…. In looking at the performance measures there are three given, and none of the performance measures relate to what the layperson like myself understands as access to primary care, which is getting to see a physician or other health care practitioner around general problems or around a testing or screening process for problems that might be occurring but have not given any particular sign. The three performance measures have to do with access to residential care, access to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and hospital admission from emergency departments. Those are all important elements, but I don't immediately or intuitively connect those to primary care.

In thinking about renewal and reform of primary care, I'm wondering if you would like to comment on the fact that there isn't a performance measure that appears to relate to it.

The Chair: Members, with the indulgence of the committee, the chair would like to make an introduc-

tion. I see we're joined in this House by members of the Red Hatters club. I had the privilege of being inducted into a local club in Kelowna, the Red Hot Divas. In my experience with the Red Hatters, it's more about fun and laughter and enjoyment, so I can only imagine what they're doing here with us today. Would the House make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I'm glad the opposition is canvassing this area, because primary care is really a growing area of importance in the health care delivery system. There are a number of real and expected benefits that can flow from having good primary care resources strategically located across the province. I'll go into a few of those.

First, to address the member's question about why there isn't a specific performance measure around primary care. The challenge is that, relatively speaking, the Ministry of Health has been an overperformer in terms of identifying lots and lots of performance indicators. The Auditor General has indicated, in fact, that if you can ratchet it down a little bit and kind of focus in on some of the key ones from, I guess, a broad perspective…. That's part of the challenge here.

Health is a big world, and there are a lot of important areas in that world. It's tough to have all of the performance measures we might like because they would get very extensive if we tried to do them all. But notwithstanding that, primary care is something that we want to excel in, because we believe that it is fundamental to excellence in the future in the health care system.

It was identified as an important element in the first ministers' accord of September 2004, and 24-7 access to primary care is something that provinces report on regularly and something that we believe is very important from an access perspective, physician supply perspective and so on.

Good primary care is something that we want to do, because we do believe that it can be the foundation of a strong and increasingly excellent health care system. If we are doing an excellent job of primary care, it can divert people who might otherwise find themselves inappropriately, for example, in an emergency room, because some of those issues, unless they're resolved outside of that forum, might find their way into emergency rooms. Also it eases, generally, on the acute care side. We're finding increasing interest from physicians in finding a new model of primary care that will work for them.

I think the one thing that is sometimes lost in the fee-for-service model, with the need to roll over patients or clients on a regular basis in a fee-for-service system, is the opportunity for longer consultations on issues like chronic disease management or even counselling on cessation of smoking — those kinds of things. We need to build more opportunity to be able to help people manage their own lives better.

D. Cubberley: The minister has embarked a little bit into where I wanted to go, which is the direction for renewal and reform of primary care. Primary care teams are obviously one approach to reforming the system; an association of practitioners of various kinds which could simply be more than one doctor but could also include many skill sets that are not under the fee-for-service structure — everything from nurse practitioners and therapists to nutritionists. Obviously, that kind of model would afford much greater opportunity for the incorporation of aspects of preventive medicine into primary care.

I guess the questions are: does the minister see an expanding role for primary care teams in the delivery of primary care? Does the minister see problems with the existing fee-for-service structure in terms of enabling multidisciplinary care teams to get established and to be able to pay for the other services that don't fall under fee-for-service?

Hon. G. Abbott: I again thank the member for the question. I really believe this is a very exciting area in terms of public health policy, and I'm passionate in my belief in the future of a strong and growing primary care model.

I've had some firsthand experience with this in the city of Enderby. Enderby Hospital was announced for closure, I think, about 1998. It was a very small acute care facility — I think four beds in its last phase — and the health authority concluded that it should close in '98. It actually was closed, I think, in 2001 or 2002 and was replaced by a primary care centre.

Initially, there was some skepticism in the community about it: "Well, you know, this isn't really a hospital. This seems like, you know, a second-rate substitute for a hospital." I think as time has gone on that people are embracing the new model in many ways. They're delighted, for example, that they can go into the primary care centre in Enderby and they can see a doctor, a nurse or a speech pathologist. They can get advice about lifestyle issues or perhaps some support from the drug and alcohol worker that is there on a regular basis.

It really is kind of a much more holistic centre than what would have been possible in the latter stages of the life of Enderby Hospital going into the emergency room. It's a different atmosphere than one finds in a hospital. Obviously, if you have a substantial medical emergency, a primary care centre is not the place to go. That's a given, but for a lot of the things that confront people — and chronic disease management might be one of them, some lifestyle crises might be another…. The best advice, for example, about FASD and how to make healthy choices during pregnancy is a very important issue at that centre. To me, the centre embodies a lot of what is great in our system, and I think that the potential of this is going to grow over time.

I was to a conference probably about two or three weeks ago now. I have trouble tracking all of these things in my busy schedule, but it was probably about three weeks ago. I went to a conference, which we were co-sponsors of, which was looking at opportunities for primary care and for collaborative models, not only in rural settings, where they probably would be more common, but in urban centres as well, where we are increasingly finding physicians kind of frustrated with becoming more business-oriented in a fee-for-service model, rather than dealing one-on-one with people, which I think is what originally drew a lot of physicians into it.

The one collaborative that was spotlighted in the primary care conference that I was at was a collaborative in the northern part of Vancouver Island where the doctor, the nurses, the midwives, the physio, the nutritionist and others were involved in a collaborative aimed at doing many of the things that, for example, the Enderby primary care centre would do, which is to try again to work as a team to deal with the health challenges that will be evident in communities on the north end of Vancouver Island. Again, the folks that were there and spoke to it were, clearly, very pumped about the opportunity they have to build better health care up in that very beautiful part of Vancouver Island, and it's a model that works for them.

It's not a model that's going to work in every part of the province. My staff advises me that, in fact, across the province — and I don't know if I'd use the term models — there are 91 different approaches that are being adopted to primary care in different locations. Some of them, for example, are in places like White Rock, where the physicians there, at least some of them, have concluded that they want to move to a different model of care. We want to support them in that.

There is a challenge around that. When these issues come up, of course, ultimately it all kind of drifts back down to fee schedules and how we're going to remunerate people for different functions, whether they're in the fee-for-service model or whether they're in a primary care model. I don't think they all want to go on salary, but they want to have a different way of recognizing the kind of work that they are undertaking, because it is a variant from the fee-for-service model. That's part of the challenge that we will have as we move forward in our discussions with the B.C. Medical Association.

As the member undoubtedly knows, there was the so-called GPSC agreement, which came to the consideration of the membership, or at least a portion of the membership, of the BCMA — I think it was in August — rejected by an approximate 58-42 margin. That was an attempt, largely developed by the BCMA itself, to try to put together a physician agreement that would capture the support they'd hoped, I think, of a very strong majority of their members. Regrettably — or not regrettably, I guess, as the case may be — it failed.

We still really need to try to work with the BCMA to see if there's a way that we can develop an agreement that will enjoy stronger support among the family physicians and the primary care physicians and so on across the province. We really do believe, powerfully so and passionately so, that this is a model that can provide better health care for the province.

D. Cubberley: Given that GPs historically have had lower incomes than specialists — and that, in and of itself, has been a problem in helping to keep people interested in being GPs — there's obviously going to have to be some method of incentivizing the kind of changes that we might want to see that would help people to engage in associated practice.

Without a great deal of knowledge of how the existing system works, if we have a fee-for-service model and the only way that doctors can be paid is by doing specific things with specific fees associated, then in order for them to put together a stable of other skill sets that would supplement or complete the range of services they offer and get people coming in at appropriate levels, they'd essentially have to do something like pool their billings and then find a way to retain staff within their total income, as I understand it — if they were doing that simply of their own accord.

A couple of questions. One is: are the ministry and the minister thinking about something along the lines of the BCMA recommendation that would put some additional funding in place that would enable the creation of multidisciplinary care teams, which would not simply be teams that are sponsored in some fashion by a health authority through some special device such as the creation of a clinic, but would allow doctors themselves to draw together into associated practices and form their own entities?

Perhaps I should just leave it there, but the question is: are we looking at reforms to the fee-for-service structure that go beyond adding a certain amount of money for a general consultation to try and make it a little bit richer for a doctor who may or may not be interested in serving in a primary care team setting? Are we looking at going beyond that and setting aside some other moneys that would enable doctors to come together and to pay for some of the additional skill sets that might be required in order to give a more complete practice, in order to create a team?

Hon. G. Abbott: These questions can get complex in a hurry, so I'll try to get the important issues out here. In terms of looking for better models, we need to work with the B.C. Medical Association to identify models that will work for their organization or some components of their organization. I think the first thing that we have to recognize is that the B.C. Medical Association is not a large and monolithic organization. It is a large and diverse and complex organization that contains not only family physicians but specialists and surgeons and a range of skill sets, a range of economic interests.

There are often regional or geographic factors that enter into the consideration of portions of the B.C.

Medical Association. We do work with them as the professional organization representing doctors in this province, so we are always keen to work with them to find ways in which we can make their job satisfaction higher and their happiness to be working in British Columbia higher as well. If there are workable alternatives to the fee-for-service model, we want to discuss it with them, recognizing that there's going to be a diversity of what will work and where. We need to work those things through with the BCMA.

To set the context, though, it's important to note that British Columbia ranks second among provinces at 111 per 100,000 population in terms of physician supply, second only to Newfoundland, for whatever reasons. It's also important to note that in terms of expenditures per capita on physicians, British Columbia is number one in the nation. That doesn't always yield the most procedures, however; one would want to measure the productivity of each physician. That's not always represented in the dollars that are going forward.

This is all a way of setting the context, though our challenge as a ministry is not only to get the best value for the investment of the taxpayers' dollars that we are stewarding in this ministry. We need to do that. We always need to ensure that the maximum public benefit is derived from every taxpayer dollar that we expend, but just as importantly or perhaps more importantly, we need to align, as closely as we can, physician resources with patient need.

That's really sort of the crux of the matter: identifying the range of patient need that's out there. It's going to be different in Fort St. James than it is in Cranbrook and different in Cranbrook than it is in Kelowna, different than it will be in Powell River, Victoria or Sicamous. It's going to vary across the province, so we need to have a model that is adaptive enough that it will take account of different patient needs in different corners of the province. Just like the BCMA, the province is a large, diverse and complex entity, with different patient needs in different corners of the province, though the challenge is clear enough.

We need to find a way. You know, the GPSC that was rejected in August may constitute a kind of base that we can work from. We're happy to talk about how we can build on the GPSC agreement with the BCMA, so that discussion is underway. It's not a simple discussion. It won't be an easy discussion. The province has finite resources as well, and that needs to be recognized.

Given all that, I think there are some opportunities that we can explore with the BCMA. In the process of working through these things I do hope that we identify not only where, from the perspective of the province or the BCMA, there needs to be some adjustment in terms of a fee schedule, but more importantly, that we explore some ways in which we can better meet patient needs and at the same time ensure that physicians in this province are enjoying the maximum job satisfaction that they can so that they'll want to continue to work and enjoy life in British Columbia.

D. Cubberley: I understand from reading the service plan that there's a national and provincial fund that's dedicated to primary care transition, of which B.C.'s share is something in the order of $74 million. I believe that the update suggests that the decision has been to turn this money over to health authorities to invest in accelerating and expanding sustainable primary health care initiatives.

My question would be: if there's this lump sum of money that can facilitate reform of primary care, is it best spent through health authorities? Is that the way you will induce the maximum amount of reform of primary care? And within the expenditure of that money, are there any targets set? For example, would there be targets for health authorities to make funding available either for the creation of community health centres or to initiate the creation of community clinics of the kind that the minister was describing as a replacement for the hospital in Enderby? I guess the point of the question there is: are any of these resources actually going to go into triggering the creation of collaborative practice in the delivery of primary care?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the member opposite asks innocent questions and suddenly a barrage of information comes back to him, not because I know it, but because the people around me are so full of information, and they're delighted to share it with me. I'm honoured and gratified by that and honoured and gratified to share it with the member opposite.

One of the things that is astonishing about being in this ministry is that we were just talking about the $74 million. To us, it's a relatively small sum of money, but some ministries operate on that on an annual basis, so it's actually a lot of money, but let me put it in context. It's $74 million over five years, so that becomes somewhere between $18 million and $19 million per year for five years. In terms of the allocation, the health authorities will receive 65 percent of that. The province will retain 28 percent of it and the ministry 6 percent of it for different initiatives in the different areas.

In terms of the allocation by type of project — just to give the member a sense of the kinds of things that will be done with this — close to 40 percent will be around practice models and networks. That's the collaboratives, among other things, that we've been talking about — shared care, information management and site software, infrastructure, evaluation and evidence. All of these are in descending order of what we're doing with it.

Among the projects, I'm glad to share with the member these 91 different approaches, models or projects that have been underway. They're termed here "new practice models for improved quality of patient care." There are lots of them occurring across the province: the White Rock Medical Associates, for example; Morgan Creek Family Practice Group in Fraser;

in Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Cool Aid Community Health Centre is probably one that the member is very familiar with; the Port McNeill project, which I mentioned and I thought was very compelling; the Gathering Place, which replaces the Aboriginal Friendship Centre — that's one.

In the Interior Health Authority: the Chase and District Health Centre is one I'm very familiar with, along with the Enderby one; and there's the Kamloops Downtown Health Centre, which I think is doing great work; Sparwood Health Centre; Kimberley Health Centre, and so on across the province. The Northern Health Authority has community collaboratives in six different centres: Chetwynd, Massett, Mackenzie, Fraser Lake, Quesnel and Kitimat, so that's great work being done there.

There are a lot of exciting projects underway that are being supported by the $74 million. We're going to learn an enormous amount from this. That's one of the exciting things about this ministry: things are not always perfect, but there's continuous improvement going on, and it's continuous improvement that's based on ongoing work to determine things that work better. When they work better, we learn best practices. We put those best practices into action, and every day we can see better patient care as a consequence of that.

D. Cubberley: A couple more questions. I thank the minister for the response. I know that his staff has brought to his attention the BCMA study on multidisciplinary care teams which was recently published, one which I had a chance to read recently and found interesting. I note that they polled doctors regarding barriers from their perspective on engagement and primary care teams. The number one barrier by a long shot was financial.

The report doesn't identify, as far I can remember, whether that was perceived financial or real financial, but the unknown dimension of finances was the number one inhibition.

The second inhibition, which came up quite high on the list, was liability. This has to do with conferring elements of decisional authority on to associated practitioners and not understanding entirely where the responsibility might lie — whether it comes back to the doctor.

The third and fourth barriers, which were also substantial, were concerns about professional autonomy which I've heard quite frequently from doctors who have not had an experience of working with other health professionals who are not doctors. The fourth one was care-coordination concerns — the whole idea about managing care in moving from a setting of being a doc in a box somewhere with entire responsibility for it to moving into a situation where you may be managing care provided by an array of providers.

To me, reading those over, those concerns suggest the need and the potential for interventions that would address each of them. In the case of liability, it may be the development of a template for how liability might be handled — not just on the insurance side, although that probably is a question in moving into collective practice, as to how liability is shared amongst practitioners with different scopes of practice.

But to get back to interventions, some kind of process that would allow doctors some exposure to people who have successfully made a transition into collaborative practice and understand how it works, and some opportunity to actually develop some elements of the skill sets that are required to manage in a more complex environment…. It's a big step, as anybody who has been employed as an independent consultant of some kind will know. It's a big step to move into team practice with people, and it requires different levels of skill.

To me, it's not difficult to understand that that might be a challenge, that there might be barriers within the way medicine is currently practised to taking the step into another form of practice.

I'm not looking for a long answer, but just…. No, that wasn't a shot, minister. But is the ministry going to be looking at the potential to generate field supports that would help enable the kind of behaviour change that's required in order to gain a higher level of primary team care in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm tempted to simply say yes and sit down. Really, that would fill the bill in terms of an answer, but of course I won't. The member's question is a very good one. As the member indicated, when the members of the BCMA were asked what they believed to be the barriers, they identified a number of barriers.

Indeed, there is a strategy in place which hopefully will be supported in whatever successor agreements we have with the BCMA that will make it possible. But there is going to be training needed, I think, for those portions of the medical profession that want to embrace a more collaborative approach. I think it's important that some training be undertaken. Conferences like the one we held, which had quite a number of physicians attending them, would be good examples of how information is disseminated around how collaboratives can be built successfully.

The liability issue is also an important one — not one that is within the ministry's purview. I understand from staff that there is an organization called the Canadian Medical Protective Association that deals with liability issues on behalf of the physicians of Canada. So that would be something, likely, that they would be seized of in terms of liability, along with, to some extent, the College of Physicians and Surgeons as well.

The care coordination, either through physician management or nurse management — these are possibilities. There will be, among the 91 approaches that are being undertaken in the province, different examples of nurse, doctor or other professional management of these collaboratives. Again, we wouldn't seek to be proscriptive, because British Columbia is a large and diverse province, and it's not going to be a one-size-

fits-all model that's going to work. It's going to be a range of models that will work in different cases.

In terms of how we can backstop the movement towards collaborative models and primary care models across the province, obviously we'll need to backstop it with agreements like the one we had tentatively secured with the BCMA through the GPSC, a proposed agreement where there was recognition of maternity care enhancements and networks, where there were fees for patient conferencing and things like chronic disease management.

I mean, there is an infinite number of variables that may come into play in terms of building an agreement with the BCMA that's going to work. We recognize that this is large and complex, but obviously, it's worth doing. We do hope that we're building on what I think is a good, positive and sound relationship between ministry and government and the BCMA. I'm hoping that we can move ahead and build an agreement that ultimately will benefit many more patients across British Columbia.

D. Cubberley: I'd just like to bring this close to what I think is a relevant example of how primary care teams can be created in embryo through an association, because not everything is going to be formed on the basis of being a full-scale clinic with a whole range of different skills in one location. One would like to think that there is room in the system for doctors to begin associating themselves at relatively small levels of aggregation.

The reason that I'm interested in it is because I've had a longstanding experience with a community health centre, which I found a very satisfying experience, and I've also had a long experience with an individual doctor. I can say without reservation that the quality of care and the immediacy of care provided through the health centre is far superior to that which can be provided through an individual doctor, if only in part because it's ever so much easier to get in to see someone initially in a practice where there are associated professionals.

If you go to a doctor — especially these days, the way things are operating — and you needed to talk about something that you hadn't booked the appointment for, you would be in the position of booking another appointment — unless, paradoxically, you had gone to a walk-in clinic, in which case you could walk out through the door and walk back in again and have it immediately. But if you're dealing with the standard doctor operating alone, it's one appointment for one topic. If you try to add another topic, it's three weeks or two weeks or however long to get back in to see that doctor again, which is a very, very rigid model. It's not the doctor's fault. It's where we've come to with a model that I think we're outgrowing.

On the other hand, from my point of view, the experience of the health centre…. Although there was a whole array of skills within that centre, there were really only two skill sets that I was in contact with on an ongoing basis. One was the doctor, and the other was a nurse practitioner. I think you have the beginnings of associated practice when you can put a doctor together with a nurse practitioner, because a nurse practitioner can handle a whole range of things that doctors currently have to find a way to fit into practice that are not especially remunerative and that often take them away from dealing with chronic disease management or other things — acute care of some kind — that they might be more engaged in dealing with and that might be more suitable for their skill set.

I guess my question is: given that we are expanding the creation…. We've created nurse practitioners. We're now generating a substantial number of them. Would the ministry be looking at the role they might play in primary care and some way of creating a connection between those graduating nurse practitioners and practising fee-for-service doctors so that you could begin to insert that level of care, where a doctor was interested, into a matrix and begin to create collaborative practice in that regard?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question. First, just to ensure that we're clear on this point, any practice that involves not raising more than one issue at one visit is not something that's mandated by the province. It may be something that appropriately or inappropriately a physician might adopt as a practice within their office, but it's not something that we as a ministry encourage them to do. In fact, we would encourage them to do otherwise, but that would be, in some cases, at odds with the practice.

In terms of the member's broader question about nurse practitioners and what role they might play in terms of the evolution of collaboratives in this province, I suppose that while the answer is generally yes, we don't propose to be prescriptive around exactly what each and every nurse practitioner will be doing. There are only, I think, eight practising nurse practitioners in the province at this point. It's a relatively new addition to the field of medical professionals in the province. We are only graduating, I think, about 30 nurse practitioners per year at this point. Nevertheless, we do believe that they will be playing an important role, particularly in the provision of primary care across the province.

In some rural or remote areas where it's unlikely that we would get a physician practising on a sustained basis, they may be the fundamental provider of medical care. That would be one example, but there will be lots of cases where a nurse practitioner becomes a very important part of a primary care centre, perhaps in an urban setting as well. So we don't have strictly defined or prescriptive ideas around what the nurse practitioners will do.

I think it's our hope, rather than seeing nurse practitioners assigned to specific physicians, although one wouldn't discount that possibility, and that could happen…. We're hoping, rather, that we will create incentives to link primary care physicians to the health au-

thorities and have the nurse practitioners possibly serving as a part of a number of collaborative teams involving a number of physicians rather than being exclusively assigned to a particular physician.

So the question of how we incent that is a very important one. That will be, I guess, part of the great unfolding here in the weeks and months ahead as we discuss these issues with the BCMA but also with the B.C. Nurses Union and others that are moving towards a renewal of their collective agreements or their other agreements with government.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for those comments. It's interesting to think about the possibilities for providing a broader array of skills than can be marshalled by a single doctor working in an office somewhere. I do think, in my own personal opinion, that it is the future of primary care and that it will become increasingly imperative that we move in those directions. But I also think that there's a tremendous amount in it for doctors because collaborative practice is inherently more interesting than solo practice in many regards. There are challenges, obviously, to overcome.

Before leaving it, I guess the reason that I raise the question around nurse practitioners in particular is because while doctors being under fee-for-service can set themselves up pretty much anywhere, a nurse practitioner is going to have to be an employee in some form in order to be able to be in business. This likely makes the nurse practitioner under the current circumstance a creature of the health authority or hospital or other funded entity within a health authority. I think there may be opportunity in that for an array of doctors to come in contact with nurse practitioners, but there may also be some challenges in nurse practitioners finding their way into associated practices. Again, it's the question of how the services can be billed in a way that's consistent with the delivery of doctor-based primary care.

I'm not looking for the minister or ministry to try and answer that. I'm lodging it just because I think if we can think about some of those complexities and find the ways to not be prescriptive and assign anybody to work with a particular doctor but to be enabling in a way that allows the associations to generate themselves in some fashion, then we could perhaps move primary care renewal and reform along a little bit more quickly.

Anyway, I would like to swing into some discussion of health authorities, and I've been joined by some colleagues who are going to want to ask some questions about particular health authorities. I don't know if that means a full shift change. I see movement. Shall we take one moment for that to happen? I could start because, really, it's….

D. Cubberley: I just want to raise a couple of general issues. We may come back to these in some fashion as we close out the section.

One of the things that's a big change in the delivery of health care in the province has been the reorganization from a system that was substantially decentralized, and I think many would agree was too decentralized, to a system that is highly centralized, where we have very, very large health authorities as entities. I don't know if it's the case, but I suspect, just based on the numbers that I've seen, that we probably have the most centralized system of health authorities in Canada now. We have the fewest per capita. That's not necessarily a comment. It's neither good nor bad inherently, but as the scale of any undertaking increases, there are challenges in the way that services are delivered, the way that communication occurs and the way that relationships evolve with stakeholders and partners.

At a very general level, if I were to quote from one of the sections in the service update on accountability, one of the notions that is set out is: "Our capacity to respond to change has been greatly increased through the development of an accountable, efficient and responsive health sector that welcomes the challenge of improving services for the citizens of British Columbia." I wouldn't disagree with the latter part about the system welcoming the challenge of improving services for the citizens of British Columbia, but I pause at the notion that we have achieved a more accountable and responsive health sector. It may be more efficient. I can't actually evaluate that fully, and I don't want to make that the gist of my comments, but the accountable and responsive side is a place where I have some pause.

That's based to some extent on the fact that I've had a recent experience as a member of the capital hospital region as a subset of the capital regional district board and have dealt with the Vancouver Island Health Authority over a number of years. I'd just like to read a note, a paragraph from a report that was presented to Saanich council on September 27 of this year by Councillor Carol Pickup, who also sits on the CRD board.

I set this up for contrast. I'm interested in comment as to…. Obviously, it's a new system. Is the minister satisfied with the responsiveness of the existing boards, and is the minister or the ministry looking at potential changes that might improve some of the deficiencies that are being pointed to by this report? Rightly or wrongly, the perception is there on the part of a large number of decision-makers of something that's operating at several removes from where they're operating. It's in that sense that I wanted to open up discussion.

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess one of the benefits of now having been in elected office for 26 years is that I have seen the evolution of the health care governance system over two-plus decades. I remember well some of the debates around how to perfect the health care governance system back in the 1980s as a member of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and the regional hospital district board.

There's really nothing…. Well, I shouldn't say there's nothing new. There's always something new in terms of debates about governance, and I know as politicians we often hope that we can find ways to perfect the world around us and to find better ways of achieving things like accountability, transparency, responsibility and so on. I guess the view that I would come down to, and I say this not based on the advice of my staff here…. They might recoil in horror at my impromptu views with respect to this, but it's actually my view — based not only on what I've seen over the past four years, but what I've seen over the past almost 30 years now in terms of being an elected member of the public — that what we need more than anything right now is some stability in the health care governance system, because we have been through a lot of changes. Those changes occurred under the Social Credit government, they occurred under the NDP government, they occurred under a B.C. Liberal government.

So I've seen lots of changes, and I think on balance the fairness, the effectiveness, the responsiveness of the current health care governance model has been better than what I have seen in the past. I think it's getting better. I think it will continue to improve, and I think more than anything what the current governance model needs now is time to grow in the sense of being able to reach out and talk to people, the opportunity to mature as governing entities. I think, if anything, and it may be unfair, and the members opposite — on this side, for that matter — may take me to task for not wanting more change and resolving their particular concerns with changes in governance model, but I personally don't believe that's what's needed right now. I think we need some stability and an opportunity for the system to mature.

The concerns the member raises around accountability, responsiveness and so on. Are those new issues that suddenly popped up in 2001 when we went from 52 to six health regions? I think even the members opposite would agree — no. There has been a lot of discussion about this, endless discussion about this, probably going on 30 years now. For all I know, it may have been going on long before that as well, although I think the local hospital board things were a pretty stable element going back 25 years or thereabouts.

Are the concerns new? No. I remember a lot of intense discussion, actually, when the NDP government was in power in the 1990s. A lot of discussion about: "Can this governance model be excluded? Should the boards be elected? Should they be appointed? Should they be some combination of those two things?" There's all manner of permutations that have been proposed over time about how we might rejig the governance system to perfect it.

Perhaps one of the better analyses was actually done by a group called the regional assessment team back in the 1990s, chaired by the gentleman who now is the Opposition House Leader. I was delighted in coining the acronym "RAT team" from that perhaps unfortunate set of initials, but the regional assessment team actually did some good work and, after numerous meetings with the public and others, came to the informed opinion that it would be better to have appointed boards rather than elected boards. They didn't even recommend a mixed model of some elected, some appointed. They came to the, I think, well-informed view that appointed boards were the way to go. So, is that perfect? Really, the debate could be endless around that point of what would be the perfect model.

I think what we need, and I think what we largely have today, are appointed board members who bring different skill sets to the table. Some will have a business background, some will have a clinical background and some will have a community background. The object, I think, is to bring these skill sets to bear on the issues that confront those board members.

The other thing I want to say, and I think it's…. We need to remember that these are young organizations, now perhaps three and a half years old, that have been confronted with some very, very difficult issues in their infancy as organizations. I think they've come through those very well. What we are now seeing is much more intersection with the public than was the case a year ago or two or three years ago. I know that more and more, the board meetings are being held in different communities and opening those meetings up to community discussions. Is it perfect? Probably not, but I think we've come a long ways, and what I'm seeing in the health authorities is a willingness to try to do more to respond to community interests for dialogue and so on. Sometimes people mistake not immediately agreeing to what they want with being disagreeable.

One of the challenges, as the member will know, is that there's an infinite range of demands on the system, and they can't all be met at one point in time. But I do think that the health authorities are building increasingly sophisticated ways in which they can reach out to the public and try to take account of what people are suggesting.

In the case of VIHA, I don't actually agree with the sentiments expressed by Carol Pickup. I think VIHA has had some challenges — no question about that — as have all the health authorities. But I believe that the VIHA board is working very hard to try to address what some of the issues are on Vancouver Island, and I think the new chief executive officer there is doing a great job. It will perhaps take some time, but I think that will be clear to the public as we move along as well.

D. Cubberley: I think one of the challenges that is going to be an ongoing challenge but can, perhaps, be

solved if there's a different approach to how one entity communicates and engages with another…. Regional districts make a not-inconsequential contribution towards the health care system, which shows up as a tax line on regional property tax. If a regional district board comes to have the sense that its contribution is simply an automatic checkoff and has a sense that its awareness of community needs and community priorities to be addressed does not figure large, or figure at all, in the way that another entity is proceeding, then you are bound to develop a sense of disconnect and some sense of being taking for granted.

That's never going to work well with elected decision-makers. They have to justify to their publics what the money is being spent on, what the priorities are. I think that there is a challenge in having one level of government contributing 40 percent on capital projects and not feeling engaged in a meaningful discussion about the use of that money.

I put that out not to raise debate in particular but to say that I think one of the things that the boards of health authorities have to grapple with is how to work with their partners. The problem probably isn't smaller as you go down the chain and deal with individual agencies, non-profit societies. Other entities that see themselves as partners in delivering services can very readily develop a feeling that they're being told what will happen rather than engaged in some kind of collaborative discussion about what might happen.

I understand the minister's point. Obviously, having been involved in government for a while, I know that there are not the resources to meet all of the needs. It's a very difficult challenge, and I think it will always be that way, no matter how rich our society is. The needs grow with the creation of wealth. It's a very difficult challenge.

I do want to ask the question whether any consideration has been given to creating some elected representation on health authority boards and whether any consideration has been given to actually providing representation to regional districts that are contributing capital moneys to health boards.

Sorry to make a list of it, but to compress it a little bit, the other comment that interested me is that the minister is saying that some health authority boards are engaging in public meetings. I would be interested to know if that's a policy of the ministry — if the ministry is encouraging that — and whether there's a sense that people are aware. I am not aware personally. I've become aware in my role as critic that that may have happened with one health authority or another, but I was not aware of that with the local health authority here — that there were open board meetings. I'm interested in that side of it, and it may be something to reflect on as a way of bringing the board a little bit closer to the community it's in, or communities.

Hon. G. Abbott: As I indicated in the last answer, more and more, the health authority boards are getting out and meeting with councils. They're having public meetings and really intersecting with the public a whole lot more than health authority boards have in the past, whether it's the current boards or it's the boards of the past. I think there is a pronounced effort to try to have that intersection with the public, and I think that's a very positive thing.

In terms of regional hospital districts, I had the opportunity to chair the Columbia-Shuswap regional hospital district for a decade, and I can tell you that the health authorities of the day — whatever it happened to be — would take liberties with the regional hospital district at their peril. Locally elected officials are notoriously cantankerous, as you know, and can occasionally be remarkably independent in terms of the assertion of their interests and their constituents' interests.

I think it's always important, regardless of function and form of the governance model that's in place, that there be ongoing and real and substantive discussions between regional hospital districts, which often pay 40 percent, for example, of new major capital and pay for some of the minor capital as well. I think in most, if not all instances, there have been memorandums of agreement developed now between health authorities and regional hospital districts, which guide the way in which these things will work out — again, because particularly when we're going into a period where there are very, very substantial capital demands across the province and where those capital demands are going to have an impact on regional hospital districts and their financing of projects, I think it's very important that both parties understand how they are going to work through the issue of major and minor capital projects.

The other point I'll note…. I don't want to be unfair about this, and I don't want to characterize inappropriately, but there has at times been a difficult relationship between the capital regional hospital district and the Vancouver Island Health Authority. I understand that that relationship, in fact, has dramatically improved this year. I understand that there are new CEOs. I know that there's a new CEO at Vancouver Island Health Authority, and I understand that there is at capital regional district as well. Perhaps that's part of it, but also the working relationship, generally speaking, has been markedly improved.

Again, in the specific case of VIHA, VIHA shared their strategic plan with their staff on September 26, 2005, and posted the plan on their website in early October 2005. Consultations will occur throughout the fall with VIHA staff and physicians, including the health authority medical advisory committee; regional hospital district members; Members of the Legislative Assembly; and mayors. A draft plan will be shared with affiliates with an invitation for comments and feedback, and open houses will be offered in various communities in November and December 2005.

That doesn't necessarily answer all the member's questions in terms of why there has at times been a troubled relationship and why the board hasn't been more open, and so on. I think what we're seeing now is

the strengthening and maturing of these organizations and the opportunity for them to really get out and do more in the way of public consultation than perhaps was possible two or three years ago.

D. Cubberley: Certainly, the public process that the minister laid out is a new departure, and perhaps that will be a new beginning. I would urge them not to undertake consultation in the month of December, though. That's not a starter. If you want to think about engaging communities, you stay out of that month. I know the minister knows that, because he's been in local government a long time. December is not a month for consulting. That's newness, and they'll come to grips with that, I'm sure.

I think for now what I'd like to do is turn over some time to colleagues of mine who are going to be asking some questions. The member for Yale-Lillooet is going to lead off. I turn it over to him.

H. Lali: What role does the minister or the ministry play at the local level when small rural hospitals or communities want a service reinstated in their hospital or funding for beds? What role does the minister or the ministry play, or what role does the minister play in terms of giving direction to the regional health authorities?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. The member asks a question at a fairly high level. Somehow intuitively, I see a picture of Mayor Chris O'Connor in my head, a friend of the member and myself, but perhaps that's not what he had in mind at all. Notwithstanding that, I'll perhaps use Lytton as an example of where at times I think the ministry can assist in helping a health authority resolve either shortstanding or longstanding issues that they may have around not just small hospitals but perhaps any facilities. In the case of Lytton there were some issues around changes in the health care model. The mayor and council were unhappy with those changes. There was considerable give-and-take around that — lots of history there that I'm sure the member is well familiar with.

What we like to do, where it's possible is…. If the assistance of the ministry is welcomed by the health authority and the community, we're glad to bring the expertise and information base the province has to the table.

In the case of Lytton it's a relatively a complex issue — a small town but a complex issue — in that not only was the community of Lytton and the surrounding regional district electoral area involved, but first nations were also involved in how they might be a part of that reform of delivery of health care in Lytton. So it was interesting and challenging from that perspective.

Generally, we encourage health authorities to resolve these issues themselves if they can, but on occasion, if the issue demands it or encourages it, we certainly aren't reluctant to assist in areas where our assistance is welcome.

H. Lali: Methinks the minister is trying to steal my thunder. Not to disappoint the minister, yes, I will be talking about Lytton, but not yet. I'm going to talk about something else first.

It doesn't matter if you're talking to Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives or whatever stripe they may be, the one thing that comes across in rural British Columbia, especially in small rural communities, is that health authorities are not working. Since those changes have been brought in by this Liberal government over the last four years with the institution of the health authorities, we have seen that health care is actually deteriorating in those small communities — the delivery of it and the availability of services.

What we actually see is the systematic destruction of health care services in these small communities. As you see, over those four years more and more of those services are being pulled out. Beds are being pulled out of those small communities. If you look at Yale-Lillooet, whether you're talking about Hope, Merritt, Lillooet, Lytton, Princeton or anywhere — one of those communities or elsewhere in the province — that's exactly what's happened. All these services have been centralized in the regional centres, whether it's in Kamloops or Kelowna, and now people in my constituency have to go to Kelowna, Kamloops, Abbotsford, Chilliwack or Vancouver and sometimes even Penticton in order to get proper health care. All of those communities are outside the constituency of Yale-Lillooet.

I want to ask the minister specifically regarding what was formerly known as the Nicola Valley General Hospital in Merritt, which has been downgraded to the Nicola Valley Health Centre. There were at one time 24 beds. It has gone down to 19. Now there are only eight beds available in the community of Merritt.

It's a tough time trying to get some of those beds actually replaced. Even according to their own definition, which the regional Interior Health Authority has, there should be one bed available for 1,000 people. Now, in the community of Merritt and the Nicola Valley that it serves, there are 16,000 people. According to their own definition, there should be 16 beds. I'm wondering if the minister will make a commitment to reinstate eight beds to make it 16 full beds in the community of Merritt and the Nicola Valley Health Centre.

First thing I do want to say is that I disagree with the contentions, the arguments, advanced by the member that, first of all, health authorities are not working. That is not something I have seen or heard. There may be some people who are dissatisfied, but I think that health authorities, including in this case the Interior Health Authority, are actually doing an excellent job, and I think that people are more and more embracing the kind of work that's being advanced by the IHA.

Is health care deteriorating? I think that proposition is not one that is grounded in reality. I think that we are seeing improvements, in fact, in health care across the province, and I would fundamentally disagree.

Now, the member is suggesting that everything is being centralized in larger regional centres. That's not so. I think it has always been the case and perhaps always will be the case that, for example, some kinds of cancer treatments, some kinds of heart procedure, and some of the more advanced surgical procedures particularly, tend to be centred in the larger regional hospitals, and that's perhaps so.

We don't have a lot of detail around the Nicola Valley Health Centre. What we do know is that there's been a shift to a primary care centre model in Nicola Valley. You know, if the member has specific concerns with respect to how that's functioning or how it can function better, I'm very pleased to hear that and very pleased to take those comments on to the Interior Health Authority. But I know that whether it's with Lytton or Lillooet or with Merritt, the Interior Health Authority has been working with all of those communities to try to find an appropriate model of care for the citizens that exist there.

Again, if the member has specific concerns, I'm glad to forward them, but to simply say this is all going to be remediated by adding six or eight beds or whatever, I wouldn't agree. I think we need to look at it in a more sophisticated way than that.

H. Lali: I just want to clarify something on the record. I mistakenly said that Hope was a part of the interior health region. It's not. It belongs in the Fraser Valley there. Having said that, the minister disagrees, and I just happen to disagree with the minister's disagreement.

I would actually like to invite the Minister of Health to come to my communities in Yale-Lillooet and talk to the people who utilize the health care services there. Perhaps he might have a different perception. What happens is that if you happen to live in the bigger communities in rural British Columbia, like Kamloops or Kelowna…. Because the services that have been pulled out of these small rural communities have gone to these centres, yes, those folks would say there's fundamentally no shift in health care, or they may feel it's better. But people in small communities don't.

Just again on the Nicola Valley Health Centre issue. As I mentioned, the Nicola Valley has about 16,000 people that that hospital services. We have roughly about 12,000 emergency room visits per year. Merritt is also on the hub of all the Coquihalla Highway system, as well as Highway 5, Highway 8, Highway 97. They all intersect right through Merritt. You've got quite a bit of traffic going through there, with thousands of cars passing through Merritt on a daily basis. A lot of accidents that take place on the highway utilize the facility either in Hope, at the hospital there, if it happens to be on one side of the toll booth, or if it's on the other side, it's in the Merritt hospital there.

If you look at the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, they have approximately 34,000 ER visits per year, and it serves a population of about 100,000 in the catchment area. Even when you look at that, with a community the size of Merritt, which is way smaller than Kamloops, it has so many emergency room visits, and yet there are only eight beds available. If there happens to be an emergency of some nature, sometimes those beds are all used up, and people are actually lying on stretchers in the hallways, as happens on many occasions in Merritt. But when you look at Kamloops and the number of beds that are there…. I don't have the exact figure. I suppose the minister would, but I would imagine it's in the hundreds in terms of the number of beds that are available in Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops.

If there's such a big disparity taking place, again, I would ask the minister if he would lend support to the people of the Nicola Valley in working with the regional health authority out of Kamloops to have Merritt once again have a 16-bed facility so that when we have emergencies in the Nicola Valley that take place, there are beds for people to utilize. That is a big, burning issue in the community, and the folks there want a functioning hospital rather than what most folks would say would be a band-aid station.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member again for his question. We certainly do encourage the interior health authority and, indeed, all health authorities across the province to work with the communities that are within the province. If, for example, the city of Merritt had profound concerns and evidence about how the current model of care and the current provision of beds within the care centre was inadequate, then I think certainly we would want the city to share those with the IHA, and we would expect the IHA to continue their dialogue with Merritt and try to resolve those things.

The health authority revisits the number of beds on an ongoing basis, and they will respond with increases or decreases in response to the evidence about whether there is any sort of demonstrated need or risk that would establish that there should be more beds there or less beds there. That's the kind of management that produces the best results for the patient and produces the best results in terms of ensuring that we are deriving the maximum public benefit from the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on these facilities.

I'm not convinced that the model is wrong for Merritt. I haven't actually been convinced that the city of Merritt believes that the model is wrong for Merritt. If they have substantive concerns, we'd want them to share them with the IHA and, hopefully, move towards a resolution of it. Of course, I know the Coquihalla well as a resident of the interior and know that all too frequently there are serious automobile accidents on that highway.

The question one has to ask is whether, in the case of automobile accidents involving serious trauma issues for the accident victims, it is better to stop the ambulance in

Merritt and try to deal with serious trauma in that venue or to continue along with the paramedics to Kamloops or Kelowna where the kind of care that's really needed in the event of serious trauma can take place. Obviously, if it's a relatively minor accident, some stitching or whatever, that might well be accommodated in Merritt. But for serious trauma the best patient outcomes are going to be produced by getting the patients to a centre where more complex procedures can take place.

H. Lali: More often than not, the extra hour's drive to Kamloops by the ambulance is a matter of life and death. That's why the Merritt hospital is utilized. I wanted to thank the minister for the offer to work with the interior health association and the community of Merritt to try to find some resolution. I'll take the minister up on that offer.

I want to move on to Lytton — not to disappoint the minister since he brought it up himself. It's something that I had on my list here as well. Going back to the days of the NDP when I was the MLA…. As a matter of fact, the issue of the Lytton hospital had been ongoing for a number of years. It was to be rebuilt, and I made the announcement just prior to the 1996 election. Then, of course, things went sideways because the village of Lytton and the Lytton First Nation couldn't come to an agreement as to where the bridge was going to land. The bridge and the old hospital were adjacent to each other. That's where the issue had arisen. So it wasn't until I became the Minister of Transportation and Highways that I actually personally brokered a deal to make sure that the Lytton First Nation was on board with that.

Part of that deal was that in order to get the hospital built — and it would be a hospital healing centre — we as a ministry would expend some moneys to upgrade the road and sidewalk infrastructure in the village of Lytton and bring it up to the same standards through the reserve adjacent to Lytton as well. We had a deal, and the federal government was going to put in some money as well.

What happened after the 2001 election was that this hospital was shelved by this government. There was a telephone booth that was put in place. If there was an accident on the major highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, then folks would call this toll-free number at this phone booth, and half of the time the telephone wasn't working. So we had some serious problems there.

Since the Liberals have taken office, this St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which is the oldest hospital in British Columbia, has been on again and off again — I think about six times in the last four years. It was either going to be a full hospital or a health centre, or they were going to upgrade the old, or they couldn't do it because there were problems — that it was too old and not habitable. So a number of things have happened. The price tags have gone up and down.

I want to ask the minister: will the minister commit to working with the regional health authority to make sure that that very important hospital in Lytton is rebuilt, and rebuilt soon, so that not only the residents in the village of Lytton but also the residents on the first nation reserves and the travelling public have a hospital that they can use? Otherwise, there isn't a hospital in between Hope and Ashcroft that is functioning, unless this hospital in Lytton is going to be rebuilt.

Hon. G. Abbott: I did the unforgivable as a politician here and forgot to mention, in concluding the discussion around Merritt, all the great things that are going on there under the leadership of the IHA. Among those things that are underway in Merritt, Coquihalla–Gillis House facility has been upgraded at a cost of just under $800,000 to create a dementia home; to add a new bathing area, more sitting room space and wheelchair-accessible bathrooms; and to conduct general mechanical, electrical and building upgrades. So that's an important project that's underway in Merritt. We've also added seven assisted-living units at Nicola Meadows, which opened in August of 2005. And in 2003-2004 there were enhanced adult day programs that were added along with home care nursing and home support services. So that is a part of the positive story for health care in Merritt.

In terms of Lytton, I understand my friend Chris O'Connor, the mayor of Lytton, to be very happy with what is being proposed for Lytton, and I'll run through it for the member. If he wishes, he may rush back to Lytton and take credit for this, having forced me into a corner at Ministry of Health estimates. I understand the mayor and council to be supportive of these.

IHA is moving forward with building a Health Service Centre, all capitalized, in Lytton, and the village has accepted the service model built on current services. This will include additional enhanced services such as an overnight skilled nurse bed, respite care and palliative care — something which I gather is very important to the first nations at Lytton particularly. There will be some primary care aspects around diabetes education, heart health and respiratory support, and there will be wellness days and a local community health information network.

As the member knows, the location of B.C. Ambulance Service has been an issue. Two potential sites that are agreeable, I understand, to both the IHA and the village of Lytton have been identified. Apparently, the co-location with the fire hall is preferred, and I gather that's where it's likely to take place.

Six assisted-living units are to be co-located with the health centre to allow for innovative staffing and integrated, coordinated service delivery in that facility. In terms of transportation, there's a pilot underway for services to Kamloops, Ashcroft and Lytton. It may include establishing a voucher system for local transportation, negotiating prepaid hotel or motel accommodation for clients who have to access services out of town and are unable to return home after hours.

I think these are all very important features of meeting the health care needs of not only the small

village of Lytton but the first nations in the area and so on. I think this is going to be a very good package for Lytton.

H. Lali: Again, I want to congratulate this minister for actually seeing that Lytton's health care needs would be looked after and that this facility is going to be rebuilt in Lytton.

I wanted to ask the minister…. The mayor of Lytton has had a number of visits to Victoria to meet with the Premier and the past Minister of Health. I don't know if he's met with the current Minister of Health, but certainly he has with ministry staff and that. I just want to make sure that if there were any other kinds of commitments made to the mayor in those meetings, other than the ones that the minister himself has just read out right now — if there's anything different that was discussed in those meetings then, on the record, that the minister has placed….

With that, I won't be asking any more questions and will turn it over to somebody else. But I was wondering if the minister could answer this last question.

Hon. G. Abbott: I see Chris O'Connor so frequently that I wanted to put him on some kind of frequent flyer account, because when I was Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, he was there about the land use plans. It's been my pleasure to meet him on a couple of occasions, including at UBCM, around health issues.

There is nothing that we're aware of that we can add that's at odds with what was contained on the fact sheet that I read into the record.

J. Brar: The Premier made the announcement during the last election that he would fast-track the study about the Surrey Memorial Hospital situation. Subsequently, he also made the promise to the people of Surrey that he would consider building a new hospital if that is the recommendation by the review committee. He also made the promise to expand the hospital if that's the recommendation.

In any case, the Premier promised to the people of Surrey that the review committee report would be made available by the end of October. I have spoken to the office of the Fraser Health Authority, and they have confirmed that the report has actually been submitted to the minister's office. My question to the minister is: can the Minister of Health immediately release the review committee report and provide answers to the people of Surrey with regard to the recommendations made by the review committee?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the issue of Surrey Memorial Hospital. From the government's perspective, Surrey Memorial Hospital and the provision of health care services to the rapidly growing city of Surrey are very prominent priorities. As the member noted, the Premier's remarks around this are certainly some evidence of this. Surrey is one of the fastest-growing communities in the province, and addressing their health care needs is a very important priority for the government.

As the member also indicated, the Fraser Health Authority has been engaged now for a few months in a planning process around both Surrey Memorial Hospital and the growing health care needs of a rapidly expanding Surrey. I think it's fair to say that we are reaching a conclusion with respect to that planning process. We received a final draft — I think it was on October 31 or November 1 — from the Fraser Health Authority. It was a final draft, and we asked them to deliver it as a final draft so that ministry staff could have a look at all of the technical aspects of the report.

I expect that any final changes will be made by the end of November, so I do hope we will have a final report delivered from Fraser Health by the end of November. But some work is still underway. There is still some technical analysis being undertaken.

The issues are important. Surrey Memorial Hospital has one of the busiest emergency rooms not only in the province but in Canada. I've seen estimates of between 65,000 and 70,000 visits annually at that emergency room.

It is important to note that we have already allocated some $28 million to trying to improve the situation with respect to the ER at Surrey Memorial. That $28 million will see an expansion of the emergency room, which I think will be completed sometime later this month or in December. There will be some new beds, additional staff, and so on associated with that allocation.

Fraser Health needs to look not only at Surrey Memorial and how to make it work more efficiently and meet the current needs; it also has to look broader at some of the regional issues around how potentially a new hospital in Surrey might relate to Langley and Delta and Peace Arch.

This is not an issue that will end with one report from the Fraser Health Authority. Surrey is going to continue to grow. There's no question about that. We'll continue to work to address the needs of the citizens of Surrey in that process.

J. Brar: I appreciate the comments and the recognition of the minister that Surrey, in fact, has a growing population. Surrey has been growing for the last many, many years, particularly the last four or five years.

The problem we have at this point in time is that first the Premier made the announcement of fast-tracking the review, which included talking about the possibility of a new hospital. I'm pleased to see that the minister is also talking about a new hospital.

Then hon. Mayor Doug McCallum made the announcement, although he didn't wait for the recommendations and the report. He made the announcement that he supported the new hospital. Then we have the Surrey Memorial Foundation, which has pub-

licly favoured the expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital rather than having a new hospital.

Because of these conflicting statements being made by the provincial, the municipal as well as the Fraser Health Authority, people of Surrey are totally confused. They're very, very confused as to what's going on, who is in charge of this situation — whether it's the provincial government or the mayor of the city and all that kind of stuff.

My concern is that time is a very sensitive issue here. The Minister of Finance is in the process of putting together the budget at this point in time, which is coming in February 2006. I'm sure the minister is almost in the middle of the process of that. Therefore, it's important to take timely action to ensure that appropriate funding is made available for any recommendations made for Surrey Memorial Hospital.

We certainly don't want to be in a situation where the Minister of Finance comes back and says, "In fact, I didn't receive the report on time," or where subsequently the decision was not made by the government. So my question is: keeping those considerations in mind, when will the minister make the report public?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, again, I thank the member for his questions. If there is some confusion in Surrey owing to different people saying different things, I can only take either credit or responsibility for those people in either the ministry or in the government or perhaps in the Fraser Health Authority, and I don't think there's been anything inconsistent said in terms of those entities. Whether members of council have different views on what they think should be done…. In this case, Fraser Health is doing the planning here. They were asked to fast-track some planning work and to bring recommendations to the government. They did that in the form of a final draft at the end of October, and that final draft is in technical review at this point in time. As I said, I expect that by the end of the month we will see the final report and, hopefully, be able to make that public very quickly.

The member may wish to quarrel over days or hours, but I think, actually, Fraser Health has done a great job here. This is a big, complex issue that they've been asked to look at, and they have done this very intensively over the past few months. So I salute them for that, and in my opinion, and I think the ministry's opinion, they've done good, solid work here. You know, I'm sure the member and all citizens in Surrey and Fraser Health look forward to seeing the final report and the confirmation of that.

In terms of what the Premier asked Fraser Health to do, just so we're all clear, the Surrey health services capacity initiative is examining the three longer-term options that were suggested by the Premier: (1) a major expansion on the Surrey Memorial site; (2) construction of a second hospital; or (3) limited expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital and construction of a second hospital, or a limited expansion at Surrey Memorial Hospital combined with new facilities at one or more additional sites.

There's a range of outcomes here. Again, what may be recommended at the end of October or at the end of the year or whenever it may happen to be…. Surrey is not going to be static into the future. Surrey is growing at the size of a small city every year — I gather about 12,000 a year growth in population. That's very substantial, and we need to be taking account of that in the provision of health care services.

The answer may well involve additional work in and around Surrey Memorial Hospital, and I think, very responsibly, that this particular project invites Fraser Health to really take that good, long look at what's needed and bring us those recommendations. We do look forward to that.

Again, I thank the member for his question, and I do want to thank the Fraser Health Authority for the very intensive work they've done in order to fast-track this very important project.

J. Brar: I also appreciate, of course, the lot of work done by the Fraser Health Authority, but I want to clarify that the confusion we have in Surrey is because the report is not available at this point in time to the people and the subsequent decision of this government is not available to the people of Surrey. That's why there is confusion — because different people, as I mentioned before, are making different statements.

I'm a bit confused about the date, hon. Chair. The minister mentioned earlier the end of November, and then the minister mentioned maybe the end of the year. That's one clarification I would like to ask: is it the end of November that the report will be released or the end of the year? What is exactly the date?

The second question I have…. The Minister of Finance only a few months ago, when she was talking to Radio Shere Punjab, made a commitment to the people of Surrey that the funding will be made available during the next budget based on the recommendation of the review committee. So my question is: will the report and the subsequent decision of this government be made in a timely manner so that the Minister of Finance could act and allocate funding in the next budget — or not?

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the challenges of being a minister, and I guess particularly Minister of Health, is that people say, "Can you tell us when this might come out?" and I say: "Well, my best estimate is probably about the end of November." Then later it becomes: "Well, didn't you say it was going to be the end of November?" That is my best estimate — the end of November. If the member was going to ask when exactly the report will be completed and released and so on, I mean, I guess to be honest, I would have to say I don't

know. I can't prescriptively say on which day it's going to come out, so it is a best estimate.

There are a number of variables here that may influence whether it's a little sooner or a little later. As technical issues arise, the schedule gets adjusted. So I can only give a best estimate. I'm sorry; in my last answer I did create an element of confusion around that, which was unnecessary. My best estimate is the end of November for the completion of this.

In terms of the budget — and again, I can't, of course, announce what will be in the budget — from our ministry's perspective, this will be a budget proposal. So we'll be taking that forward. This is a priority for the ministry. Surrey Memorial Hospital is a big priority for us.

J. Brar: I take the words of the minister on the date of the submission of the report, which is the end of November. I understand the challenges. Sometimes things can happen. But suppose the report is made available by the end of November. How much time the ministry will take to put together a proposal for the budget…. My simple question is: will that proposal be made for the next budget, which is going to be tabled in February 2006, or not? Will there be any money for Surrey Memorial Hospital based on the recommendations made in the review by the review committee in the next budget? Yes or no.

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe we will have sufficient opportunity to analyze the report so that it will be able to constitute a portion of our budget submission.

C. Trevena: I'm going to go back to where we started, on health authorities and VIHA, the Vancouver Island Health Authority. A few years ago there was public consultation about the provision of services in VIHA's North Island region. It was decided that Campbell River Hospital in Campbell River and St. Joe's in Comox should be upgraded.

I wondered whether there was any money in the last budget for that upgrading or whether it was put on hold while VIHA had a new CEO come in. What happened to the money that was going to be there for the upgrading?

Hon. G. Abbott: While there are always minor renovations and so on being undertaken in hospital facilities, there is no money in budgets, to this point, reflecting either a major retrofit of the hospitals you mentioned or a common new facility. I understand that the Vancouver Island Health Authority is in a planning process that is looking at the options around two aging facilities — one in Campbell River, one in Comox. They are looking at a range of possibilities. I don't believe they've formed any conclusions or recommendations yet in respect of that, but they are trying to do some planning that, hopefully, will meet the needs of those communities.

C. Trevena: Yes, the consultation is actually ongoing right now. It started this week. It's Port Hardy, Port McNeill and the north end of the Island this week, and moving down-Island.

A couple of questions coming off that consultation. I wondered whether you or the ministry have a figure for how much this consultation is going to cost. I'm interested, bearing in mind that there was a widespread public consultation about two years ago which came up with recommendations.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have a specific figure in respect of what the consultation would cost. It would be a relatively minor cost in the scheme of things. Generally, in comparison to the capital cost of new facilities, the consultations and planning that precede them are typically not a huge cost. We'd be glad to try to get that from VIHA and to forward it to the member if she wishes.

I have one final question. Obviously, it's a consultation process, and no decision has been made on what will happen. But whatever will happen is going to demand some capital expenditure, whether the decision by VIHA is to maintain the two existing hospitals and upgrade them to a higher standard or to build a new facility somewhere between the two communities. I wanted to know, like my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, whether there can be a commitment from the minister that there will be money for this in the upcoming budget in 2006.

Hon. G. Abbott: We are engaged with the health authorities around a ten-year capital planning process whereby all of the health authorities have been asked to identify the capital planning priorities within their regions. That's been a very useful process, but it is a process that is still ongoing in all of the regions.

The issue around the hospital facilities in Comox and Campbell River is a complex one. These are aging facilities. Clearly, something is going to have to be done over the ten-year horizon with those facilities, but it is an important and complex decision that VIHA needs to involve the communities and the residents of those communities in.

We don't have any expectation that we will be in receipt of recommendations from VIHA on those facilities in the immediate future. That may be wrong. We don't know when those might be forthcoming, but we don't expect them in the immediate future. Therefore, it's unlikely that a capital contribution for those would be part of the upcoming budget, but I'm not the Finance Minister, and I don't know everything around this. I think it's unlikely that we would see that planning process coming to a conclusion in the foreseeable future.

C. Trevena: I'm a little concerned. As you say, we have two aging facilities. Whether it's decided that in the end they will be downscaled and there will be a

new hospital, it has been identified already that these two facilities do need capital upgrading. In Campbell River it's an issue of seismic upgrading.

This has obviously been something that VIHA has been aware of and has informed the ministry of in the past. I'm a little concerned that there can be no commitment from the ministry at this moment to say that there will be money available to do upgrading to make these hospitals functioning and safe for the users. I wonder if you can give that commitment.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I thank the member for her question. The ministry and Vancouver Island Health Authority are very well aware of the aging infrastructure that is apparent in those two facilities. We've done, over the past couple of years, a comprehensive inventory on structures across the province, and certainly we know that either remediation or replacement of those facilities is something that will emerge on the planning horizon. But the decision around remediation versus replacement and where the replacement would be is not something that is or should be made quickly. It's not something that appropriately would be made within a period of weeks.

VIHA is doing the right thing here. They are undertaking a careful and comprehensive consultation, and from that they will look at what is going to work best for their citizens. Then they will bring forward some recommendations to us around priorities within the Vancouver Island Health Authority, based on the need not only in the member's constituency but in other constituencies on Vancouver Island. In turn, the ministry has to weigh what are priorities from 79 constituencies in this province.

I don't aim to be political here, but there was not sufficient investment in infrastructure — health infrastructure, in particular — in this province over the past 20 years. There are a lot of aging facilities in this province that probably should have been remediated ten, 15 or 20 years ago, and now we are reaping the whirlwind, as they say. We need to make decisions in a structured and thoughtful way, so that we recognize where the need is greatest and where the benefit is greatest, and make the right decisions even though they may be difficult decisions. I can certainly assure the member that we will be doing that in a thoughtful way. We'll be doing that in an expeditious way. Again, even reflecting the fact that there are enormous demands for new health capital projects in every corner of the province, that's not to diminish what's needed in the member's constituency, because there are important changes that are needed to be made there.

C. Wyse: I have questions around ambulance services, and I don't know whether you have your staff here in order to deal with those types of questions.

Mr. Minister, I will have some questions around the retention of paramedics, to give you somewhat of a heads-up on where my questions will be coming from — particularly for the rural-remote issues. A very brief reminder: remote are paid $2 per hour with a pager on call, rural are paid $10 per hour on call, and the pay for training to become a paramedic somewhere is in the range from $3,000 to $10,000 for an individual. Having said that as the backdrop, I would like to confirm that I believe some discussions have been taking place with your staff and other appropriate people around this particular issue. Have there been?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes. But just to break the tension that's inherent in me having a long answer before getting to the conclusion, the answer is yes. The general model around payment of $2 an hour for those stations designated remote and $10 an hour for those designated rural was part of that discussion that was developed during the successful negotiation of a collective agreement with the paramedics.

We are always open to additional discussions around whether a community is appropriately designated remote or appropriately designated rural. I think a recent example, pursuant to the member's question, would be the community of Houston. I think Houston, given its population, is probably the town of Houston — just guessing. The town of Houston has recently, after some discussions at UBCM and elsewhere, moved from a remote designation to a rural designation. If the member or indeed any members or communities have concerns in respect of that and they believe that what they are designated should be revisited, we're happy to do that with them.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the elaboration from the minister and appreciate that information. I simply wish to confirm that discussions had taken place. Once more to assist the minister, I'll describe to you what I understand the discussions have been with both of those categories, and I'll seek confirmation whether my understanding is accurate. Then I will have some questions around those issues.

In the area of remote, my understanding is that it's a commitment to stay for three years in the remote area, there's no change in funding for training, and the $2 per hour for pager call-out remains the same. That would be my understanding of the status for the remote category at this time.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I'm understanding where the member is headed now. Yes, there has been a recent agreement with CUPE in respect of training in return to a three-year commitment for service in a community.

C. Wyse: Now that I've established that my information is accurate, my questions. Remembering there's no change in the fee and we're looking at retention for people in these remote areas and the cost of training is from $3,000 to $10,000, is there any provision being

provided for dealing with the costs for fees, travel accommodation and wages for paramedic training?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to advise the member that we have $1.5 million budgeted for the purposes which we've been discussing. So for someone proposing to take some training from a remote area, it would support them in terms of their tuition. It would support them in terms of travel, including lodging and meals. It would not replace wages, though. That is the one thing it doesn't do. But in terms of tuition and travel, those will be accommodated from that $1.5 million budget.

Again, coming back to the issue of retention. I know this is equally important for your department. It still leaves me with a question. The provision being made to "earn a living" when the pay becomes $2 per hour on callout, and you're in a remote area…. Is there any provision or consideration given to address that shortfall in the remote area?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the remote designation, $2 an hour versus a rural designation at $10 an hour, the critical element that comes into play in determining whether a community might be designated one or the other will be call volumes.

In the case of Houston, they argued vigorously, based on call volume particularly but also the growing community and the world-class mill and all of that. They put together a case and were successful. But in a remote community where perhaps there is less than one call per day — and there are many of this character — it would not seem a wise expenditure of public funds to have someone sitting at an ambulance station for how many hours a day waiting for less than one call per day.

That's why the collective agreement that's been negotiated with Canadian Union of Public Employees, paramedics, reflects that. I think CUPE was very satisfied with the agreement, and I think it's a great step ahead in terms of service to the public. Again, I respect the member's challenge that some things are different in very small communities, but I do think this was and is a win-win agreement between CUPE and the government.

C. Wyse: I'll accept your comments and your interpretation of whether it's win-win. The communities of Anahim Lake and Clinton may have a different interpretation, because my question was specifically addressed at the balance of retaining the trained person in those communities. When your pay is $2 per hour if you're not working full-time in another position, as soon as an opening comes up in a rural, urban or metropolitan area, they are going to move into those communities. So I'm taking the long answer. The short answer is no, there isn't any provision being given for dealing with that issue.

I'm recognizing the time, so I'm going to go to the rural-funded area. My understanding is that many rural sites will be redesignated to urban and will be funded accordingly. The pay for training would still come out of the $1.5 million that you're referring to for their upgrade. I give you that question to ensure that my understanding of that situation is correct before I ask you any questions.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to advise the member that the $1.5 million is not for anything other than the primary care paramedic training. It is not being used to convert any stations from rural to urban or anything like that. The $1.5 million is for training.

I hope the member will recognize — and I know he's a thoughtful guy, so I'm sure he will — that there is always a kind of horns-of-dilemma situation in terms of…. We want the remote ambulance attendants to be as well trained as they possibly can. We want to give them the opportunities they need to be as well trained as they possibly can in their communities. But we also know that for many years there has been this element of churn within the province — that as paramedics got additional training and additional experience, they would want to move on to a larger centre where they can more fully utilize that training.

Again, it's tough to reconcile all things in this world, but I think the agreement that we have reconciles them just about as well as we can. We're trying to give some certainty to communities with the three-year commitment, we're trying to give the opportunities to paramedics with the primary care ambulance training, and we're trying to support communities to get the ambulance care that they need. It may not be perfect, but I think it's a great improvement over what has been the case. It does, I think, provide a nice balance of opportunity and commitment there.

Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY
(continued)

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, if I might, I want to just take two other items off the homework list we've been given by one of the members opposite. I want to provide the information with respect to Action Schools, a great program now in place in 55 school districts for a total of 689 schools. The staff have provided a list of the school districts with Action Schools B.C. programs in place. We have that.

I would also like to indicate that the ministries represented on the Strong Start B.C. committee are Tourism, Sports and Arts; Children and Family Development; Education; Health; Community Services; Employment and Income Assistance; Childcare; and the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

C. Evans: I want to give a short introduction. I'd like to discuss the issue at Bountiful in Creston where there are two schools funded by the province under this year's estimates. One is the Bountiful Elementary School, and the other is the Mormon Hills School. For the interest of anybody interested in this process, this is a very foreshortened estimates process, so I'm going to try to get this done in ten minutes, but it is my hope that next spring, when estimates can last over a longer period of time, we might have a more in-depth conversation.

I want to say right off the top that although the issue of Bountiful is sensational, in the news, and people across Canada, I think, are kind of paying attention, I've worked with citizens at Bountiful on various community initiatives for years, and my objective is to resolve some outstanding and unacceptable issues rather than to see winners and losers. Having said that, that is why I met with the minister's staff prior to these estimates and told her staff what my questions were, because it's not my objective to catch the government out or show anybody as a bad guy. It is my objective to work with the government to solve these problems, which have been going on for a very long time.

To start with, between the time that I spoke with the minister's staff and these estimates, some quite wonderful developments I think are occurring with the public school at Yahk, having some kids from Bountiful enrolled. I consider that the most positive kind of step in a couple of decades between the public school system, the Ministry of Education and the community of Bountiful, and I would encourage the minister to try and make that work with the local school board.

My first question is: is the minister aware of this year's registration in the community of Yahk in the public school system of children from the Bountiful group in Creston?

Hon. S. Bond: We are aware. We believe the number is 16 students coming from Mormon Hills. In fact, we understand that the transition is working very well, and as far as we know, the number is 16. We will have that verified but, certainly, a significant increase. We understand the number previous to that was three.

C. Evans: I think that's wonderful news. It maybe is the beginning of a normalization process. I would just want to comment that if 16 young people from Bountiful or Mormon Hills has…. If it creates any stresses at the Yahk School, then I would ask the ministry to simply consider assisting the school board with teaching assistants or whatever might be required in order to make that work.

Moving on, I want to canvass the question of notification. For all of the years that I've been involved, which is, I think, about 20, there's been a question at Bountiful — first with the first school and more recently with the Mormon Hills School — of inspection visits. We name the curriculum that private schools have to engage in, and then we do inspections to see whether or not the people teaching there are living up to the criteria that the province requires.

There have been ongoing rumours for years that the curriculum that is taught on the day of the inspection visitation differs from the curriculum that is taught in the regular school year. There is the question of whether or not visitations by provincial inspectors or the inspectors of the private school system are preadvised — in other words, whether the school knows that the inspectors are coming, and what we observe is more theatre than fact. My questions to the minister are: (1) are the visits preadvised; and (2) could we arrange for visitation by inspectors to be at their call?

Lastly, I want to give an anecdotal comment. I used to be a gyppo logger. I did it for 20 years. During the years that we thought that the Compensation Board would just show up, we wore the safety equipment and followed the rules. If the Compensation Board was going to call ahead of time, then you could log in any fashion you wanted because you knew they weren't coming unless they'd told you the day before. Obvi-

ously, spontaneous, unannounced visitations and inspections are the way to go. Does the minister agree?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to give even more good news to the member opposite, as we've just found the correct number has actually jumped by ten. I should tell you that the school has reported that 26 kindergarten children are enrolled. So it is 26, and I can assure the member opposite that at this point there appears to be no challenge with accommodating that number of students, and we will continue to work to make sure that that is the case.

I think I should also…. I respect the member opposite bringing attention to this issue in the estimates process. He's absolutely correct. When I began to look at the file…. In fact, the issue has been in existence for…. Well, the file began, I think, in the 1980s in terms of the follow-up and looking at the particular circumstances. More to the point: yes, unannounced inspections were done.

Joining me today here as we learn more about the file is our independent school inspector, Susan Penner, who was involved in one of the unannounced visits for inspections that were done at the schools. I can tell the member opposite that the most recent unannounced visit — it's called an on-site monitoring inspection — was conducted on November 1 through 3 in 2004 and then in an unannounced follow-up visit by the assistant deputy inspector on March 3, 2005.

C. Evans: Great. I appreciate that. I'm glad to hear that the visits are unannounced. When we have a longer opportunity in the spring, I'd like to maybe canvass what kind of reports the minister has received back.

I want to move on now to the question of the definition of "a person of trust." As the minister knows, we have laws in British Columbia that preclude what is called "a person of trust" from having sexual relations with a person under their care. In the normal school system, I take this to mean that a teacher or a trustee who was to have sexual relations with a student would lose their job and perhaps be charged with a crime. I know that it is difficult at Bountiful because sexual activities are often precluded by a form of marriage.

My question is — I want to make it as specific as I can — what would happen to a school trustee in the public school system who married and then had sexual relations with a student in that public school system?

Hon. S. Bond: Because of the legal nature of that question, it really is something that the Attorney General should address, but I can assure the member opposite that we will have a discussion with the Attorney General. Certainly, he and I both think it's important to look at the circumstances around Bountiful, and we intend to do that.

C. Evans: Thank you. That's an excellent answer, because really what I'm trying to do is get ministries kind of rolling in this together on this file rather than to ask anybody to solve it alone.

My last question. We're under limited time here, and other members have questions to ask. Former citizens at Bountiful — in other words, people who belonged to the religious sect at Bountiful who have since left — have asked me if the province could require that the life skills courses that are taught in the provincial curriculum, both to boys and to girls, be taught at the two private schools at Bountiful. My question is not whether they are being taught but whether we have the legal right to ask the administration at the two schools to require that the provincial curriculum in terms of life skills and preparation for adult life, both for boys and girls, including family planning and job preparation, be taught at Bountiful.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, at the most recent unannounced inspections, the life skills component is actually meeting ministry learning outcomes. The schools are delivering the life skills component in the way they would be expected to be delivered in public schools. At the last unannounced series of inspections, it was demonstrated that they are meeting those outcomes.

Hearing that the member opposite — I appreciate him moving through this rapidly — has said that's his last question, I do want to let him know that a government member has also come to me, obviously, about the issue of Bountiful. I would just like to let the member opposite know that I am asking my staff to look very carefully at the Independent School Act and the ability that the minister or ministry has to actually look at independent schools. In particular, I'm asking them to consider aligning eligibilities for directors in independent schools more closely to that of school trustees.

There are a number of amendments I'm asking the ministry to consider in terms of the Independent School Act because, in fact, the ministry is very limited in relationship to how independent schools can be assessed under the current Independent School Act. I've asked my staff to do some work and would hope to see that work proceed over the next couple of months and would be happy to have a discussion with the member opposite about that.

C. Evans: I'll just close by saying thank you to the minister. Obviously, we'll have a chance to canvass these issues more in the spring. If between now and the spring sitting in February the minister happens to be passing through southeastern British Columbia and wishes to visit Bountiful, I'd be happy to escort and take her, introduce her to folks there. I think that most of the solutions to this question have to do with exposure and interaction and breaking down isolation. I think visits are a good idea.

Hon. S. Bond: Briefly, we'd appreciate doing that. I think it's important to actually understand some of the issues firsthand. I do again encourage the member opposite to come and speak to me about particular con-

cerns with regard to, especially, the issue of persons of trust, as we look at aligning, perhaps, the independent school responsibilities more similarly to that of school trustees. I think that can only help us clarify some of those issues. I hope we would have that discussion.

R. Austin: As time precludes, I'm just going to ask a couple of questions about two areas that specifically relate to school district 82. As the minister is no doubt aware, school district 82 is one of the largest in terms of its geographic area but a very small one in terms of the number of students it has under its care.

As the minister is also aware, we are in our third year of a four-day school week. I can assure the minister that it was not a decision that was arrived at easily within the community or within the school board. My wife was a PAC chair at the time. It caused a lot of discussion throughout the whole community.

Basically, the school district found itself having to either cut more schools — and they'd already had school closures — or go to a four-day school week. The end result was that they decided to go with the four-day school week.

My question, really, to the minister, first of all, is: what does the minister think of a four-day school week?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I think one thing we do have to make clear, because one of the things I am concerned about when people discuss the four-day school week…. There are a number of challenges, and I certainly know that is the case. But first of all, students do receive the same amount of instruction. People assume that because there's one day less, somehow children are missing opportunities. Those days are crafted very carefully to ensure that they meet the requirements of legislation, so students don't miss opportunities.

Does it cause other challenges? I'm certain that it does for families in certain circumstances. Having said that, at this point, when we look, there are a number of districts that are on four-day school weeks. In fact, Boundary school district has made the decision after some consultation — certainly not general consensus, necessarily, but a majority of people decided that it was something they liked and could stay with.

As minister, I'm a believer in choice. I think there need to be alternative models, but I do believe that school districts need to consult with their communities about how that's done. I should point out to the member, however, that the B.C. Teachers Federation has brought this issue to the round-table discussions to speak about the impacts of four-day school weeks, because there has been ongoing concern expressed by the Teachers Federation.

I can reassure the member that there will be a discussion about the impacts and challenges, but in essence, I do believe that school districts working with their communities make those decisions. I know they consider what's in the best interests of students. But there will be an ongoing discussion about it at the round table as well.

R. Austin: I'm delighted to hear that that is coming up at the round table, because that's something that, certainly, parents and teachers in my school district asked me to find out. So I'm glad to hear that.

I just want to make one quick comment. Of course, you're right; they do get the same number of minutes of instruction. I don't think there are any pedagogical studies that would suggest that if you're learning 20 new concepts in 20 days, as opposed to learning 20 new concepts over 30, the outcomes are better in terms of how easy it is for us to learn things, and more importantly, have the time to practise them.

I think it's particularly daunting for children in the early grades who are undergoing a four-day school week. I hear this continually from teachers in the primary grades who say that when the children return on Monday from a three-day weekend, every single weekend, the first day of the week is spent just trying to get those young kids back from where they were on Thursday afternoon. I think long-term it will have very damaging outcomes for us.

I'm just going to go on to the second thing quickly, and that is special needs kids and class composition. I think one of the positive outcomes to have come out of the recent teacher dispute was the idea that class composition is something that most British Columbians understand. I think they understand now that it's not just a question of being in school and how many days you're there, but what quality of education each teacher is able to give while those kids are in school.

As the minister is probably aware, in school district 82 we have extreme challenges with a number of special needs children. There are a number of reasons why, and I won't get into it, but I'll just mention three very quickly. We have a very high first nations population in school district 82. Historically, a lot of those children and families are still recovering from the residential school system. A lot of first nations people have had extremely horrible experiences within the school system, and so they are reluctant to get as involved as other family members to help children through the school system — so that's one.

The second thing, of course, is that the studies by Clyde Hertzman into child readiness in our school districts recognize that we have, for whatever reason, a large number of children who are arriving at kindergarten who are not ready to learn, which puts pressure on the entire school system, as I'm sure the minister is aware. Also, our economy in and around school district 82 has not yet reached the golden decade, so there are lots of economical challenges there which put a lot more stress on families and do not make it easy for them to help their children and to give the supports that are necessary for children to succeed.

My question is this. If there's going to be extra money put into helping with class composition, will that money be distributed throughout the province just based on population — in which case, once again, school district 82 is in serious trouble — or will it be distributed on the basis of looking at the needs of various school districts?

Really, the discussion we're having is precisely what the member opposite has brought to the floor today. The issue is not simply about how many students you have in a classroom. It's: what are the unique needs of every child in that classroom? The issues of first nations children and dispersion and geography — being a northern resident, I certainly understand them well.

The encouraging news, I think, is that there is going to be a significant discussion about how we best resource classrooms today. They are very complex. It's not as simple as a number. We've understood now that we need to talk about the children in that class and exactly what their needs are. I should say that the work that Clyde Hertzman has done will very much inform some of our thinking around early learning and early literacy, which will help us when we get to the classrooms.

Areas like yours and some of the areas in my neighbourhood actually are targeted, and I think you'll see a reaction to that as we shape policy. Most importantly, the $20 million that has been agreed to through the Vince Ready recommendations…. We are going to have a discussion with the B.C. Teachers Federation, as we promised, about how best to distribute those dollars. There's been no decision made here in Victoria that says it will be done by formula or by population or by historic funding. In fact, we're going to talk to the Teachers Federation, in a discussion between us and them directly, about how we can serve students better. I'm hoping that becomes the practice on a more regular basis.

Secondly, the information that the round table will eventually analyze has very specific composition data, which we hope, as we look at how that format should be released, will allow the general public to actually have a better sense of the composition issue. I'm hopeful that we're making progress in discussing the complexity of classrooms, and we will look, with the BCTF, into how to best utilize those dollars.

R. Austin: I'd like to thank the minister for those answers. They give us some comfort, for those of us who live in northwest B.C.

I want to make just one final comment. That is, we're looking at three school districts in the province that so far have experimented with the four-day school week. Boundary has 1,800 students. Gulf Islands has 1,700. Coast Mountains has the largest amount, which is 6,200, so it has affected a much larger number of families.

I'm happy to hear that the minister is going to be consulting with the BCTF, because I think that just to be doling out this money based on population does not help school districts such as ours which have such high needs. I'm very happy to hear that. Thank you very much.

C. Trevena: With the pressures of time, I will limit myself, I hope, just to one question. My colleagues have covered others, but it is also a question based on large rural areas and the needs of trying to address the education system for those rural areas. I'm particularly concerned about a couple of the high schools in the north end of my constituency — Port Hardy Secondary and North Island Secondary in Port McNeill — where, because of constraints in financing, there are limits on what can be offered in the high school, particularly when it comes to grade 12 classes.

Obviously, we all have a concern and a desire to make sure that we are the best-educated province. What I wanted to know is what commitments and what assistance the ministry can give to high schools in rural communities to make sure that they can offer a full curriculum and that the kids can get equal opportunities.

Hon. S. Bond: As a rural resident, as well, and having small communities in my riding, I certainly share the concern about not just accessibility but quality of choice for our children — for those of us who choose to live outside the lower mainland of British Columbia or, in my case, beyond Hope, as people say regularly. In fact, we think there are a number of strategies.

I think one of the things I can share with the member is an example of one of the programs that was very successful. I have a small community in my riding called McBride. There are just over 700 people who live there, but students in that particular school had not been able to take English lit, for example, because there just aren't enough of them.

Through the cooperation of three schools — one in McBride and two in Prince George, but in two different locations — and the use of technology, for the first time we have students studying at three sites actually being connected in terms of the offering of that course. It's gone very well. I sat in on one of the courses to see how it worked. It's a bit of a challenge with the quality of the transmission, but those students will now be able to get credit for English lit.

I think we need to look at a variety of options. Obviously, the funding that we put into the system this year, the $150 million, has made a difference for many districts in offering more options — in particular in the area of the arts because, you know, that needed to be looked at again.

I guess I just want to reassure you that we are looking at a number of strategies. Certainly, technology is a key factor, and we need to make sure that, first of all, communities are connected to one another. That's one of the goals of government as well. Resourcing that allows school districts to make sure that our children

have access, but looking at e-learning in particular…. I'm also very interested in e-health and those kinds of opportunities.

We do recognize it's important. We have a rural strategy, a task force that went out and looked at issues particularly significant for rural schools. We're now working our way through those recommendations, making sure that they make a difference in those rural communities.

Being able to link schools is a great idea, but, for instance, in Port Hardy, at the secondary school there, we're talking about science classes, which is impossible to do through a technological linkup. You need the labs; you need the hands-on instructions.

Really, is there support through funding supports, through encouragement support, through making sure that there is the money and possibly assistance to getting teachers to relocate to more rural communities? Are these issues being considered?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, to the member opposite, there are no easy answers when it comes to small communities and certainly those that are dispersed and those that face very challenging circumstances. We are working hard to identify the issues that are particularly unique to rural communities. We're trying to resource boards, to give them the ability to make those decisions about which courses…. Obviously, e-learning isn't the answer for everyone in every class, and I really do want to reassure the member that I don't think that is the case. I think it's one way of opening up the world to our students who live in other communities.

We are going to pay close attention to the recommendations from the rural task force. I do think one of the areas of challenge we still face in this province is the ability to recruit and retain teachers, and especially specialist teachers. That really is the area of significant concern. So we're working on issues like professional development through webcasting opportunities to try to give teachers some more tools to help them with the challenges they face.

No easy answers, but certainly, at least from the minister's perspective, there's a good understanding of the challenges facing rural schools. We're going to pay attention to the task force recommendations that were provided and look at a combination of strategies to allow boards to make decisions that will serve their students.

C. Trevena: I can see my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca looking unhappy. All I'm going to do is thank the minister for her answers. I'm very glad to hear that you are looking at resourcing rural boards. I think that's very important, because we really do need to make sure that kids do get the equality of opportunity.

Like my colleague from Nelson-Creston, I would invite you…. When you are in the North Island, I'd be happy to take you around from a one-room schoolroom in Quatsino to the high school in Campbell River or the high school in Port Hardy — wherever you would like to go.

N. Macdonald: I would like to thank you for the opportunity. I did have two questions. I'm just going to follow up on what was said by the preceding member, because I actually had the same question. I'll tie the two together.

The first one, then, is just to reinforce that what I'm seeing, particularly in one of the two districts that I represent…. I have Revelstoke, which is a bit more condensed, and therefore they seem to be able to deal with things a bit more easily. But in Rocky Mountain, which I'm sure you're familiar with, the population is more dispersed. The difficulty is around those class sizes, especially for the secondary school. What you have are courses being offered by correspondence. They're senior courses. The quality simply isn't there.

I know that you're looking at this, and what I would encourage you to do is maybe look at some sort of funding formula that recognizes that the numbers are never going to be there for some of those classes. We are, in our district, going to use the technology linkup. We'll see how that works. We're going to link three schools for certain types of courses. I think that's going to work. For others, as was previously said, I don't think it will work. I hope that you look at that.

Tied to that is another one where, you know, the economies of scale are a bit difficult. It's around busing. I know you have a new formula, and I know it's something that's going to be looked at again. What has happened is we have…. Within Rocky Mountain school district, in particular, we've closed seven of the smaller rural schools. What that has meant is there are additional costs to busing. There's also the additional cost of energy and so on. What they're finding is that that cost is something that they really need the ministry to address. I know that in the plans in the future, you intend on addressing it, and I guess what they are saying is please hurry up. So that's basically the question. How urgently are you going to deal with that?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I recognize the challenges with the transportation system, and as we speak, the funding formula is being reviewed. You're right, and I know people are anxious to see that. The work is being done. I expect to see the recommendations early in the spring. It is quite an extensive process. As the member opposite would know, the funding formula currently recognizes unique factors that include geography, dispersion, climate and a number of other things, and there is a formula for that.

Transportation funding is currently fixed. What we're looking at in the initial look that we're having is actually matching funding to demand, and it would include things like distance. In the circumstances where students have to travel further because the school has closed, the formula would then have the

ability to react to that and not be a fixed cost. Those discussions are going on as we speak. I expect the recommendations back in the spring and hope to see a formula that better reflects the actual practices and the challenges that districts are facing. Hopefully, that answers your last question.

Back to the comment about paying attention to rural districts and the challenges. It is certainly something I have a personal interest in. But I'm sure the project you're referring to is a pilot. It looks to be very promising. It is actually connecting a webcasting opportunity between Golden, Invermere and Kimberley, and we're very optimistic that it would provide some new options for your students. Again, we're going to look at how that technology can be utilized. It's not the only answer, but we do think it is one that will provide enhancement.

I think there's some hope on the transportation front. We have to work through that process, so please reassure your constituents that we are looking at that formula and trying to find a way for it to be more flexible and responsive.

N. Macdonald: With the constraints of time, I just want to thank you for the opportunity. I'm thankful that somebody with experience as a trustee in Prince George would bring that rural perspective, because we all need our children to have the same opportunities as the people in larger centres have, and the challenges are enormous. Thank you very much, and I turn it over to our next questioner.

J. Kwan: I have some questions for the minister around a variety of issues, but let me first start with inner-city schools relative to issues pertaining to my riding.

I know that a letter was sent to the minister, dated October 7, 2005, from the Vancouver Inner-City Parents Group. In it they raise a range of issues. I'm just going to highlight some of them, and I would like to get the minister's response to the concerns that have been raised by the community here.

One centres on the inner-city schools' need for staff stability. As the minister can appreciate, I'm sure, at these inner-city schools we tend to have a larger population of students that are at risk and who have learning and behavioral needs that would require consistent and caring support from adults with whom they have been able to establish trust. We also learned from Dr. Clyde Hertzman's study and research, too, that where there's that consistency in place, children actually tend to overcome some of those inherent challenges that they have, that they bring from their home life.

To that end, inner-city schools need to have some protection from budgeting matters that have impacts for the school and to ensure that the student-staff relationships are maintained and not jeopardized so that the inner-city school positions also continue to have the kind of stability that's needed for the children. But because of budget challenges, that's not always the case. That's what we've seen in the last number of years, and that's what parents are seeing, as well, in their school system.

On that issue, I'd like the minister to respond to that. What assurance can the minister provide in ensuring that stability is in fact maintained at these schools?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to try to respond thoughtfully to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's questions.

Certainly, teaching in inner-city school situations is challenging. There's no doubt about that. When we look at sort of the behaviour that our ministry has had in terms of dollars, we've tried very hard to add additional resources, particularly through the Community LINK program. Its funding, as the member is no doubt aware, focuses on inner-city schools. In fact, when that portfolio was transferred to our ministry, we increased the funding from $35 million to $43 million. We know that's benefiting vulnerable students, and we would certainly like to see that continue to be the case.

I think that one of the things we are discussing in depth at the Learning Round Table is classrooms with the complexities, such as those we see in inner-city schools, and the challenges that teachers face every day in those classrooms. I am confident that we will have a thorough discussion. It will include issues like challenges facing classroom teachers, the issue of stability, appropriate-level resourcing and how we best serve those schools. It will undoubtedly continue to be a discussion at that table.

In terms of the specific letter…. To the member opposite: I don't have that in front of me, but I can assure the member that we will make sure that a thorough and thoughtful response is sent back to that organization.

J. Kwan: The minister mentions the Community LINK program. Of course, the 18 elementary and five secondary schools that currently receive Community LINK funding are the neediest schools in the Vancouver school district. Vancouver has identified that there's a growing number of schools with inner-city school needs, including schools that don't have the designation but still have a significant number of vulnerable children in the various schools.

In order to meet those needs, what the school board did was, I suppose in some way, expand the community school concept into what's called community team models to include vulnerable children in all of the schools in the district. To that end, Community LINK funding has been redistributed within the Vancouver district to reflect the needs of other children throughout the entire school district. Therefore, the amount of dollars has actually been spread wider, if you will, in that context.

People are pleased, by the way, that Vancouver school board has chosen to do that, because who's to say that Johnny in school A is more deserving or less deserving than Johnny in school B. What needs to be

done, of course, is that a lift be given to these school districts so that all of the children who are in great need actually get access to this funding — stable funding, at that. I would also just table that issue with the minister, which is raised in their correspondence to the minister around the Community LINK funding — and that there is a shortage.

Of course, hopefully…. In the last round of discussion when the Community LINK issues surfaced, the government had threatened to cut funding significantly for Vancouver and backed down because of the advocates in the community, both on the educator side as well as the parent side. They just wouldn't let go of the issue and managed to get the government to back down on that funding cut, which is appreciated. I will flag, though, that in spite of that, there is still a huge shortage for all of the schools that are in need in the district. I want to flag that as an issue.

Along with the issue of staff stability are the issues around administrators. Because of the frequency of abuse disclosures, family violence, substance abuse and child apprehensions within the inner-city school families, administrators spend many hours dealing with police, social workers, outside agencies and so on.

As well, incidence of neighbourhood crime in Mount Pleasant — intruders, gang recruitment, prostitution on school grounds, people wanting to recruit young kids for the sex trade — really necessitates greater vigilance, if you will, in these inner-city schools to ensure that safety of the students and the staff are provided for. The school systems are saying…. I've met with my principals and vice-principals in Mount Pleasant, and they are saying that they can no longer afford to lose more administrator support, because they are actually out there on the ground providing for some measure of safety and are taking on some level of duties that are required in these schools. So I would also table this issue for the minister to respond to — and the need to ensure that schools are not compromised in their safety aspects and also that there be coordination between the school and community services, which is so essential to the success of inner-city schools.

The government and the minister will know that our schools have lost, for example, support workers from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, from human resources and social workers on the school sites to provide support to the families. We have lost those positions because of the funding pressures. Again, I want to table these issues for the minister to respond to and ask whether or not she sees the value of those individuals at the various schools to provide the kind of support to the families and the children and to the educators as well. If so, what action might she take to address that?

Hon. S. Bond: In order to try to assist the members opposite to move more quickly, I'll try to hurry up and get the answers out more quickly and find the answers to all those questions. First of all, I appreciate the items that have been brought to our attention and, certainly, ones that are not new to us.

In terms of the issue of vulnerable students and the program that has recently been brought to our attention — and I do appreciate hearing more about it today — we do support the community team model. We're waiting to hear back, actually, after it's had a little bit of time to look to see how that will benefit students. Certainly, the early reports are excellent. We congratulate the Vancouver school district for looking at that program.

As we assess the role and the dollars that are assigned to Community LINK, we will look at the success of that model. We've heard very good things. I thank the member for bringing that to our attention. We will be following up with a report from the superintendent to see the impact and how the dollars were reallocated.

Secondly, in terms of the issue of administrators and, in essence, talking about school-community partnerships and safe schools, we obviously know how important it is to make sure that student safety is a top priority for us, but it's important that our employees work in safe and healthy places as well. When we look at the whole issue of the role of administrators, it is more challenging.

I would simply note for the record that the Vancouver school board actually received, in this year's funding, an additional almost $15 million. When I look at some of decisions made by the board, in fact, we can see that the concerns the member opposite raises are actually beginning to be addressed with that additional funding. There's probably more work to be done, but we can see that for principals and vice-principals, for example, nine new administrators were added with the money that was provided — and 56 educational assistants and 23 support staff. We can see that adding professionals to provide stability and safety in schools is certainly taking place with the additional dollars provided — almost $15 million.

Lastly, the comments about working closely with the community and partnering. We certainly know that we need to work more closely with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We see, regularly, that school boards work with their communities to provide those resources. We will be continuing to look at how we can make that more efficient and recognize the value of those partnerships.

J. Kwan: More specifically, then, to that point, what used to happen in those schools was that there were, for example, family advancement workers, social workers and so on in the various schools, on site, to provide support to the families. I know that those positions have been lost in many of the inner-city schools because of funding pressures over the last couple of years. As the minister is committing to look at those issues to see what is working and what is not, I would encourage the minister to actually look specifically at that and where the value of that really pays off.

I just talked to a school principal last week, on the week that we were off, and he told me a story about a young student in his school who had been performing really, really well and had shown very encouraging signs, and then all of a sudden the student hadn't shown up in the school system. Of course, that led to worry and so on. The principal had to contact various ministries and say: "Hey, I'm a little bit worried about so-and-so." Unfortunately, the response that the principal got back was such that if the Ministry of Children and Family Development had the resources, they would check into it, but nothing was guaranteed. I just got that story last week.

These are the realities. Whereas when we had the social workers and various people in the school system, they could actually do a lot more follow-up and be hands-on with what's going on. That makes a difference. I would urge the minister to look at that and to work with her colleagues in addressing those kinds of issues.

The last batch of questions that I have for the minister related to the inner-city school area centres around speciality teachers, special needs teachers, school librarians, the before- and after-school programs and the holiday programs, which are a huge issue for inner-city schools. One can imagine that when children actually depend on the school system so that they get food in their bellies, during those moments of holidays while we're all enjoying ourselves, children sometimes fall through the gaps. That's the reality of it in many of the schools in my riding, for many of the children.

Again, ESL training, as well — the issue of some students who may need more than five years of ESL training and how to identify the support they need. I know that if they're identified, they could receive more support. However, the schools are having great difficulties in even identifying those children with needs.

The special needs education funding side. Again, many of the parents in the inner-city schools could not afford to send their children to special psych tests or other testing, and consequently, they're not diagnosed with whatever challenges they may be faced with. Years go by, and then, lo and behold, we find that it's a little bit too late to try and address those issues. That's another problem that people have identified.

Community workers, youth and family multicultural workers — there used to be an array of those in the school system, as well, providing particular support to families who were new to British Columbia and who had a cultural difference. Those multicultural workers did magic in linking up the families with the school system and therefore the learning environments and opportunities for their children. Because of the loss in financial support in those areas, we also see schools suffering as a result of that.

I would be remiss if I did not mention this one last issue. It's a big issue, again, for the inner-city school programs, and it centres around junior kindergarten programs. The Vancouver school board has started to identify some schools where they are funding all-day kindergartens that target special needs, ESL and aboriginal children but not for all children. Some children who are not identified into those kinds of groupings will need the kind of support that junior kindergarten programs provide. That's another issue that I've been asked by the community to raise with the minister and for the minister to consider funding such junior kindergarten programs for inner-city schools.

I would like the minister's general response in these areas, and I would also say — and I fully appreciate the time constraints here — that if the minister would rather provide me with a lengthier response to these critical issues, I'd be happy to receive that in writing at a later date as well.

Hon. S. Bond: We will probably take the member opposite up on her offer to allow us to send some information. As we think through some of the comments that you've made — and certainly we can go back to Hansard and make sure that we've covered off some of those — that would be fantastic. To the member opposite's offer to pass me her notes, I do appreciate that.

Just in terms of your concerns about funding for inner-city schools, in particular, and it's certainly a passion you've demonstrated in the time that I've been in the House — and before that, I'm certain. Vancouver school board has really made some significant decisions around the money that they've been given, and it has targeted very much the issues that the member opposite has brought forward.

They're really attempting to build back that support network. In the numbers that I have — and I will be happy to share this in writing — when we look at issues of teacher-librarians, over 11 full-time teacher-librarians have been added back. We're seeing student support workers added back to the system, ten FTEs. We're seeing non-enrolling district positions added, non-enrolling teachers and five new counsellors.

In fact, we are seeing the resources that have been added to the system making a difference. I also note, though, and it is important to put it in this context, that all of that is being done while there are 500 fewer students. We are seeing school boards trying very hard to make sure that they are meeting the needs of their students.

In terms of the ESL circumstances and classroom composition — again, we had a really good opportunity at the round table. We met again yesterday to have that very kind of discussion. How do we make sure that students are being assessed? If there are waiting lists, we should know how that's done. How do we assist families to make sure that those assessments take place?

We are looking at composition, related not only to special needs, but to English as a second language and to English as a second dialect, with real emphasis and focus on how classrooms look, particularly in some of the lower mainland school districts, so I appreciate the comments. We will certainly have a look.

Also, I do want to make a comment about junior kindergarten. I'd be very interested in looking at how

that model works. I should probably go and have a look, if that would be appropriate, and then consider that as we look at how we help our students be more ready for school. That is an initiative of the new mandate of the ministry, basing that on Clyde Hertzman's work. I think there are, very clearly, some targeted areas in the province — in your riding, in mine and in several others that have been mentioned today — so we would be happy to look at that model and see how the Vancouver school board is considering that.

J. Kwan: I thank the minister for her response. I would be happy to set up meetings with the Vancouver school board, my school PACs and the principals and administrators to really facilitate a process so that the minister can get a better understanding of the situation. I'm sure, as the MLA from Mount Pleasant…. I'm sure other MLAs in other ridings, as well, would be more than happy to work cooperatively with the government in a collaboration to address this, because that is a concern that we all share, I hope. We want to come up with solutions to address these concerns.

I also want to say this. With the Vancouver school board situation, there is no doubt that the Vancouver school board is doing their very best to try and meet the various challenges, with pressures coming from everywhere but also recognizing that all children ought to have equal opportunities to maximize their potential. They're doing their level best to do that. Having said that, the school board can only generate so much money on their own. They can't do it alone, and they certainly need financial support from the province — added support from the province in these areas. So I'm sure the school would be more than happy to have that discussion with the minister.

The last two items I would like to raise with the minister…. Again, the minister can just take the information and give me a detailed response at a later time. One is related to an important program that was piloted at Britannia, the community centre there. It's the HIPPY program, where they provide for advanced support, if you will, for children who don't have the normal kind of early childhood development initiatives in their own home environment. It's targeted towards children who have ESL backgrounds, perhaps, and children who are just generally disadvantaged because of their family situations.

Funding is also critical there. They are not receiving sufficient funding, and in fact, they got notice that this will be the last year in which they'll get provincial dollars. That's a problem, because we'll actually see that program go if funding is not found. I want to highlight that as an issue for the minister to look into, and I'd be happy to receive information from the minister and for the minister to advise how the government could actually assist in making sure that the HIPPY program stays.

Britannia parents have also written to the minister, and it's about the provincial exam learning guides. There was once upon a time when the schools used to be sent five extra provincial exams, and the leftover exams would then be utilized as sort of learning tools for students in future years. That practice is now gone. Instead, students are now expected to pay $25 for each study guide to prepare for provincial exams. Of course, the minister could anticipate and imagine for families who don't have a lot of resources, it's a lot of money. For children who lose out in getting access to these learning guides, they may not perform as well in these provincial exams. That could have huge ramifications for them in a variety of ways, including access to post-secondary education.

I know the government ministry responded to this issue by saying that there is a theory behind it, and I do challenge that theory. That is to say that as a measure of students' performance, we want to equalize it. Therefore, there shouldn't be all these extra exams flown out there to help future students prepare. However, the goal is for us to actually ensure that the children are better and better prepared each and every year. I know that in their day my parents hoped for nothing else but for their children to excel and do better than they had. I'm sure all parents have that sort of approach with regards to their children's educational opportunities.

To that end, I'd like to raise this issue with the minister, and I'd like to ask the question why schools must…. Schools are now looking for charity to fund these extra student guides. If we want all students to have equal opportunities to perform and to prepare for these provincial exams, schools shouldn't have to depend on charity for these provincial tests, study guides. I would hope that the minister would consider bringing back the previous practice of providing for extra exams so that those extra exams could be utilized as student guides at no extra cost to families and students and the school boards.

Hon. S. Bond: I know that was hard running through all those important issues so quickly. Just to let the member opposite know, I'm meeting with HIPPY Canada in the beginning of December. I look forward to a discussion about that and the programs — quite looking forward to that. Apparently, we had it scheduled, and we've rescheduled it for early December. I will look forward….

The exam guide issue is something that is new to my attention. I will certainly look at that. I would be very happy to receive the document so I could have the ministry staff look at that. It's something we have concern about, as well, and I'd be happy to look into that.

I want to thank the minister and her staff. I think the cross-section of questions we've had from rural members and urban members are not, of course, unique to this side of the chamber. Members on the government side have the same challenges in their communities. I commend the minister and her staff for

The issues for an urban member are unique but not unique to those individuals in Mount Pleasant or Hastings or Kingsway, and also in Langara and other parts of Vancouver. Similarly, right across the piece from a rural perspective, there are tremendous challenges and strains on the system. I do appreciate that the government, this minister and her staff, are doing the very best they can.

However, as we get back onto some of the questions I was asking last night, I want to go to the question of mandate for the minister, and particularly the addition of public libraries to her mandate. If she could comment and give some sense to me and other members of just what that involves and what the lift was to her budget as a result. And was it a lift for the overall public library budget?

Hon. S. Bond: The transfer of libraries was precisely that; it was really a move from one ministry to the next. There are 13 FTEs responsible for public libraries that have been transferred to my ministry. Those are not new FTEs; those are FTEs coming from one ministry to another.

The lift for the budget is actually approximately $12 million. The easy numbers are $3 million this year, then $4 million and $5 million. So a total lift of just over $12 million over the next three years. Our mandate has been expanded to include public libraries so that we can look at a connection with community and existing resources, and also deliver on the public library strategy which was announced through government previously.

J. Horgan: Will the addition of public libraries to the mandate of the ministry have a deleterious impact on school libraries?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly don't believe that will be the case. We have an opportunity to build on the concept that government announced earlier, which is called Libraries Without Walls. We think that we will have the ability to see partnerships and collaborative opportunities develop where libraries and people who work in them actually talk to one another about how they can best serve an entire community.

We've seen with the $150 million that's been added to the system a significant adding of personnel — for example, teacher-librarians and library resources. We would expect that to continue, so in no way would we expect the having of libraries as part of my mandate to take away from the important role school libraries play.

J. Horgan: With respect to the lift in the block funding this year, my records here show a decrease of 229 teacher-librarians over the first four years of the Campbell mandate. I'm wondering how many of those have been hired as a result of the infusion of new dollars.

Hon. S. Bond: In consideration of the time, we will give the member opposite the breakdown of the staffing additions that have been made. We don't have the specific breakdown in front of us in terms of teacher-librarians, but I can give you the categories that we did the calculations in.

The $150 million added 1,600 full-time staff members, and we need to remember that that's done with the existence of 30,000 fewer students in the system. So we have to put that into perspective. In that total are 630 teachers; 507 educational assistants; a support staff increase of 365; some additional educational professionals, for a total of 57; and an additional number of principals and vice-principals, for a total of 35.

J. Horgan: Although that doesn't come close to answering the question I was asking, I do appreciate that information. It's interesting that of those 1,600, 872 are non-teachers. It's necessary, based on the ministry's interpretation of where that money could go…. Of those individuals, 800-plus are not at the learning round table, yet they're over 50 percent of the people hired with that new money. One would think that they would be useful participants at that table, but we'll get to that later on.

If the minister…. I know we're frightfully short on time, and I know that we're going to try and rush through an awful lot of stuff in the next couple of hours, but have there been any discussions about using existing staff, teacher-librarians, to cross over to the public system to deliver programs — or vice versa, from the public library system to cross over into the school system to deliver programs?

J. Horgan: With respect to teacher-librarians and the vital programs they deliver in our schools, does the minister contemplate in this fiscal year, or with any savings realized during the dispute in October, infusing more money into libraries in the public school system and their programs in those schools?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, any of the infusion of dollars that would be made into the system and decisions about how that's utilized would be made by school boards, in terms of knowing their districts and understanding them.

Having said that, the $20 million that has been provided through the agreement with Vince Ready and the decision about how those dollars will be utilized, focusing on class size and composition — that discus-

sion will take place with the B.C. Teachers Federation as we agreed to. I'm sure there will be much discussion about the role of many professionals, including teacher-librarians, but that discussion will take place with the B.C. Teachers Federation regarding the $20 million.

In terms of the savings that accrued, the balance of those, that discussion certainly will take place at the round table. No decisions have been made by the ministry. We don't intend to make those decisions until we've had significant discussion about the utilization of those dollars, and all of those dollars will be invested back into the education system.

J. Horgan: Does the minister contemplate any program or strategy with respect to literacy initiatives to be delivered in school libraries by teacher-librarians?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, we're still in the process of developing a strategy for literacy, not just in the Ministry of Education but across all ministries. It is a government-led initiative. We don't anticipate any change in the role that teacher-librarians currently play. Certainly, they're key parts of educational teams in schools as school districts decide how they will staff their schools. But at this point, we're developing a cross-government initiative around literacy, and I don't anticipate any change in the work done by teacher-librarians.

J. Horgan: My suggestion was that teacher-librarians would be a valuable tool in that cross-government initiative. I'm curious that as…. We've had demonstrated through questions today the diversity of the situations across B.C. — whether it be in Columbia River–Revelstoke, Prince George–Mount Robson or in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The issues facing students in these various districts are different, but one constant is…. Maybe it's my romantic side, but my recollections of the school libraries in the schools that I attended — and, in fact, that my children attended — are that they were a place of refuge, a place of excitement and intrigue and mystery. Although I laud and welcome the advent of broadband technology, I still think that if I were living in McBride, I would like to be able to go to the library, and I know the minister would as well.

My question is not if you see a decline in activity but if you would not want to see an encouragement of an increase in activity in school libraries and fully functioning teacher-librarians in those facilities?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I absolutely agree that libraries are incredible places, and I find that I have far too little time to spend there nowadays. But the whole point of looking at a consolidator, collaborative approach to literacy is to look at how we can put together a strategy that certainly includes teacher-librarians. But districts, as the member opposite correctly points out, will handle this very differently.

One of the things I have been very excited about, frankly, in terms of the way literacy is being approached is that it is very different in different communities. The great news is that all 60 school districts have said literacy is their number-one priority. That says a lot about the people who work in our school districts. We want to make sure there is enough flexibility that districts can choose how they put the team together, how they create the options for our students.

One of the exciting things is the number of community partnerships that actually work to make sure our students are literate — great community partnerships. There is a great one in the Kootenays that won the recent literacy award, the first one presented by the first ministers across the country. That was actually a group in the Kootenays who provide invaluable resources in the literacy field.

So I think it's a combination of community, school and how we put the strategy together, but it is individual school districts that will make the choices about how those teams are put together.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that, but is the minister aware that literature that has been presented to me clearly demonstrates library programs are best delivered by qualified individuals who can pass on experience and adequately utilize the tools available in libraries? I appreciate the autonomy issue, but I would think that as a high priority for this government and this term, one would have more enthusiasm for library programs delivered through the K-to-12 system.

I'm concerned — and others have raised these issues with me, whether they be involved in the public system or the public library system — that as we move into the new future, whether it be an amalgamation of programs between the two…. There is uncertainty and, again, concern that the broadband group…. Here I was just looking at a portable computer for a moment, so the irony is not lost on me, but I am a creature of paper, and I believe there is still much value in these library programs. I would just encourage the minister to try and lift it up on her agenda and encourage districts through curriculum development and other initiatives through her staff to increase and enhance library programs rather than see them diminish.

With that, I would like to move on to another area, and that is special education students as well as ESL students. I would just ask the minister what her sense is on the status of special education students in the system. How are they achieving? What are the outcomes? How does it look?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we will be able to have a much better discussion about this question in the spring, because it will be after we have been able to table our first report for special needs students — we mentioned this in our earlier discussion last night — called How Are We Doing? That information will be very specific to school districts. We will be able to feed that information back to those districts to look at how those special needs students are doing.

As I pointed out last night, we are able to do that in British Columbia, unlike many other provinces if not all of them. We can actually track students and look at their success rates. We certainly do that with aboriginal students with a very similar report.

In terms of ESL completion rates, for example…. The member opposite asked about ESL as well as special needs. In fact, ESL students actually outperform our non-ESL students when it comes to school completion. In 2003-2004, 81 percent of our ESL students completed high school compared to 79 percent of our non-ESL students. We have seen ESL completion rates increase from 73 percent in 1997-1998 to 81 percent. We've actually seen a very significant increase in the completion rates for our ESL students.

One of the things I have learned in my short tenure as the Education Minister is what a great education system we have. We have seen increased completion rates both for our aboriginal students and our non-aboriginal students and a significant improvement for our ESL students.

J. Horgan: I was pleased to get the completion rates for ESL students. Do you have a completion rate figure for special needs students? A nod? Well, okay. That'll be the question, then.

Hon. S. Bond: We do have those numbers. We do not have them with us. They are broken down by specific category, which would include, for example, gifted students, severe behaviour. We do not have the categories broken down here, but we would be happy to provide that. That is information we have, and we'd be happy to bring that for the member opposite.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister collecting that information for me. The quick turnaround from last night gives me confidence that I'll see it soon.

With respect to ESL and special needs funding, could you give me dollar figures for the amounts expended in this budget in those two areas?

Hon. S. Bond: The English-as-a-second language budget is — I need a magnifying glass — $60,459,300. In terms of special education funding, there are a number of ways that special education is funded through the ministry. The total is more than half a billion dollars. In fact, it is $630 million.

Let me give you what some of that includes: $270 million in supplementary funding; $113.5 million, which is base funding for levels 1, 2 and 3. We also have $230 million base allocation for students outside of levels 1, 2 and 3; and $16.6 million in supplementary funding for special needs students in independent schools. So $630 million is for special needs students, and just over $60 million is for ESL.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. Could she, through you, give me a breakdown on the special needs funding between the public system and the private system? How much here? How much there?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll get the specific breakdown. Let me give you the public numbers again when we look at levels 1, 2 and 3. The base funding for levels 1, 2 and 3 in the public system are $113.5 million, and supplementary funding additional to that — which is what supplementary means — is $270 million. That's the public side.

On the private side the supplementary funding is $16.6 million. The number that we want to clarify for the member opposite…. We believe that the base funding amount for that would be a little over $32 million. I will have the number verified and get that back to the member opposite, but that would be the magnitude of difference.

What is the province doing to improve aboriginal performance? I know we've touched upon this, and I know you'll be able to have a quick answer to this. I just want to get that on the record, because I know it is an area that the ministry is proud of — and rightly so.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the avenues we are using is aboriginal enhancement agreements. Currently, those have been signed with 21 districts of the 60. There are a number of others in the planning stages. Those focus on opportunities where communities dialogue with school boards to find the best ways to meet the needs of aboriginal learners.

In addition to that, we are working with the first nations education committee to look at how we can best approach aboriginal education in this province. I believe that we've seen an increase in completion rates as a result of school boards working with first nations communities and really placing an emphasis on that particular group of students. The increase has been about 5 percent in their completion rates. We know that sounds like…. That's a great number, but it's nowhere near enough, and we have to continue to place emphasis on those students.

J. Horgan: Could the minister tell me if the ministry breaks down performance with respect to ESL, special needs and aboriginal performance on a rural and an urban basis?

Hon. S. Bond: The information is collected district-specific. We can actually look at a specific district, look at areas, provide that information to districts so that they can identify gap areas and create strategies to deal with that.

J. Horgan: When the ministry staff are reviewing that information by district, have they discovered any

significant divide between urban and rural with respect to those three categories?

Hon. S. Bond: We've found that there are a lot of factors that influence success. We do know that there are challenges with rural districts in terms of geography and those issues, but there are also urban challenges. We find that there are high-performing schools in the Kootenays or smaller communities and there are low-performing schools in a variety of districts. While there are some things that are important to consider, like geography, there are challenging factors across the spectrum. We have schools that do very well and some schools that have more challenges right within one district. So challenging circumstances but, also, really exceptional results in all parts of the province.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I'm pleased that the ministry is working and reviewing these issues, but it leads me to think that perhaps targeted funding for those areas that are underachieving might be the way of the future. Is the ministry contemplating a return to targeting funding in some of these areas?

Hon. S. Bond: When the decision was made to, in essence, allow flexibility, as much flexibility as possible, I remember being one of the trustees who thought that was just a great idea. I still believe there's merit, but I think we have to weigh that against outcomes and benefits. We have to look at the best utilization of those resources.

As recently as yesterday at the round table there was the introduction of a discussion about how dollars are allocated. We made a conscious decision to, in essence, de-target funding as much as possible, but at the round table yesterday that discussion did begin to take place about whether or not there were specific areas of need that might be better suited by some targeted funding. No decisions have been made, but I think a healthy dialogue will certainly take place over the next little while.

One thing I should point out is that when we assigned the $150 million last year, we did make suggestions that boards concentrate on particular areas. There were no tied targeted funds, but certainly, it is a discussion that I think will be taking place.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that and, also, a brief insight into the day's work yesterday at the round table. We'll get to some more of that shortly — very shortly, by the time on the clock.

I do want to say that for my part — and I can't speak for all of my colleagues; we haven't had the debate on this question — it strikes me as commonsensical to suggest that the ministry has a responsibility to target resources where they can achieve the best outcomes. If districts aren't able to do that for a variety of reasons, whether it be the urban location or their rural location, I think it's incumbent upon government to contemplate that. I'm pleased to hear that that's back on the table as an area of discussion within the ministry and within the sector.

I'd like to go now, if I could, to talk a little bit about school planning councils and parent advisory committees. My concern in this area…. I know the minister has read some of my musings on the subject, and they are just that. I'm a parent; my spouse is a parent. Every morning I wake up, and there she is, active in our children's lives and in their schools. She runs a home-based business that provides arts and crafts supplies to churches and other groups. She's very active and dynamic in that area, so I get it in full measure.

It's not that I don't respect and understand the important role…. I know the minister is just having some partisan sport with me. Now that we're in an environment where we can exchange ideas — and I believe it's been going quite well over the past day and a half — can she give me a sense of how PACs are funded, the role of DPACs and if there is a mandatory requirement to be part of the BCCPAC?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. We do have our roles to play during question period, and certainly I have enjoyed, as I'm sure he has, finding quotes that we trade with one another at that point in time.

We do know, and I think we would agree, that the role of parents is incredibly important in the school system, and we actually believe that the first educator is a parent. This government has had a longstanding belief that they have a critical role to play in the education system.

First of all, BCCPAC is voluntary membership. Districts and, I think, individual schools choose whether or not to become members of BCCPAC. The district parent advisory council is the advisory group of parents that come together to provide advice. They are an advisory body at the district level. Typically, it's made up of a representative from each PAC or a number of them. Certainly, that was the case when I was a DPAC chair.

Finally, in terms of funding, parent advisory councils have the opportunity to receive funds through the Solicitor General's ministry as a result of gaming funds. There is now, I believe, a formula that allows for a per-student amount, should a school apply for that, so PACs receive funding there.

Last year we were able to provide, at the end of the year, the BCCPAC with an $11.3 million grant in funding. That was earlier this year. I do have a list of activities. I don't want to take time reading it, but I'd be happy to share the list of things that BCCPAC utilized those dollars for.

J. Horgan: Thank you, venerable Chair, and I thank the minister. I'd be delighted to get that information. I know we recognize the important role of parents in the lives of students. I guess where we start to diverge and where the debate and the exchange of ideas can take place — and we sadly do not have the time this year,

and in the spring we can pursue this further — is that it's my sense that the parents' role in the lives of the students is more important than in the life of the school.

It's nuance; it's subtle. A longer discussion and maybe a coffee…. You've been invited to every community in the province. When you come to Malahat–Juan de Fuca, we can sit down at Port Renfrew. You and the member from Quilchena, as well, are invited. We can take a drive out and have a coffee and talk about the role of parents in the education system.

I was pleased to hear of the advisory nature of these bodies, and that brings us a bit to the round table. I'll get to that in a moment, but I understand that school planning councils have a different role and a different configuration. Perhaps you could advise me on what is the makeup, the role, function and mandate of those organizations.

Hon. S. Bond: Membership on a school planning council — it's important for people to understand that. First of all, we did amend the School Act to allow every school to form a school planning council. It is an advisory body, but it does help monitor and review school plans for improving student achievement. We wanted to make sure that parents actually belonged to that school community that makes those important decisions, and we're very committed to making sure that parents play a meaningful role in the education system.

I should tell you that the membership of a school planning council is three parents, the principal and a teacher representative. It is the responsibility of the school planning council to then collectively engage the entire school community in student achievement and the development of the school plan.

It doesn't rest solely with the school planning council. It actually is their job to communicate with teaching staff and CUPE members as they work with school planning councils. We have asked that school planning councils be an important part of the accountability of the system, and we're asking that they look at careful and coordinated planning in support of student achievement. We also want to see increased accountability for results. We did amend the School Act to allow all schools to have a school planning council, and we are seeing some really good results — not necessarily in every district but certainly in many of them.

J. Horgan: Thank you, venerable Chair. Could the minister tell me how many planning councils are in place? I guess that would be as opposed to how many could be in place if there were 100-percent uptake.

The Chair: Member, thank you for referring to me as venerable, but the member for Nanaimo-Parksville has kindly pointed out that it just means old, not respected, so I'll settle for honourable.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll be certain not to use the word "venerable." I don't want to be in trouble with the Chair, and I would never imply that the member was old.

First of all, I need to correct a statement on the record for the member opposite. Actually, the language — and I have two different pieces of paper with two different answers, but I want to give you the correct one, obviously…. A board must actually establish a school planning council, so every school is required to have one.

There are instances, though — and I don't have specific numbers for the member opposite — where school planning councils may not exist because they have difficulty getting the required number of parents. But the estimation — and I make it clear that it's an estimate from my staff…. We believe that probably about 90 percent of schools across the province…. Again, that is an estimate, but the School Act does require a school planning council.

J. Horgan: I'm now more curious about this than I should have been. I thank the minister for her answer, but can you explain to me why…? Again, I'm assuming that there's no compensation for this activity for the parents involved. I know I'm involved in minor sports. I coach kids, and I do it happily and certainly wouldn't contemplate compensation.

But with the proliferation of planning and parent bodies within the K-to-12 system, I'm wondering…. Certainly, in Malahat–Juan de Fuca and in Langford, where I live, people are working, and they're happy to know that they can elect school board trustees to administer the local issues in their community. They're happy that the ministry has standards for employment of teachers and for other professionals in the system, and they comfortably leave their children in the hands of the state — if I can sound Stalinist — to be educated. I'm curious as to why the proliferation and why the government felt the need to amend the School Act to put this body in place when it's voluntary and advisory.

Hon. S. Bond: We actually think it was so important that we wanted to put it in the School Act because we also gave it a statutory requirement that the school planning council must be part of creating a plan around student achievement, and also, we would want them to be involved in approving school plans. Fundamentally, it comes down to a belief that we think parents are a critical partner in the education system. I can remember the countless years I spent volunteering in schools. I would have — as, I'm sure, thousands of parents across this province have — welcomed the opportunity to be involved in a formal way in the planning of my children's education.

It's been an initiative that's been supported by thousands of parents. It is working extremely well in many districts in this province, and in some we still need to provide training and options to help those school planning councils, but it's an important initiative, and we believe in it very much.

J. Horgan: I don't doubt the minister's support of the program, but again, we'll have to have a longer discussion on that, because it strikes me that there are accountability mechanisms in place. There are elected representatives at the local level who can access information from parents, if they like. Certainly, parents can access their school board trustees.

I just wonder quite often…. This is not to disparage the good work that PACs do, because right across the province they do fantastic work. But it's quite common — I'll get some mail on this — that whoever shows up on that third Thursday in September becomes the PAC president and carries on from there. That's not to say that there isn't a vibrant parent community within schools across the province. I'm not suggesting that for a minute, but there is a sense….

There was a meeting of school board trustees, an all-candidates meeting. There were more candidates on the stage than there were people in the audience. That speaks ill of our democracy, but it speaks well of the comfort that the public have in the mechanisms that are in place. They are confident that if people are putting themselves forward, they'll read their literature, and they'll cast their ballot.

Students and parents don't have that luxury on the third Thursday in September if there's a baseball game, and they're doing that instead, so they couldn't make it to the PAC meeting. Maybe they had to send a letter saying, "I would like to be the treasurer of the PAC," or maybe they just didn't get the notice. I'm concerned that we have a statutory body now that is dependent on volunteers who are selected based on whether or not they show up on a certain day. We'll have a longer discussion about that. At this point I'd like to turn the floor over to my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith for a few questions. I'll collect my thoughts, and we'll move on to another subject.

D. Routley: I have a question regarding the funding formula. As an outgoing school trustee and as a former employee of the school board, I've had to deal with the outfall of the funding formula. It's well acknowledged in our society that our demographics see an aging population. However, projections for school enrolment, in the experience that I've had in my own school district, have been excessively low for an exceeding number of years.

Knowing that there was going to be a slight decline in enrolment due to demographics, it seems rather difficult to ascribe positive motives to the decision to hinge funding to a per-capita, per-student basis rather than targeted funding. It seems that there's a popular conception that this has been a pretext for cuts, and this decision was explained as a move to offer flexibility to school districts. I would ask the minister: what flexibility would be offered to school districts in contracting budgets and offering us the chance not to fund what we want but more to cut from what we want?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: I've actually sat in the school trustee chair as well, and I was one of the trustees that at the time fought for looking at how to better provide funding to school boards to give them the kind of flexibility to make decisions around the unique needs of their school districts. I certainly supported the move away from a very targeted line of funding.

I do have to put this in context. Difficult decisions were made when I was a school trustee, and I want to tell you that maybe the word "venerable" fits here. But that was a long time ago, so challenging decisions for school boards are nothing new. I think our belief is and continues to be that trustees have the ability to make decisions at the local level based on student needs. Having said that — as I pointed out to another member opposite, Malahat–Juan de Fuca — we do need to look at whether or not, as we move forward with that decision, there are areas where we do need to focus some funding. Are there areas where we need to have that debate? I think that debate is going to take place. Certainly, the round table has indicated that they would like to have that discussion.

I do also have to point out: public school funding is at its highest level ever, and the impact of the $150 million has been significant this year and moving forward. In fact, we are at the highest level of funding ever in the province with a declining enrolment — 30,000 fewer students. The projections that the member opposite refers to are generated at the school district level. It's not the ministry that projects declines. It's actually the school district that comes up with those numbers.

D. Routley: I am aware that the school districts come up with those numbers, and in our district it's referred to as Martinizing of our budgets. They project low enrolments. Cuts are made, and then in September more students show up than are expected. The money does not go back from whence it came but into whatever projects the district administration have targeted.

I'm familiar with the reasoning behind per-student funding. I disagree with it, but I'm familiar with it. What makes it all the more difficult to accept is that when the government required a political boost, a political balance before the past provincial election, suddenly funding was targeted. We had targeted funding to textbooks in a massive user-pay scheme where $10 million was put up to be matched by districts that might be able to afford it or might not. So that really put the per-student funding decision in a radically different context. When it was politically necessary to avoid taking responsibility for cuts that this government was going to make and was determined to make to public education, they did that on a pretext of declining enrolment. When the government needed a political boost, they targeted funding.

Now, before the election, part of the premise for per-student funding and for the three-year envelope of projected funding was to give consistency and stability to the funding package for school districts. Yet since that time we've seen repeated one-time funding, one-time addition of funds. The minister has referred to the $150 million input of funding, which in no way comes

near the amount that was taken out of education and in no way meets the additional costs that the government downloaded on to school districts in terms of unmet heating costs, MSP premiums and the like — gap funding.

I would like to ask the minister if she intends to continue funding school districts on a haphazard one-time funding model, or will she provide adequate, stable funding in the projected three-year envelopes that were promised?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, $150 million is ongoing, ongoing, ongoing funding. It is not one-time, and we need to be clear about that.

Secondly, let's look at…. We talk about haphazard funding. The textbook funding that was announced, $10 million, was actually in response to a constant and ongoing concern about the lack of textbooks in schools. In fact, today we're continuing to have that discussion.

I know we're going to have a discussion about the resources that have been accrued during the recent dispute. I think the member opposite isn't going to like this answer, but we're actually going to see that perhaps the round table is going to suggest that that one-time money look at issues like textbooks. The member opposite is going to see that again.

Let's be clear. Under the previous administration, when there were dollars left at the end of the year, those dollars were not invested in the public education fund. They went back into general revenue. We, on the other hand, have made a decision to take year-end funding and ensure that every single dollar goes into the public education budget. That's what we did, and despite the comments from the member opposite, public education is at its highest funding level ever in British Columbia, with 30,000 fewer students. We already know that $20 million will be added to that — to the $150 million — and it will be ongoing funding.

The Chair: Thank you, member, and before you commence, I wish to advise that I've received a copy of a dictionary definition of "venerable." I'm advised that the secondary meaning combines "old" with "veneration" or "respect." The primary meaning is "worthy of being venerated, revered or highly respected." So I apologize to the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and chastise the member for Nanaimo-Parksville for misleading the chair.

The minister indicates that I wouldn't be happy with the answer. In fact, I'm happy anytime I hear that more money is coming into education. However, I do disagree with the way that it's being done.

I would ask the minister…. I have challenged math skills, but I do know that five is more than three. I do know that when the minister stands up and says there are fewer students and more money in education, it should not equal closed schools. It should not equal reduced teacher-librarian time. It should not equal 2,600 fewer teachers. It should not equal fewer teacher assistants. It should equal more services to students. It's quite Orwellian to stand and say that there's more and more money being put in and fewer and fewer students, and yet our students are suffering these deprivations of service.

I would dispute the claim that it is the highest level of funding. The government has said that it is results-orientated, that it focuses on results. In fact, if it is the highest level of funding, and if we have fewer students, then I would suggest that the results are very poor since we have witnessed these closures, since we have witnessed the laying-off of so many teachers and so many teacher-librarians — all of the cuts that the school districts have endured.

I would ask the minister if she measures public education success by funds spent or by goals realized?

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely by outcomes. British Columbia has a public education system that is second to none in the world. In fact, those comments absolutely bring into…. The teachers and the people who work so hard in the school system help, with parents, to create the best-educated students, bar none, in the world.

Let's talk about the facts. The education budget is at the highest level it has ever been in British Columbia. That is beyond dispute — $5 billion plus. It has never been higher than that. The fact of the matter is that there are fewer students: 30,000 fewer students in the province.

Let's talk about why it was, unfortunately, necessary to close some schools. I offer you school district 57. Since the time I was the school board chair in school district 57, we have lost almost 5,000 children. It is virtually impossible to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep buildings open with 5,000 fewer students. In fact, learning outcomes, as a result of some of those school closures, have actually seen improved service for students, because of resources bringing a larger number of students together.

Is it difficult for neighbourhoods? Yes, it is, but there are 5,000 fewer students in my district. That number may vary slightly, but you simply cannot leave the same number of buildings open. While I want to respect the difficult decisions that have been made, that must be done on a basis of fact — 30,000 fewer students, $5 billion, ongoing additional funding of $150 million.

D. Routley: The fact is that we have lost less than 3 percent of our students — I believe I'm correct in that — but we have lost over 7 percent of our enrolling teachers. We have lost 23.5 percent of our special needs teachers, 17.5 percent of our teacher-librarians. So this seems disproportionate, and I would explain that as being an underfunding of education. No matter how many funds we offer to the system, if the costs we download onto the system, if the costs we impose on the system are greater — and much greater — than the

funding that is increased, it is a net loss for school districts and a net loss for students.

On the matter of school planning councils and their role in budgeting, I think it's very important that it be acknowledged by the government that school districts offer the whole community a voice in education — not just the parental voice, but the whole community's voice, and not just those parents who are able to put aside enough time and energy and resources to participate in school planning councils, but all parents, including those who hold down multiple jobs and can't participate.

I think it's very important to protect the interests of the broader community in public education. Will the minister commit to keeping the political voice of communities through school districts and not reducing the power of decision-making of school districts?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, I think that we simply have to come to a point where we agree that we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of parents in the education system. This is the second member that's been critical of the role of school planning councils. The role of school planning councils isn't to eliminate the voices of parents in the school system. It's actually to create a more meaningful and new opportunity and to enshrine the fact that we as a government absolutely believe that parents are critical partners.

In fact, when you look at school planning councils, boards are required to consult with school planning councils about resource allocations. They are also asked to consult with other members of the community, other members of staff, to make sure that it's a collaborative process.

Statistics and research show us that when parents are involved in a child's education, children do better. We know that when parents are involved in the public school system, schools and districts do better. So we fundamentally believe there are roles for parents. I would love to see those roles expanded. I would love to see us find a way to effectively reach out to aboriginal parents and ethnic parents — to find a way to bring them into schools. Certainly, that was a challenge when I was a school board chair, and it's a challenge again today. That doesn't mean we're not going to continue to focus on that.

As we discuss the role of parents in the school system, we are also discussing the role of trustees in the school system, because my ministry mandate has changed. It is a very different ministry than it was five or six months ago.

In addition to that, I believe that we should always look at how best to serve students effectively. We know that discussion will take place in numerous places — certainly at the round table and in the meetings that I have on a regular basis. We will look at the status quo and at how best to serve our students. They come first.

D. Routley: I think the minister is mistaken, perhaps confused. I did not criticize the role of parents. I criticized the idea that the role of the community should be reduced. I do not believe that political representation and political accountability on a local level needs to be sacrificed in order to engage parents. I think parents can be engaged without sacrificing the broader community's role in directing public education.

The minister has talked about the benefits of closing small schools and pooling students. In fact, we may be able to pool the resources gained by per-student funding by pooling them in one school. But in my own district, where we have closed some small schools and managed to save others, one of the main considerations for parents involved in that discussion was the fact that if we close a small school in a small community and bus those students ten, 20, 30, 40 kilometres to the next nearest school — although they may pool resources and they may offer a few more programs to those students who can stay after school and enjoy them — this does nothing to involve those parents that the minister has talked about who can't travel the 20, 30, 40 kilometres to be involved in their child's classroom.

The single parent who doesn't have reliable transportation could walk to their small school and participate, help in the classroom, that sort of thing. Their students could benefit from school athletic programs, stay after school, play on the team, but they can't now. They're bused back and forth; they can't stay and do that. They can't perhaps afford to play sports outside of school, so they've lost a significant resource.

Does the minister acknowledge that benefits offered by small schools are lost when we close small schools in small communities and pool our enrolment in larger centers?

Hon. S. Bond: To add some further clarity to my comments, because obviously they are necessary: first of all, the issue of demographics and the closure of schools is not unique to British Columbia. We see that across Canada, in fact, especially in rural and northern communities. Across this country boards and others are facing similar circumstances. The demographics are the facts that the member opposite needs to actually take into consideration. It's not unique to British Columbia.

For the record and for clarification, as I pointed out, it is difficult to close a school for any reason, but the demographics have made it necessary in some circumstances. Those are simply the facts. Are there benefits that are lost to families? Of course, there are. Are the decisions easy? Of course not. I simply pointed out that in the case of bringing students together, there are benefits that may occur, and it's important to look at that decision in both those contexts. Are they difficult decisions? Yes, they are. But we need to look at it in the context of demographics. We need to look at it in the context of what's happening outside of British Columbia, and we need to look at those factors when we make statements about school closure.

H. Lali: At the UBCM I attended a meeting with the minister, along with the town council in Princeton.

There were a couple of schools that were closed in the Nicola-Similkameen school district.

I'm talking specifically…. I have to apologize, because I've got so many communities and so many schools in my constituency that I can't remember the specific name. It's the school that was closed in the town of Princeton itself, and Princeton council has been applying to actually have a meeting with the minister to get that school for a community centre. I was wondering if the minister might be able to enlighten me as to what the progress is on that particular topic.

Hon. S. Bond: I do recall the meeting, and I remember being quite encouraged by the suggestions being made by the town council. I have not had a second contact with the council, but certainly, also at UBCM — and I made this suggestion to the town council at the time — there was a program announced called the Community Connections program, really looking at exactly that issue where we have extra space. It encourages applications for proposals to look at the very kind of initiative that the member opposite is bringing to our attention.

I will follow up with our staff to see if there's been a follow-up contact with the council, but certainly we would also be prepared to provide information as necessary and provide some encouragement and assistance around that proposal in particular and any other options that could be considered.

I just want to switch to Punjabi in our school systems. It was under the NDP when the announcement was made, and Punjabi, Chinese and aboriginal languages were given the same status as French, German, Spanish and others as a second-language status. What we found, actually, in the mid- to late '90s was that in a number of communities there was a demand to get Punjabi classes started, and the school boards weren't responding. Where they were responding, it was a little bit difficult because school boards were saying: "Well, the government hasn't given us extra funding."

But in the late '90s — I believe it was in 2000 — the Minister of Education of the day actually made it clear to school boards that they were to find the moneys within their budgets, similar to how other European-based languages were being funded. It wouldn't be something that the community — for instance, the Punjabi community — would have to fundraise or go to the ministry or the minister himself or herself to try to get that extra funding. What we've found now in the last couple of years is that that has sort of resurfaced again.

There are a number of communities in the province that have the same problem, but I'm going to talk specifically about Merritt, the community where I live. We've got Punjabi as a second language in the schools since the mid-90s, and it's always offered after school. The school board doesn't actually go out to find a teacher. The community itself has had to find the teacher to work with the school board to put on those classes.

Now that individual has retired. He's actually gone back to India for a few months. Again, we've had to find somebody else to replace him, a young woman who is actually a teacher on call — a substitute teacher. We don't know what's going to happen. She's actually going to be teaching Punjabi to the two classes in the Nicola-Similkameen school district in Merritt.

What we're finding is that we want a long-term solution in the community. There's a club that I belong to. It's called the Punjabi Canadian Roots Club, and we've sort of taken this on as a pet project. On behalf of not only the community itself but also the Punjabi Canadian Roots Club, I'm asking this question to the minister: we would like to see — and not just for Merritt but for other communities as well — where the minister or the ministry is in contact with the school boards so that these languages, Punjabi or aboriginal or Chinese, that are now being offered….

They should be offered on the same level as the European-based languages; that school boards should find the funding in the same way that they find it for these other, European-based languages; and that, specifically in the community of Merritt, we find a long-term solution where the school board goes out and does a provincewide search to hire a teacher, one of whose responsibilities would be to teach Punjabi along with others they may have. I was wondering if the minister would make that commitment to work with the school boards across the province so that other communities facing the same problem would have that problem resolved.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, it's an area that we are seeing an increased interest in, as the member opposite points out. I've actually participated in two round tables in the lower mainland where the subject of language was very predominant — in particular, Punjabi, Mandarin and a number of other languages. One of the things that we are very pleased about is that we invest a significant number of dollars in making sure there are final exams for those programs now so that appropriate credit can be given.

We are in discussions with school boards now, and we have had discussions. While I can't give the member opposite a specific strategy related to that, I can give him assurances that it is an issue that is on our discussion list with school boards — talking about how we can actually facilitate those language programs in increasing numbers of schools and in an ongoing way.

One of the discussions taking place is actually with the deans of education programs in universities so that we can look at appropriate training programs and have educators who are fluent and would provide stability, in addition to the other courses that they might teach. It's certainly an item that the ministry has spent time on prior to my being the minister. In the round tables

that I've participated in, it's certainly an issue of concern for parents and one that we will continue to invest some time in, looking at how we can work with school boards.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for that answer. Obviously, our club in the community of Merritt will continue to work with the school board. I'll keep the minister informed as well, because this is something that we'd like to see happen. Even though Punjabi is a second language, we don't want it to actually be treated second-class. It should be on the same level as, like I said, the European languages and be treated that way so that an active search for a teacher is done, rather than the community or the club having to go out and find somebody.

Just changing the topic to ESL and aboriginal education, I wanted to ask the minister how the funding for those in the school system is determined. What kind of criteria are used to have that funding put in place? Because for a number of years the cuts to ESL and aboriginal education and special needs, as well, actually hurt those people who really needed the support in the school system the most.

We want immigrants to be up to date with the English language, so they can compete for educational and work opportunities at the same level as the rest of society. Aboriginal people, as you know, often also need that special attention so that they can compete on the same level as non-aboriginal people. Of course, special needs is an area where…. What we've found now, in so many instances, is that where there are multiple numbers of special needs students in a particular class, they don't get the individual attention that they need.

I guess that in all three of these cases, there is an element of individual attention. Whether it's immigrants who are taking ESL, whether it's aboriginal people in the regular school system or whether it's the special needs, obviously, they need more attention on a one-to-one basis.

My question is this: how is the funding derived? And what are the minister's or the ministry's future plans to make sure that these three groups who are the most disadvantaged in the school system get the proper attention they need so that they can become productive citizens once they leave school?

Hon. S. Bond: All right. I will try to be as succinct as possible, but the member opposite has asked a lot of very important questions.

In terms of the criteria for ESL funding, actually, school districts provide annual assessments of language proficiency, and that's how students are then designated as requiring English-as-a-second-language resources. There need to be annual plans around that student's needs, and they also have to regularly report progress. So, in fact, school boards assess, and then the designation is created.

In terms of funding, once that designation is made, funding is available for five years, because the assumption is that a student should be able to become proficient with their language skills within a five-year period. There are exceptions to that. Sometimes a student may require more than that, and that is something that can be looked at. But the average number of years is three years that an ESL student is given additional funding.

An ESL student would receive core funding plus an additional $1,100 of resources each year that they are counted as an ESL student. So, annual assessments, plans for those students and additional funding on top of the core funding amount of $1,100 up to a five-year period — and it doesn't have to necessarily be consecutive. It's a five-year period. That's ESL funding, and how it's driven. And I should tell you that I believe the ESL budget in 2004-2005 was $60 million for English as a second language.

In terms of aboriginal funding, aboriginal students actually self-identify, so there is no assessment process. In fact, they simply identify that they have aboriginal heritage, and that becomes an aboriginal student that has resources attached. The ministry provides $45 million each year for aboriginal education. Again, that is the core funding amount for the student, and then there's an additional amount for each student that's identified as aboriginal. That amount is $950 in addition to core funding. Those funds are used to support aboriginal language and culture programs, aboriginal support services programs and other localized aboriginal educational programs. Those are the two tracks and how the funding is generated.

J. Horgan: Noting the clock, I just have a few questions with respect to audits that perhaps could be on the list of homework, if possible. I've communicated with the minister, and we have a plan for future interactions.

I have in front of me a document, and this flows from the estimates for the Minister of Advanced Education. Similar questions were asked and positive responses were received, so we're taking a punt here. A number of audits have been done over the past few years: provincial learning network, independent schools, fiscal accountability framework, examination, contracts, administration system and post-implementation review, a school district review — I have file numbers for these as well — and a common disbursement system review. Could the minister provide an explanation for those audits and the materials that flow from that? Or are there privacy issues involved?

Hon. S. Bond: These are audits that the ministry has actually requested, and certainly, the ones that we can…. If all of them can be made available, they certainly will be, but the ministry has requested these audits. If they are available to be made public, we'd certainly be happy to share that.

J. Horgan: Well, if they were requested and they are available, I could leave it at that. I'm sure it will be self-explanatory once I see the material, so I'll put that to one side.

Before I get on to providing the minister with the list of issues I'd like to canvass, I want to know a little more about Literacy Now, and what, if any, interaction the ministry has with this. I believe it's a 2010 project. Could the minister advise me on what funding or staff resources are put into that?

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to back up just for a moment, if I might be permitted, to the question of audits. Certainly, the ministry staff has just made it clear that they encourage and look to do audits regularly. We think it's an important way of…. It's good business practice. We make sure that there are appropriate financial practices in place and that all of the correct mechanisms are in place for good, sound fiscal management.

There was no particular reason that those topics were flagged. It's just a matter of ongoing practice by the ministry. Certainly, if there's any specific data, I'd be happy to provide it, but there were no specific reasons for those. It's a matter of good business practice and due course as we do that. If the member has other specific questions about specific audits, I'd be happy to try to get that information.

In terms of Literacy Now, we were able to utilize $5 million of year-end funding at the end of the fiscal year. Previously, those dollars would have gone back into general revenue, but we were lucky and able to use those dollars in a variety of ways in the education system. The $5 million is actually being used for community-based literacy initiatives through the Literacy Now program. Those programs are now in 43 communities, where we're seeing initiatives across the province. Again, that's through the 2010 LegaciesNow program, and we're seeing a very comprehensive approach to literacy being utilized through Literacy Now.

Just for the minister's benefit, when we reconvene, there are just a few more areas I'd like to touch upon: testing; mandates; capital and seismic — I believe that with the information provided for this fiscal, that will be shorter than it would have been, but there will be outward years that some members would like to discuss — the round table; accountability contracts; and French immersion.

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

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.