Hansard — Thursday, March 29, 2007 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


Tributes		6617
	Brent Hayden
	R. Hawes

Introductions by Members		6617

Statements		6618
	Legislative precincts land claims agreement
	Hon. M. de Jong

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6618
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 22)
	Hon. S. Bond
	Public Protection Act (Bill M211)
	M. Farnworth
	Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (Tilma) Act, 2007 (Bill M212)
	M. Sather

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		6620
	Battle of Vimy Ridge
	J. Rustad
	Alberni wrestling program
	S. Fraser
	Dover Bay Dolphins basketball champions
	R. Cantelon
	Kate Forster
	R. Fleming
	Victim services
	D. MacKay
	Maple Ridge Secondary School girls basketball team
	M. Sather

Oral Questions		6622
	Raw log exports
	C. Trevena
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Forests Minister's role in Vancouver Island forestry issues
	S. Fraser
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Environmental assessment of Flathead Valley
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	Government action on farmworker safety
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. O. Ilich
	C. Puchmayr
	Government action on forest worker safety
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. O. Ilich
	Xyolhemeylh child protection services
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Emergency needs assessment for income assistance
	J. Brar
	Hon. C. Richmond
	Visitor access at Deni House
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott
	East Kootenay regional district bylaw approval by Community Services Minister
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. I. Chong

Petitions		6627
	S. Fraser

Committee of the Whole House		6627
	Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 10)
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	G. Robertson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6638
	Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 10)

Committee of the Whole House		6638
	Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 14) (continued)
	B. Ralston
	Hon. C. Taylor

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6648
	Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 14)

Committee of the Whole House		6648
	Security Services Act (Bill 15)
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les

Tabling Documents		6650
	Office for Children and Youth, annual report, 2005-2006
	Hon. M. de Jong

Royal Assent to Bills		6650
	Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)
	Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)
	Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9)
	Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 10)
	Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 12)
	Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 14)
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill 13)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6650
	Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued)
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Cubberley
	R. Fleming
	M. Karagianis
	D. Chudnovsky
	C. Wyse

R. Hawes: This morning in Melbourne, Australia, Canada's flag was raised and the national anthem played at the FINA World Championship swim meet when we won a gold medal, by Brent Hayden from Mission, who finished in a dead heat with the Italian swimmer. This is the first world championship freestyle 100-metre medal that we have won at the FINA World Championships. I'd like the House to congratulate Brent Hayden.

J. Nuraney: Today I have a very special guest in the gallery. His name is Ilahyas, and he is my grandson and a great pride of our family. This is his first visit, and he's accompanied by my good wife. I ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Today we're continuing to celebrate excellence in British Columbia. It is Education Week. Joining us in the Legislature today are five outstanding principals that are being recognized during Education Week as British Columbia's recipients of Canada's Outstanding Principal award. They are among 32 national recipients of Canada's Outstanding Principal award, an initiative of the Learning Partnership, a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to championing a strong public education system.

This program honours the extraordinary contributions of dynamic education leaders in publicly funded schools. The award honours principals who have made a measurable difference in the lives of their students and their own local communities.

It was fantastic to meet with them at lunchtime. They are inspiring. They have great ideas about how to improve public education. Please join me in welcoming Clyde Dougans from the Chilliwack school district; Chris Harvey from the Greater Victoria school district; Scott McLean, Sandra Sellick and Janet Slaney — and listen to this — all from Central Okanagan school district. They must be doing something pretty incredible there.

V. Roddick: I was really fortunate to be able to join 20 B.C. Young Liberals for lunch in the dining room this afternoon from Camosun College, Malaspina and the University of Victoria.

There are four of them in the gallery up there. Kristine Zellweger, administrative director of Kwantlen University club president; Cody Hedmen, Vancouver Island regional directory for the B.C. Young Liberals; Steele Gorosh, youth chair for Nanaimo-Parksville, and Zack Poturica, communications director for Penticton-Okanagan Young Liberals. It shows there are still youth out there to support all of us aging people in the Legislature.

N. Simons: I'm sorry I'm late. I'm not sure if it's happened already, but it gives me pleasure to recognize a gentleman in the House, a former MP for Powell River–Sunshine Coast — Sea to Sky country — who is a former MLA in the House. I'm sure someone will introduce him from the government side as well, but it's nice to see Mr. Reynolds here today.

J. McIntyre: I was about to make an introduction, but I would like to add my welcome to the former MP John Reynolds as well, since we had overlapping territory. Welcome.

I'd also like to introduce to the House today Laura Hope, who is one of our new legislative assistants. She's here today along with her brother David Hope, who lives in Whistler and is a dogsled driver. I hope the House will join me in making them both feel very welcome.

S. Hawkins: I would like to join the Education Minister in congratulating three local principals from the Kelowna area: Scott McLean, Sandra Sellick and Janet Slaney. I would also like to welcome two other people from my constituency: Mark Stathis, who is an outreach worker, and Kelly Kubik, who is the director. Both are from the Okanagan Metis Children and Family Services and are here to have some meetings with the Minister of Income Assistance with me this afternoon. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: This week is Social Work Week here in British Columbia. I had the opportunity to introduce a number of social workers on Monday. Today I was joined for lunch by a number of social work professionals from throughout the province. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

From the north region is Natalie Kockeritz. Natalie is a guardianship worker, has been with the ministry just under two years and actually relocated to Prince Rupert from Toronto — bit of an adventure, I'm sure. Good to have Natalie here.

From the interior region, Ruth Verkerk from 100 Mile House and Twyla Russell from Kamloops. Ruth works as a team leader, started her career with MCFD in 1990 and continues to build and strengthen relationships and partnerships in the community she serves.

Twyla is from Kamloops, has been with MCFD for 22 years and plays a critical role now in helping to train new social workers. In fact, Twyla was nominated for an international award for social work last year.

From the Fraser region is Gail Hildebrandt from Mission. Gail has been with MCFD for some time. Her

dedication and perseverance to her profession certainly is recognized and appreciated.

From Vancouver Coastal we have Tracey Potter. Tracey is a team leader with the Vancouver South family development response team and has been with the ministry since 1990. Her team facilitates our family resource programs that support and strengthen families within the community.

From Vancouver Island is Melissa Allen. I had an opportunity to meet Melissa up in Port Hardy last week. She'll forgive me for not being that great a dancer at the coming-home ceremony there. She was involved in one of MCFD's recent innovative programs that reunites aboriginal children in care with their families.

We're also joined by two social workers from delegated aboriginal agencies. Representing Scw'exmx Child and Family Services is Kirby James. Kirby is a member of the Shackan Indian band in Merritt and works as a child protection supervisor doing critical work in his community. He is truly an inspiration for aboriginal youth in his community.

Representing Xyolhemeylh Child and Family Services is Diane Garner. Diane is a community development worker and serves 23 Stó:lô first nations communities. She is an active member in the community. She was actually awarded the B.C.-Yukon provincial award for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and last year was named as the national volunteer of the year.

These are highly educated, well-trained, dedicated professionals that are making a difference in our communities every single day of the year. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them to the precinct.

D. Hayer: I would like to remind all members of the House that during the next two weeks while the House is in recess, we have very significant events in our multicultural communities. On April 3 the Jewish community celebrates Passover. In the Christian community we have Easter, with Good Friday on April 6 and Easter Sunday on April 8. The Muslim communities also celebrate the prophet Muhammad's birthday, while on April 14 the Indo-Canadians celebrate Vaisakhi.

I would ask all members to join me in recognizing these special events and also to join the communities to celebrate these events.

Hon. I. Chong: Joining us today are members from the Victoria Newcomers Club. There are 39 people in this group who have come to the Legislature today. These are newcomers to Victoria, and they're here to watch the proceedings in the House. The person leading them, I believe, is Mr. Colin Hoskin. They've just enjoyed a tour, and I hope they will also enjoy question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, as you know so very well, March 25 through 31 is also Pharmacist Awareness Week in B.C. Today we have representatives of the B.C. pharmacists association joining us in the gallery.

The members of the association here include Marnie Mitchell, who is the CEO; Linda Lytle, the vice-president of the board; Ken McCartney, the deputy CEO; Susan Ogilvie, the director of communications; as well as Suzanne Solven, the deputy registrar of the B.C. College of Pharmacists.

I do want to note the quite remarkable partnership we've had with British Columbia's pharmacists in distributing our B.C. Health Guide. It has been a remarkable success. Hundreds of thousands of copies of the B.C. Health Guide have been distributed through this partnership. I think all members of the House will be remarkably appreciative of that partnership.

The pharmacists are also assisting us through B.C. NurseLine. You can now contact a pharmacist through that organization and get answers to questions really at any hour. So I want to have all members of the House join me in thanking the pharmacists association and saluting them for their excellent work on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I stand to provide the following introduction with some personal risk to life and limb, noting that I sit in between the two hon. ministers from Kamloops. I wanted to introduce to the House — or actually introduce to the golf courses — the Kamloops Blazers, who of course were swept by the Prince George Cougars last night four games in a row. So let's hope the Kamloops Blazers enjoy their golf season.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. John Reynolds is also a former occupant of the chair that you sit in. I hope our behaviour in this chamber hasn't prompted you to begin calling in the reserves, but we will be mindful of that today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to advise members very quickly…. They will recall that just before Christmas, a ceremony took place here in the chamber involving an unresolved claim relating to this chamber and, more particularly, the land that it is situate on. The two bands, the Songhees and the Esquimalt, have now voted on that and have ratified that agreement overwhelmingly.

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm pleased today to introduce Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. This act supports our government's commitment to school safety and to an education system that is transparent and accountable to parents, students and communities throughout British Columbia.

Under this legislation, school boards must establish codes of conduct for their districts to help prevent bullying and harassment at their schools. It also introduces new measures to make school district business companies more accountable and transparent and to allow the province to communicate directly with our teachers.

Miscellaneous amendments to the School Act will include the additional use of personal education numbers, will more accurately describe the role of the board of examiners, will prevent conflicts that may arise when the school funding announcement date specified in the School Act precedes the provincial budget announcement, will partially reimburse students for expenses incurred in earning an external credential or post-secondary credit, and will reflect titles currently being used by the Francophone Education Authority, the Conseil scolaire francophone.

Other amendments include clarifying that only the Ministry of Education can issue Dogwood graduation certificates, and making full financial reporting possible for the College of Teachers annual meetings.

These legislative changes deliver on our government's commitment to ensure that B.C. students are safe, that the education system in our province is transparent and accountable, and that it runs as efficiently as possible.

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

Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

M. Farnworth: The Public Protection Act will deal with one of the issues of the pernicious problem of criminal gangs in British Columbia. The Public Protection Act will make it an offence to wear gang colours in any licensed premises in British Columbia. Gang colours are defined as a sign, symbol, logo, or other representation identifying, associated with or promoting a group of persons who conspire to engage in unlawful activities.

Criminal gangs use gang colours, logos, emblems and patches as a means to intimidate, threaten or bully, either indirectly or directly. This is unacceptable. The public has raised the issue of gang violence as a concern in this province, and it's about time we started paying attention and being proactive.

This bill is a step in that direction. It will ensure that the onus is not on the owners of licensed premises — small business owners who may feel uncomfortable having to try and enforce a no-colours law. This makes it an offence. It gives the police a tool to deal with.

That's why I ask all members of the House to support this particular initiative to help make the lives of people safer. It's a step in dealing with the activity of illegal criminal gangs, which we all know are a scourge in this province.

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

Bill M211, Public Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

M. Sather presented a bill intituled Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) Act, 2007.

M. Sather: I move introduction of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Act for first reading.

M. Sather: The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, or TILMA, is a far-reaching agreement that bestows considerable authority on individuals and parties, particularly in the field of investment.

As most government measures can be construed to restrict or impair investment, the potential restrictions on the government of British Columbia to enact and maintain public policy for the benefit of our citizenry are considerable.

TILMA maintains that all regulations and standards in B.C. and Alberta must be mutually recognized and reconciled. Although our government maintains that this does not mean the lowering of standards, there is a strong likelihood that persons or parties will appeal to TILMA to lower standards due to perceived negative effects on trade investment or labour mobility. Certain areas are listed as exceptions to TILMA or are considered legitimate objectives that B.C. or Alberta can maintain outside the purview of TILMA.

However, the exceptions are limited and are to be reviewed annually with a view to bringing them into

compliance with TILMA. Legitimate objectives must meet the test of not being more restrictive than necessary. No parties have been able to successfully defend legitimate objectives under the existing national agreement on internal trade.

Sadly, the public at large has had no opportunity to discuss or debate TILMA with the government of British Columbia, nor has the government sought legislative authority to implement this deal. This bill seeks to solve the latter situation by bringing TILMA to this House for full debate.

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

Bill M212, Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Rustad: It was early in the morning on April 2, 90 years ago in London, when the residents heard a distant rumbling. The haunting sounds continued hour after hour, day after day. On the battlefield many miles away, shells fell relentlessly from the largest artillery barrage ever undertaken to date as the Canadians opened the long-prepared battle of Vimy Ridge — close to a thousand guns pounded the enemy lines, using more than a million shells — which the enemy called the week of suffering. Then came the deadly quiet before the storm.

At dawn on Easter Monday, April 9, the Canadians attacked behind a wall of creeping artillery and more than 150 machine guns using indirect fire to pin down the enemy. It would be the first time that the four Canadian divisions would attack together.

It was a windy day with driving snow and sleet at their backs and into the faces of the enemy. The Canadians moved up the ridge, clambering over shell craters, torn entanglements and vast pools of sticky mud churned up by the bombardment. They were well aware that this was also an open graveyard, since previous French attacks had failed with over 100,000 casualties.

There were countless heroic efforts and sacrifices during the battle, and after three more days of costly fighting, the Canadian victory was achieved. It came at a cost of 3,598 Canadians killed and another 7,000 wounded. Four Canadians would win the Victoria Cross, the highest award for valour.

The Great War would drag on for another 20 months, and thousands more Canadians would die. But when the survivors returned home, they and their countrymen would consider that Canada's right to be a nation had been bought and paid for in blood. I ask the House to join me in thanking all of the soldiers and their families, both today and throughout our history, for the gift of freedom they've given us.

S. Fraser: The Alberni Valley wrestling program has a rich tradition of close to 30 years in B.C. and in Canada. The program encompasses teams at local middle schools Neill and Dunne and Alberni District Secondary School as well as club components that have opportunities for youngsters right through to alumni.

The program expanded this year to include North Island College, where they've established wrestling as the very first athletic program. Alberni wrestlers have won numerous regional and provincial honours as well as close to 50 national titles.

I am excited to announce that this strong program may have two alumni competing at the Olympic Games in Beijing, China, in 2008. Alumni Travis Cross, now a firefighter — or fire wrestler maybe — in Port Alberni is the reigning national champion at 84 kilograms and is, as I speak today, at the senior national wrestling championships in Calgary.

Alumni Ashley Mcmanus is finishing her degree and wrestling at Simon Fraser University and is another Olympic hopeful.

There is another amazing story about this proud program. Living in Port Alberni, Travis was separated from the national training centre. Local governments, businesses, organizations and individuals have contributed in many ways to help Travis. The club has attracted a world-class training partner.

Ivan Diaconu was a ten-time Moldovan national champion and was sixth at the Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000. Ivan is now the new coach at North Island College and is involved in the Island regional wrestling program.

Ivan and his wife and young daughter are now seeking to stay in our great province and are applying to the provincial nominee program for support as permanent residents in Canada. I am very honoured to support their application.

The Alberni wrestling program has never looked brighter, hon. Speaker. We will continue to be very proud of them, and they will continue to make us so.

R. Cantelon: The Agrodome was the scene during spring break for British Columbia's version of March Madness as the 16 best high school boys basketball teams played off in a knockout tournament for the privilege and honour of being known as B.C. champions.

The Minister for ActNow B.C. was in attendance. For him, it was a dream tournament full of action and excitement, designed to inspire young fans to take up sports and pursue an active lifestyle. For the fans, it was exhilarating as their team went down the floor to score and then anguishing as they fell back to defend against the opposing team.

But there could only be one champion, and the final pitted the Kitsilano Blue Demons against the Dover Bay Dolphins from Nanaimo. It was an epic struggle. The Dolphins were ahead 7 to 0 at the half, but the

It all came down to the last eight seconds, with Kitsilano leading by one point, 57-56. The Dolphins got the ball into their big power forward, Pat McCarthy, under the basket. Kitsilano had to foul him to prevent him from shooting and put him on the line. He missed just a few minutes before, but not this time. He coolly drained both baskets to give Nanaimo the win and its first championship. Pat McCarthy was named MVP of the tournament, and guard Clint Germyn was made defensive player of the tournament.

They'd be the first to tell you it was a team effort and want the rest of their team to be recognized. They are Torrey Gillies, Damon Gilmour, Alex Mayser, Clint Germyn, Sean Corcoran, Greg Gillies, Joe Salazar, Sheldon Brunt, Iain Little, Gareth Saunders, Pat McCarthy, Nash Khushrushai, Colton Clouthier and Kasey Hepner, and they were coached very ably by Mark Simpson. Let's congratulate them and all the great athletes who participated in this tournament.

R. Fleming: I'd like to take the opportunity this afternoon to congratulate an outstanding constituent of mine, Ms. Kate Forster, who is the recipient of the volunteer representative award at the first annual Burnside-Gorge volunteer appreciation ceremony held this past month.

Kate Forster is a longtime resident of the Burnside-Gorge area. She's been active on the community association for many, many years — too many years for me to recall. I personally know she's been a tremendous volunteer asset to the strength of that organization. She's a former president of the community association as well as a former vice-president.

During her time at Burnside, she has spearheaded a number of important projects, including one that is near and dear to my heart, the Cecilia Creek cleanup, which is a significant waterway in the Victoria Inner Harbour, which went from a time of heavy contamination to again being a fish-bearing stream. That was at the behest of Kate taking the lead in our community.

She also helped found a monthly broadsheet that comes out regularly, the Burnside Gorge Community News, and the first community mural along the Galloping Goose trail, which is a significant cycling and pedestrian transportation corridor in our community. She does all of this while continuing to sit on the neighbourhood land use committee.

The award that she received this past month is a significant recognition of Kate's dedication and her commitment to her community over a number of years. Her hard work and achievement has been identified by her peers. I would like to add my voice to offer congratulations and recognize her achievements in the House today.

D. MacKay: The province of B.C. is pleased to join the federal government in proclaiming April 22 to 28, 2007, as the second annual Victims of Crime Awareness Week. Municipalities are encouraged to proclaim the week locally. The theme of the week, "It's time to listen," presents opportunities to promote awareness around the victims of crimes' needs.

In this province we support more than 150 individual programs in communities across B.C. for victims of crime, plus additional services, so that they can get the help where and when they need it. These programs provide emotional support, information, referrals and practical assistance to people affected by crime.

In 2005-06 victim services programs provided assistance to 66,000 people in B.C. Victim services workers and volunteers dedicated around 59,000 hours of service to British Columbians, and we want to thank them for their invaluable contributions.

I also note that the victim services division in the Ministry of Solicitor General has provided services and benefits, including counselling, to 250 family members of the missing women's case since the police investigation began more than five years ago.

We have a provincewide toll-free phone number called VictimLINK, where callers can remain anonymous, if they like, but they can get help in a crisis or be referred to another resource in their area as needed.

During Victims of Crime Awareness Week we are providing our 150 victim services programs with practical tools and information to help them promote the week and the message, "It's time to listen," in their communities. We know numerous events and campaign activities are being organized by local victim service providers.

This government is committed to ensuring that people living with the aftermath of violence and crime know that help is there when they need it.

M. Sather: Felicia Wijenberg, Kelly Cook, Alana Pilling and the Maple Ridge Secondary senior girls basketball team have a lot to be proud of. On March 17 the Ramblers won the provincial girls basketball title. Their coach, Don Herman, said that all the girls put their team first and that teamwork and knowing their role in the framework of the team was the key factor in the Ramblers' success.

Coach Herman said their game plan for each game was to be the hardest-working team on the court. Though there were many ups and downs along the way, the team pressed forward and on to victory.

Alana Pilling was especially inspirational to her teammates. As the team's best player going into the season, Alana started getting arthritic-type symptoms in her joints and could not play this season. Even though she could not take part physically, Alana attended every practice and game, including the 6:45 a.m. conditioning sessions before class. Alana is a true leader and supporter for her team.

The Ramblers played exceptional defence throughout the tournament, holding opponents to an average

of 46 points per game. Kelly Cook won the Defensive Player of the Tournament award. Coach Herman said all the teams they played at the provincials were more experienced, had bigger and stronger players, but our girls worked so hard together that they overcame the strengths of their opponents.

With such fortitude and grit, the Maple Ridge Secondary senior girls basketball team fought for their title, and we congratulate them, along with Coach Herman, on their well-deserved victory.

C. Trevena: TimberWest will be shutting down the Elk Falls mill in Campbell River for at least two weeks because there are not enough logs. Elk Falls mill provides 250 well-paying jobs for people in Campbell River, and next week at least 190 families won't be receiving a paycheque. A memo from TimberWest reads: "The coastal forest industry has been faced with a persistent tight log supply through the latter part of 2006 and continuing into 2007. Most coastal lumber mills have either had to reduce shifting or curtail operations."

A persistent tight log supply. We are seeing truckload after truckload after truckload of logs heading off the Island. I would like the Minister of Forests and Range to explain why, with mills shutting down, he's allowing log exports to increase from our public lands.

Hon. R. Coleman: In fact, log exports are down 700,000 cubic metres in the first quarter of 2007.

C. Trevena: It's not just myself who's talking about log exports and the problems on the coast. We have TimberWest saying this. They're talking about a persistent tight log supply. We have the Truck Loggers Association saying that there are problems on the coast. We have the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers saying this. We have people throughout the industry saying there are problems on the coast. Let me quote again from the memo from TimberWest: "We have exhausted all avenues to stay running."

The minister doesn't seem to understand the severity of the situation. He is approving log exports when the log supply for mills in my community is at an all-time low. The effects are being felt throughout the community in Campbell River. There are 190 families who are not going to be able to get work. There used to be a time when forest ministers of all political stripes….

C. Trevena: I was just getting to my question. I would like to ask this Minister of Forests and Range why, unlike other ministers in the past of all political stripes, this minister does not care about our coastal communities.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased that the member opposite is actually waking up to the fact that the Pearse report told us in 2001 — and what we've been trying to deal with for the last two years — is that there are problems on the coast in the forests of British Columbia. That's a fact, hon. Member. We know that. So what did we do?

A year ago we started the forests coast recovery plan with the people from the truck loggers, the communities, the companies and the unions, as we came to work through a strategy for the coast. In addition to that, we went out and actually had somebody do a report on log exports — something that government never had a policy on either.

But the reality is that somebody is going to have to deal with log exports as a result of that report. The work is being done now. The report will actually go forward to our group fairly soon in the processes that we have to do. I told the member this before.

The coast recovery plan will be coming forward. The log export plan will be coming forward, and the people on the coast will have a future in forestry in British Columbia.

S. Fraser: Well, it's a selective view of history. What this government is known for is releasing 100,000 hectares of land out of the TFLs into the private sector, which has exacerbated the whole problem, against their own ministry advice. That's the problem with this government. They haven't been listening. This minister hasn't been listening — not to the value-added sector, certainly not listening to coastal communities.

It's about a year ago that this minister committed to visiting my community, Port Alberni. I'm telling you one thing, hon. Speaker: flying over at 2,000 feet doesn't constitute meaningful consultation. Fly-by consultation will not put food on the plates of people in my constituency.

One of the only oversight responsibilities of this minister is under the new forest laws, and it's to intervene when there is a corporate monopoly. Why did this minister not listen and not intervene when he should have, to prevent a corporate monopoly on Vancouver Island before it was too late?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually landed in Port Alberni, for the member's information. I sat down in a round-table discussion with my staff, and I spoke to local media.

Frankly, hon. Member, I love it when you say revisionist history, when you fail to tell the House that on three separate occasions members representative of SOVA and other organizations in your community have come here to this precinct and sat down with me for extensive meetings.

I've met their concerns. I funded a study for that group of people in the Alberni Valley. I funded a study with regards to log exports, which they asked for. You guys all pooh-pooh, but the fact of the matter is they asked for it from your community. We did it, and now we're going to act on it.

S. Fraser: The only reason those meetings that he's referring to happened was because we forced it in this House in question period, and groups like…

S. Fraser: …SOVA — that's Save Our Valley Alliance in Port Alberni — forced it by protests in their communities. A protest is happening right now, so the minister's take doesn't seem to be reflected in communities.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the coast doesn't have a Minister of Forests. It has a high-paid insider in the Premier's office. If the minister won't take responsibility for forest crises on Vancouver Island, do the people of Port Alberni contact Ken Dobell?

Hon. R. Coleman: I notice the member wasn't available for a number of the meetings. I actually met with people from Port Alberni. I don't know where his commitment is to the file.

In addition to that, it's this. The fact of the matter is that the industry, when I became minister, said they wanted to deal with concerns on the coast of British Columbia. We sat down at the truck loggers convention a year and a bit ago with all the participants in the forest sector, and they asked for a coast recovery group to be put together to do the work. They asked that it be funded, which it was, and for studies and information to be brought together to look at the long-term health and the future of the coast of British Columbia.

They have completed their work. Those recommendations are now here. We will shortly be releasing the coast recovery plan for the forest sector on Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia.

S. Simpson: The Flathead Valley in the East Kootenays is a critical environmental area in our province and has been designated for its world heritage value. There are great concerns surrounding the future of the valley and the Flathead River regarding water quality, habitat and species at risk, including the fishery. These concerns are raised by many in the Kootenays.

S. Simpson: I know the member for East Kootenay has a lot more time on his hands these days, so I guess he could do that.

The concerns are raised by many in the Kootenays as well as Alberta officials and Montana's Governor, whose state shares the valley and the river and has protected it on their side of the border. This concern is driven by the government's support for the Cline Mining Corp.'s application for an open-pit coalmine.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Why has the minister ignored the wishes of the people of the Kootenays, as well as the Montana Governor, and refused to declare the Flathead Valley a protected area?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm surprised to once again hear that the opposition has so little regard for an environmental assessment process. They seem to be willing to rush through a completion of that review before it's even really started.

They had that record in the 1990s. When it came to a proposed natural gas–fired plant on Vancouver Island, what did the NDP government do? They exempted it from an environmental assessment review. They exempted it from review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

S. Simpson: The environmental assessment process is a key part of the problem with this application. It's this minister and this government that have eroded the environmental assessment process since 2001. They've been undermining it since 2001, and that's the problem.

This concern about the erosion of the environmental assessment process has been raised by British Columbians across this province for the last five or six years. Now it's being raised by the Governor of Montana in a March 16 letter to the federal Environment Minister and the federal Foreign Affairs Minister.

Among other things, the Governor's concern is that the terms of reference do not extend beyond the footprint of the mine and the haul road and do nothing — absolutely nothing — to look at the impacts of the mine downriver and into the Flathead basin. Nor do they provide sufficient detail regarding the cumulative impacts, including impacts of the mine on internationally significant wildlife populations.

S. Simpson: The Governor's concerns are legitimate. So my question to the Minister of Environment: if he isn't willing to do the right thing, to do what British Columbians want and protect the Flathead Valley, will he at least, at a minimum, ensure that the scope of this environmental assessment is complete enough to result in a credible final analysis and not a sham?

Hon. B. Penner: I would like to thank the member from Montana for that second question.

Hon. B. Penner: Any day of the week, I will gladly put our environmental record up against Montana's environmental record. That member seems to be endorsing the policies of the state of Montana, where they literally have thousands of coalbed methane wells. They have coal-fired generation.

The NDP is opposed to clean energy in British Columbia. Their Energy critic the other day said: "Why are we so interested in becoming energy self-sufficient?" They seem to support continued imports of coal-fired electricity from Montana.

What state is that party representing? What jurisdiction? Do they want to represent British Columbia, or are they here to constantly advocate for the state of Montana?

R. Chouhan: Families of the three farmworkers killed in the tragic accident on March 7 met with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture on March 15.

Also, the same day during the question period, a question was asked of the Minister of Labour but answered by the Minister of Agriculture in the presence of those family members in the gallery. He said, "I will be meeting with my colleagues over the next number of days to respond effectively and quickly" to deal with this.

The families gave the government a two-week deadline. That deadline is today. My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will she advise what effective steps have been taken to address the concerns raised by the families?

Hon. O. Ilich: As a matter of fact, we do take the issue that was raised by the farmworkers very seriously, and we have already instituted a number of steps. As the members opposite know, the farm vehicle inspections started very quickly. We actually have a letter here from Charan Gill saying: "I am pleased to note your government has taken quick action and has started to enforce the rules and regulations."

R. Chouhan: Charan Gill had also asked to implement all aspects of the Employment Standards Act to cover farmworkers, which the minister has denied so far.

On March 15 the families presented some very explicit recommendations. They want to see the recommendations from the 2003 coroner's report into Mohinder Sunar's death fully implemented. The government's own inspections over the last two weeks show how widespread the problem with farmworker transportation has become.

Will the Minister of Labour confirm today that this government will commit to the 2003 recommendations and support the opposition private member's bill that will achieve that goal?

Hon. O. Ilich: We did meet two weeks ago with the B.C. Federation of Labour and representatives of the families and the farmworkers union. We didn't have to take their recommendations to act quickly. In fact, we started acting beforehand. We have already started on 15 of the 19 recommendations that relate specifically to our ministry, and we are continuing to work with other ministries to make sure that workers are safe in British Columbia.

C. Puchmayr: Well, this government has quite a habit of deregulating and then putting some temporary measures back in place when the heat is on.

We're talking about a 2003 coroner's inquest of a farmworker's death that this government did not react to. We have now had a horrific accident on Highway 1 earlier this month, where three women farmworkers were killed.

What we're saying to the government is: what are you going to do to immediately implement the 2003 recommendations and work quickly on an inquest so that we can deal with the issue of the farmworker fatalities that happened earlier this month?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I've said already, we are working quickly to implement many of those recommendations that we received two weeks ago.

For instance, recommendation 4 was to immediately call a meeting of all labour contractors to review the requirements. WorkSafe has been sending out letters in both English and Punjabi to explain the roles and responsibilities to farm labour contractors. They're partnering with the Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association to organize a meeting to get that done.

Recommendation 8 is that the committee must work closely with the Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association to expand education. We have

asked WorkSafe to work closely with that organization already, and it will provide 100 percent of the funding. So we are continuing the work on those things.

C. Puchmayr: Just imagine that. In two years prior there were two written orders and one fine — over two years on farms. That just really makes the point I'm trying to make here.

My supplementary to the Labour Minister. It's now been almost six months since the inquest on the Ted Gramlich fatality, and it's also been a year and a half since Ted Gramlich died in the forest. The forestry coroner made 23 recommendations, and those recommendations include putting back regulatory changes that this government recklessly took away.

I want to ask the Labour Minister what she will do to ensure that those regulations are put back so that forest workers and all workers in British Columbia can work safely.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue, just to remind members not to call out personal names.

Hon. O. Ilich: All of the recommendations of the Ted Gramlich inquiry are under active review, and many of them have already been acted upon. Safety, as we know, is everybody's responsibility — workers, the union, management — and we're working very hard to make sure. Fatalities, as the member knows, are down, and so are injuries in the forest sector. We're working very hard on that.

M. Karagianis: Earlier this week I met with the Stó:lô Tribal Council regarding the urgent issues in their community over the services for children and families. The Stó:lô Tribal Council, after many months of pleading with this government, has given notice that they no longer recognize the authority of the existing Xyolhemeylh service agency. There is an indication that potential RCMP involvement may occur, and there's certainly a high degree of anxiety in that community with regard to child protection.

I know the minister is aware of this, and I know that he also met with the tribal council. My concern is for the children and families in that community. My question to the minister is: can the minister tell us today what steps he is taking to solve the problems and when?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member raises obviously a very serious issue. The Ministry of Children and Family Development has been working with the Stó:lô Tribal Council, with the Stó:lô Nation Society, with other aboriginal groups and other first nations in the Fraser Valley over the course of the last number of months to try and come to some resolution around governance of the Xyolhemeylh delegated agency.

I can assure this House and the member that MCFD's number-one priority and my number-one priority is to ensure that services remain available to the children and families that are served by Xyolhemeylh, and that the number one-priority is always ensuring that child protection services are available to all British Columbia children.

J. Brar: Can the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance tell this House what the government policy is for conducting emergency needs assessment and who qualifies for it?

Hon. C. Richmond: Emergency needs are something that we do take very, very seriously. We have just conducted a lengthy review with all of our staff on emergency procedures. The policy is that when anyone comes into any one of our offices in a state of emergency, they are dealt with as quickly as possible — usually within the same day but certainly within 24 hours. If the need is a shelter for the night, they are dealt with immediately.

J. Brar: Despite this policy, advocates from across the province are telling the opposition that every day there are hundreds of people being denied emergency access by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and that people are even made to wait for one week or more than one week just to get an appointment. A recent example is that a diabetic man from downtown east in need of emergency assistance was left homeless, without food and without shelter, just a few weeks ago.

So I would like to ask: can the minister explain why the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre had to file a court case against this government for denying assistance to this diabetic man?

Hon. C. Richmond: I know of the case that the member speaks of, and really, my hands are tied about talking about a particular case. As usual, there is more to this case than meets the eye and that the member is telling this House.

But if he has instances of people not receiving emergency treatment in a very expeditious manner, then I would ask him to give me those names, because we will deal with them.

Hon. C. Richmond: If you have names, you give me the names, Mr. Member, and they will be dealt with immediately.

C. Wyse: On Tuesday of this week the community administrator of the Interior Health Authority assured me that families would have ready access to their parents living in Deni House. Later that day my office received complaints of the guards continuing to impede access for family members to visit their parents. I personally have spoken with Bob Kopp, Jake Thomas, Nola Keenan and Monique Goward on issues involving their parents.

Yesterday the minister refused to give assurances that Interior Health Authority would live up to their commitment to allow ready access for family members to their parents.

Today, will the minister give families and friends the assurance that they will have ready access to persons living in Deni House?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know we've had some discussions on this earlier this week. One of the things that I noted in my comments yesterday was the apprehension by the Interior Health Authority that they were dealing with a serious outbreak of influenza in Deni House. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control has conducted their tests and confirmed that in fact is the case. This poses even more difficulties in terms of the transfer of the residents of Deni House to the Williams Lake retirement village.

Again, I can assure this House that I've been in continuous contact with Interior Health. Interior Health is attempting to undertake what can be a difficult transition for people in their lives from one facility to another, but they are undertaking that transfer with all of the sensitivity and all of the sympathy one would expect and hope from an organization.

They are doing their very best at trying to cope with a difficult situation, and I hope the member can appreciate that that is precisely what they're trying to do.

N. Macdonald: The regional district of East Kootenay sent two bylaws to be signed by the Minister of Community Services in October of last year. One was an official community plan, which in its preparation included an extensive public process. The minister's staff told the regional district staff that the bylaws were on this minister's desk for her to sign by January 5, but she refuses to this date to sign them.

The minister has left these bylaws sitting on her desk for three months because she knows that if she does not sign these bylaws, in fact, by today she will get a result on a property near Kimberley that the MLA for East Kootenay might want, but no one else in the area does.

Will the minister explain to this House how she feels she has the right to subvert a local government process that she actually has ministerial responsibility to safeguard?

Hon. I. Chong: I would caution the member to be very careful about his comments. If he wants to make allegations, he should be prepared to make them in the hallways as well.

Every item that has come before me to be signed has been signed save for those two binders that I received this week, because I've been in the House dealing with legislation. I do not, contrary to what he has alleged, have any documents sitting on my desk waiting to be signed after three months.

What I can tell him is that when bylaws come before us, there is an obligation to ensure that all provincial agencies, all interested parties and all issues related to any potential changes are reviewed and reviewed thoroughly. I do understand that those particular bylaws that he is referring to do have some challenges, do have some issues. My staff have been working diligently to ensure that the process is fair and reasonable. They have been in contact with the regional district as well.

I can also tell the member that in the past, under that administration, they had to have every single bylaw reviewed. We have streamlined the process to expedite those. That member should get his facts straight.

N. Macdonald: The minister's contention is not supported by what has transpired, nor is it supported by a series of e-mails originating from the MLA for East Kootenay. In fact, she is directly contradicted by those e-mails. I would like to thank the member for his continuous stream of e-mails. They're useful.

In fact, there has been considerable behind-the-scene activity. The minister is fully aware that she is participating in undermining the regional district of East Kootenay. It's deeply disillusioning not only for me and for members of my community, but for the citizens that normally — and would have in the past — support this government.

She will have received an e-mail from Bob Johnstone, who lives in the affected area. It reads:

"As a citizen, a member of the B.C. Liberal Party and campaign manager for Wendy McMahon during the 2005 election, I am appalled at the disregard this government has shown for local residents. It seems the wishes of rural people are of no concern to this government. I will be informing the Premier and the president of the B.C. Liberal Party that I am terminating my membership in the B.C. Liberal Party."

N. Macdonald: Ordinary people of all political stripes know what is right or wrong. They expect their

government to know what is right and wrong. This minister can still do the right thing. My question is: will she sign those bylaws and do the right thing?

Hon. I. Chong: If that member suggests that the right thing is to be done, then the right thing means to allow professional staff to do their work.

S. Fraser: I submit another stack of petitions in support of the safe antifreeze bill.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 10, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 2007, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply. For the information of members, it's continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

TOBACCO SALES (BANNING TOBACCO AND
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND SCHOOLS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; S. Hawkins in the chair.

A. Dix: Just for the minister's and staff's information, most of the questions we're going to ask are going to be on section 3, with a little bit on section 13. Then for the rest we'll move through quickly.

First of all, with respect to this section, it's an important debate. It's one that I know the minister himself has been having. I'm talking about the issue around banning sales of tobacco in pharmacies. I'm talking about section 2.1, which bans it from public buildings. I think it's an important debate, and I just want to give the minister an opportunity to explain why he chose not to include a ban on sales in pharmacies in the legislation.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the opposition Health critic for his question. In terms of the issue of whether tobacco should be sold in pharmacies, it's an important question, I guess, in a couple of different ways, and one that I've certainly given a good deal of thought to over the past several months.

Tobacco remains a legal product. Hopefully someday in our world it will not be, or we'll go to some different form of sale or distribution of tobacco, but it is a legal product today.

It is an interesting question of whether government ought to undertake to have only certain categories of retailers selling tobacco. I thought about this also, bearing in mind that there are some important provisions in this bill with respect to how tobacco will be advertised or not advertised, displayed or not displayed. There are very new restrictions in respect of both of those things in this bill.

With those provisions put in place, I do not find a logical, rational reason why one would say that pharmacies…. Of course, pharmacies now sell a very broad range of products; at least, a typical pharmacy will. I do not have a logical reason why one would say that the category of retailers that we call pharmacists should be excluded from the opportunity to sell tobacco products.

Indeed, some would argue…. There would be some pharmacists among that number who would say that now the display of tobacco products is eliminated and now that the advertising within the context of the store is eliminated, in fact perhaps the best place one might sell tobacco products is in pharmacies. They can educate their salespeople with respect to the dangers of smoking and make available information from the pharmacy association or other sources alerting customers to the dangers of tobacco.

I do not — and I have given it a good deal of thought — believe that it would be a valuable public policy for us to extend this to the point of saying that the category of retailers we call pharmacists are undeserving of selling this product and that every corner store across the province is. I do not see the reasoned basis for that public policy.

I should also note to the member that this has been an issue of debate among some in the pharmaceutical world for some time. It has been the position of the College of Pharmacists, I believe, that they would like to see restrictions around or the elimination of the sale of tobacco in pharmacies. They have argued the position that that was inconsistent with what their members did. The B.C. pharmacists association, however, has taken a different view. They've taken the view, as I articulated, that in fact pharmacists are experts in this area and they can provide excellent advice to British Columbians about the dangers of tobacco use.

I should note that among the submissions I have received since the introduction of this bill is one from the College of Pharmacists, and I think it's important that I read it into the record. Again, as I noted to the member, the view of the College of Pharmacists historically has been that there should not be sale in pharmacies. I do want to note that this letter says:

That is from Marshall Moleschi, who is the registrar of the College of Pharmacists.

Again, this has been a debate in the pharma community between the association and the college, but I think that as the letter from the college notes, much of their concern around this issue is resolved by the fact that there will no longer be open displays of tobacco and there will not be promotional materials for the sale of tobacco in pharmacies.

Pardon me, Madam Chair. May I introduce, on my immediate left, Shelley Canitz. I hope I have got her name correct. Next on my left is Nancy Letkeman, and behind is Assistant Deputy Minister Andy Hazlewood. All of them work, and work vigorously, in this area of tobacco management and enforcement.

A. Dix: The minister will know this too because he consults with pharmacists regularly, as do I. There is actually a debate in the pharmacist community that goes beyond the organizations. Certainly, many pharmacists argue — I think they rightly argue — that there should not be tobacco sales in pharmacies.

In fact, there are many products where there are restrictions on who can sell in Canada, both under Canadian and British Columbian law. So this is not, as the minister suggests, an unusual measure. Other provinces — Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland — have taken it. I think that it's a logical next step.

I think that the minister will agree with that, probably as a result of some of the meetings he's had this week with pharmacists. All of us are hoping to broaden the role of pharmacists in our public health care system. It is simply inconsistent with the idea of a pharmacy as a health centre — albeit one run by London Drugs or Shoppers Drug Mart, very much involved on a range of issues with the government on terms of health — to sell tobacco, given what the minister has said, what this bill represents and everything else. So that's the debate.

I think it's inconsistent, and I think that people know. Many people buy cigarettes in pharmacies. I think that it's inconsistent with their main purpose. I think that many pharmacists believe that it's inconsistent with their main purpose. So I guess my question to the minister is…. I recognize, and we could have a debate and move amendments and so on…. We've continued to work on this proposal. He knows that the member for Saanich South has taken a leadership role in bringing this proposal forward in terms of a private member's bill.

We are not going to have an extended debate on this, but I think it's clear and that it makes sense to say that if, in fact, a pharmacy is going to be…. The minister says that it's true that many of our pharmacies now are much broader than that. There are pharmacies at our local Safeway and so on. They sell a wide range of products. That's true. But it's actually an argument — I would say an equal argument — that they are not dependent and they ought not to be dependent on the sales of tobacco. The sale of tobacco should not take place in those establishments.

You have to choose. It's reasonable to ask people to choose between the health care role of a pharmacist and the role of a person selling tobacco — which, as the minister says, is a legal product. So that's what I'm suggesting to the minister. I just wanted to ask him to comment on that — whether that is a legitimate question to ask people to choose between in a society that has made, I think, strong decisions, including the provisions of this bill, which I support.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the arguments that the member has put forward. I understand those arguments. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I respect those arguments.

I guess the first thing to note is that no pharmacist and no pharmacy operation is under any obligation to sell cigarettes or tobacco products. They can decline to offer that line of product if they wish to. That is completely their prerogative. Certainly, there are pharmacies in this province that do not sell tobacco products. Good on them, if that's the decision that has been reached.

Among the B.C. pharmacists association in…. I think this is one of the things that they vigorously debate on an annual basis when they get together as pharmacists — whether they ought to have a ban on sale of tobacco or not. Invariably those resolutions have lost at the association level. Again, I'm not saying which side was right and which side was wrong, but they have lost. The majority of pharmacists wish to continue to have the opportunity to sell, if they wish, tobacco within their retail operations.

Earlier, I went through the debate that I conducted in my own mind and with others about this. Again, I think that in many respects I am more comfortable — particularly with the ban on display of tobacco prod-

ucts, with the ban on promotion and advertising of tobacco products — having a retail operation that is managed by health professionals selling that product than I am with the other retailers selling it.

I'll relay to the member a discussion I had with one pharmacist, a pharmacist businessman in this area. His submission to me was…. I found it an interesting one. He said: "What you've done here is the right thing. It gets the tobacco products undercover, behind other surfaces, takes them out of the public view, and gets rid of the power walls. All of that is exactly the right thing to do."

He said also that he was appreciative of his pharmaceutical operation continuing to have the opportunity, should they wish, to sell tobacco products. He said to me: "Now having that continued opportunity, now having that banning of power walls and the banning of promotion," what they were going to do, or what he was going to do as a retailer, was put in place even more vigorous tobacco-cessation measures and more tobacco-cessation advice.

When people were to come to his business to go and buy cigarettes they would, at the same time they were purchasing tobacco, be seeing all manner of very good advice from the pharmacist about the dangers of smoking — inviting the customer, if they had questions about the dangers of tobacco, to submit them to someone who is actually able to give them good advice on what very real health dangers tobacco might pose.

I am not in any way dismissing the force of the member's argument. I think I understand it. This was the challenge to me: why would I take one class of retailers, or why would the government…? It's not me. Why would the government take one class…? It's actually the Legislature. Why would we take one class of retailers and say, "No, you can't sell this product for some reason," and say to the rest of them: "Yes, you can continue"?

I think that there are different things that we could do if we really wanted to underline the concern about this. We could say that the product will only be sold in certain liquor stores — government liquor stores; we could do that — or liquor stores generally.

We could probably with even more force, logic and reason say: "This product is dangerous and we're going to ban it." I expect that some day this Legislative Assembly — maybe in 2030, 2050 or God knows when — will have a bill that will ban this product. I hope that we're all still alive to be able to salute that moment.

A. Dix: We're certainly more likely to be alive if we don't take up smoking.

I guess the point I'd make…. The minister said, "Good on those pharmacies that don't sell tobacco," but the business reality is that the people that he's applauding are in some respects at a commercial disadvantage when they make that decision. That's the reality of the business world they live in.

In fact, a decision to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies…. As the decisions that I think are taken to ban them from…. Sometimes the private businesses that are within public institutions, which are part of the bill….

I think that a decision to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies would in fact level the playing field between those who have taken that decision…. I think it's the right decision, which is that you go up in your pharmacy and ask whether you can buy cigarettes there, and the pharmacist or the people running the pharmacy say: "No, you can't buy cigarettes here because we don't think that we should be selling cigarettes."

I think that's the right response. That's the right discouragement. That's as strong a message as you can possibly send.

I hope that we'll continue to have this debate. I appreciate the minister, perhaps, keeping an open mind as we continue to go forward on this. I know it's an issue that we'll continue to raise again.

I want to ask the minister a question almost out of curiosity, because section 2.1(1) talks about a person not selling tobacco in certain public buildings. Can he tell us — and presumably, from his notes he can: what is the extent of those sales? How many institutions? How many agencies actually sell in those institutions that they're going to ban? And has there been some estimate of the financial impact of that? Just to have a sense of the extent of the action we're taking today.

The information we have would suggest that in terms of 2.1(1)(a) — that is, buildings or structures such as hospitals, other health care services — we understand that only Fraser Health at this point has done a formal, outright ban of tobacco sales in their hospitals and health care facilities. There may be some in other health authorities. It won't be extensive, likely, but there will be some.

We anticipate that there are extensive sales of tobacco products at public universities and public post-secondary education institutions. That's very commonplace. I was pleased to hear that some of the student societies…. I may not be recalling correctly, but I think I recall the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia student societies resolving that they would move away from tobacco sales quickly and, in fact, in advance of when the regulation will bring that about. I'm delighted by that, but that's apt to be a bigger change than around hospitals and health care facilities.

Athletic or recreational buildings — I suspect that we would see tobacco sales in many of those. Again, we don't have a good handle with respect to how many, but undoubtedly there will be a significant number of facilities that will be affected by this ban.

A. Dix: Just a question with respect to the provisions of section 2.2: "No smoking or other tobacco use in schools." One of the issues — certainly in my community and, I think it's fair to say, in lots of communities — is around tobacco use in schools, and I want the minister to comment on this. I think one of the things we've got to help….

I know that the provisions of the legislation aren't permissive. They put an obligation on the superintendent, on the school boards to implement and enforce

these provisions. I agree with that, and I support that. Frequently in schools one of the practical challenges of principals who actively and vigorously enforce tobacco bans on students — which have always been in place, in effect — is the tendency to displace issues into neighbourhoods.

I'm wondering if the minister or the ministry has thought about this, thought of ways to assist schools and school communities to deal with this side of the problem, which has the potential of going however far you extend the ban in the neighbourhood — school property and maybe slightly beyond — and to help neighbourhoods deal with what could be a problem of displacement into neighbourhoods and into communities.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I think it's a fair point that's being made around displacement, because that does happen. I know in at least some of the schools — not the elementary schools, happily, but the senior secondary schools typically — one might see in some area on the school grounds away from the school what's referred to as a smoking pit, which is typically a squared-off area with little concrete bumpers around it, and students are advised that's where they are able to smoke. Of course, with the implementation of this legislation that will no longer be permitted.

They're going to have to go somewhere else. That may have some implications in terms of them going on to some other place to smoke. First of all, some school boards and some schools have taken the position earlier that they're not going to tolerate smoking anywhere on their property, and that's very good if they've done that.

People, obviously, have developed certain patterns and practices around smoking in places other than the school property. I suppose with or without this legislation people or students who smoke are smoking off school property already, and we may see some increase in that as a consequence of this.

I know the member agrees with this. The object of all of this inconvenience and harsh messaging to the student population is that you shouldn't smoke and that smoking is bad for your health. This is one of the ways as a society that we can send a very direct and very clear message to young people. We are not going to tolerate smoking on public property. We're not going to tolerate it on school grounds. It is wrong for you to be smoking.

Having those smoking pits…. I know in some ways people thought that was an enlightened way to deal with the issue. I guess, in the context of the time, perhaps it was. But it also sent an implicit message to students, I think, that we're going to sort of close a blind eye to this one portion of the school property and allow them to smoke there. Indirectly, it's a message that in some measure condones the activity.

As one who had a tobacco addiction for a number of years, the most important thing we can do is try to ensure that young people up to 19 years of age never take up smoking. All of the studies point very strongly to the fact that if you can keep kids from smoking until they're 19, the chances of them taking it up in their 20s are really slim.

Typically, if kids are going to succumb to peer pressure, try smoking and perhaps try smoking enough that they get addicted, they're going to do it in their teens. So we don't want to be directly, indirectly, implicitly or explicitly condoning some portion of the student population smoking on school property. That's wrong.

There will be, I'm sure, some unintended consequences of that. That is, kids will go off and smoke in front of Mrs. Jones's house and she won't like seeing that. That's true. What we're trying to do is send the message, and I think I've said enough about that. But we also want to work as a ministry with the Ministry of Education and with school boards across the province to ensure that we have in place all of the opportunities to consult with teachers, bring in health experts to educate on the dangers of tobacco use.

We've partnered with the Ministry of Education to create a website to deal with this, bc.tobaccofacts, a tobacco prevention resource for teachers grades 4 to 12. So that's something that is valuable. It's a resource to try to persuade young people that they shouldn't take up tobacco and, if they have, why it would be such a good idea to quit quickly before they are seriously addicted to this product.

I appreciate the member's question, and it is a very good question. I think we'll all have to be cognizant of the law of unintended consequences here, but I think it's more important that we send that direct, explicit message to them that smoking is wrong. It's not going to be tolerated on school property.

A. Dix: Just quickly to the minister, on the enforcement side of this provision. The enforcement is essentially the responsibility of the superintendent and the school board. I want to know just in general with the legislation whether the minister anticipated, as a result of the legislation — and we can discuss some of this in estimates, perhaps — an increase in the amount of enforcement and the cost of enforcement by the government of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: The research in this area of public policy would suggest that there are a couple of things which will help to determine the success of this piece of public policy contained in Bill 10. That research would suggest, first of all, that education around the impact of this legislative measure — what it means to retailers, what it means to consumers, what it means to schools and hospitals and others in the province…. There will be a focused education initiative around this bill to ensure that everyone understands what it does, what its implications are. We're going to be doing that — very much focus on the education side of it.

The other side of the coin of the efficacy of this piece of public policy will be to go out with strong enforcement. The experience of other jurisdictions and our own experience earlier with other initiatives sug-

gests that there will be the strongest need in the first weeks after this is implemented for that very strong presence by enforcement officers in this area to ensure that people understand the new law, how it works and how they will obtain compliance within the new law.

We will be working with health authorities in the weeks and months ahead to ensure that the resources are in place in the form of tobacco enforcement officers and others to ensure that we have an effective implementation of this. We may also enlist the support of others like liquor inspectors from the LDB to assist us in supporting enforcement. It is in everyone's interest, I think — and I know the member agrees — that this be undertaken successfully, and we will be working tirelessly in the months ahead to ensure that it is.

A. Dix: But is it the minister's intent to ensure, either directly or indirectly, that more enforcement officers are hired to deal with the new provisions, including the new provisions around signage and other issues?

The point of a liquor inspector is well taken, but as the minister will know, the work of liquor inspectors is…. Many of them are overworked these days. It's actually quite dangerous work. So while they may be able to assist, and I think that's a good idea, I just wanted to ask the minister if it's his intention to increase the number of inspectors that are going to go out, given, I think he'd agree, the quite significantly increased scope of the legislation.

Hon. G. Abbott: We can't necessarily anticipate what exactly will be undertaken by a particular health authority in respect of the number of tobacco enforcement officers that they may have on their staff short term or long term.

What we think will be the case is this: that again, given — as I noted in my earlier answer — that really those first few to several weeks are the critical period in ensuring that retailers, restaurant and bar operators, consumers and the public understand the nature and implications of the new law. The first several weeks is really the critical period.

What we anticipate will happen will be that — those people who are involved in the area of tobacco enforcement, health promotion, a range of areas that often revolve around tobacco use or the sale of tobacco and so on — there will be in those first weeks probably in many cases a reallocation from education or health promotion purposes to the enforcement side of the equation.

As we see the full compliance that we hope for achieved over several weeks, it's likely that some of those would again shift after that point back to what they might more customarily do in the way of health promotion or education or things like that. I know that is not a "We're going to increase from 16 to 24" kind of answer. It's not, and we can't give that kind of answer.

Certainly, we will be allocating resources in a way with the health authorities to ensure that we achieve the public policy objective, which is to have the public and those who operate premises in which tobacco is used or sold fully understand the legislation and the regulations pursuant to it.

A. Dix: I just want to ask the minister about his rationale for essentially getting rid of smoking rooms in bars. Does he agree with me and I think most medical experts that working in those environments, working and serving drinks in a smoking room, is a danger to the health of workers in British Columbia?

A. Dix: With respect to this provision, we're going to have a short debate about the bringing into force of the provision shortly, and I think this is one of the issues. We had a debate about the past in second reading. I don't want to go back through that, but I want to have a debate about the present and the future.

What does the minister think is required to implement the provisions that will ban smoking rooms in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: The anticipated process for the implementation of the measures contained in this bill is roughly this. A draft discussion paper will be produced and circulated this spring. It will of course be up on a website and circulated widely to all of those who sell or who operate premises in which tobacco may or may not be consumed. So that discussion paper will go out this spring.

We'll be welcoming comments, obviously, from the time it's released. But through the summer we will have an opportunity for anyone to comment on the draft discussion paper, and that opportunity to comment will continue until late summer. At that point we will begin to prepare our regulations, and we will have draft regulations in place and then finalized in the fall with implementation, we expect, early in 2008.

A. Dix: Specifically for a smoking room, in order to implement the provisions, what has to happen is that there has to be no smoking. Am I right to conclude that? Really, in a technical sense, if a notice was sent out, these provisions of the bill could be brought into force right away.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's suggestion that we could simply announce today or tomorrow that smoking was no longer allowed and that people would cease to do it is an interesting notion, but one that's unsustainable in the world of law.

We need to draft regulations to give force and effect to the legislation that will be passed on proclamation of this bill. We look forward to that, but I think it is a

purpose of government to effectively implement what is contained within the legislation that is considered by this Legislature. The member's own government in the 1990s did precisely the same thing when they were contemplating changes to tobacco regulation at that time as well.

It is not an ideological thing. It is a matter of good public policy that one provides notice through the legal methods that are associated with giving notice, that discussion documents are prepared, that drafts are considered and that public comment is welcome. All of that is aimed at ensuring the public policy that is ultimately adopted by government is one that people understand and will support.

I think what is being proposed here is exactly the right thing to do. It would be wonderful if everyone stopped smoking today, but they're not going to. This is an opportunity, through this legislative mechanism and the regulations that will follow, to see a very substantive shift in the way that tobacco products are marketed and used in this province.

A. Dix: The minister is being too modest about the announcement process of this legislation. If we had had a fall sitting, the Premier could have done more than just announce that this policy change is coming into force. We could actually have passed the bill last fall and implemented it by now, with all due consideration of regulations.

The fact of the matter is, though, that there are actual provisions of this bill…. There is frequently legislation that's brought in by royal assent. I guess….

The Chair: Member, you're talking about section 13 now, and we are on section 3.

A. Dix: No, I was talking about the provisions of section 2.3, which I'll bring back to the subject in a minute.

A. Dix: My point is that there is nothing in section 2.3. It's not the reverse of building a smoking room. The provisions of 2.3 say: you can't smoke in a smoking room. It's no longer a smoking room. It doesn't mean that they have to chop down the edifice. It just means that people no longer have to smoke.

The point I guess is this. There's been some delay in this process. The minister will be right to say that some of that delay happened prior to this government coming to office in the sense that the provisions weren't in place — right? The fact is that WCB was going to act on this. The government intervened and stopped them from acting on this. These smoking rooms were built. We all agree — the minister agreed a few moments ago — that it's a danger to the workers. I think that would require and suggest greater haste than announcing the proposal in October and implementing it in 2008.

What I'm saying is the specific provisions of section 2.3 don't require, other than this discussion of notice, anything specific in terms of implementation of the law. I guess that's my question to the minister: is there anything that a bar owner, say, would have to do at a smoking room? Is there anything specifically in this provision that he would have to do — build, create — or is it simply the case that he would no longer be allowed to permit smoking in one of the places that's covered by this provision?

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor the staff members that are here with me were able to understand exactly where the member was going with that question.

Is the member saying that bar owners should be saying no smoking in their smoking rooms effective with the passage of this legislation, without having regulations to accompany it, or is he saying that we should ignore them and simply…? We don't understand the question.

A. Dix: There's nothing stopping the minister from preparing the regulations and having them brought in at royal assent, having them passed by the cabinet and brought in. It's not unprecedented, actually, to table regulations that are going to accompany legislation. The minister knows it's done from time to time.

That's the question. Why are you waiting until 2008 when it's a danger to people? What would you expect a bar owner to do to bring the legislation into force? In fact, the legislation, if it were brought into force by royal assent even without the regulations, would imply that the bar owner would have to not allow smoking on the premises.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for clarification of his question. The question was: why could we not bring in regulations effective with the passage of this legislation to immediately undertake the change in respect of the use of what are termed smoking rooms in some bars in British Columbia?

The first thing we should note is that there are many bars in British Columbia that have taken the position that they're not going to have smoking rooms — period — and that the great outdoors is their smoking room, and their premises are 100-percent tobacco-free. That's a wonderful thing, particularly for some of us reformed smokers in the crowd who don't necessarily want to see other people smoking and be feeling like we're missing something.

For those bars that have smoking rooms, we need to provide notice to them that regulations are changing in respect of the use of those rooms. We need to acquaint them with how the regulations will work. We need to acquaint them with what the impact on their customers, their clients, will be. We need to have an opportunity to provide updated training to tobacco enforcement officers around how the regulation works and what the impact on smoking rooms will be.

I think the short answer to the member's question is that it is good public policy — that if one wants to have laws, rules, regulations that the public understand,

appreciate and are compliant to, one should undertake all of the steps which I articulated earlier in respect of bringing in those new regulations. That is good public policy.

I would note that when the former government in the 1990s — on September 11, 1998 — undertook to make some changes in this area, they put an effective date of January 1, 2000, in place for implementation of the new standards. That was a period of about a year and three and a half months. Our implementation phase is a little shorter than that. It will be probably something less than a year, so we are moving along with all appropriate due haste in respect of this.

I think that our ability, frankly, to be successful in the implementation of this public policy will be greatly enhanced by taking that time to ensure that people in fact understand what's being proposed, what's being implemented, and taking the opportunity to respond.

I would also note a piece of correspondence that I received on December 19, 2006, which I hope has been shared with the opposition Health critic. It's from the member for Nelson-Creston. Yes, it is actually a letter that was written to the Premier but shared with me.

The member for Nelson-Creston among other things argues, I think fairly and effectively: "Before proceeding with the intention to reverse the decision to permit designated smoking areas, please consider the consequences such an action would have on these and other responsible hotel owners and managers throughout the province." It is signed by the member for Nelson-Creston — a previous Minister of Health, I must say.

I invariably find the submissions of the member for Nelson-Creston impressive and persuasive — in this case, particularly so. I think it's consistent with the way in which the government undertook to make changes in this area when he was the Minister of Health for British Columbia. Perhaps it was the Opposition House Leader who was the Minister of Health at the time.

This is just good public policy. I know the member may be trying to make a point about, "Let's get right at it," and all that, but the reality here is that if we want this to be an effective piece of public policy, we need to take the appropriate time, as the member for Nelson-Creston has suggested. And we need to take the appropriate time, as good public policy implementation which has passed through a long succession of governments, would also suggest.

A. Dix: I'm delighted that the minister's now releasing letters in full. It's a wonderful thing. It's something new. Presumably, the privacy protections of FOI don't apply anymore. I'm delighted to see it. It's a new era of openness in the last week.

I think the point isn't that we should just get going. The point is that some workers who have no choices — this is their livelihood, what they're doing — have had to work under these conditions for a number of years. The longer we take with implementing this piece of legislation, the longer they will have to work in conditions that the minister and I agree are unsafe for them. I think that argues, in fact, not to get on with it for the sake of getting on with it but to get on with it for the sake of the safety of those workers. I think that's really the issue.

I wanted to ask the minister: in terms of this provision, section 2.3, what is his present view as to when it will come into force?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me just clarify the first point. I shouldn't take exception to it because the member was actually saluting me, and it is rare that he does that in this assembly, so I should be appreciative.

But I didn't actually release the whole letter. The letter talks about a number of things which I didn't mention. I just quoted from the last paragraph of the letter. The letter is being presented here in full compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provisions. The member for Nelson-Creston, as a member of this assembly, is in a different category than, often, many of the people that we serve, so it is in compliance with the law that I uttered those words.

I'm sure the NDP caucus has had many, many caucus meetings around this and are of entirely one view on the matter, so I won't belabour that point. I should also note that in terms of the content, the approach and really what we're doing here, this bill has enjoyed a remarkable degree of support among all of the advocacy organizations which relentlessly advocate in this area of clean air and tobacco cessation. The Canadian Cancer Society is strongly supportive of what we've done. The B.C. Lung Association and the Clean Air Coalition, among others, have strongly supported the legislation.

I know the member is saying, "I wish it could be today," and that's fine. But what we need to remember is that our understanding and the social acceptance of tobacco are changing, shifting and evolving over time.

Fifty years ago there was little known of the dangers of tobacco. We've been learning it in more recent decades. Delightfully, the number of adult British Columbians that smoke has fallen from well over 50 percent now down to about 15 percent. So it's going in the right direction. This legislation will keep it going in the right direction.

I don't for a moment doubt that society, as expressed through this Legislature, will ban tobacco at some point in the future. We will do that. I think it's a dangerous product, and we will get there, but I don't believe society is ready for that step at this point.

If I'm wrong, the member can advise me so, but given the objectives we have here and the importance of the effective implementation of that, I disagree with the member about trying to do it within the bounds of the time frame around consideration of the bill. I think we would end up, invariably, having flawed regulations that wouldn't have strong public support if we did that.

What we will be doing is taking the time over the next few to several months — and I laid the time frame

out for the member — to ensure that what we do is understood by the public, embraced by the public and observed by the public. That will take us to a point, I think, early in 2008 when we will see the implementation of these measures.

A. Dix: Just specifically, the minister said: "Early in 2008." Does the ministry have a date in mind?

Hon. G. Abbott: The draft regulations will contain an implementation date. I would like that implementation date to be January 1, 2008. That's what we'll work towards, and I hope that's what we'll achieve.

A. Dix: I want to ask briefly about the provisions contained in section 2.4 in terms of some of these same issues around implementation. In this case, clearly, unlike the smoking room question, retailers and others will have to do some work in some cases to comply with the law. So there's an argument here, actually quite a strong argument, and they are being brought in by regulation.

I wanted to ask the minister about the process here. What will happen, and when would we be likely see the provisions of section 2.4 brought into force? Would it be around January 1, or does the minister have another time frame?

Hon. G. Abbott: The provisions with respect to display will be a part of the draft regulation package. We would aim for the same time frame for implementation of those measures as we would for other measures.

A. Dix: Specifically with respect to these provisions, does the minister see any specific need for additional staff and other things to support these measures? Does he think the resources are in place for the other provisions of the bill, some of which may well be more challenging on an individual basis to enforce? I mean, the smoking room bans and others — there may be some challenges there that we might expect to see.

What kind of training program does the minister expect to see? Who will be trained? The minister talked about other people working in other branches of the government maybe helping to enforce the law. What process does the minister see on the training side to assist with the implementation of this provision?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't think we anticipate that there is going to be a need to staff-up in this area particularly. Tobacco enforcement officers already attend to retail premises across the province when they're undertaking their tobacco enforcement duties. They're familiar with the current state of displays.

It's becoming increasingly well known that tobacco retailers will have to remove their product from public display. I don't think there's going to be a lot of complexity around that. The power walls will be gone. There will be no overt displays of promotional materials for tobacco sales. And again — I don't want to understate it, either — we will be working with the health authorities to ensure that whatever education and enforcement resources are needed to succeed in this will be put in place. But the experience of other jurisdictions in terms of this has been that it has been a relatively straightforward piece of managing tobacco sales.

G. Robertson: I have a few questions on section 3, as well, specific to secondhand smoke in social housing and its apparent exclusion from this piece of legislation. Was the inclusion of social housing considered for this bill?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thanks to the member for raising this intriguing area of public policy. In terms of where people can smoke and where they can't smoke, this is complex enough that the member may have to interrogate me at length to really get to the bottom of this, so we'll look forward to that. The issue is an interesting one.

We cannot say as a government that people cannot smoke in their homes across the province. If you happen to be the landlord, though, of an apartment building, you can say as the owner of an apartment block that there will be no smoking in that apartment block. As the owner of the property, you can make it a condition of people leasing or renting that property that there will be no smoking within the bounds of that apartment. But in terms of us saying to Mrs. Smith that she can't smoke in her own home, we are not able to do that.

As a Legislature, I guess we could ban smoking in the province generally, but in terms of saying that we can extend the arm of government into people's homes and not allow…. People can make their own decision about whether their house is going to be a smoking or a non-smoking house. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians make that decision, and that's easy. But for the government to do it is a different thing.

The issue around social housing is an interesting one for this reason. Social housing is provided in some cases by the province through B.C. Housing, in some cases through the federal government, through their housing arm, and most commonly by municipalities through their social housing projects. If one of the residents of that social housing project — whether it's federal, provincial, municipal or other — is smoking, they are not only smoking within a social housing building; they're also smoking in their own home within that building. So it gets to be a rather difficult balancing of rights and obligations within that area.

I think the member's submission is that the state, through this legislation and through whatever mechanism, can say that people are not allowed to smoke within their own homes within the bounds of social housing projects. I think it is questionable whether we could do that. I would have to defer to the minister responsible for B.C. Housing around whether it was possible for them legally to enforce a no-smoking policy within their premises as a landlord might be able to enforce it within his or her premises.

I don't know the answer to that, and I think it would be a delicate and difficult point of law about

whether one might be able to do that. But this bill does not attempt to do that, nor even, I think, if it were possible would I recommend that to government.

G. Robertson: Thanks to the minister for his comments. The difference here, and he alluded to the fact, is that the province of B.C. effectively is the landlord with respect to social housing. These are publicly owned spaces, just as the schools and the public spaces that are specified in this legislation are. They are public property.

As such, we are the landlords as the public, and therefore the terms that the landlord sets around creating smoke-free spaces, one would think, should apply here, given the health risks that the minister has recognized. Of course, members of the opposition have for many years brought forward in this House aggressively….

We have a specific situation, which the minister and I have exchanged correspondence on, regarding residents of social housing in my riding. There are many in other ridings, as well, that I have since heard about who have respiratory disabilities and respiratory illnesses. They are in a predicament at this point where they have no place to go other than the social housing that they live in, but their very lives are threatened by it.

In fact, the chief medical officer for Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Dr. John Blatherwick, stated in a letter to one of my constituents that she would be in fact safer in a public space and living outdoors than she is living in her own home. Her home is in Vancouver-Fairview, close to the hospital where she has had to be rushed on a number of occasions due to her respiratory disability.

In this case these people, these residents in social housing, of which this government is technically the landlord, have no option for a smoke-free space. We are creating the option — actually the requirement — for smoke-free space within schools, within many public spaces, but here…. Obviously those children, those teachers have no option. We require them to go to school, and therefore they have no option in terms of escaping smoke.

We are making these spaces smoke-free, but in this situation here, where there is an opportunity to specifically address the need for those who have no other option right now, who have significant health disabilities, respiratory in particular…. This government is not protecting those people with the disabilities or illnesses to be able to avoid further degradation of their health because of secondhand smoke in their buildings.

There are new-found studies out this week from the States, in fact, that over 50 percent of units in multi-unit residential buildings are impacted by secondhand smoke. There is more and more and more evidence to this fact.

Here we are with a piece of legislation in front of us and some leadership being shown around secondhand smoke and preventing it from impacting people in public spaces, but there is no leadership and no specific mention of secondhand smoke in social housing. Although there are certainly policy measures that must be taken at the level of B.C. Housing and at the level of regional housing, the leadership must come from the provincial government here. In fact, the Minister of Health, as the person responsible for protecting the health of British Columbians and the person putting forward this legislation, is in an incredibly good position to show this leadership. However, that's not happening.

I'm just curious now, given the government's preponderance to legislate for choice, as well, when these residents with respiratory disabilities do not have a choice and their lives are threatened by the secondhand smoke…. What is the minister's advice to these people, given the absence of any protection within this legislation for those people in social housing with respiratory disabilities and illnesses?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising this serious issue. I do know that there will undoubtedly be instances where people with respiratory ailments may be on the same floor or next door to or in proximity to another resident of social or public housing — or private housing, for that matter — who smokes. This is a challenging societal piece, that those who have health issues sometimes have to confront the lifestyle choices of others who are taking a different path. I'm not sure it's something that we can resolve always in a law that is generated by this Legislature.

Let me first correct the member on this very important point. The province is not the landlord of all social housing in British Columbia. There is a lot of social housing in British Columbia that is not provincial. The federal government has social housing. I think a lot of it's being transferred to the province, but the federal government has their social housing. The city of Vancouver is one of the largest holders of social housing in the province, and they're not the only city to have very ambitious social housing projects.

We're not necessarily the landlord. There are aboriginal housing projects and the aboriginal housing authority, which doesn't take direction from the province of British Columbia. And there are numerous privately owned but publicly contracted facilities in the province that may or may not take legal direction from the province. They probably do not.

We have to be careful, first of all, around whether the path the member wants to see society take is one that will be reached by public policy or through a legislative mechanism. There is nothing I'm aware of that would stop the city of Vancouver from saying that our social housing is going to be tobacco-free. They may be able to do that. I don't know whether they can or not.

It would be, as I said in my earlier answer, an interesting legal question. I'm happy to say that I'm not a lawyer and, therefore, entirely unqualified to form conclusions about whether such a thing might be possible. Fortunately, we're joined by a lawyer, who

probably would not want to give advice on this important point either. But it would be a challenging one.

Let's go back to another important point, which is that the attempt always in legislation is to balance the rights of people who are impacted by legislation. When the Premier laid out his vision around this legislation, he talked about ensuring that public places were going to be tobacco-free. That's what this bill does.

This bill does not go to saying in what homes smoking can be undertaken or in what homes it cannot be undertaken. Again, I know that the member is making a reasonable point around the impact of one smoker exercising their right to smoke on the rights of another, who may have a medical illness or medical disability or condition. The impact of one person exercising their rights on another is adverse. I agree to that.

Where's the way forward in the legislation to deal with what is really a societal challenge? That is the difficulty, from my perspective. We've tried to lay out those boundaries in this legislation.

The member says leadership. I guess there's nothing that prevents the member from proposing any amendments he wishes to this bill to test the will of members of the government or members of the opposition around whether they want this bill to go into the private homes of people in social housing. The member can test that proposition if he wishes, but we set out different boundaries in this legislation. Again, it's no disrespect to the member's concern, because I think the concern is an absolutely legitimate one.

G. Robertson: Just briefly, I'll remind the minister that we, of course, are not the landlords for the bars and restaurants affected by this legislation, the many spaces that are affected by this legislation.

We are, technically, landlords for some of the social housing that exists. Certainly, there are a lot of responsibilities related in accompanying the funding support that flows through this provincial government for social housing. Therefore, yes, there are public policy mechanisms to address this.

My concern here is that there is a very specific need to protect the health of certain British Columbians with respiratory disabilities and illnesses, just as there is a certain need to protect children in our schools. We're not talking about every home and every multi-unit residential building here. We're talking about a specific case of people who don't have a choice and whose lives are threatened, and the minister has a responsibility for acting on behalf of those citizens.

Given that it isn't specified in this legislation, the minister raises the possibility that the Minister Responsible for Housing should be taking some action on this or could be taking some action. Is this minister directing his attention, in the absence of it in this legislation, to working out a solution with that minister going forward?

Hon. G. Abbott: First, let me emphasize this point. I would have thought it was clear, but perhaps I have to re-emphasize it. The reason why this legislation encapsulates pubs and restaurants is that the public goes to pubs and restaurants, and people work in those pubs and restaurants.

People, at least as far as I know, don't go into Mrs. Smith's living room on a regular basis. The public is not allowed there. That is a private place. There is not typically…. There may be a home support worker who goes into Mrs. Smith's place, and they may refuse to go in there if she's a smoker. There is an important distinction here. The bill aims at public places and those places that are frequented by the public.

If the member has a different view, and if he has shared that view with those in his caucus, and if he wants to test the will of this Legislature in respect of that matter, then the mechanism to do that would be in the form of an amendment to this legislation. I can't stop the member from doing that. He is completely free to test the will of the Legislature by proposing an amendment.

I've tried to lay out as clearly as I could the reasons why the bill has set out the boundaries that it has. I'm not asking the Minister for Housing to undertake anything. What I suggested to the member was that if he wished to get clarification around what, for example, the view and the opportunities of B.C. Housing were in the area of restricting or banning smoking in social housing, he should raise that matter with the minister. I'm not asking or directing the minister. That is an area of public policy for which others have responsibility.

A. Dix: Wow, that happened quickly, I say to the minister. That was impressive.

I want to move the amendment to section 13 standing in my name on the order paper.

A. Dix: Just to say to the minister: we've had a little bit of discussion of this. It's just a provision around

bringing some of the provisions of this bill into force more quickly than envisioned by the minister.

The minister will know that workers in B.C. could have had these protections on September 1, 2001. He'll know that those provisions were delayed and indeed have been delayed until today when this bill was brought in. He'll know that the Premier announced this legislation or the intent to bring in this legislation in October.

The Premier at that time was very clear about the impact on workers continuing to be subjected to secondhand smoke and the dangers. The minister has confirmed that today. I think all of the medical experts agree on that. I think that had we had a session last fall, we might well have passed this legislation rather than having a speech from the Premier. We didn't have a session, so it's been delayed until now.

It's our view, anyway, that those provisions, particularly for those workers who work in bars, should be brought in more quickly than envisioned by the Minister of Health. We've had the debate, I think, a little bit on section 3, so I don't want to belabour the point. I wanted to move the amendment to reinforce our view that it's been too long. It's been too long not just because of the actions of this government; it's been too long — period.

There's a need to act to protect workers. From the time the Premier announced his change to the time this bill will be brought into force, workers will have been subjected to serious health risks. I think we all agree on that. There's some debate sometimes about the extent of those risks, but I think most of the medical evidence will tell us it's pretty serious. The intent of the amendment is to bring these provisions into force more quickly. I ask the minister to support the amendment.

Hon. G. Abbott: I cannot support the amendment that's been put forward by the opposition Health critic — again, I think for all of the reasons which I set out earlier.

I think if one attempted to bring this bill and all of the regulations pursuant to this bill into effect on proclamation of the bill, we would have a remarkably hurried process that might well be challenged from a legal perspective because of the absence of appropriate notice to parties affected by the bill. So that's important.

Even more important than that, I think it's the opportunity for us to circulate ideas around this — ensuring that there is full and ample consultation by all those affected by the bill, ensuring that the draft regulations get the consideration they should and ensuring that there is sufficient education and public information around this and that there is broad compliance with this bill and its pursuant regulations when they are brought into effect very early in 2008. For those reasons I again submit that it would not be wise public policy to try to force this ahead more quickly.

I cited the example earlier of the NDP government in 1998 putting in place something that was announced in a press release on September 11, 1998 — another tobacco control initiative. The effective date for that was January 1, 2000, so I think there is just an example of how we undertake public policy measures in a sustainable, wise, judicious way in this province. I think that's welcome.

I noted it earlier, but I know every member appreciated the wise counsel of a former Health minister and the current member for Nelson-Creston on this when he said on December 19, 2006, in a letter to the Premier: "Before proceeding with the intention to reverse the decision to permit designated smoking areas, please consider the consequences such an action would have on these and other responsible hotel owners and managers throughout the province." What we are doing here is precisely that.

I know with the continuing evolution of policies around tobacco…. I guess if we'd all known 50 years ago the things we do today about the relationship between tobacco and chronic disease, government probably would have done some different things 50 years ago. But policy in this area constantly evolves.

I'm proud of what's contained in this bill because it is a bold step forward towards better tobacco control, better protection of health for everyone, and it's the right thing to do. We want to ensure that it's put in place in an appropriate, timely, sustainable and judicious way. That is why I do not support this amendment put forward by the opposition Health critic.

A. Dix: To close the debate on the amendment, just to say that I think that this hasn't been, over a period of time, a process that has seen the best principles of public policy come forward.

The evidence was brought forward to the government in 2001. It was 2006 when the Premier announced, finally, having reversed a public policy process that would have led to the implementation of just these provisions…. The Premier intervened, backbenchers intervened in a political way against that science and against that evolution, and held it back a number of years. That's part of the story as well. It's part of the story that this was announced last October and could have been brought into force, I believe, quicker than January 1, 2008.

A. Dix: Just a question to the minister on section 13. If he can take us through all of the major provisions of the legislation in terms of when his expectation is…. Those provisions that have been brought in by regulation — when he expects them to be brought into force. I know some will come into force in the school year, and so on. Could he take us through that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Ask a simple question; get a complex answer. There are three general areas here. The one for schools we're talking the commencement of the school year September 2007.

For section 2 (b) (2), which reads, "A person must not sell, offer for sale, provide or distribute tobacco to an individual who has not reached the age specified by regulation under section 11 (2) (g)," that particular provision is pursuant to Bill 12, which this Legislature passed in 2006. That will clarify that anyone 19 years or younger is unable to purchase tobacco. That will come into force with the completion of this legislation.

For the balance of the legislative and regulatory provisions pursuant to the legislation, the aim is early 2008. Our aim is January 1, 2008.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

TOBACCO SALES (BANNING TOBACCO AND
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND SCHOOLS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 10, Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee debate on Bill 14, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; S. Hawkins in the chair.

B. Ralston: I believe section 1 had already passed, and we were on section 2. We're making progress.

B. Ralston: This is the amendment to the Business Corporations Act that makes a provision for what's called an unlimited liability company. When we last spoke in committee on this section, we were discussing some of the implications of what an unlimited liability company would be.

I understand that an unlimited liability company is classified for U.S. tax purposes as a branch, if there's only one shareholder, or a partnership, if there's more than one shareholder. In the result, an unlimited liability company is a hybrid entity, a corporation for Canadian tax purposes and a flow-through entity for U.S. tax purposes.

It's described by some of the commentators as…. Its principal use or the most important use of an unlimited liability corporation would be in a case where a U.S. corporation was contemplating the acquisition of a Canadian corporation, and it's to assist in the structuring of an acquisition by a U.S. corporation of a Canadian corporation. Is this the policy objective that this amendment is designed to meet?

Hon. C. Taylor: The intention of the ULCs in British Columbia is, hopefully, to encourage business to go through British Columbia using this model, which for the United States is often used as a financial-planning tool.

B. Ralston: The government is sending out some contradictory messages. Just earlier today, the Minister of Environment expressed some disdain for the state of Montana. But I suppose residents of the state of Montana, if they choose to acquire a Canadian corporation, would be entitled to use this mechanism.

The structure that this ordering of financial matters between a U.S. purchaser and a Canadian company sets up is largely, I would say for the minister's comment, due to the vagaries of American tax law. Now, prior to the lunch hour in this debate I pointed out to the minister that there appears to be a bill before the American House of Representatives which will revoke that favourable tax treatment on dividends from foreign entities such as income trusts and real estate investments. This would appear to pose some threat to the continuing favourable tax treatment of those entities in the United States.

I'm wondering whether this legislation has now become academic, given what's likely to take place in terms of American tax treatment of these entities.

B. Ralston: An income trust is a variation of a corporate arrangement where, instead of the entity being taxed, the ultimate shareholder is taxed. What this arrangement sets up is that in the hands of the American shareholder of the American company that owns the unlimited liability company, the shareholder is in a similar position to a shareholder in an income trust. In an income trust, the tax flows through to the shareholder. The entity is not taxed, or it is taxed very minimally at a favourable rate, and the ultimate shareholder is taxed at a higher rate.

There is an analogy there. I would submit for the minister's comment that with this American legislation the new Congress, controlled by the Democratic Party, is looking to close this tax loophole and that this whole legislation has become academic.

Hon. C. Taylor: The proposed bill — and who knows what will happen with the bill in the United States — is focusing on income trusts. This legislation is about unlimited liability companies. If in the future the United States changes their tax laws, it's certainly a matter for the United States and for the future.

B. Ralston: Obviously we're not about to affect their sovereignty by this, but the motivation for the legislation and the current use is…. According to the comment, the principal use, the best use, the most active use is to arrange tax matters and get favourable tax treatment in the United States. If that changes, then this whole process is really a bit of a waste of time of the Legislature, because it will no longer be advantageous to American investors and they won't use it.

Why bother bringing this legislation before the House in all the detail, process, time and cost that's required to do so when there are other pieces of legislation in the financial services area which, in my view, are more deserving of the attention of the government?

Hon. C. Taylor: Once again, this legislation has to do with unlimited liability companies. We have no knowledge of any potential legislation in the United States that would change their nature. This is a very strong financial tool that's currently being used through Nova Scotia and Alberta, and we believe it will be good legislation for B.C.

B. Ralston: Given the provisions of the trade investment and labour mobility agreement with Alberta, given the legislation that's in place in Alberta, why is it necessary to pass it here at all?

Hon. C. Taylor: This should be regarded as consistent with TILMA, since Alberta already recognizes this model, and now B.C. will recognize it as well.

B. Ralston: One of the comments on the operation of these kinds of arrangements is that there is what is called a transfer pricing advantage. As a result of this arrangement being made between the Canadian unlimited liability company and the American company, which is treated as either a branch or a partnership for the purposes of American tax law, there's an incentive to minimize Canadian tax and to set transfer prices for goods and services between a Canadian parent and its Canadian subsidiary higher on the Canadian side.

In other words, in order to avoid Canadian tax, boost your prices on the Canadian side, and you'll reduce your Canadian tax. Has the minister considered the policy implications of that ordering of affairs that will result in reduced tax returns to the province of British Columbia?

B. Ralston: One of the other advantages of an unlimited liability corporation that is spoken of in the literature is that, in the hands of an individual U.S. investor, they can claim a foreign tax credit on their individual tax return for Canadian taxes paid by the unlimited liability company. So the tax that's paid in Canada is a write-off against income that the individual shareholder receives in the United States.

Is the minister troubled by the policy implications of that, or is that one of the purposes that this legislation is designed to achieve?

Hon. C. Taylor: The foreign tax credits are covered in the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, and they're there to prevent double taxation.

B. Ralston: The possibility of this type of company has existed in Nova Scotia for some time, more recently in Alberta. Is there any lobby that has pushed for the addition of this to the Business Corporations Act, and if so, could the minister identify that lobby?

Perhaps I'll seek an answer to that question and then move to my next question after that.

Hon. C. Taylor: The legal community has been asking for this for several years.

B. Ralston: The legal community is a diverse and varied group. Any particular part of the legal community? Is it as a result of a legislative lobby by the Canadian Bar Association, or is it the result of individual lobby by individual law firms? Could the minister please illuminate?

Hon. C. Taylor: This was first discussed when we were doing the Business Corporations Act, and a number of law firms and lawyers did suggest that this change be made. We've been looking at it for some time. We then did further consultation broadly in the community of British Columbia, just asking for opinions on this and whether this was thought to be a good idea or not. I've been advised that we didn't receive any negative. It was all positive that this would be a good thing for us to do.

B. Ralston: Is there any revenue impact analysis of this legislation in the sense of what prospective fees the corporate registry will receive as a result of incorporation should this provision be adopted?

Hon. C. Taylor: We have looked at the fees in the other two jurisdictions. In Nova Scotia they charge $4,000. In Alberta I believe the charge is $75. British Columbia believes that it is appropriate for us to

charge $1,000. We cannot at this point anticipate how many of these there will be, but the filing fee will be $1,000.

B. Ralston: In the policy analysis of the provision, was there any data collected from Nova Scotia as to the number of filings under their similar section in Nova Scotia or under the similar section in Alberta?

Hon. C. Taylor: In British Columbia we currently have 214 filings that would have gone primarily through Nova Scotia, but there may be some from Alberta.

B. Ralston: So it's fair to say this is not anticipated to be a great moneymaker. Would that be reasonable?

Hon. C. Taylor: We have based these fees on cost recovery. We are not looking to see this as a huge revenue producer. We believe it is just a good financial tool that the legal community has come broadly to us and said that they would like to have available in B.C.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned cost recovery. Obviously, a similar calculation must have been made in Alberta, and the fees appear to be very different — $75 as opposed to $1,000. What was the rationale, if any, that the policy analysts discovered for that fee in Alberta as opposed to the proposed B.C. fee?

Hon. C. Taylor: I misspoke; I apologize for that. It's $100 in Alberta. We have no idea how they set their fees.

B. Ralston: I'm a bit surprised — given that this legislation is modeled, at least in part, on Alberta — that there has been no discussion of that point. But I will move on.

What does the minister anticipate…? What's the policy advice she has received about the possible interaction between this legislative mechanism and the International Financial Centre, which was established in the 1980s and houses certain offshore entities? Most recently, in the 2005 budget, offshore revenue from biotech industries was entitled to be funnelled through there at a preferential tax rate.

B. Ralston: Part of the process of soliciting input on this…. Aside from some law firms making representations that this would be a good idea, is there any evidence the minister could offer that British Columbia has lost business or that its international reputation was diminished by not having this provision in place?

Hon. C. Taylor: Madam Chair, 214 filings done in our province that have had to go to Nova Scotia and Alberta to use their legal systems in order to set these up is lost business for British Columbia. I don't believe this has anything to do with international reputation. We're looking at this as a business opportunity.

B. Ralston: I understand from the advice I've received that in order to establish an unlimited liability corporation in Nova Scotia, when this legislation was not in place and at present, a corporation is established here and then continued into Nova Scotia. The registry here requires payment of a fee to incorporate a new company. It's then continued into Nova Scotia, so they get revenue too. It would seem that there's not much of a revenue loss, because for each time a corporation is continued into Nova Scotia, one has to be incorporated here in British Columbia in order to complete the transaction.

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said earlier, this is not a revenue-generating opportunity that we're looking at. We believe this is business development.

B. Ralston: My question is more curiosity than a detailed question. What this provision says is that where the first number of an incorporation number is a zero, it can be abbreviated by removing that zero. I'm not quite sure what problem that would be designed to address. Typically, in my experience in registries, quite often those zeros at the beginning of the numbering system are very standard. What problem or confusion or mischief is this designed to eliminate?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is really just to clear up confusion that has been apparent. Occasionally a company will think that zero is part of their number, and sometimes they don't think it's part of their number because it's a zero. This is just clarifying how we go forward. It also is legitimizing common practice.

B. Ralston: This provision of the Business Corporations Act refers to section 44(3) and substitutes something for that. What it appears to do is create two classes of records, one where, when the records are received for deposit, the time and date on which the record is received for deposit must be so marked, I take it. There are other records that are kept in the records office of the company that are not required to be so date-stamped.

I'm wondering. Applying a date stamp seems to be a relatively trivial effort. I'm wondering what the intention of this section is. It would appear, perhaps, to create some confusion by creating two classes of records. In order to be sure that one is complying with the act, a constant reference will be required to separate the two. I don't understand the regulatory impact of this.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is simply to make it more clear exactly what has to be done. If you merge two companies, you can imagine all of the file drawers and the boxes and boxes of files. The way it was currently written in the provision, it's as if you would have to take out all those boxes and boxes of files and personally stamp each and every piece of it. This just clarifies that.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at section 42(1)(c), and according to the amendment, the record that would be required to be stamped would be 42(1)(c)(i), which is "…each entered order of the court made in respect of the company under this Act," which seems reasonable, or section (iv): "…each affidavit deposited in the company's records office." And various sections are referenced.

Apparently excluded by this amendment are "each order of the registrar made in respect of the company" and "each order made by the executive director or the Securities Commission under section 91."

What's the rationale for picking (i) and (iv) as opposed to (ii) and (iii)? To a relatively untutored eye, an order of the registrar would seem to be significant in the operation of the company. This provision seems relatively minor. Presumably, to go through the records, you have to sort through, select and separate different categories, so a blanket provision to stamp each one would perhaps be as efficient as requiring the separation of records and the physical stamping of each one.

Could the minister explain the choice there to exclude subsections (ii) and (iii)?

Hon. C. Taylor: This section is permissive so that if a company wishes to date-stamp everything, they can continue it do that. The reason that court documents were specifically identified is because they often have time-related issues, along with the orders. The registrar's directions are not in the same category.

B. Ralston: Further down in the same section, I'm looking at 42(1)(e), "…its register of directors;" (f) is "…a copy of each consent to act as a director received by the company;" and (g) is "…a copy of each written resignation referred to in section 128."

According to this amendment, only (g) would be required to be date-stamped. What's the rationale for not applying the same provision to a copy of a consent to act as a director received by the company? Presumably, there would be some significance in time to when a director consented to act by a company, and that would clear up as to when it was received by the company.

B. Ralston: I understand that. That would make sense. But I'm not understanding the converse as to why the copy of the consent to act as a director was received by the company. Why wouldn't that fall into the provision? It seems to me to be anomalous, unless I'm missing something.

Hon. C. Taylor: In the first instance, it's providing a written consent, either before or after the individual's designation, election or appointment. So the time is more general. The reason the other one was included is because it takes effect when provided. So it's more specific in the time.

B. Ralston: This is the section that sets out the definition of "unlimited liability companies." Section 51.1 defines what's called a "foreign unlimited liability corporation," and in (c) it refers to "any other foreign corporation of which the shareholders, in their capacity as shareholders of the corporation, are liable for the debts and liabilities of the corporation."

Is there a specific example? Obviously, this is the same wording and the same concept as the unlimited liability company. Are there other entities, foreign corporations, that would fall into this category and that are contemplated by this wording? Or is that just in the interests of the thoroughness or, perhaps, the completeness of the draftsperson who wrote the section?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is, as the member opposite has suggested, in the abundance of caution. We don't have an example at this point.

B. Ralston: One hopes that foreign jurisdictions — other than the United States, which is certainly contemplated by this legislation — might be interested in using the corporate registry and the legal services here in British Columbia. Were there any specific lobbies to that effect, or at all, in the consultation process? Anything advanced by any of the law firms that describe this? Or is this simply as you've stated earlier?

Hon. C. Taylor: We're not aware of any other interests from other countries that in fact might be interested. This has been primarily designed for the United States.

B. Ralston: In section 51.2(1), there's a requirement that the company "must set out on the face of each share certificate issued by it the following statement," and it goes on to set that out, just describing the joint and several liability to the extent provided in section 51.3.

I do have some questions on section 51.3. But what's the general thinking on setting out on the face of the certificate that statement?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is simply to have an extra layer that makes sure that everyone is cognizant of the fact that this is an unlimited liability company.

B. Ralston: Similarly, in the subsequent provision there is a reference to the corporate name, and I think that's relatively straightforward. But in section 51.3, "Liability of shareholders of unlimited liability," there

is a reference to what happens on liquidation and what the liability of shareholders is. In subsection (2), there are some limiting provisions on what the liability of a former shareholder of an unlimited company is when there is bankruptcy or liquidation.

What I understand or what I'm advised is that in the Business Corporations Act in Alberta the wording is different. This would be the equivalent wording: the liability of each of the shareholders incorporated under this act is unlimited in extent and joint and several in nature.

I'm wondering why the decision was made, in drafting this provision, not to adopt what I would argue is the more expansive provision in the Business Corporations Act of Alberta — that provision which deals with unlimited liability corporations.

B. Ralston: Just so that the reasoning is clear, why choose…? Generally, Alberta is regarded as a friendly jurisdiction in the sense of the skill of its drafters, and its recognition of business acumen is well regarded.

From what I understand of the Nova Scotia legislation, it's basically archaic legislation that's continued forward and has been discovered by tax lawyers and used for that reason, whereas the Alberta legislation is a much more recent codification of the principles and would seem to have the benefit of being simpler and clearer.

Hon. C. Taylor: In our consultations, it became clear that the preferred model was the Nova Scotia model, where the unlimited liability is on windup.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure what the minister means by…. Perhaps I misunderstood. The liability was all lined up. Perhaps the minister could expand on that response.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'll try to speak more clearly. It's unlimited liability on windup.

B. Ralston: In section 51.3(3), there is a reference to the liability of a shareholder, a former shareholder, even though the limited liability transforms. Then it goes on to talk about different references to a shareholder and a former shareholder.

Following that, there's a definition of "transform." Can the minister describe what transform means in this context?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is to ensure that even if the company transformed from being an unlimited liability company to a limited liability company, those shareholders at the time that it was an unlimited liability company would still be liable.

B. Ralston: So those shareholders would not be able to escape liability, their creditors presumably would still be entitled to pursue them, and creating or transforming the company or changing the company back to a limited liability company wouldn't be an effective defence. Am I understanding that correctly, then?

B. Ralston: In section 51.31(3) there is a provision where "a limited company becomes an unlimited liability company by altering its notice of articles, the shareholders of the unlimited liability company are liable…for the debts and liabilities of the company whether those debts and liabilities arose before or arise after the alteration." Maybe I'm misunderstanding that. That would seem, at least at first blush, to be inconsistent with the principle of limited liability that would have prevailed in the previous corporate form.

In the process of transforming it to an unlimited liability, are the debts of the formerly limited liability company attributed to all of the shareholders, jointly and severally? Is that what this section is seeking to capture?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, that's why you need a unanimous vote — because they are taking on all of those liabilities.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at section 51.4(2). Can the minister explain this particular section? It refers to the application of section 51.3 to the liability of shareholders and former shareholders of the unlimited liability company. This may be a reference to our earlier discussion of the drafters preferring the Nova Scotia model as opposed to the Alberta model. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: As the member opposite suggested, this is in the same line as the previous section, and the point is that your liability continues even after this.

B. Ralston: Section 51.5 refers to a restriction on amalgamations, and it appears to be directed at foreign corporations. Can the minister explain the policy rationale for that provision?

Hon. C. Taylor: The consequences for either shareholders or creditors could be severe in circumstances where, in the course of transferring its jurisdiction to British Columbia, a corporation transforms itself into a different corporate entity with significantly altered shareholder liability. Foreign corporations can still pursue this plan of transfer and amalgamation, but it has to be a multistep process in which the corporation first brings itself under B.C. jurisdiction, and it may then proceed to amalgamate or convert to a ULC in accordance with this new part of the act.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at section 51.8, "Continuation into British Columbia as unlimited liability company". Just for clarity, could the minister explain the difference between continuation and amalgamation?

Hon. C. Taylor: Amalgamation is bringing two companies together. Continuation is just moving from one jurisdiction to a second.

B. Ralston: Section 51.8 refers to continuation into British Columbia as an unlimited liability company, and there are certain restrictions placed upon a foreign corporation. The foreign corporation must be "an unlimited liability corporation under the Business Corporations Act (Alberta)" or, the companion provision, "under the Companies Act (Nova Scotia)" or "a foreign corporation within a prescribed class of foreign corporations."

Then there's a subsection (b) that requires conformity with prescribed requirements. Is the reference to a prescribed class something that the minister anticipates will be addressed by regulation? How will that particular subcategory be described more precisely?

B. Ralston: Are there draft regulations already available? Does the minister anticipate putting those forward in the likely event that this legislation passes, or is that a project for the future? Can the minister give a sense of where those regulations might be in the workplan?

Hon. C. Taylor: The regulations won't be done until after the act is passed.

B. Ralston: Is the minister able to give any indication of what she anticipates those regulations might say? I believe that when we discussed it moments ago, there didn't appear to be much knowledge about what foreign corporation might fall into this category. From that, I take it that this is not an urgent priority. Would that be a fair assessment?

Hon. C. Taylor: The second regulation-making power is needed to safeguard the interests of creditors or shareholders of foreign ULCs moving into B.C.

For example, since shareholder liability is greater under Alberta ULC legislation, it may be appropriate to set out extra steps to ensure that the creditors will not be unfairly prejudiced by continuation into B.C. So it really means that we are taking extra steps to try to protect any shareholders and make sure that they would understand the B.C. rules.

B. Ralston: Can the minister state or seek some advice on when continuation into B.C. as an unlimited liability might be likely to happen? Given the volume that we're talking about, it seems rather unlikely, but can the minister give an example where this might take place?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's impossible at this point to predict how this will be used. But we do think that there may be a possibility of continuation into B.C. because our Business Corporations Act is regarded as a very modern piece of legislation, and it may be preferable for some of those companies currently in Alberta or in Nova Scotia to continue into B.C.

B. Ralston: Has the policy analysis of this section considered the regulatory impact of a differential corporate tax rate between British Columbia and Alberta or British Columbia and Nova Scotia?

Hon. C. Taylor: We do believe we have a competitive taxation regime, but it's obviously up to the corporations to decide where they want to locate.

B. Ralston: The minister made reference to the more expanded liability under the Business Corporations Act in Alberta. Is there any sense as to what regulatory or competitive advantage the drafters of the Alberta legislation thought that they were achieving by drafting their act in that way as opposed to…? Obviously, one would assume they considered the Nova Scotia act at the point that they were drafting their legislation.

Hon. C. Taylor: We do not know why Alberta chose that model, but the best advice we got during our consultations was that the Nova Scotia model was preferable.

B. Ralston: Here I thought Alberta and British Columbia worked together on a lot of things. I'm a bit surprised to hear that, particularly on cross-border business when we talk about interprovincial barriers to trade, yet there doesn't appear to have been any consultation on the writing of that provision. Is the minister able to explain why that didn't take place, or was it just thought not to be a part of the process here?

Hon. C. Taylor: Alberta introduced theirs last year, before TILMA, and I cannot say what went into their decision-making on this model.

B. Ralston: Does the minister propose to initiate any discussion, at least at the staff level? It doesn't appear to have been done up until now, but is there any intention to initiate that kind of discussion? Given that this is initiated, it would seem, entirely for business purposes and to enable, particularly, American investors to favourably order their affairs upon acquiring Canadian assets, is there any intention to pursue at least an explanation from Alberta officials?

Hon. C. Taylor: We believe this is a preferable model. It's the model we want to use in B.C.

B. Ralston: I sense I'm not going to get an answer on that point, so perhaps I will move on. It seems to me the obvious question to ask. If you've got two acts that you're comparing, you choose one and you don't choose the other.

One might wonder why, at least at the staff level, there wasn't some discussion. But if that's the minister's

B. Ralston: This refers to an option in terms of the way in which shares would be treated. They may be certificated or uncertificated, and we had that discussion only just yesterday in considering Bill 9. An uncertificated share — just so we're clear — gives the option for electronic recording of shares, or does it mean something different in this case?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is for the recognition of electronic transfer, and it's meant to harmonize with the legislation we discussed yesterday.

B. Ralston: In what's proposed as the new section 107, 107(2) refers to: "A share issued by a company may be represented by a share certificate or, except in the case of an unlimited liability company, may be an uncertificated share."

Perhaps the minister can help me here. Is, then, the option for an uncertificated share something that is not open to an unlimited liability company?

Hon. C. Taylor: That's correct. Again, it goes back to the reason that we want the share certificate to have the warning on it that this is an unlimited liability company.

B. Ralston: Section 19 deals with section 134 of the Business Corporations Act, which refers to the loss of a quorum of directors. Can the minister advise what the purpose of the change and the repeal of the previous section 134 is?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is meant to give additional flexibility to companies so that they can call a shareholders meeting to appoint permanent members.

B. Ralston: I'm sorry. I didn't entirely…. I was being spoken to by someone else. Perhaps the minister could simply repeat that answer. I didn't catch it all in its full nuance.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is to give additional flexibility so that even without a quorum they can call a shareholders meeting so that then they can appoint permanent directors.

B. Ralston: Looking at the previous section 134, surely that situation was contemplated before. I'm not clear what the subtle difference is between the previous section 134 and this section.

Hon. C. Taylor: The existing section does not allow the remaining directors to call a shareholders meeting to elect new directors.

B. Ralston: This section permits the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the use of the designation "unlimited liability corporation," and I think there is a reference to the similar term "classes of foreign corporations" that might fall into this category.

It's difficult to imagine what the regulations might require other than requiring…. I believe the act already, in the amendments that are proposed, would require that that description be visible on part of the corporate description. I'm wondering: is this just out of an abundance of caution? Is a power to make regulations added to the bill, or is there some work that's contemplated that can only be done by a regulation?

B. Ralston: This section begins a series of sections from 34 to 78 which offer substantive amendments to the Cooperative Association Act, including some very broad definitions, and there's a new entity created. I do have some questions about some of the definitions, and I intend to ask some questions just for the staff that are here on sections 34, 38 and 64, if I've got that correct.

Perhaps I can begin by talking about…. I understand this is a product of extensive consultation with the cooperative sector, and it represents their wishes for a modernized act and gives them certain expanded powers and the possibility of creating cooperatives and making them more broadly available within the contemporary economy.

My first question is: could the minister describe a community service cooperative, which is a new entity that these amendments contemplate creating, the purpose of the drafters and what this new cooperative form would be used for.

Hon. C. Taylor: This recognizes a new form of non-profit cooperative. It was, as was suggested by the member opposite, asked for by the cooperative community. In answer to the question of what it could be used for, it could be used for charitable organizations — day care, non-profit social services organizations, for example.

B. Ralston: I understand that this cooperative form would assist co-ops to secure access to grants and charitable tax status under the Income Tax Act of Can-

ada. Has there been an advanced ruling by Revenue Canada adjudicating on their likely tax treatment of this form?

B. Ralston: From what I'm advised, it would appear to be one of the principal purposes of creating this form. Is there no sense at all that…? It seems a bit academic to create a form if it's not going to achieve its objective under the Income Tax Act. It may not have been possible to get a formal advanced ruling. I know sometimes that's done in the commercial sector. But it would seem to me to be an advantage before putting the legislation forward in an act as a reassurance to legislators that that purpose would indeed be achieved.

Hon. C. Taylor: These organizations can at this time qualify as a charitable organization, but Canada Revenue prefers to see more certainty in the structure. So that's why the cooperative association came to us and said that it would help them in making their case to Canada Revenue if in fact this certainty that you have in this bill was there.

B. Ralston: Well, I certainly don't take issue, and I commend the ministry for consulting. I understand from my conversations with the B.C. Co-Operative Association that the process to get to this point has been extensive.

Is the minister aware of any documentation, other than the advice of the co-op association, that Revenue Canada would look more favourably upon this form? It just seems to be a part of due diligence in creating this legislation.

Hon. C. Taylor: We in fact have followed the Saskatchewan model, and that has received favourable response from Canada Revenue.

B. Ralston: The definition as set out in section 34 refers to the proposed definition under section 178.1(1). Is the wording of that definition — and we'll deal with that further in section 64 — taken from the Saskatchewan act?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is not word for word exactly the same as Saskatchewan, but we used that as the base.

B. Ralston: Is the view that the British Columbia formulation here is superior? Is there any particular reason why? Generally, given Revenue Canada, it's always helpful if one approaches them with a very firm precedent rather than a variation which may cause some difficulty in getting the favourable interpretation that's sought.

Hon. C. Taylor: Some of the additions are more housekeeping, but we are trying to make sure it fits in with our legislation both for housing cooperatives and how they work in B.C., and also with our corporations act.

B. Ralston: In the section it refers to what's called a reporting association, and I had understood that there were only two reporting associations in B.C. that are co-ops. Was this particular option requested during the consultation of the co-op sector in hopes that they might expand?

I understand a reporting association would have to submit a much more complete accounting of its activities to the registrar than is normally the case.

Hon. C. Taylor: I wonder if you could repeat especially the last part. I couldn't hear the last part of your question.

B. Ralston: I apologize. I'm told there are only two reporting associations in B.C. that are co-ops, so it would be a relatively infrequently used provision. I'm wondering if this definition is changed in any way, or is there a hope that with this slightly altered definition this reporting association provision might be more frequently used for one purpose or another? I'm just not sure of the legislative purpose here given I'm advised — I may be wrong — that there are only two reporting associations in B.C. in any event.

Hon. C. Taylor: The intention is so that the registrar can order that this particular model be used.

B. Ralston: So that would confer upon the registrar the option of designating a community service cooperative as a reporting association? Am I reading that correctly?

B. Ralston: This provision states: "An association must not include in its name the words 'not for profit' or 'non profit' or any words of similar import unless it is (a) a housing cooperative to which section 173 applies, or (b) a community service cooperative." The descriptions not-for-profit and non-profit are very broadly used. Is it the intention of this legislation to restrict that use only to this particular cooperative form? Or is it that within the category of cooperative forms only those two types of cooperatives can be so described? Is that the intention? It is a very broadly used term.

Hon. C. Taylor: The member opposite is correct. It's to make sure that these are the two definitions within this act.

B. Ralston: This is the more detailed description, in section 64, of a community service cooperative. Proposed article 178.1(1)(b) is: "the association's memorandum does not authorize the issuance of investment shares." Traditionally, the cooperative form has had one longstanding problem. It's a problem to raise capital, and one of the ways that capital has been raised within the cooperative sector is through the issuance of investment shares.

I take it that it's the very nature of this community service co-op that means that this option would not be open to a cooperative that chose to incorporate in this form. Would that be a fair statement of the rationale for 178.1(1)(b)?

Hon. C. Taylor: The amendments simply make it clear that for non-profit status under this particular legislation, it just can't be combined with investment share investors or structure.

B. Ralston: I'm going to interpret that as a yes, and unless I'm wrong, I'll move on to my next question. I'm sure the minister will correct me if necessary.

Over the page, section 178.1(1)(c) describes the purpose of the association: "…is a charitable purpose or is otherwise to provide health, social, educational or other community services." Those are all fairly broad definitions.

Would it fall, then, to the registrar to decide whether the purpose that's set out in the memorandum conforms with these broad objectives that are set out in the legislation? I'm just wondering because those categories are often very difficult to define and are very broad indeed. So I'm wondering: who will make the decision that indeed the purpose is the one that's set out in this section?

B. Ralston: Is it proposed, for the guidance of prospective applicants for this form of cooperative structure, to promulgate regulations, or will it be simply policy advisories? What's the proposed mechanism to assist and, presumably, engage in some education to encourage the use of this cooperative form?

Hon. C. Taylor: No, there is no intent to do regulations to further define it. This is as the cooperative associations themselves wish to have it presented, and I think that the description saying "health, social, educational or other community services" gives them the flexibility that they believe they need if they wish to take this form of structure.

B. Ralston: Looking at section 79, it proposes to make amendments to the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. The amendment set out there would have section…. In the act it's section 18(3), which reads as follows: "A trustee under subsection (1) must release the deposit to the developer if the developer certifies in writing that…." The proposed amendment is: "…the purchaser who paid the deposit has no right to rescission under section 21."

Can the minister explain what the purpose of that amendment is? The section that's proposed to be repealed appears to be very similar: "…the period under section 21 has expired." It seems to be a slight variation. I would assume that there's some legal significance. I think that's usually the presumption when these things are being interpreted, so can the minister advise what mischief this seeks to correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, this section is designed as consumer protection. What we're trying to do is have more accurate language that will protect the purchaser's right to rescind a contract by ensuring that the deposit money just has to be held in trust until the disclosure statement has been received but also that the seven-day cooling-off period has elapsed.

B. Ralston: I understand, I guess, the general intention. Has there been a problem in relying on this section, where transactions haven't completed or consumers' interests have been harmed? I'm just wondering…. Perhaps just for the benefit of the public, the minister may wish to explain what problems this will correct.

Hon. C. Taylor: As in some of the other parts we've discussed, there has been no problem, but we just believe this makes it tighter and clearer and protects the consumer.

B. Ralston: Section 80 proposes to repeal the current section 19(3) of the Real Estate Development Marketing Act and puts a new provision in place. Can the minister explain what further certainty this amendment brings to this particular section?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, this again is consumer protection. It's to make sure that the money stays in trust during this cooling-off period of seven days. Without this amendment, a developer could perhaps get insurance and then take the money out of trust. Then it's much more difficult for a consumer to access it through an insurance company. So this is just saying that the money stays in trust until the seven-day cooling period is gone.

B. Ralston: By the seven-day cooling period, the minister is referring to — just so that the public, who I expect are watching this in wide-eyed fascination…. That seven-day period would give the prospective pur-

chaser the right to basically cancel the deal and get their deposit back during that seven-day period. Is that what's contemplated? In order to make sure that can take place, the developer can't have access legally to the deposit for that seven-day period. Is that what this section is designed to do?

B. Ralston: This section proposes amendments to the Real Estate Services Act, which is a different act than the one we were just dealing with a moment ago. Section 82 proposes a repeal of the current section 27(4) to (4.2) of the Real Estate Services Act. That section in the Real Estate Services Act is headed "Payment into trust account."

I'm looking at the amendment that's proposed. The previous section referred to that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to money held or received by a licensee. There appears to be some ability to contract out of that by written agreement.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain what the application of this section is and what assistance or clarity it may bring to real estate transactions.

Hon. C. Taylor: Trading services can contract out, but strata managers can't.

B. Ralston: As I understand it, the Real Estate Services Act does apply to licensed strata managers. I understand that the requirement to become licensed took place on January 1, 2006.

What I'm advised is that this interpretation seeks to make sure that strata councils are not given the option to put into their bylaws that the money they hold in trust can be held any other way than in trust. Is that a correct interpretation?

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, this is just really trying to give extra consumer protection. In this case it's talking about that strata managers cannot contract out of the responsibility to keep the money in trust.

B. Ralston: This section amends the definition of what's called the compensable loss. That pertains to a situation where the Real Estate Council, which manages the special compensation fund, would have the option of paying out of the fund to prevent a deal from failing to complete where it otherwise might fail, if the council decides it's in the public interest. Is that an accurate interpretation of the intention in amending this section?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is. The compensation fund, again, is there for consumer protection, but there can be an unusual circumstance where the money deposited has gone missing before the deal is completed.

Now, you know that afterwards, after the deal has failed, the consumer would be able to go to the compensation fund and get the dollars. But this is saying that if that is the situation, let's have access to the compensation fund before the deal fails so that the innocent party, as it were — the consumer who is trying to make a purchase — is actually allowed to complete the deal.

B. Ralston: Well, the purpose appears to be a laudable one. What sense does the minister have that the special compensation fund administered by the Real Estate Council is in a position to deliver more speedy decisions?

If the requirement is that in order for a deal to complete…. Sometimes these difficulties are encountered in real estate transactions at the very last minute. Sometimes extensions are granted. What sense does the minister have that this purpose, which I think is a good one, can be accomplished by the managers of the special compensation fund?

Hon. C. Taylor: It seems as though the member opposite is perhaps on section 84 now. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: Yes, I think that's probably more accurate, although it does deal with the issue of compensable loss. If we want to deal with it in this section or in the other section, I think the question is the same. I'm content that section 83 pass with that answer, and then if I can renew my question and have it answered under section 84, I don't have an objection.

B. Ralston: If I could just reiterate my previous question. The special compensation fund, if it's designed, then, to speedily resolve an apparent shortfall in funds or missing funds through defalcation or some other problem in the transaction that may have been brought about by a real estate agent or other party to it…. What's the sense the minister has that this legislative purpose will be able to be accomplished?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm not sure if the member opposite is really looking for quantification, because we have no idea how often this might occur or have to be used. But we believe that with this legislation it will be easy to accomplish and will not prevent a deal from going down that should be completed.

B. Ralston: The minister has anticipated my next question. This is, as I understand it, a compensation

fund that's managed by the B.C. Real Estate Council. Usually in real estate transactions when there's a problem, they come on the very brink of the deal completing or not. Speedy resolution is required, and obviously some form of summary application process would be necessary, and an ability to accomplish that very quickly would be required.

I suppose what I am seeking is some assurance that indeed if this legislation is passed, that that will be able to be done — that it's within the capacity of the organization to do that.

Hon. C. Taylor: We have been assured that it's within their ability to accomplish.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 14, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate of Bill 15, Security Services Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; S. Hawkins in the chair.

M. Farnworth: I wonder if the minister can outline the difference between what is proposed in the legislation now and how it will differ from what is currently in place before this legislation is passed. What type of licensing is required now, and how will this be an improvement upon the current situation?

Hon. J. Les: A couple of points to be made here. First of all — I think I might have covered this in second reading debate — one of the key differences under this legislation is that people acting in the security services business will be individually licensed in the future under this bill as opposed to being licensed through the company for which they work. That greatly increases their mobility and increases their availability as well to different companies working in the security services sector.

A second difference is that it will allow the registrar to make a determination in some cases whether people who are today considered to be security workers, such as — and I will probably from time to time use this example —Wal-Mart greeters, are in fact involved in the business of providing security or whether they are just greeters. If they are considered to be simply greeters, they will be treated as such and will not necessarily be licensed under this act.

M. Farnworth: So that difference, then, is that with the company having to require the licence before and the worker not, this will now allow the worker the ability to move from company to company, and the issue is not necessarily whether or not the company is licensed.

That's my next question. Even though you're now licensing the worker, will a company be required to be licensed?

Hon. J. Les: Companies that are in the business of providing security will be licensed under this act. Those companies for whom the provision of security is an incidental part of their business — and again, I'll use the Wal-Mart example — will not be registered under this act, but employees who are employed by them who provide security explicitly will be required to be registered under this act.

M. Farnworth: Section 2(b) says the: "the individual is exempt by regulation from the requirement to hold a security worker licence." Then subsection (c), which is I think what the minister is referring to, and I understand that point is…. Is that subsection (b) different from subsection (c) in the case of a worker? Are there specific regulations that would apply to exempt a worker from the need to hold a licence other than it being incidental to the work of the company that the individual is working for?

Hon. J. Les: In (b) and (c) of this section it actually contemplates two different kinds of situations. In subsection (b), an individual "exempt by regulation" would be somebody such as a peace officer, for example — somebody who is ordinarily involved in a similar type of work and clearly is qualified.

In subsection (c), what's contemplated there is someone who is, for example, a janitor and who on a purely incidental basis might be involved in security-type work, making sure that doors are locked and that kind of thing.

M. Farnworth: I hear enthusiasm of the members across the way for passing the section, and it will pass, but it is….

M. Farnworth: Yeah, but long overdue. What kept you waiting six years to do it? But it's only five after six. We've got a little time left yet before we get through this bill.

On section 5(2), around the licence: "The registrar may (a) impose any conditions on a security worker licence that the registrar considers appropriate, and (b) remove or amend those conditions."

To the minister: what's anticipated by this? Is there a sense of what type…? Are they additional requirements to get a licence? Are they different conditions in terms of operating and using that licence? What is being anticipated in this particular section?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, there are specific provisions here that allow the registrar to impose conditions on a licence.

There are a number of cases where it may be necessary or appropriate, in fact, for a registrar to impose conditions on a licence. An example would be a disabled person who might be able to carry out some functions in providing security, but not others. It might also apply to someone who was recently licensed in a particularly sensitive area of providing security, such as an alarm company, for example. The registrar might impose certain terms and conditions on that person for a period of time until they had proven that in fact they were reliable and able to carry out those kinds of functions.

Those are two issues where that might arise. A third that might arise is if there was a complaint that the registrar had investigated. If he deemed in his or her opinion that there was some substance to those complaints and that it was appropriate to impose some conditions on a licence to deal properly with that complaint, those could be imposed using this mechanism as well.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder: would it also allow the registrar to grant additional abilities above what a regular licence would allow an employee to do? Would it be able, in certain circumstances, to expand the ability to do something that might not be contemplated under the regular terms and conditions of a licence?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the registrar would have some latitude to do that. It would only be based, I would suggest, on additional training that would be acquired by the security professional. We don't want to start licensing the equivalent of peace officers through this legislation. These are security professionals, and it may well be in order for the registrar to recognize additional skills and training that have been acquired by individuals. This section would enable that to be done.

M. Farnworth: That was the point I was getting at — that this would allow the registrar to licence, in particular circumstances or certain circumstances, work or responsibilities currently conducted by peace officers. I'm seeing the minister shake his head in the negative. I'm satisfied with that answer, and we can move on to the next section.

I understand that there's a report that has to be tabled and that the L-G will be arriving shortly, so this will be the last section for this evening. After that, then, we can move on to the other things that need to be done.

M. Farnworth: Out-of-province private investigators. There are a number of questions I have around this, and we probably won't get to all of them tonight.

Can the minister explain the differences that are going to occur between someone who operates and is licensed here in British Columbia and someone who is not licensed or who comes from another jurisdiction where the licensing requirements are either lower or non-existent? How will that impact on the ability of firms operating here in British Columbia? Will it conceivably put them at some sort of a disadvantage?

Hon. J. Les: I guess I should say first off…. I'm not sure if this will answer the other questions the member opposite might have. The provisions in this particular section are the same as in the current act. There are no changes.

There is a certain amount of mobility for security professionals both ways across our various borders. The registrar would determine the appropriate length of time by which security professionals coming into the province would have to apply for a licence to operate within British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: I want to explore this one further. I have more questions, so what I'll do at this time is I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (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.

Hon. M. de Jong: On behalf of the Attorney General, whom I know we all wish a speedy recovery, I have the honour to present the annual report for 2005-2006 for the Office for Children and Youth.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. If you would remain in your seats, she should be here shortly.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Wishing all the members a happy Vaisakhi, happy Easter, a good two weeks in their constituencies. Till we meet here again, I move that this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we adjourn, I just do want to wish you all well, and travel safely home. I'm sure the two weeks will be spent on probably as much work as happens here. You'll be in your constituencies, and people are probably waiting to see what's happened.

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

Hon. S. Bond: I would also like to just make sure that I continue to answer these questions so that they have been dealt with as we go through these sections.

The member opposite asked questions today about the annual facilities grant, when school districts knew and all of the details around that. On June 26 the first instalment was sent to school boards across the province. That letter was addressed to all secretary-treasurers, stating: "I wish to advise you the ministry has approved the release of the AFG for April through June." The amounts would be transferred through their accounts.

On September 6 the letter was sent to Cameron Dow, president of the B.C. School District Secretary-Treasurers Association. It stated, amongst other things, that the ministry intends to meet its commitments with regard to the ongoing maintenance of school facilities. Then finally, on November 14 the balance of the funds were transferred. That is what occurred with the AFG.

D. Cubberley: I wanted to pick up where we left off, which was around a discussion of socioeconomic status and the impact on schools. In particular, in a time of declining enrolments, the potential for low-socioeconomic-status schools to actually be the unintended victims of a policy of decommissioning schools — of the necessity to take schools out of the system — which is a by-product of declining enrolment.

The minister had been talking about school districts. I could quite agree with her that school districts don't wish to close down schools and that when they do it, they look very carefully at the situation. I know they wrestle with these things, because I'm exposed to it in my local community.

However, I was attempting to make the point that there are no guidelines, as I understand it, for the decommissioning of schools — for the choosing of schools. There may not even be guidelines for public process around the closing of schools.

Now boards, obviously, being elected, are going to have some measure of public process around it.

But the question really is whether the minister sees scope for a policy that would mandate that certain things be considered and done in certain ways around the closure of schools. This is in the context of wishing to avoid the loss of assets associated with schools that are inner-city or schools that may be in rural and remote communities with smaller populations.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is a requirement and a process for districts as they're considering the closure of schools. It clearly outlines that a board must develop and implement a policy, if they are dealing with school closures, that includes a public consultation process with respect to permanent closures, and this policy must be available to the public.

School districts are required to have a process in place, and it is expected that it would include public consultation. From my days as a school trustee, I do recollect that school boards work very hard to put that policy in place, and they certainly adhere to it.

D. Cubberley: One of the other aspects of policy that I'm trying to get at….

I thank the minister for that. It's certainly the way that it is done here by both our school boards. They do have a public consultation after they have identified schools for potential closure.

To come back to the earlier narrative, though, one of the things I see that doesn't appear to emerge through that is an assessment of the assets that travel with the school. For example — and I just throw this out — would it be of concern to the ministry, and should it be of concern, if closure of a school involved the elimination of a school that was seismically sound? That's a very important value that we have. Would seismic soundness be required to be taken into consideration?

Hon. S. Bond: School boards would consider a number of things. They would obviously consider the viability of the population of the school. They would look at the ability to deliver a program. You can only continue to operate half-full schools for so long without it significantly impacting an educational program.

They would consider a number of things. They would look at where the children live, how they make that work. They would obviously consider the facility as well. But those are decisions that are made by locally elected school boards after consultation and, very often, after an incredible process, looking at the future of their school district and the trends that they're facing.

D. Cubberley: I just want to come back to this matter we were talking about: the issue of choice and the way in which choice generates the necessity for schools to compete with one another in order to be able to attract people in and to survive because of population movements.

One of the challenges with the process that we're going through right now, because it has become a much more competitive environment, is that when it hits a school district, something needs to occur. A school may be in an early stage or may not even have begun a process of trying to adjust and revive from population loss, which in part may be due to people making other choices.

Parents who live in the area are making other choices: to go to private school, to go to another elementary school because there's a program there — to do as I did, in the example I gave you, because there was out-of-school care available at that school. Those may be the schools that are selected.

I guess what is concerning me — and I'm looking to see whether this concern registers with the minister and her staff — is that these schools that don't have those assets are handicapped in the competition for attention and for a catchment that will support them.

I think this is very troubling from the point of view of trying to maintain capacity in precisely those areas that maybe are disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic status — have a high first nations population, may have very high ESL populations.

It can be those schools that are chosen and that are having the challenge to thrive, when in fact if they were given some of the tools they need to evolve into and have in the new competitive environment, they might be able to attract kids back, say, from private schools because they have a more complete program. Or they might be able to attract them back from other elementary schools and achieve a student population that would allow them to stay open and be retained in the community.

It's serious, because schools matter so much to people. Elementary schools in particular are parts of neighbourhoods and, in some cases, the heart of them. I would invite comment on that.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member opposite's comments. But to be candid, as we look at the impact that choice-generating competition has had, statistics would show us that the vast majority of parents choose to stay in their neighbourhood school. That, in and of itself, is an asset.

There are a variety of assets in schools. While I appreciate the member opposite's concerns, the biggest issue we face is less about competition than it is about dramatic enrolment decline, which is going to continue.

We're losing not ten or 12 students; we're losing hundreds and thousands of students. That is not generated by the issues that…. I can understand the argument that the member opposite is making, but to be candid, school districts are facing a far more compel-

ling argument, and that is the fact that they are literally losing hundreds of students.

They very often go through complex planning processes, which often include bringing in consultants and people who review the programs. I am confident that school trustees, when they make those decisions, look at what assets a school has as one of the things that they would consider. But they put that in the mix with a lot of other complex issues as well.

D. Cubberley: It is a very serious thing. Certainly, declining enrolment is an important driver, but part of the reason that enrolment is declining as sharply as it is, is because of the drift into other options, in particular private schools taking a chunk of people.

There's another impact occurring — the Progress Board broke this out as well, and I referred to it earlier — and that's streaming effects within the system. There is migration to privates, but there is also increasing interest in French immersion. There are these new aboriginal education agreements which, in some cases, are going to expand aboriginal schools and will pull some kids out of the mainstream public school system.

There's home education, which I don't think is rising currently but is probably stable and attracts a share of population, and there's rising ESL.

To use the words of the Progress Board, they put it this way. This is something they identified as a challenge for the minister and the ministry to find a way to handle. Those kind of streaming options "outline the principle features of a K-to-12 school system characterized increasingly by school and program choice. At a time of shrinking school-age populations, choice will inevitably intensify competition for enrolment." Those are the words of the Progress Board.

I think if we unpack that, what they're pointing to are these other assets that schools bring to communities which are outside and beyond enrolment. I'm looking for some awareness of the potential that exactly those kinds of impacts can happen in a process of school closures where the schools most likely to be closed — because of declining enrolments, because of lower enrolments — are the ones that are dealing least effectively, at this point in time, in a world of intensifying competition.

In some cases, these things come down to 20 and 30 students for an elementary school. I know in the case of Cloverdale Elementary, which is outside my constituency but which I am dealing with and have dealt with formerly as a Saanich councillor, the school is on the rebound. At this point in time, it's 30 or 40 students short of where it would need to be to be off the list for consideration. It has the full range of assets at the school — the collateral assets that a school brings in.

I'm looking for some recognition. I think the Progress Board is trying to send a signal — these are advisers to the Premier and to government — that we need to be aware of what's happening and ask ourselves whether we are putting the resources in play that can be targeted at these inner-city schools or inner-ring suburban schools that are most in danger and are least capable of competing so that they aren't just the ones who fall onto the hit list.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we're obviously aware of the B.C. Progress Board's work. In fact, I think that the report was at least partly done by Dr. Charles Jago, who happens to be the previous president of the University of Northern British Columbia. He and I have talked about these issues on numerous occasions. We happen to live in the same community.

Obviously we need to be thoughtful about choice in public education, but at a time when we have increasing demands in terms of parents wanting more options for their children, I think we also have to recognize that that is an important consideration as well.

I rely very strongly, because of my past experience, on the fact that we have locally elected school boards that consider the very assets the member opposite is talking about, as they not only create choice programs but as they look at the very difficult decisions around whether they have to close the school or not. I actually believe that they make those decisions based on a comprehensive look at their districts, at the programs that are available.

We are a government that believes that choice is essential in public education. I do have to say to the member opposite, though, that to characterize a significant move to independent or other options I think is unfair to the demographic issue that we're facing.

Last year alone we lost 12,000 students. At most, 2 percent of those went to independent or other choices. We've lost 12,000 students in the system, so the complexity of making those decisions increases.

When I look at the numbers, for example, in 2006-2007 in kindergarten — so entering our system — we had 35,181 students. We had 53,804 graduating. So while we look at the importance of choice and the complexity of the competitive nature it creates, the bottom line is that we had 35,000 kids entering and 53,000 exiting. That's a huge challenge for any system.

D. Cubberley: I understand that. It is a very large challenge, and it can't be wished away. It's interesting that the independent schools themselves have over 66,000. It's approaching 70,000 kids in them now — over one in ten, and it's rising.

The larger point I'm trying to make is that many of these schools that are on the list need an ability to compete, and they need it from two angles. They need it from the angle that they're rooted in communities

where we want, I believe, to have a presence, because we have more at-risk kids, and we have greater challenges in getting kids to thrive.

And we want it because they need to be able to compete not just with other public schools but with private schools. They're competing for FTEs. If they attract the students, if they come in, they're funded. That's the way it works. We're in a world of competition.

I'm simply pointing to the fact that it's right in those areas where we most need the capacity and need it to operate at a very high level that we're likely to lose the capacity. That trumps that objective, I believe, of trying to lift the 25 percent who arrive at risk and do the best with those who find themselves at risk. They may not arrive at risk; they may be ready to thrive. Others fall into risk themselves at school because they don't thrive.

I know that we can stay with the coarse numbers and say that there is no choice and that school boards have to make tough decisions, but I'm looking at the direction those decisions are likely to take in many cases — not every case but in many cases. I personally think there's an argument for looking at investing in capacity to retain some of those schools.

Now, that may mean the shoe pinches somewhere else in some respects, or it may mean some redistribution out of other sectors. It might even mean schools being involved to some extent in some ancillary aspects of education such as early learning, in the child care sector, or in out-of-school care — as attracters of clientele because that's a complete service.

Parents are looking for choice, but I think they're looking for complete service. I invite a little more comment on that, and then I'll try to move to another aspect of it.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think that the most significant challenge facing school districts today is the sheer size of the drop in the number of students. As a ministry, we had planned carefully and thoughtfully with the numbers provided to us by school districts. We planned for 7,000; we lost 12,000.

I think that school districts think very carefully about choice programs that they create. I think that the public education system is absolutely able to attract students and keep them, and I think that's going to continue. With some of the new initiatives we're looking at, I think absolutely that our students need more choice and opportunity. Boards need to be conscious of the fact that as they make those decisions — the very tough decisions about whether a school should stay open or not — they contemplate all of the assets.

The member opposite's view and vision around what schools can be, an additional asset such as after-school care, is absolutely…. We would agree with that. In fact, we're working hard to try to think about how we capitalize on what is a very difficult circumstance. If there's additional space in schools — in those very schools the member opposite is describing — we want to put a StrongStart centre there. I want to work with my colleague the Minister of State for Childcare to consider child care resources in those very places.

It calls for discussion with school boards — that's what we're doing — but ultimately, the decision around whether or not a school should remain open is in the hands of school trustees.

D. Cubberley: Well, the paradox with all of this is that you see a school — a school which I'm aware of, and you may hear more about it today — which is identified for potential closure in which it is the only school which is seismically sound in the family of schools of which it is part, and it is the school that is being considered for closure — the only one.

It happens to be one of the oldest schools in the province, and it is fully restored as a heritage building, and it is being considered for closure. There are other schools that are far from heritage and probably have far less capital life, but it has a lower population at this point in time than those schools.

Here's the other paradox. This school has out-of-school care and child care. For those families facing the closure, the next school they will have to go to — which is, fortunately, at one level, not so far away that it will involve vast drives, which is another consequence of closing schools, because there was a rationale to keeping schools close to neighbourhoods…. The replacement school does not have out-of-school care capacity to absorb the kids.

These are families where both parents work because they have to. We live in a society where the majority of people — better than 70 percent of families — are either two-income families or they're lone-provider families where the parent has to work. Child care is not optional. Out-of-school care is not optional. It has to be provided. I have talked to parents who have said: "One of us is going to have to reduce our participation in the labour force to accommodate the closure of that school." There are no replacement spaces.

We look at Cloverdale Elementary. There are over a hundred spaces in child care, preschool and after-school care at that school. Not only is there no school nearby, it's going to involve driving for all parents because the distances are too large to allow children to travel if that school closes. But the community is going to lose all of that capacity, and that will have ripple effects right the way across town.

I can tell you what one of them is already. It's been the closing off of already excessively long wait-lists at one of the nearest schools, which is probably two miles away from it, which had wait-lists before this school was identified that are over 100 percent of its capacity in every area of its child care programs and its out-of-school programs. It had to close the wait-lists off because the parents are trying to list themselves there in desperation because there are no spaces in that sector.

I raise this again because these things are in play, and those are precisely the schools that will be considered for closure. The rationale is that at this point in time, when you take the snapshot and have to make a choice, those schools don't have the enrolment that would allow them to hoist themselves up above an-

other school. It's the school with the lowest enrolment when the decision has to be made. I think that the whole process is militating against having a decision where you consider the school in the community and all of the assets that it brings.

I bet there are schools in ESL-dense communities where the school functions as a significant element in the settlement system, providing settlement services — in fact may be the principal provider and chief point of contact for newly immigrating families with the society that they're immigrating into — that are on exactly the same list in those school districts. We will lose that capacity if we simply go down in a truly number-driven, enrolment-driven process for decommissioning schools.

Hon. S. Bond: At the risk of being repetitive, the decision for a school board to close a school is challenging at the best of times. I can certainly understand the concerns of parents who are going to lose opportunities, at least from what the member opposite describes to me, for some of those services that they have become accustomed to.

But I also have to believe that locally elected school boards think about more than a number as the bottom line. I'm sure that they have gone through a process that, first of all, includes public consultation, includes looking at all of the factors that go into making those kinds of very difficult decisions. I know that ultimately, as the member opposite would know, in our careers and in his previous municipal career and mine, there is obviously, at the end of the day, the court of public opinion which will dictate how parents react to what school trustees do or what we do as MLAs.

It is not our intent to make decisions about school-specific decisions from Victoria. I believe that people who choose to be school trustees actually want to look at what's in the best interests of students and families. They listen through a consultation process. With the best advice they have, they make the decision based not simply on a number but on a variety of factors.

D. Cubberley: We'll come around to this in another way, but I wanted to move into a little more consideration of the student body.

The minister had mentioned earlier graduation rates from high school and the improvement of those rates in the last while — I think from the low 70s to, I believe she said, around 79 percent. I'm interested in what she attributes the improvement. Obviously, it's a critical measure. I think I know what the reason is that they have improved, or one of the main factors, but I'd like to hear from her what she thinks that is.

Hon. S. Bond: I think that's not a simple question to answer. It's not as simple as one thing. I do think that there's been a heightened expectation around accountability and about looking at achievement as the key focus of what we do.

I think that we have seen significant improvement. Even moving 3 or 4 percent is significant when you look at the student numbers that we have. I think that there's been an enormous focus on literacy, in particular, over the last number of years.

I really think it's been a concentrated effort for school districts to sit down and look at a strategy for improvement and achievement that is going to move their students forward. So I think it's a series of things that have brought together a renewed focus on accountability and achievement.

D. Cubberley: I can't remember where I saw it, but one of the things I saw that was referenced was the impact of creating alternative pathways to graduation and enabling people to begin to pursue things like trades training within the schools.

I'm wondering what role that is playing in helping to shape a better result coming out of the schools.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite makes a really good point. I think that there are additional choices for students that are helping us as we try to find ways to connect with students. Not every student connects in the same way. So it's an interesting addition to the dialogue we had previously about the whole risk of choice and what that does in terms of enrolment and school closures.

On the other hand, in order to continue to see those numbers increase in terms of completion, we have to think even more innovatively than we have before. The member opposite's point about skills and trades training is critical. We have seen a new interest from students and families in things like secondary school apprenticeship, trades training programs, and we're seeing our numbers actually increase there.

I guess if I would be allowed one personal reflection…. I remember being in a school in Dawson Creek, I believe it was. There was a young man, and his name was Joe. I met him, and Joe said to me, "The reason that I finished school, and the reason that I'm here today, is because of this technical program" — which he was involved in and which was a partnership between BCIT and the school district. So Joe is a graduate today probably because we had an alternative program in place that captured him and kept him in school.

D. Cubberley: The number that we have now at that end for dropouts essentially failing to graduate is about 21 percent of the population. The number that you mentioned at the front end with people coming into school is about one in four not ready for school.

There's another group that I'm interested in, which is a shadowy group within the school. I won't get the language right here, but for lack of a better term they're kids who stay in school and are passed through and come out the other end but don't achieve the marks that would be required to allow them to go into post-secondary based on their achievement in the schools.

I'm interested to know if we have a measure of what percentage of the population that does graduate are these passed-through or passed-along kids.

Hon. S. Bond: We can clearly define the 21 percent that don't complete. I think how students do along the way is more difficult to measure. We do expect that when students complete, they meet graduation requirements.

I think the member opposite is referring to moving students along continuously. I'm not sure that we have a measure that would accurately capture the group of students. We do expect that when they graduate, they meet our graduation requirements, and one would assume that that has been measured as students have moved consecutively through the system.

D. Cubberley: Would there be a measure of students who graduate with less than a B average?

Hon. S. Bond: We could do that; data would allow us to do that. We don't at the moment, but we could do that based on the English marks, because that of course is the key course that students are required to take in one form or another. That is data that I think we could certainly do. It's not something that we have done. But the way that the information is presented, we would look at the spectrum of marks. So I guess, technically, you could do that.

D. Cubberley: I think it's a really important part of the picture that we're trying to build of how well we're doing. I would urge consideration of it as a measure, because I think it will provide really vital information — especially if you start to see concentrations of pass-through kids in particular schools or in particular school districts. I'm not an expert, but I would expect that you would see some patterns if you started to look at those things.

The other reason that I think it's important is because, as the minister mentioned, in British Columbia there are in excess of a million adults, I believe, who suffer from low literacy — level 1 or level 2 on Canadian benchmarks — which means that they're not able to participate fully in the economy that we're evolving. I know it's been said for a long time that it's a knowledge economy. We've heard it so much that you tend to accept that.

I saw a number which suggested that in the future, with the jobs that are being created, over 70 percent of them will require a minimum of level 3 literacy for people to be able to access the jobs. It really is a growing sector of the economy and a growing requirement.

I think when you look at that population of people who are there, even at level 1 — where you would assume, "Well, those are people that are really struggling with literacy, and they're probably the dropouts" — what's amazing is how many of them have completed high school and how many of those low-literacy adults actually have some post-secondary.

Now, I know that in British Columbia, because of the high level of immigration we have — which I think is about the second-highest in the country — a significant portion of those are from in-migration. They are people who come with credentials and don't get enough English and are stuck at level 1. But there's another group that I believe are being generated because they're not thriving adequately at high school. I just would be interested in your thoughts on that.

I bet that if we start looking, some of the pass-through kids are going on to become the low-literacy adults. I would ask if that connection is being made.

Hon. S. Bond: Some very thoughtful comments by the member opposite. It's interesting, because I'm extremely passionate about the literacy agenda. I can't imagine not being able to pick up a book or even read a bus schedule or those kinds of things. I very much appreciate the comments about low levels of literacy for adults.

We're working on some very exciting strategies, I think, with libraries and communities and literacy planning to try to find ways. I do think we have to be cognizant of the public education system's role in ensuring that our graduates meet high standards. I think that's absolutely true.

One of the pieces of information, though, around how low levels of literacy develop…. There is also the principle of use when you graduate. Students may well meet certain standard as they graduate. You can develop or lose — I guess it's the best way to describe that — your literacy skills if you don't use them, in essence. So there's some loss if people don't stay sort of active in their role.

I do think that we have a responsibility to ensure that our graduates graduate at a very high level. I think that's important. Our achievement agenda is very much about trying to make sure that every student finds a degree of success in that strategy.

I should say that one of the things we're doing and have committed to is that if a student graduates and they get out into the world and realize that they need some additional tools or that there are some other things they should have or could have done when they were at high school…. We've now said that if they discover that, they can actually come back to public education — and not in bricks and mortar, obviously, because how do we deal with that? We will allow them now to take distributed-learning programs free of charge.

I understand the member opposite's point. The member opposite wouldn't like it to be something you come back to fix. But are we monitoring, and are we aware of that? We want to be sure that our students graduate at that very high level. We're going to make sure that students who do get to the end of their years and graduate and find they need something else in the education world can come back and take a distributed-learning course to help improve those circumstances.

We're also working in partnership to find ways to attract adults back to learning. We know that there are many who need help. One of the biggest challenges is the actual ability to admit that there are low levels of literacy, and that, in and of itself, is a huge issue.

Our responsibility, as the member points out, is to make sure that when a student graduates, we can be assured that they have met a satisfactory level of achievement to make them successful. We're going to continue to work to ensure that that is the case.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for those comments — equally thoughtful.

I guess what I want to ask is that given that we have this phenomenon…. We have the dropouts, who are significant. It's over one in five. And we have an unknown but, I think, probably not inconsequential number of kids who are passed through. What are we looking at?

We're trying to pick this up as we go along and do what we can. High school and graduation is right at the end of the process, when we're taking a snapshot and measuring how well we've done.

Within the school system, the K-to-12 system, what is our early intervention strategy? Where are we targeting those efforts? Are we focusing on very high-risk populations with special intervention strategies to try and improve their outcomes?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think that assessment is a key part of that. I think that teachers have a number of tools they use to do that. With curriculum there are expected benchmarks that students should meet as they move forward. I think that teachers make those decisions based on assessments within their classrooms, on the observations that they make and, also, on other assessments.

For example, we use — and there may be a disagreement about the tool…. A foundation skills assessment, for example, is that moment where we stop and look and say: "How is this student doing compared to the benchmark where they should be at?" I think we need to make sure that all through a student's career we are looking at their levels of achievement and looking at strategies to help them meet those benchmarks.

I think it's essential that we talk to and include parents in that discussion about where their children are. But we absolutely expect that teachers do meet benchmarks with their children in grade levels. That is part of the process as students are assessed, and then strategies for their success are created by both teachers and schools.

D. Cubberley: I just want to ask if there are new intervention strategies, other than pre-K, that are being considered or mobilized to try to improve literacy from the time the kids arrive. Are there population-specific strategies? Are they broken out by aboriginal populations, ESL and kids who come from less fortunate circumstances and are more likely to struggle?

Hon. S. Bond: A significant part of our focus has certainly been on the prekindergarten area. We've created programs like Books for Babies; Ready, Set, Learn; and the kindergarten book program. We're looking at StrongStart centres — so a lot of emphasis and, I think, very appropriately so.

The member opposite pointed out what is a very relevant comparison. One in four children arrives and is not developmentally ready, and 21 percent of our students don't complete. You've got to wonder about the correlation between those two pieces. I think many of our efforts have been on the early years, and that will continue as we add not only StrongStart but other opportunities. In fact, as the member opposite suggested, things like….

Learning takes place in child care circumstances, as well. Can we look at even more support on the early years agenda? That's exactly what we hope to do. We hope to work with experts and program providers within communities that we can actually work with, rather than duplicating or replicating their services, because they're providing great opportunities for families. So there's definitely a focus on the early years.

We're looking at new ways of connecting people together. For example, we have brought together, for the first time, educators, teachers and administrators from rural schools to look at the challenges that rural schools face. So I think we are attempting to work with partners in the system in a different way.

Certainly, I think aboriginal enhancement agreements are a really good example of what the member opposite is referring to. We need strategic initiatives in place that meet the needs of aboriginal young people, for example. Those agreements are put in place with the collaboration and cooperation of all of the aboriginal partners.

I truly believe that the system needs to reflect the views and leadership of aboriginal people. We haven't done a very good job of meeting the needs of aboriginal students for decades, and we need to deal with that. There are ongoing initiatives.

Let me give another example, one that we're very proud of. We're in the process of working with first nations leaders to develop first nations English 12. That's important because the English 12 program — the requirement to write that for graduation — is a real deterrent for aboriginal young people. So by creating relevant curriculum….

In answer to your question: relevant curriculum; additional literacy resources; a focus on early learning; but one other thing that I think is essential, and that's the professional development area. How do we help our teachers and educators better meet the needs of students?

We've started some programs called Interactive Innovations, those kinds of things, where there is a very large conference that brings experts. We connect people together using technology, and all of those speakers and tools are then archived and can be shared with schools over the course of time.

I do think we have to focus on things like professional development as well as in-the-classroom-specific programs.

D. Cubberley: Just on that one because you raised it: the aboriginal enhancement agreements. I wanted to ask: is the ministry monitoring those and looking at

outcomes? And is there a process in place to groom performance and to ensure that best practices, as they develop in one region or another, are shared around?

I ask that question because in the brief period of time that I've been doing the job, I've seen both very good and what I think could be construed as very bad performance under aboriginal enhancement.

On the bad side, and I won't say where, I saw something called a homework club, which was financed partly with aboriginal enhancement money. It was a place where kids who were having trouble in school, whether they were aboriginal or not, were sent for additional work after school hours, and it basically provided no teaching or training. That was just a sham.

On the plus side — and I won't say where, either, because I don't want to reward and punish — in another school district with a very high aboriginal population there's the use of what they call aboriginal outreach staff at the school, who literally go after the kids when they start to detach themselves from school programs and pull them back in. It seemed to be having a tremendous effect in helping them get started again, in preventing them from falling.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, we do monitor aboriginal enhancement agreements, because we would agree with you. I think that in order for them to maintain any degree of credibility, it has to be action that moves from words on paper to implementation. I think first nations people have said very clearly to us that they like the process and they like the fact that we get to an aboriginal enhancement agreement. The question is: do the words get lifted off the paper in a way that's meaningful and making a difference?

Like anything, there are probably some that are stronger than others. Maybe that's how I would describe them. But yes, we do monitor. We have two people in our ministry that work very carefully and closely with districts as they are developing those agreements, and we do follow up.

I think there are some incredible successes in terms of outcomes, because that's really what this is about. We want our students to have better outcomes.

I was really pleased to be involved in the re-signing, the renewal, of an aboriginal enhancement agreement that Chief Nathan Matthew had been involved in, and the results…. I'm trying to remember. I've been to so many places. I think the literacy results for aboriginal students were unbelievably good in terms of moving from the first agreement to the second one, so the foundation was solid, and then they had built upon that.

I think it's a good word of caution. We should be monitoring, and we are, and we want them to actually make a difference. I think it was best described to me by an aboriginal leader who said: "The words on paper are important, but even more important is lifting them off, implementing and helping us see a difference." So yes, we are monitoring.

D. Cubberley: Would part of the process involve helping to instigate awareness of the need for change on the part of principals and giving them some of the tools around implementation that would ensure that they take the words off the paper and actually translate them into realities for first nations kids?

Hon. S. Bond: We do. I neglected to comment on the best-practice part before. I'm sorry for that. I was not thinking about that answer.

I think it's essential we share the best practice, and I do think it's essential that we motivate and inspire our principals and other leaders to actually embrace the changes that have been made. We try to work very closely with the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association to hold things to look at professional development and best practice, so there is a regular working relationship.

In fact, I have been involved in a couple of working sessions with them, talking about challenges and issues and how we deal with those things. But I think sharing best practice is a very good idea, and I can give the member…. It comes to mind more quickly than on the aboriginal side.

In literacy, for example, we have a series of grants that are shared with districts based on proposals for how they become more innovative and effective in literacy. What we've done is that we then take those projects that are approved, and where we see results, we create a forum and also a document that shares that best practice across the province. We want to take what we've learned in those situations and share that with others so that we can see that moving across the province.

We try very hard to learn from the best practice and disseminate that. I still think we have some work to do in terms of how we better resource and support educational leaders like principals in some of those things that we expect of them in the aboriginal enhancement agreements, for example.

D. Cubberley: It's an ongoing challenge, always, to develop leadership at a local level. As populations change, in particular, there are challenges, because programs have to change to meet the demographics and change leadership. While it can come out of individual educators, it's most likely to happen if the principals are embarked.

I want to go back to what I was talking about before around intervention strategies and ask a couple of questions. I'm wondering whether any funding is earmarked for specific strategies. I'm going to use an example which I don't know the detail of, but I'm using it as an example rather than exhaustively.

A program like reading recovery, which some districts fund for identified challenged readers to get them back on track, obviously involves a significant investment of resources for a period of time to offset where they are developmentally, but I understand the results are good. Whether it's that process or another intensive process, are we earmarking funding for that as a way of getting at those people who are starting behind?

Hon. S. Bond: We do have some very specific targeted dollars for those kinds of programs. I think probably one of the most significant in terms of the

way we have seen results across the province is that we have, for three years, provided $5 million in each year to support innovative teaching with literacy as the focus in K-to-12. That allows districts to actually apply, and to say, "Here is what we want to do."

I can tell you I visited several schools that we would probably call inner-city schools that have made use of these grants, and the results for their students are quite dramatic actually. We are investing, and we are then seeing school districts making investment as well. The vast majority of them have literacy as their number-one priority when they put their plans together.

We have also invested dollars, as I mentioned to the member earlier. I know that he's now concentrating sort of on specific school intervention. But we've really invested significantly in the early years — the Ready, Set, Learn programs, Books for Babies, Raise-a-Reader — those kinds of things.

Yes, there are strategic dollars, but school districts are also making very conscious choices about programs that make a difference. I've been in numerous schools where guided reading, for example, is one of the programs that's utilized. That's when the entire school stands still, and students are grouped by their skill level. Everyone participates in programs like that.

We are providing specific dollars, but school districts are also making choices about making literacy one of their number-one priorities in the decisions they make.

D. Cubberley: Just to pursue that along a little bit. It was my understanding, as well, that the results can be quite remarkable from these kinds of targeted interventions. Given the priority on literacy and the downside of low literacy, which is that it generates a whole range of costs to society and costs to the individual, my question would be: why would we not be more systematic in funding that early intervention as a way of trying to reduce the persistent struggle with literacy that we see with some of the pass-through kids and the kids who ultimately drop out?

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things we've actually done as a government…. In fact, we've raised it to the national level, and we've been leaders across the country. We've been pretty clear about the commitment to literacy. I think the number is almost $100 million across government when you look at the investments to literacy. I think it's an important commitment and certainly a goal of our government.

I think the challenge we face is the fact that there isn't one strategy or program or intervention that works for every child. Not only do districts make choices, but individual teachers make choices about which one works for their students. There's reading recovery. There's buddy reading. There's DART. There are numerous programs.

I think the fact that we expect school boards to have literacy as a priority, that we've targeted literacy and innovative teaching around that…. As a government we've committed over the last number of years over $100 million. We are trying to support districts in the choices that they make, but I don't think it's as simple as a programmatic response. I think it's about attitude. It's about focus. It's about asking for results to be clearly articulated.

D. Cubberley: Well, just on that one. Let's stay with that for a sec. I'm just thinking about it in terms of an investment. If memory serves, the Progress Board, again, in a study where they were looking at the productivity gap…. Canada has a productivity gap, but B.C. has a larger one.

They were looking at how to close that gap. They made the suggestion that a 1-percent rise in the overall rate of literacy for the B.C. population would translate into, over time, something like a 2½-percent increase in productivity, which is enormous. If it were to be translated into money, it would probably be between $1 billion and $2 billion in GDP. That would be, obviously, an annual yield.

Given that, to my mind, looking at it in coarse terms, it would make a tremendous amount of sense to be mobilizing around an investment that supports achieving that lift. Mr. Chair, you will remember from our hearings what Dr. Brink told us. She told us very clearly that the dollar invested early is the best investment and that any amount of time that passes without making that investment, the cost of trying to recover and fix the problem goes up.

Given that the best dollar investment is at the front end and probably prior to coming to school…. But there will always be kids who arrive at school less prepared.

Given the potential for tremendous yield to be recognized in economic terms from doing it, why would we not take a more programmatic approach and earmark funding directly for intervention approaches, which could be a variety of things — I'm not an expert, so I can't say this one thing — that get at that population that can be identified right away as having the potential to be low literate?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that as a government we've worked really hard to make literacy a pretty significant priority — not just in schools but in our province. I do think that's an important concept. It's not about just K-to-12. We certainly have canvassed already a sense of the early learning component, which is absolutely critical to this.

We have invested significant dollars in the early learning side, including, as I've mentioned, the Books for Babies program and Ready, Set, Learn, which is an amazing program that brings 3-year-olds into school and concentrates on connecting them to schools earlier. We have the kindergarten book program and now our brand new StrongStart centres.

In addition to that, we've added $5 million to target innovative teaching for K-to-12, and that's focused on literacy. But I also think we need to put in that context the fact that we have $15.6 million for public libraries, $4 million for adult literacy strategies and $10 million for Literacy Now.

I think it comes to the place where as a government we've invested over $106 million in brand-new literacy funding since 2001. I would suggest that that is targeted, that it is making a difference and that we have to continue to be aggressive about that strategy.

D. Cubberley: I just wanted to ask…. We'll hopefully have a chance to canvass this further. The minister mentioned using the tools like foundation assessment to assess how people are doing as probably the linchpin of assessment for the system. I'd be interested in how foundation skills assessment results are used to feedback into change. Maybe you could give me a couple of examples of what foundation skills assessment has led to by way of major change.

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's important to preface my comments about FSA with the fact that it is one of a number of assessment tools and one that there has obviously been much discussion about. But in fact it is one of the tools that is used to assess students.

How does it shape change? Well, it starts right in the classroom. I would certainly hope and expect that it is one of the things that sparks a discussion between parents and teachers about how best to serve their students. It goes back to the member opposite's question previously about how we make sure that children, as they move through certain stages, are actually being successful? How do we make sure that by the end of grade 12, they've met some benchmarks so that we can rest assured they have done well?

One of the things is that FSAs do that. Also, for a teacher, each item is analyzed and the results are looked at, so that can certainly shape individual teaching instruction. From a school district's perspective the data can be used to have district's focus on particular areas or on specific items.

At a provincial level, certainly, one of the things that it causes us to look at is curriculum. When we look at a foundation skills assessment and the results that students receive, one of the things we ask ourselves is: is our curriculum relevant? Is the content appropriate? Are there adjustments that need to be made? Is the curriculum too big — those kinds of things? We certainly would use FSA data at a provincial level to look at curriculum change, in particular, whether that's necessary or important.

D. Cubberley: Because of the emphasis on foundation skills assessment, does the ministry do any assessment of whether the practice of teachers teaching to the test is having an impact on outcomes that relate not to the measures of the test, but different and qualitative measures of problem-solving, ability to think creatively, and other measures of achievement and whether that is furthered through the teaching which is done to the test or whether it may in some sense be impeded?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the foundation skills assessment is actually a curriculum-based test. So if the teacher is teaching the curriculum, one would expect there would be a reasonable degree of success for their students because it's based on curriculum. So it's not a test you can teach to. It's also cumulative. It's a snapshot of a student's level — a snapshot, keyword — at that particular time. But it is curriculum-based, and so if a teacher teaches to the curriculum and teaches the curriculum, a student should be able to do the FSA.

D. Cubberley: Mr. Chair, I'm going to cede to the member for Victoria-Hillside who has some questions.

R. Fleming: If the minister could — for my benefit primarily, I suppose — go over the funding formula that the ministry uses regarding education and then maybe I can move, in particular, to talk about some issues in the school district where my constituents' children attend schools.

With regards to funding and its relation to districts that have declining enrolment…. I wonder if the minister — just to start off the discussion and so that we're talking within the same context as much as possible — could comment about declining enrolment. And, perhaps, would she agree that enrolment in B.C. is not a new problem? It's nothing new for her government, in particular, but it's something that has been occurring over 20 years as the baby boom generation has passed through the school system.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, enrolment in the province peaked in about 1997 or 1998. Decline started most significantly in 1999. What we're seeing is that the pace of decline is picking up. As a ministry we base our projections very much on the work that's done by school districts around the province. Typically, they do a fantastic job. I remember, as a school trustee, that our administrative team was pretty close in terms of looking at the numbers for projecting in the years ahead.

The numbers that we looked at when the projections were put together this year were a loss of about 7,000. In fact, when the students showed up at the school door, there was a whole lot less than 7,000. It was 12,000.

The significant decline started probably in about 1997 or 1998. I was on a school board at that time, so I'm just trying to put that in context.

It's picking up pace. We don't expect it to end in the near future — in fact, 5,000 to 7,000 students a year, moving forward. I think the other contextual piece we need is that this is not unique to British Columbia. It's happening around the world and very significantly in several Canadian jurisdictions.

R. Fleming: I can appreciate those numbers and that peak date not being exact, but I'll take it at face value. I think the important thing to note within the subject of enrolment decline, and when and where it's happening, is that it's happening in different ways and at different times throughout the province, as all the

If I could move to the Greater Victoria school district, which I'm most familiar with and in fact where enrolment peaked in 1970 — for the minister's benefit — at something like 32,000 children, and it dropped to 25,000 by the end of the 1970s. It's now just under 19,000 students for this year. She may know those figures.

Can the minister tell me how many schools her government has closed in this province since 2001?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll certainly check the number, but I should point out to the member opposite that government doesn't close schools. Decisions about whether or not to close a school, based on very complex demographic issues, are actually made by locally elected school boards. Never easy, never simple, and always very emotionally attached. But across the province of British Columbia, 139 schools have closed.

R. Fleming: Okay. The minister suggested she was going to check the number and then provided one. Is that the correct number?

Would the minister know how many schools were closed over a similar six-year period prior to her government taking office — just as a comparison to the 139 that have occurred during the six years that her government has been in office?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy to provide that number, but I also have to give the member opposite the context for that discussion. Let's start at 1991. The percentage increase in the number of students in the province was 4 percent. In '92 it was 2.4 percent. In 1993-1994, 2.6 percent; 1995-1996, 2.3 percent; 1996-1997, 2.3 percent; 1997-1998, 1.6 percent.

The first time we saw a decline in terms of general population in the province was actually 1998-1999. We saw a 0.2-percent drop. The percentage of decline for that five years was always less than 1 percent. So for the first part of the decade we actually had increasing enrolment, and even during that period of time, there were 15 schools closed across the province.

R. Fleming: Okay. A couple of parts of the answer I think we can work with here. The declining enrolment didn't begin in 2001, so something else must have caused the explosion in school closures.

Can the minister maybe give some context to this committee around her government's changes to the education funding formula in 2001, which may have resulted in school boards throughout B.C. closing these 139 schools?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we need to be clear of the context. The member opposite makes the enrolment decline since 2001 sound minimal — that something else happened. If we add the numbers in for next year alone, we will have lost in British Columbia, in a five-year period, 50,000 children. That's the size of three and four and five communities added together.

So I think it's an unfortunate simplification to suggest that a student decline in enrolment hasn't been a major contributing factor to school closures. In order to look at the funding side of the envelope, we've actually seen funding increase at the same time that declines in enrolment have taken place.

So we have increased funding for seven years, and we have seen a decline in enrolment that is more dramatic than ever in the history of the province.

R. Fleming: Well, on the point around funding increases, I think 'twas ever thus, with the march of inflation and everything else. I note that in the funding increase this year, 98 percent of it is to cover an increase in expenses, be they from wage settlements or other things. We're talking about very, very little money per pupil.

What I'm getting at in the funding formula — the changes that were made in 2001 — is that, for the first time, we had a funding formula that was tied to the number of students. I think what districts like 61, which is in my constituency, and districts around the province would tell you is that this funding formula that was brought in does not have any flexibility or, I suppose, it doesn't provide the districts with any ability to ease the pressure that is compelling school boards to close schools on a very regular basis. This is having profound changes in the social fabric in our neighbourhoods.

So again, could the minister tell the committee perhaps if her ministry is — if she herself has directed — looking at a linkage between the funding formula that her government adopted and the rapid escalation of schools closing in B.C.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, schools are closing because we have less children — 50,000 less children in the last five years. So when we look at the difficulty in making those decisions, they're always challenging, and they're complex. We have 50,000 less children. When the funding formula was changed under the previous government, the previous formula actually funded space. We fund children, and we actually have given school boards significantly more flexibility with those dollars, recognizing the challenges they face.

When I was a school trustee in the 1990s, there were probably 30 or…. Sorry, I'll ask my staff later. But there were significant numbers of targeted funds, so by the time a school board had any discretion at all, the number was absolutely minimal. What boards asked for was: "Give us more flexibility." So we removed literally dozens of targets from the funding formula. But in fact, the previous formula funded space.

R. Fleming: Well, I think some of the flexibility that has been lost, and that is frequently commented upon by those within the education system and those that have direct concerns or family within it, is around in-

ner city. If you look at where the closures are occurring in communities like the one I represent and in other communities across B.C., it tends to be the inner-city schools that are closing.

I can think of five just since 2003 in school district 61. We're talking about Blanshard Elementary, Burnside just last year, Richmond Elementary before that. There are a further two closures up for consideration right now, by April 10 — one of which is in my constituency, and that is Cloverdale Elementary. One is in my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin's constituency — Lampson Elementary in Esquimalt.

They are all inner-city schools that educate children that come from backgrounds that are not as privileged as in other areas. They face reduced life chances already. Now we have older, established inner-city neighbourhoods that face the loss of schools that are an important part of the community fabric and social well-being of those areas.

I don't think it's a coincidence or just the whim of the boards that is compelling these decisions to be made. I think it is directly tied to the funding formula that this government has adopted since 2001.

Maybe I could ask the minister if she can consider a funding formula that would give some flexibility in additional consideration for areas in declining school districts — where there is declining enrolment but where there are areas where kids don't have the same life chances and where schools are in an inner-city setting, in some cases — and whether they should actually receive some of what the old funding formula gave them, which is a consideration for those spaces?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite might want to ignore the fact that we have 50,000 less children. Not only that, but 56 out of 60 school districts in British Columbia are in decline. It's not something that we can simply say: "Let's just have Victoria decide how we're going to keep schools open across British Columbia." This is a global phenomenon, and I think it's really unfortunate that the member opposite makes assumptions about school closures that are based on vulnerable neighbourhoods.

School trustees spend enormous amounts of time, energy, public consultation and a lot of emotional distress trying to sort out how to manage what is a complex global issue. It's not a matter of simply saying, "Let's just keep schools open," because we can't in good conscience. There are many professionals on the member opposite's side who have had experience with this. We have buildings that are half full. If districts continue to fund half-full buildings, there is one thing that will eventually suffer as a result of that, and that is educational programming for children.

So school boards go through comprehensive processes, and if the member opposite has concerns about a particular school district and a decision they made, then I would suggest that is a discussion he needs a to have with the school board after they have gone through significant public consultation and a great deal of distress in terms of how to make that adjustment.

R. Fleming: What I'm suggesting is that systematic underfunding of education and a lack of ability within the funding formula to show sensitivity toward inner-city neighbourhoods in British Columbia in district after district in this province are causing schools that are so important, in the heart of communities, to be closed.

But the minister brings up another point, which is around the duty to consult. She has said what the norm is, and there are 55 school districts in decline in this province. The norm is to consult very widely with those communities before the decisions are made. Is it the case that the ministry actually has a set of comprehensive guidelines that they require school districts to follow? Do they have a template or model that sets the bar quite high in terms of what type of consultation they would like to see before a school, unfortunately, may be considered for closure?

Hon. S. Bond: School districts are actually required to create a school closure policy. We trust locally elected school boards to design a process that would include public consultation. As a person who has been involved in that process, I can assure you that one of the things we wanted to be sure of was that there was public consultation.

I should point out, though, that the member opposite brings his own school district to the floor here and makes comments about the funding levels of schools and the school system. We do need to just get the facts on the record. The fact is that we are at the highest level of funding ever in British Columbia. I think the chair of the Victoria school district made comments most recently in the public that they were going to do some extra things with some of the dollars they had managed to set aside.

Let's have a look at what the numbers that have been set aside in that particular school district might be. The other fund balances — currently, in 2006 — totalled more than $15 million in the member opposite's school district. So if there were issues around particular decisions, I would suggest…. I should be clear about this. I want to be very thoughtful about using that number, because those dollars are often assigned for a variety of things within school districts, but they are a school board's choice. As recently as today or yesterday the chair of this school board said that they would be doing some things with the dollars they have managed to set aside.

R. Fleming: Well, it's interesting, because the numbers that came out in today's article about the school district funding show that government's grant to the Greater Victoria school district will decline by $2 million a year, from $110 million to $108 million.

I wonder if I might just ask the minister a related question: whether in a policy sense her government, through the service plan, perhaps in future years, would look at rewarding public schools that are trying to increase enrolment by bringing more people into the public system?

In south Vancouver Island there is quite a high participation rate within private schools. School districts in tough conditions which we have just covered — declining enrolment and the rest — are trying to provide more choices within public education for parents and students. One of the ones being pursued in my riding is the traditional school designation, for example.

School districts are often finding, because fiscal pressure is so great on them, that they are making decisions where they can't make an investment in trying to provide a forum for choices, because sometimes it takes a while to prove something is successful. It certainly took a while to prove that French-language schooling would be as popular as it has been in Victoria, and which has a tremendous takeup rate.

When it comes to other choices like traditional public schools or perhaps even academies and other types of learning choices, would the minister consider special funds that would allow school districts to experiment and to implement more choices for parents within the public system?

Hon. S. Bond: We've been an incredible advocate for choice in public education, and I happen to come from a district that started traditional schools without additional funding or rewards years ago in the 1990s.

School districts have been very proactive about finding ways to meet the needs of children for a very long time. They are very good at trying to find ways to match up the needs of children to new programs. We would be supportive of that, but we know that districts make those choices. We have, in fact, seen countless choice programs added by school districts across this province.

Certainly there are best-practice models across the province that school districts can look at. We hope to see that continue to increase.

I'm not sure what number the member opposite is referring to. When I look at the overall change in funding for the school district that the member opposite represents, the 2006-2007 final operating budget for this school district was $139,265,232. In the year going forward it will be $142,022,780, an increase of $2.7 million.

R. Fleming: Just within the approximately 140 school closures now, and going from that to examples that I have because they're in my constituency, some of the things that are lost with a school closure are the before- and after-school care programs. That is under threat now with Cloverdale Elementary School closing. We live in a region that is very challenged for licensed child care spaces currently, and with this potential closure another 75 to 85 spaces will be lost. These are child care spaces that are provided on site at the school.

Another thing that is potentially lost is a non-profit-operated preschool, which only opened in September and now boasts three classes at Cloverdale Elementary. These are the kinds of things that in school after school are facing closure, that go right with that decision to make a closure.

Those are also the future of rebounding enrolment — having those kinds of programs, having the supports for parents, basically making it more affordable to have children and having more supports within the community to raise those children and to educate them in the community.

I want to ask the minister to maybe comment on her government's initiative to try and add responsibility for more early learning within the schools. On the one hand, we have an organized network and infrastructure of child care and preschool spaces already within the school settings that are under threat because of closure of schools, and now we have talk at the higher level of shifting responsibility for early learning to the schools.

So they are already doing their job and are compromised in doing it when it comes to child care spaces and preschools. Now they are going to have some early learning initiatives and responsibilities put upon them by the ministry. I wonder if the minister can tell us how one-time resources that were promised are actually going to be able to match up with this responsibility that she's delegating to school districts.

Hon. S. Bond: Part of the really good news is that over the last eight months I've travelled to over 42 school districts across the province, been in hundreds of classrooms, and the mandate that we're looking at in terms of school boards across the province is actually catching up with what they're already doing. The vast majority of school districts across this province are already engaged in significant initiatives with early learning. They recognize that if you concentrate on those early years, you're going to have a difference when the child arrives at kindergarten and when they work their way through the system.

First of all, we're not imposing anything on anyone. We've had unbelievable requests for the kinds of programs that we're starting. StrongStart B.C. — we have lineups of people who want those resources, and we look forward to that. Our commitment is 80 of those centres over the next number of months and year.

But more importantly, it's not about replacing services. It's about actually complementing and enhancing them. We've been talking for a long time with communities about the whole concept of community hubs. We believe that we should see things like child care and day care and StrongStart. Learning takes place in all of those circumstances.

We're not doing this in isolation of communities. In fact, there are large groups of people meeting regularly under the partnership of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — in particular, the minister responsible for child care. We are looking at new concepts, but the mandate expansion really catches up with practice.

I have talked to 42 different school districts about what they're doing. We need to be clear that we are looking at new models, but we're also going to build on strengths in communities. We're looking at new ways of delivering services in partnership with school districts and communities.

R. Fleming: Well, it's interesting, though, that the ministry still only funds K-to-12 education. The question really is: where are the resources? While the mandate may be expanding for those providing education, there's no money there for staffing it.

What's interesting…. She referenced her colleague the Minister of State for Childcare, whose budget was cut by $35 million to $40 million this year. All of those centres that are on school sites, which she correctly cited have cropped up in many schools and developed organically over time…. Those budgets are being reduced. Now we have an unspecified fund that goes to school districts that's one-time, that's not for staffing, that's supposed to cover early learning.

I'm trying to figure out, and maybe the minister can help me, how this is going to help vulnerable kids from working families in our neighbourhoods, and how this is premised on parents bringing their kids to school.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, StrongStart programs in British Columbia are funded. They are provided with startup funding. They're provided with ongoing funding. There's enormous excitement. It's a great program. It won't be the only program in schools. It won't be the only program in communities. In fact, it's going to build and enhance a program.

We also fund Ready, Set, Learn, which is a program for three-year-old students who come and are connected. We serve thousands of students. Those are funded.

The Books for Babies program is funded. The Books for Kindergarten program is also funded. Most importantly, for StrongStart B.C. school districts receive startup funding. They receive operating funding, which hires staff in StrongStart buildings. They have to be early childhood educators. In fact, we're going to move that to 80 centres and fund them on an ongoing basis.

R. Fleming: Again, the point here is the networks of child care spaces that have developed over many years that occur on site in schools — before- and after-school child care — are being cut by this government on the one hand. Now we have a StrongStart program that… I don't know how working parents can participate in it, because it's premised on them coming during working hours during the day to accompany their children.

This is taking away child care and then putting a meagre amount into school districts to have something totally different. This is supposed to enhance literacy. We take money away from the early childhood educating community that exists now and put it into this untested pilot boutique program called StrongStart.

Maybe the minister could tell me how that is going to benefit kids, especially in the context that we've already discussed this afternoon of school closures happening right across the province and particularly concentrated in inner-city neighbourhoods.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I would challenge the member opposite to actually visit a StrongStart centre and get a sense of what happens there. Caregivers can actually bring the child; it doesn't have to be the parents. It does have to be an adult who can be participatory. The one I visited was filled with fathers, grandparents and caregivers.

The whole point of StrongStart B.C. is to help resource families as well as children. There are overwhelming numbers in the 16 pilot sites. As I said to the member, and I will repeat: this isn't about replacing programs but about building a continuum of service.

First of all, there are a couple of criteria important to note. The pilot sites were actually selected based on the work done by Dr. Clyde Hertzman which identifies the most vulnerable children in British Columbia. We strategically located the first 16 StrongStart programs in neighbourhoods where children who are incredibly vulnerable have opportunities. That includes having a parent, caregiver, single mom or grandparent bring them.

That's precisely what's happening. The moment the 16 pilot projects were opened, we heard overwhelmingly from school district after school district: "Please, can we have one for this school, for this neighbourhood?" I would urge the member opposite to actually visit one and see the benefits for families in this province.

M. Karagianis: First of all, I make no secret that I am here on behalf of the families in my community that are fighting to save Lampson Elementary School. I would like to read to the minister a letter I received from a young woman by the name of Lauren Whalen. This was actually sent to the school district and cc'd to me. Lauren says:

The reason I read this letter here today to the minister is because it actually is a very strong indicator of the demographic within the communities surrounding Lampson School. I know that previous speakers, the Education critic and of course my colleague from Victoria, have talked about the issue around inner-city schools. I have been pleading with our school district to not make any final decisions on the Lampson Street School until we'd had a chance to address the minister here in estimates.

It's my hope that perhaps we can find some solutions here and explore some areas with the minister

that might help give us some courage that we can convince the school district not to close the school. The minister referred a few minutes ago to the fact that you're looking for community hubs. Well, in fact, Lampson School is a community hub. Not ten years ago the government spent a great deal of money refurbishing and restoring this heritage school.

I've stood in the House and talked about the heritage value around Lampson School and about the great amount of investment that was made in it to bring it up to seismic standards. First, I would like to ask: what values do the ministry and the minister place on investments that have been made recently into these facilities, in viewing their worth within the school system?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: I appreciate the passion and the views that she brings to this table, but ultimately, the decision about school closures does not rest in Victoria. It is not the role of the minister or the ministry to intervene in decision-making by local school trustees, even when that decision is difficult, painful and challenging.

The school district that the member refers to is not alone. We are facing, all across the province, unprecedented demographic change. We are joined by the vast majority of countries around the world and provinces in this country. It is a demographic shift. We need to address it. It is a very difficult and challenging decision, but those are decisions made by locally elected school boards.

M. Karagianis: Well, then let's address that particular issue. I know the minister said earlier on that, you know — simple fact — we are closing schools because we have fewer children. I absolutely agree and acknowledge that we do have declining enrolment. It is a phenomenon across the globe, certainly across North America, and I absolutely accept that.

I also believe that that is not a permanent situation in any way. I think that history will show us that we have populations that decline, and then we have populations that increase.

I'd like to actually explore two aspects of that with the minister. First and foremost, if we all understand and accept that, yes, we have declining enrolment, is there not a logic to be pursued here that says that we might have to revisit the way we are currently funding education in the face of that?

If enrolments are declining — and that is a fact of history and a fact of life here currently — then why would the minister and the government not reconsider how education is funded so that we are not pitting communities against each other or, in fact, forcing children to walk long distances, to leave their communities and to disconnect in many ways from the education system? Given those facts, why are we not looking at different ways of funding education?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I would love to be able to tell the member opposite that in the near future, or even the little more distant future, we could actually see the trend reversing, but that's not the case. I gave numbers to one of the member opposite's colleagues earlier, but herein lies the problem. The problem is that we have today, or in September of this year, 35,000 kindergarten students entering the system, and we have graduating at this year 53,000 students. If we do the math, we have 35,000 students that have to work their way through the public education system.

So the decline is going to continue all the way out until we look at the numbers…. We are using the best projections that we can actually come up with; obviously, you know, we can't look in a crystal ball. The decline in enrolment will continue, at minimum, until 2014-2015, with a very minimal…. That takes the number of students in the province down to 532,000 at that point. That's if the numbers don't actually end up being larger, as they did this year.

We only see a levelling-out of the numbers in 2015 and 2016. When districts are planning, we'd be asking them to think about maybe crossing their fingers and hoping that the numbers are going to go up in the year 2014.

The Victoria school district alone has lost over 2,000 full-time students since 2001. That's larger than some communities in British Columbia, and it's going to continue. By the school district's own numbers, next year alone they will lose about 487 students — they're projecting 486-point-something — every year.

So, you know, the easy answer is: let's just see if we can keep them all open. The more realistic, difficult and painful answer is: that's not possible. So the question then becomes: how do we do that in the most efficient and appropriate way to serve the students in the Victoria school district?

I don't know Lampson School. I don't know the 130 other schools across the province that have been closed. I can only rely on the locally elected school board that actually has been charged with responsibility by their communities, I can only hope and rely on the fact that they have closure policies and that they do their very best to manage a very difficult demographic challenge.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I have seen the same projected numbers. I know that they do not take into consideration a number of other factors, things like immigration. We are currently experiencing a labour shortage and looking to bring more and more families into the country. They will be settling in urban areas. There is no consideration whatsoever in those statistics for that.

There's also no consideration in the statistics for the shifts from rural to urban communities. That, unfortunately, is a reality as well. Some of it is self-fulfilling by the fact that there are declining opportunities for work in rural areas. We are seeing a huge shift into urban areas. I have seen those. In the years that I have been a municipal councillor, I have seen lots of the demographics on how people are migrating into urban areas.

Those statistics certainly don't take any of that into consideration. So when the minister says that these are all just harsh realities and that schools need to be

closed because it's not possible to keep them open, I frankly don't accept that as being a logical argument.

I think it's a choice to say that it's not possible to fund them. I think if we determined that in fact inner-city education is important to us and that the realization that more people are migrating into urban centres is important to us, then we would look at how we can make sure that that educational opportunity stay there.

So again I would say that if we are seeing declining enrolment, as the minister says, for the next ten or 15 years, does that mean, then, that we are going to end up with no schools in inner-city settings and that children, in fact, will have to bus or have parents take them out to the suburbs? That's the only way you will get an education. By this logic that is exactly what will happen here — we will continue to erode communities away by not providing schools there.

Lampson School is an asset on a whole variety of levels. It's an historic building. It has been restored. It's been seismically upgraded. It is a hub of the community. In fact, it is one of the reasons that more people are moving into Esquimalt. As we see this migration from rural into urban areas, as we see more need for immigration to fill jobs, those jobs and those individuals, those families coming in will go where the schools go.

If we are going to continue to remove schools out of inner-city areas, then we will fulfil that prophesy so that those children in inner-city communities will have fewer opportunities and more difficulty in getting that education.

It would seem to me, by the minister's own logic around these declining enrolments, that there's a duty for the government to re-examine how education is funded in these areas. I'm actually thinking of rural as well as inner-city, because I think that both are being equally jeopardized at this point in time. Certainly in rural areas, jobs have declined in forest-dependent communities, with fewer and fewer children in those schools. Do you close them down and bus your children two hours to another community?

In fact with declining enrolment and the minister's own logic on what school districts are expected to cope with and how they are to evaluate keeping schools open, we're going to see schools eroded in inner cities and in rural areas, and everybody has got to bus to the suburbs, which to me seems counterintuitive to all the claims around the importance of education.

I would like to explore with the minister that…. If the government is not going to take a different kind of approach into how they are going to address these declining enrolments over the next decade — I hear from the minister that that is not an option here, that it's not possible to think any more creatively or find any other ways to satisfy the changes here and address them —then I would like to ask about ways of bringing alternate uses into these schools. I do know that school districts are constrained by the number of options they can pursue.

Maybe the minister could outline for me what it is that school districts are to do to bring in alternative resources in order to make those choices to keep schools open for the communities that are pressuring them to do so.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all I need to clarify the record for the member opposite, who continues to refer to the minister's logic and the fact that statistics don't consider the factors that the member opposite listed. The projections that I have given to the member opposite are based on B.C. Stats, so that includes births, deaths and international and interprovincial migration.

It's not a few of us in Victoria hoping that we get the numbers right. This is a systematic, scientific process that, as best as we can predict for enrolment numbers across the decade, is actually using a scientific basis. It's not my staff or me coming up with numbers. It's based on B.C. Stats, which, of course, considers migration. It includes in- and out-of-province. It includes international immigration as well.

One of the factors that is influencing this globally is that even when immigrants come to British Columbia today, they come with fewer children. We have a demographic shift. I wish that I could stand here today and tell the member opposite and the parents at Lampson and the parents at…. Let me give the member opposite some other schools that also have assets and are assets. How about Baynes Lake Elementary or Genelle Elementary or Gordon Elementary or Little Fort? Those were closed in 1995 to 2000. Every school has assets that are important to communities. I should point out to the member opposite….

The argument that is trying to be developed here this afternoon is that we need to preserve inner-city schools. I'd be the first person to tell you…. My children actually attended one, because that's the neighbourhood where we lived. There was a school, and if you look at the EDI results from Dr. Hertzman, it would certainly be classified as one of those. So I understand those issues.

This isn't only about rural schools or only about schools with children who have students at risk. This is about schools across this province: 56 school districts are in decline, and the numbers are not small. The Vancouver school district alone, last year, thought they would lose a certain number of students. Somehow, there were 1,000 more than they expected.

We have enormous challenges facing us as a province, and it isn't as simple — I wish it were — as saying that yes, we would love it keep this school open. Every school has assets. Yes, every school is attached to people and values. It makes it sound so definitive when the member opposite speaks about my perception of them. I wish that we had brand-new, creative ways, and that's what we're trying to develop. We're trying to work with communities.

In fact, we gave $10 million to the Union of B.C. Municipalities to partner with school trustees across this province. Maybe the member opposite could check with her school district to see if they considered applying for a school community connections partnership,

which actually provides dollars to communities to partner on innovative programs. We're seeing community centres developing in partnership in schools that have challenges.

We have a partnership with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and school trustees to look for the very innovative suggestions that the member opposite is looking for.

M. Karagianis: I don't know if I got all the answers I wanted there from the minister on that. I know that Lampson School has applied for StrongStart programs several times and been turned down. I think that the minister has acknowledged that 16 of these programs have been put in place, and very successfully. I think that my community will continue to apply for those, should this school remain open and that option be available to us.

Again, my question is on how creative school districts can be at this time. There are constraints on their abilities to think creatively. There are constraints on their ability to bring in revenue and apply it to either capital or operating equally. There are constraints on where they can apply that funding.

Is it a consideration? Would the minister and this government consider rethinking some of the constraints on how school districts can apply innovative funding that they bring in, both to capital and operating equally, without any barriers to that?

Hon. S. Bond: I've said consistently over the last year that we are going to look at how we manage capital in British Columbia, and that's because schools are not technically owned by school boards. They're owned by the public.

Schools are actually paid for by taxpayers in British Columbia. We want to make sure that however those assets are both disposed of or utilized has a major…. There needs to be input about how those projects are actually used. We have billions of dollars of investment in buildings across the province that actually belong to the taxpayers, so we are looking at trying to find ways of being creative.

The member opposite is welcome to give me information about applications for StrongStart, because the latest initiative that we put in place is that every school district in the province will have at least one StrongStart centre. That includes the Victoria school district. We will be having a discussion with them about where that StrongStart centre will be. So the school district is getting one, and the question is where that will be. I'm certain that my staff, before this afternoon is out, will probably be able to tell me where the Victoria board has decided that's going.

We do want school districts to have creative ways, and we want to support that. I think one of the things that we're trying to say as we work with communities is that education is about partnering with community. We want to see new and innovative ways of utilizing space that has been taxpayer-funded.

M. Karagianis: I'll take the encouraging words on asking my community again to make application on that StrongStart centre. I would like to go back to what the minister said — that there was an indication that there are no constraints on school districts applying funding to either operating or capital.

Certainly, in talking to my school district, when we explored the option of them perhaps leasing some extraneous lands for affordable housing, I was told very clearly that they are restricted as to where those dollars can go and, in fact, that should they even find extraneous lands that could be leased out for affordable housing, the investment from that wouldn't help fund some of these schools that are being threatened.

Can the minister explain to me where the disconnect is here between how creative schools can be to apply those funds both to capital and operating equally versus constraints in that way?

Hon. S. Bond: No. I need to clarify the member opposite's comments. I didn't say that you could transfer funds between capital and operating. That's not the case. Capital funds capital.

Taxpayers in this province have invested literally billions of dollars in capital projects, so what we're talking about is how we manage that capital to the best advantage for taxpayers and for students and communities. Certainly I did not indicate that they can transfer from capital to operating. That is not the case.

M. Karagianis: Again that closes down some avenues that school districts can explore to find ways to choose how they invest funding into keeping some of these schools open. I know that the minister goes back to the fact that it's always the school district's decision, ultimately, on how they spend their dollars and the decisions they make around keeping schools open or closing them. I think it's disappointing that a number of avenues get closed down so that even if a school district and a group of parents in a community are looking at creative ways to try and keep their school open and to find dollars to do that, the choices are actually very few.

I'd like to just ask a little bit about seismic upgrades, because it is an issue that my community is greatly concerned with. Lampson School has had the seismic upgrades done to it. Should it be closed down, the schools that the children will be sent to have not been seismically upgraded.

Could the minister please give me an update on what exactly is happening with seismic upgrades in schools? I have heard some things discussed in question period, but I'd like to explore it more specifically for my communities.

Hon. S. Bond: We have a $1.5 billion seismic upgrading program across British Columbia. We have schools that are in probably four phases. They are either complete, they're underway, they have a feasibility study that is finished, or they haven't started their fea-

sibility study yet. We do that in partnership with school boards. We're currently working with school boards to sort out a process that will move the feasibility studies forward more quickly, for sure. We are looking at some innovation in how we manage that on the seismic side.

In terms of the projects in the Victoria school district, which I'm assuming the member opposite is most interested in, we have a funding envelope of $20 million total funding. With Gordon Head Middle, currently construction has been completed at $1.6 million. We have Mount Douglas Secondary, which has a project agreement in place that will allow us to move that one forward because the agreement is in place. We have Central Middle School, which is at stage 2 of their feasibility study. We have Willows Elementary, which is at stage 2 of their feasibility study, and Monterey Elementary, which is currently under construction.

M. Karagianis: Unfortunately, on that list none of the schools affected were in my community of Esquimalt. We're looking at Macaulay School and Vic West as being the two options if Lampson School should close. Can the minister tell me what the future holds for both of those schools in seismic upgrades?

Hon. S. Bond: They were part of the seismic package, completely, but obviously it takes time to get through the projects we have, and we're working toward the 80 we're fast-tracking. As I understand it, those are in the seismic general list for that school district, but these are the ones that are currently in feasibility or construction.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps the minister could clarify for me if those schools — Macaulay or Vic West — are in the 80. Or are they outside of even that package?

Hon. S. Bond: They're outside the 80, and they are in future project consideration.

M. Karagianis: I would guess that is some ways away from happening. Obviously, the projects that are underway, the feasibility studies, the various stages of this…. Can the minister explain to me how much of the $1.5 billion has been spent already on seismic upgrades?

Hon. S. Bond: The envelope for the 80 schools is $254 million, as part of the $1.5 billion envelope. The mitigation program that I just mentioned that is currently underway in the Victoria school district is $20,078,360.

M. Karagianis: Is it the minister's expectation that the $254 million will complete seismic upgrades on those 80 schools?

Hon. S. Bond: That would be the minimum amount we will spend, but we will be moving all 80 projects forward.

M. Karagianis: Are any of those projects currently experiencing cost overruns from expectations?

Hon. S. Bond: We have an incredibly hot economy in this province. We are working with school boards. We are going to move the projects forward. As I mentioned to the member opposite, the minimum we will be spending is $254 million. We remain committed to moving those projects forward.

M. Karagianis: So $254 million is the minimum. We would take from that that the maximum…. Given the hot economy — and I totally understand exactly what the minister is referring to — there are no capital projects anywhere in the province right now that are not experiencing huge cost overruns; 15 percent is common. Even 25 percent is not an unexpected cost overrun in many of these projects, maybe even higher.

Certainly we see that from major projects like the convention centre. The cost overruns there alone could pay for seismic upgrades for all of the schools in the province. However, what I'm trying to establish here, Minister, is the likelihood that any of the surrounding schools in the area of Lampson school are likely to have seismic upgrades in the foreseeable future.

How many years out would you expect before you might actually get underway in a seismic project on Macaulay or Vic West?

Hon. S. Bond: We're going to move the seismic projects ahead as fast as we can. I cannot give the member opposite a specific date related to schools that are still in the project consideration phase. There are significant phases for those projects. They must go through feasibility studies, then project agreements, and then they go into construction.

We're moving forward. We're going to continue to do that as aggressively as we can, working with school districts and with our $1.5 billion envelope.

M. Karagianis: With the kind of cost overruns everyone's experiencing in capital projects, you'll burn through $1.5 billion in no time, I'm sure.

I'm glad to hear that the ministry is going to pursue the seismic upgrade at any cost. I think that's an interesting, open-ended purse here. The $254 million will be the minimum spent, and we're going to do the projects. There we have it, that $1.5 billion. Now, we're not sure, at the end of the day when the $1.5 billion is used up, if that will stop all seismic upgrade projects from there on in. When we run out, we run out.

Would the minister anticipate that they might upgrade Macaulay school within, say, the next ten years?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not going to speculate with the member opposite about when the deadlines are going to be. We're going to instigate a significant management process that will actually help expedite some of

these projects. We have school boards that have yet to start their feasibility studies.

There is some joint responsibility here. We're working together to find new ways to expedite this process, because it is important.

I should make it very clear to the member opposite. I did not say there was an open-ended purse. I can assure you of that. What I said is that this government actually committed $1.5 billion to seismic upgrading. That is a pretty significant commitment, and for the first time in British Columbia.

We are going to move projects forward. We're going to do that as quickly as possible. We're going to work with school districts to make sure we're delivering them as rapidly and cost-efficiently as we can.

M. Karagianis: Really, the point of my exercise, Minister, is to establish for my school district a very strong rationale for keeping Lampson school open as being a seismically upgraded school, a safe school for the children in my community, versus schools that are unlikely to have seismic upgrades for a long, long time.

I appreciate that the minister won't make a commitment, but certainly…. Reasonably, if you start to do the math, you can assume that the schools that are not currently in the package of 80 schools are a long, long way away.

This for me gives some compelling information that I can take forward to the school district, that my community can use in order to encourage the school district to keep open the one safe school in Esquimalt centre. They're unlikely to see a seismically upgraded school in at least the next number of years. By then, who knows? The demographic shift could have occurred, and we could have a huge influx of residents.

I think the minister has clearly outlined some of the challenges here. I will then cede the floor to someone else. Thank you very much for the information you have given me.

D. Chudnovsky: Good afternoon to the minister and to the staff. It's good to be here again, and I look forward to the opportunity to ask a few questions about education in the province.

I wanted to comment first about some of the discussion that I've heard since I've come into the committee. I note that the minister has talked, as she often does, about the flexibility and choice available to school districts as they face the very, very difficult decisions they have.

Of course, there's a sense in which the minister's description is appropriate and correct. It is the case that over the last five or six years school districts have been in a position where they had to choose between closing schools or reducing services to students with special needs, increasing class sizes, reducing the number of school librarians and school counsellors, or cutting maintenance and cleaning services in the schools.

All of those are choices that school districts had to make, were compelled to make and have made as a result of policies that have been followed by this government and this minister. The minister will be aware among all of us in British Columbia, parents and communities, that there have been significant and important reductions in programs available to students in the province as a result of those policies.

The minister has a pattern — a mantra, if you will — of responding to that charge, which she knows as well as anyone else in the province is true — that significant educational programs and services to students have been cut over the last number of years. Her response to that inevitably is: "But there have been no cuts. How dare those who accuse the government of cutting, accuse the government of cutting, because budgets forwarded to school districts from the provincial government have increased?"

One of my colleagues earlier on said, and it bears repeating, that virtually all of that increase and perhaps more than all of it…. We need to unpack that a little bit. Certainly, virtually all of that increase to which the minister refers and has referred to on many occasions has been allocated by school boards to costs that have been downloaded by this government, some of which have been taken into account in moneys that have been provided to the school district by the government, and some not. Nonetheless, the increase in funding to which the minister refers over and over again is an increase which has been taken up almost exclusively by the downloading of costs to the school districts.

Surely, hon. Chair, you would agree with me, and certainly the people of the province would agree with me that the measure of the health of the system is not a measurement of dollars. It's a measurement of programs and services available to students. It is certainly the case, and it is well known by the people of the province that, when measured in that way, there have been significant problems, reductions and cuts in programs and services to students over the last five or six years.

It seems to me that a comment about the context and the way and the structure in which we discuss the Education budget and the Education estimates is fitting for the beginning of my little contribution to this process.

When I got to the committee a couple of hours ago, I was struck by a short discussion that took place between my friend the critic for Education and the minister with respect to the foundation skills assessment tests. I'm wondering whether the minister is aware of the debate just in the last week in Britain over the standardized national tests for students.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, you would know that this minister, having had the member opposite refer to her mantra, will just feed back to the member opposite a few of the things that are typically his mantra.

I'm really hopeful that the member opposite didn't mean in his comments that the most important bottom line — I'm not sure of the phrase he used — is that it's all about programs and services. It's actually all about outcomes for students.

If the member opposite would take the opportunity to give this discussion another context, it would be that on the most recent international tests of 15-year-olds, 41 countries in all, not one outperformed British Columbia's students. I would have hoped that the member opposite in part of his mantra would have pointed out regularly the benefits and the amazing job that's done every day in this province.

Similarly on the student achievement indicators program, which are science tests for 13- and 16-year-old Canadian students, only Alberta scored higher than British Columbia. While we may want to have a discussion about programs and services — and I am certain I will hear about that — I would also like to read into the record for the member opposite, who made significant comments about reductions and about the fact that I regularly comment on funding…. I do that because, in fact, it's the truth.

This is the largest budget for public education that has ever been had in British Columbia, and the member opposite voted against it. Let me read what's happened between 2005 and 2006. In 2005 we had 67,499 classes. In 2006 we have 68,665 classes. So despite declining enrolment, we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of classes.

In 2005-2006 we had 599,505 students. In 2006 we had 587,000 students. So we had fewer students and more classes. In fact we also need to look at the other issues in terms of staffing. We've seen an increase in the number of staff, both in teachers and teacher assistants. If you look at the numbers over the last number of years…. If you look at the total number, for example, of non-enrolling teachers, in 2003-2004 there were 5,893, and today there are 5,927.

There are certainly challenges facing us in public education. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but this government is going to stand up and talk about outcomes for students every day.

D. Chudnovsky: You bet I voted against the budget, and you bet it was significantly because of the policies of this government on education. You won't have to wait for even a millisecond for me to say that.

In addition, with respect to the amazing job that children, teachers, principals and other education workers do in schools across this province, I don't have to take any lessons from anybody, including this minister. I know about that, and I know it first hand, and much, much better than some others.

With respect to the FSA test and the question that I asked, which was about the debate that is taking place in Great Britain over these kinds of tests…. I wonder if I might read to the committee an article from the Guardian newspaper from last week, which is entitled "Watchdog Proposes End to National Primary School Tests." It goes on to say:

These comments were made by the QCA — that's the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's chief executive, Ken Boston — who went on to say:

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we'd want to be sure that we are comparing apples and apples, and I'm not certain that we are in terms of how frequent the tests are or what the tool actually looks like. In British Columbia students are tested twice — once in grade 4 and once in grade 7.

There have been ongoing and passionate requests by parents across this province to make sure that we have some measure in addition to a vast variety of tools that teachers use in this province. Parents have suggested that this is an important tool, and in fact this week I have met with significant numbers of award-winners in varieties of categories — principals, teachers, parents and students — all of whom believe that one of the effective measures in building a strategy for success for both students and schools is assessment.

We certainly believe that the foundation skills assessment is a tool that teachers can use, that schools can use. We certainly believe that it is not unreasonable to test children twice — once in grade 4 and once in grade 7.

D. Chudnovsky: Of course, there is unanimity on the question. It's not surprising that there is unanimity among students and educators and parents and the community about the need for assessment. The minister's absolutely right about that, and there could be no debate about that. Clearly the debate is about what is an appropriate and authentic assessment, not whether assessment is necessary.

I wonder if the minister might tell us what particular purpose the particular tool of the FSA tests is directed to in the continuum of goals of assessment. What particular elements of assessment is the FSA test directed towards?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite would well know that foundation skills assessments are curriculum-based. If a teacher is actually teaching the curriculum, which they do — and they do it fabulously well in the vast majority of cases across the province…. It is a snapshot of that student's ability and skill set measured against benchmarks, but it is curriculum-based.

D. Chudnovsky: We certainly understand that the ministry argues that it's curriculum-based. That wasn't my question. My question was: what element of assessment is that test directed to? What's the purpose of the test?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the key elements of an FSA test is to determine whether or not a student is meeting expectations. We have developed a curriculum in this province that we believe measures a certain set of competencies that students should meet at particular points in their academic career.

What's really interesting is…. The member opposite may want to have a conversation with the Education critic, because he kept referring to pass-along students. This would imply that students are getting through the public education system and getting to the end of it, and somehow there may be some sense that it may not have been as successful as possible. We had a very thoughtful discussion about that.

FSA is one of the tools that would actually look to see if children are meeting a set of expectations that has been commonly created through a curriculum. As a parent, I think it's a pretty important thing. I feel this way, and I know other parents do. They have an opportunity, at grade 4 and at grade 7, to get a sense of whether or not their son or daughter is actually meeting expectations. If they're not, FSA provides teachers, schools and districts with an additional piece of information in creating strategies for success.

D. Chudnovsky: What piece of information does it provide teachers, school districts and schools in creating strategies for success? What is it that the FSA test does to provide teachers, educators and others with strategies for success?

Hon. S. Bond: It gives the teacher a sense of whether or not that child is meeting expectations, based on the curriculum.

D. Chudnovsky: Assuming for the moment that the minister's proposition is correct, I still don't see and I haven't heard yet — perhaps I haven't listened well enough; I'm certainly willing to listen again — what strategies the test provides for the teachers and educators in terms of moving forward with the students.

Hon. S. Bond: It provides an additional piece of data which helps provide a strategy that would help students either to improve or to be successful. It's part of a data-collection process that looks at individual results, shared with parents, to create strategies for student improvement.

D. Chudnovsky: Hon. Chair, there is a difference between what she's saying and what I'm saying, I would suggest. I would agree with the minister, certainly, if she had said — I think, to some extent, she has said it — that what the tests do is provide some data and information for us. That's true. There is some substantial debate about the utility of that data and information, but there's no doubt that it does provide data and information.

My point holds, I think — the minister hasn't convinced me yet; I'm open to it, certainly — in that it doesn't provide any strategy at all for what to do about the information and data that are provided, assuming that the information and data are useful.

Perhaps I could ask another question about the test. Is there a sense in which the test is diagnostic in any way?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, it provides data, but in terms of creating the strategy, that's what educational professionals do. They take a collection of data that includes the foundation skills assessment. I can assure you that I may not have the personal expertise that the member opposite has had, but I've visited enough classrooms to know that there are information-gathering things happening in classrooms every day. FSA is one more piece of information.

The job of educational professionals is to take all of that data collectively and create a program of success for students. I would highly doubt that I will ever convince the member opposite about the utility of the foundation skills assessment, hon. Chair. That is absolutely the perspective that the member opposite brought to the table the last time we met, and will continue to bring. It certainly is reflective of the position of the B.C. Teachers Federation in this province.

It does not reflect the views of every teacher, every parent or every person involved in education. Simply put, FSA is one tool, one piece of information. The job of educational professionals is to take the data and create a strategy for success.

D. Chudnovsky: There is a great deal of what the minister just said with which I agree 150 percent. She's absolutely right that in assessing and evaluating students, a range of tools and therefore a range of data is necessary.

She's absolutely correct that that is simply data and information, and she's absolutely correct that it is the educational professionals who then use that information to develop strategies for helping each individual student to reach their best potential. All of that is true, but none of it answers the question that I asked, which was: in what sense is the FSA test diagnostic?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I didn't suggest it was diagnostic. It's interesting. Even after the member opposite's comments about being 150 percent true, I guess, I just take that one step further. Then what is bad about that? FSA is part of a continuum of assessment tools that provides information and data to educational professionals to make decisions.

First of all, I didn't suggest it was diagnostic. It's evidence-based, and we recognize that. For example, if we were to have a teacher analyze one of the questions and if he or she were able to look at that and recognize that in numeracy a particular child or five or six children had trouble with estimation, one would suggest

that this piece of data might actually shape how the teacher created a strategy for success for the particular child.

D. Chudnovsky: My thanks to the minister for her confirmation of something which is true. One who supports the tests needn't be defensive about that.

It is the case that the tests are not diagnostic. They are not designed to determine how to help individual students to improve their individual achievement — to use the word that the minister likes to use all the time — in any given area of the curriculum. That was my point. The minister has confirmed it, and I thank her for that.

I wonder if we could move to the question of non-enrolling teachers. The minister provided my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin a few minutes ago with some figures with respect to the numbers of non-enrolling teachers in the system. It was very interesting. It went a little too fast for me to write it down.

What I did notice was that the comparison was between, I think, early-2000 figures and more contemporary figures. I wonder if the minister has available to her the numbers over a slightly longer period of time — the numbers of non-enrolling teachers who operated in the system. Let's take 1999 and build it up from there year by year until now.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister could tell us the year that she does have it back to — here with her.

D. Chudnovsky: To the minister: thanks to her for her answer. She would agree with me, certainly, that if the numbers were projected backwards to 1999, for instance, they'd show a very, very different picture — a picture of a significant number of more non-enrolling teachers in the system in 1999 than there were in 2003-2004 and than there are today. Wouldn't that be the case?

Hon. S. Bond: Of course the numbers would show some variation, first of all, because we have a demographic drop that's absolutely incremental. We just went through that with the member previously. It started, I believe, in 1998. It was the first time we started to see significant drops across the province. Given any other circumstance and any other addition, the bottom line is that declining enrolment started. Of course we're going to start to see an adjustment in staffing, even if you don't take into consideration anything else.

D. Chudnovsky: Is the minister asserting to us that the drop from 1999 to 2003-2004 in non-enrolling teachers in the province is proportional to the number of fewer students in the province?

D. Chudnovsky: To the minister: my thanks to her for that, because of course it is the case that there was a significant and dramatic drop in the numbers of non-enrolling teachers in the system between 1999 and 2003 and in fact till today, as a result of government policy. That drop was far in excess of what would be expected simply from reduction in the number of students in the system. So we thank her for that answer.

I wonder whether the minister has figures, for instance, on the numbers of school librarians who are working in the system today as compared to the numbers who were working last year, the year before or the year before that.

Hon. S. Bond: I do. Let's put this in context. This doesn't include the enrolment decline. But let me give you the numbers, and then we can talk about what enrolment decline has done.

In 2003-2004 we had 704.6. In 2004-2005 we had 692.6. In 2005-2006 we had 741 — so higher than '03 and certainly higher than '04. In '06-07 we have 746.6. Between '03 and '06 there was certainly a drop — in '04-05. But we have a net gain of approximately 42 librarians.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister would agree with me, as she did a few minutes ago, that if we were to look at the 1999 figures, for instance, there are significantly fewer teacher-librarians in the system today than there were then.

Hon. S. Bond: No. I'm going to clarify. I am looking at numbers from '03 to '06, which I have just read into the record. I have no idea, off the top my head, what the numbers were in 1999. I am simply reading into the record the fact that between '03 and '06 we've seen a net increase of 42 or so librarians.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister asserted a few minutes ago that there were significantly fewer non-enrolling teachers in 2003-2004, or even today, than there were in 1999. She has also asserted that that reduction was more than could be accounted for by the reduction in the number of students in the system.

I'm wondering whether she thinks that the numbers of teacher-librarians are a kind of anomaly in terms of what happened between 1999 and 2006-2007. Or how does she explain the fact that she doesn't know about that particular category, as opposed to the general proposition?

Hon. S. Bond: Okay. Let me clarify once again. My point was simply this. I made no comment about the number of teacher-librarians — or librarians, for that matter — in the 1990s. I made it clear to the member opposite that I do not have that data in front of me.

What I suggested was — which is accurate — that enrolment decline actually began in 1998. We'll confirm that that's the year. I'm just trying to remember.

So we have declining enrolment. I made no comment about whether it matched enrolment decline or not. In fact, I clarified that, no, it isn't simply based on enrolment decline. Hopefully, that is clear.

I said enrolment decline began. I do not know the number of teacher-librarians, because I do not have that number in front me. I merely pointed out that, in terms of what I definitively said, it was: '03-04 — 704.6; '06-07 — 746.6.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, that's clear. I wonder if we could talk for a minute about students with special needs enrolled in classrooms. I wonder if the minister has data available to her that indicates the number of classrooms in the province with more than three identified students with special needs enrolled in those classes.

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, we are having trouble locating that chart. I don't want to be on record with the incorrect numbers. We do have it, and we'd be happy to provide it to the member opposite. I will go through it once our staff can locate it. I'm sorry. We have piles of paper here in front of us.

D. Chudnovsky: I will, hon. Chair. My point was not to discombobulate the staff people, who I know are working very hard and who are asked a range of questions which is virtually unimaginable.

Perhaps we could do it this way. My recollection is that it's about 9,500 classrooms. I'm wondering whether we could agree that it's somewhere in that range of classrooms that we're talking about.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the minister for that. Nothing turns on the particular number. What we're really talking about is the policy issue. That figure — for the sake of the discussion, let's use 9,500 — is the number of classes not in compliance with the Bill 33 numbers when it comes to identified students with special needs in classrooms. I take it the minister would agree with that.

D. Chudnovsky: Let us then pursue this for a minute. I wonder if the minister could explain why that number is not the number of classrooms that are not in compliance with the Bill 33 figures?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite would know quite well that there is no cap in terms of the number of students with special needs who can be in classrooms. In fact, we believe that the best decision-making is done involving parents, administrators and teachers in a process that decides how best to serve those children. The member opposite would know very well that there are no caps and that of course schools are in compliance across the province.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if I could pursue this just for a bit and ask whether it's the belief, the position of the Minister of Education — who, after all, is the senior policy-making person in the province when it comes to these issues — that it doesn't matter how many identified or unidentified students with special needs are placed in classrooms when it comes to providing an educational program for them and for their classmates.

Hon. S. Bond: What the Minister of Education actually believes is that rigid formulas don't serve students well and that in fact what we have to do is find the best combination of students.

But even as critical — and the member opposite would recognize this — is the teacher who stands in front of that classroom and with those children. That can't be determined by a formula. We actually believe, as a government and as the lead policy-maker for education — and we agree with the majority of partners who are represented at the Learning Roundtable — that placing caps and rigid formulas is not in the best interests of the best decision-making to serve students in the province. That's what the minister believes.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks for that answer, but it wasn't an answer to the question that I asked. The question I asked was: does the minister believe that it doesn't matter how many students with special needs are in a class when it comes to the provision of an educational program to them and to their classmates?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I did answer that question. I don't think there is a magic number, whether it comes to students with special needs or typical students. What we believe is that those people who are closest to the classroom who know children best, including their parents, should have a thoughtful discussion about where children should be placed.

There are many decisions made in this province, across the province, and in classrooms where schools and professionals choose to put more than three children in classrooms who are children with special needs because they can provide additional resources. There are children who have like skills sets. Those decisions are best made by educators with parents considering all of the options.

D. Chudnovsky: I would put it to the minister that whatever number of situations there are where students, parents, teachers and educators together choose to put more than three students with special needs in a class, there are many, many more where those people

have no choice but to put more than three students with special needs in a classroom. Isn't that the case?

Hon. S. Bond: I will reiterate for the third time the fact that that decision-making is best made at the school level, involving the people who best know those children. This is not an uncommon or unfamiliar argument. It is precisely the argument that the B.C. Teachers Federation brought to the Learning Roundtable. We brought together leaders and participants from all of our partner groups. In fact, that actually is not accurate — from a significant number of the partner groups involved in education. I recognize that there would be groups that would love to be there.

In the wisdom of that group, which represented parents, trustees, administrators…. It involved the Teachers Federation. Bill 33 responded by saying we want to leave some flexibility for the decisions around classes with professionals involving parents. That was the decision. That was particularly clear in terms of students with special needs.

D. Chudnovsky: As an old-time English teacher, I'm very concerned — maybe, some say, too concerned, but I don't think so — about the precise meaning of words. There is a difference between the meaning of the word "decision" and the meaning of the word "choice." The meaning of the word "choice" implies at least the ability to opt for one or another. The meaning of the word "decision" has to do with the fact that decisions sometimes have to be made.

I would challenge the minister, and I think she knows this…. It would probably do her well — if I can be allowed to give some advice — to just admit what everybody knows, which is that in the vast majority of those cases it's not a choice at all. It's a decision which those folks are forced to make.

I wonder if I could ask the minister whether in her mind one of the purposes of Bill 33 was not to help reduce the numbers of students with special needs in classrooms.

Hon. S. Bond: The purpose of Bill 33 was to find, first of all, a reasonable approach to how we create classrooms that serve student needs in this province.

It was absolutely clear at the Learning Roundtable that there was not an interest, other than by the B.C. Teachers Federation, in considering capping the number of children with special needs in a classroom.

The vast majority of partners that are represented there actually believe passionately that the best place for making those decisions is through a consultation involving the students' parents, the administrator in that building and the teacher in that classroom. Bill 33 represented our best expression of how to serve students well in this province.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you for an interesting answer, but once again it wasn't an answer to the question that was asked. The question was not: are caps of the numbers of students in classrooms a good idea or a bad idea? The question was whether in the minister's mind one of the purposes of Bill 33 was to reduce the numbers of students with special needs in any one class.

The Chair: Member, I'd like to you move on with your questioning. We're here to talk about the budget estimates and not about the legislation. If you'd like to reframe your question…. We're here to talk about the upcoming estimates.

The minister has on numerous occasions reminded us of the increases that she says have gone into the budget for the purposes of providing services to children. Is the purpose of the budget allocations that have been provided by the ministry to the school districts, together with Bill 33…? Is the purpose of those allocations, among other things, to reduce the numbers of students with special needs in any one classroom?

Hon. S. Bond: The purpose of Bill 33 and the purpose of the budget in British Columbia is to find the best way possible to provide the best possible learning outcomes for students in this province. That is whether it is a student with special needs or whether it's a typical student.

I will continue to use — to quote the member opposite — my mantra. We believe that in order to better serve students, rigid formulas, caps and ratios do not lead necessarily to better learning conditions for students.

D. Chudnovsky: I guess that would be a no. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether there are provisions in the budget that has been submitted for funding for achievement superintendents.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, dollars for those superintendents…. By the way, hon. Chair, that is actually legislation. Chairperson, that's future legislation.

D. Chudnovsky: Of course I know and understand that, and it may be that that's an inappropriate question, but the question was put. We'll have lots of time, I'm sure, to debate that provision in the legislation which is coming forward.

I look to you for your advice, hon. Chair, on whether it's appropriate. If there is provision in the budget for those positions, should they be approved, am I allowed to ask about it? If I'm not, I won't, but if I am, I will.

The Chair: The debate is broad here on the budget. But on future legislation, you'll have an opportunity to debate that in the House.

D. Chudnovsky: I think I understand, hon. Chair, what you're saying to me. But I'm not sure that I understand how it applies to the question that I asked. I'm not trying at all to be a problem here.

If, in fact, there is provision in the budget which we are debating here for these positions, should they be approved, my question is: am I permitted to ask about that?

If either there isn't or I'm not allowed to talk about it, I'm easy with that. But I'm asking the question.

The Chair: The minister has pointed out that it is future legislation. You have to frame the question to tie it into the budget.

D. Chudnovsky: Is there provision in the budget which we are debating, which is before us, for funding for achievement superintendents?

Hon. S. Bond: There will be no additional costs associated with those. It will involve a reorganization of our ministry.

D. Chudnovsky: Just a few more specific questions for now. I certainly hope that after we have a couple of weeks at home, I'll have an opportunity to talk once again to the minister and her staff. But just for my purposes for today…. Last time we talked in estimates, I brought to the attention of the minister a particular situation in my constituency with the renovation of John Oliver Secondary School. The particular question that I asked…. I certainly don't blame the minister or her staff for this, but I don't think we were able to pursue the discussion as we had committed to each other that we would.

The question that I have is about the possibility of losing a wonderful community amenity in my constituency, which is the auditorium theatre at John Oliver Secondary School, which is the largest of the auditorium theatres of the secondary schools in Vancouver. There isn't provision, as I understand it, in the planning of the ministry and the board, for provincial funding for replacement or renovation or keeping the auditorium theatre.

That would be a very unfortunate thing for our community and, I think, for the city as a whole. I'm wondering whether the minister has updated information for us — where we're at with respect to that particular piece of the proposed renovation of John Oliver Secondary School.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I regret that we did not pursue that. Our staff is normally…. We are impeccable about following up on those things. John Oliver continues to be an item of discussion. It is in the feasibility stage, so those discussions are ongoing. There has been no decision made one way or another about that, but certainly as we work through the feasibility stage on that process, we can take the member opposite's comments as a matter of note.

The Chair: I want to remind members that under a previous agreement the committee will adjourn at 6 p.m. this evening.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, I just want to endorse the agreement, hon. Chair. It was a wonderful agreement, whoever made it.

I'm wondering if I could enlist the minister as an advocate, together with me, for this important amenity in our community. I want to invite her to visit with us if she has the time, to have a look at the fabulous John Oliver Secondary School. Despite its age and infirmity, it's a wonderful place for kids to learn.

I'd love to show her the theatre auditorium and talk with her at some leisure about the importance of that facility for our community and enlist her as a passionate advocate for the theatre auditorium at John Oliver Secondary School in East Vancouver. I'm ready at a moment's notice to check my schedule to find a time to work with her on that.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, thank you to the member opposite. I must admit that I have to be in the position of passionate advocacy for every project in every school, and every student. We have made a note. Our staff and I have made a note about that project, understanding the importance of that not only to the member opposite but to the community. We'll pursue the status of that project, and thank you for the invitation.

C. Wyse: I have some questions, Minister, around the funding allocation system and what I understand to be identified inequities that exist within the funding formula. I will make reference to the Searle report. I will also point out that the inequities that have been discovered in this report go back over a period of time.

However, it is also important for this discussion to note the reference to the numbers that fall much more recently — in the 2000 years. What the report points out is that with the basic allocation per student averaging 80 percent of the funding that is given to districts, the other 20 percent, the supplementary funding…. Of the 12 allocation rules that are used within it, six of those rules are based upon the basic allocation.

When you work through the fact that in the supplementary funding portion, half of those particular criteria are based upon population, there becomes an overall effect upon the funding given to the smaller districts. The report points out that the smaller districts have had an average annual decrease of 1.6 percent in their funding as a result of this funding allocation system.

My question, through to the minister, is whether she is aware of the information contained within this report.

Hon. S. Bond: For the member's benefit, we canvassed this earlier with the Education critic, but I will repeat the information that I provided to him. Not only am I aware of the Searle report, but I have actually met Mr. Searle on one of my recent school district visits.

As I pointed out to the Education critic this morning, we have a technical review committee, which is made up of three superintendents and three secretary-treasurers from across British Columbia. They represent

small districts. In fact, we have a representative from the Revelstoke school district on the committee.

Every year they take a look at the funding formula, to look at it in terms of equitability. Once again this year they had a look at the Searle report. They disagree with the assumptions that Mr. Searle makes. There is significant expertise on that review panel. They bring forward recommendations to the minister in terms of their review.

In fact, this year they brought forward recommendations to increase funding for aboriginal students, the per-pupil funding, which we did. We also are increasing funding for English-as-a-second-language students.

The technical review committee reviews the funding formula annually. It makes recommendations to the minister. This year alone we have accounted for unique geographic factors such as low enrolment, rural and remote factors, small communities, climate and sparseness. That added up, in 2006-2007, to 144 million additional dollars.

C. Wyse: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask 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.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Item	Column 1 Provisions of Act	Column 2 Commencement
1	Anything not elsewhere covered by this table, and section 3 (2.2), section 3 (2.3)	The date of Royal Assent
2	Sections 1 ~~to 7~~, Section 3 (2.1), Section 3 (2.4) and Section 4 to 7	By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
3	Sections 9 to 11	By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council]