Hansard — Monday, April 16, 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


Statements		6695
	Shooting at Virginia Tech
	Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members		6695

Tributes		6696
	CanSpell National Spelling Bee finalists
	Hon. S. Bond

Introductions by Members		6696

Tributes		6696
	Winners of Canadian Open snowboard cross
	J. McIntyre

Introductions by Members		6696

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6697
	Knowledge Network Corporation Act (Bill 23)
	Hon. M. Coell

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		6697
	Holocaust remembrance
	D. Chudnovsky
	Vaisakhi
	D. Hayer
	Greater Victoria Business Awards
	R. Fleming
	Battle of Vimy Ridge
	J. McIntyre
	Chinese Canadians
	J. Kwan
	Jay Drew
	V. Roddick

Oral Questions		6699
	Vancouver Convention Centre expansion costs
	C. James
	Hon. S. Hagen
	N. Macdonald
	R. Fleming
	H. Bains
	S. Simpson
	Order-in-council on log export approval
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Impact of raw log exports on Hammond Cedar mill
	M. Sather
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Appeal of sentence in De Patie case
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Safety violations at Weyerhaeuser mill in New Westminster
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. W. Oppal

Petitions		6704
	D. Chudnovsky
	S. Fraser
	C. Trevena

Committee of the Whole House		6704
	Security Services Act (Bill 15) (continued)
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6716
	Security Services Act (Bill 15)

Second Reading of Bills		6716
	Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of the Whole House		6718
	Coroners Act (Bill 8)
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. J. Les
	D. MacKay
	M. Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6724
	Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	N. Macdonald
	R. Chouhan
	D. Chudnovsky
	J. Kwan
	C. Evans

Hon. G. Campbell: Today we all heard of the tragic news that came from Virginia, where again violence stalked a campus at Virginia Tech in the community of Blacksburg, Virginia. I know that all of us here today would want to reach out to the families and to the university community there to give them our support.

This is unthinkable in many of our lives. We live here in British Columbia, in Victoria, with the great University of Victoria. I can't imagine how we would feel if this kind of event took place here. The families that are going to be touched, the university that's going to be touched…. A place that should be there for learning and openness has become today a place of violence and fear.

I think we in this House should send our support and our prayers to all the people of Virginia and all the families and faculty of Virginia Tech.

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to thank all the Members of the Legislative Assembly who came from both sides of the House earlier today to join with the Holocaust survivors in observing Yom ha-Shoah, or Holocaust Memorial Day. On this day we remember more than six million victims lost between 1933 and 1945. We pay tribute to the memories of men, women and children whose lives were extinguished by the cruel hand of fate, racism and intolerance. We also honour those who have survived.

It is our honour in this House today to be joined by 66 of these survivors: Rita Akselrod, Holocaust survivor; Ben Akselrod, Holocaust survivor; Nikki Basuk, Holocaust survivor; Roslyn Bellin, Holocaust survivor; Janos Benisz, Holocaust survivor; Bob Boekbinder, Holocaust survivor; Esther Caldes, Holocaust survivor; Rita Chapiro, Holocaust survivor; Carl Charles, Holocaust survivor; Katherina Chernyavska, Holocaust survivor; Karl Choit, Holocaust survivor; Saul Cohn, Holocaust survivor; Eva Derton, Holocaust survivor; Abraham Deston, Holocaust survivor; Susi Deston, Holocaust survivor; Mariette Doduck, Holocaust survivor; Mark Elster, Holocaust survivor; Henry Erlichman, Holocaust survivor; Miriam Erlichman, Holocaust survivor; Esfira Esther Golger, Holocaust survivor; Jack Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Margaret Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Izzy Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Peter Gary, Holocaust survivor; Matilda Gertner, Holocaust survivor; Benji Gorodnitsky, Holocaust survivor; Katerina Gorodnitsky, Holocaust survivor; Myer Grinshpan, Holocaust survivor; Vladimir Hopner, Holocaust survivor; Anita Hopner, Holocaust survivor; Margot Howell, Holocaust survivor; Sarah Ingelberg, Holocaust survivor; Arieh Ingelberg, Holocaust survivor; Serina Jordan, Holocaust survivor; Rachel Katz, Holocaust survivor; Mary Knopp, Holocaust survivor; Robert Krell, Holocaust survivor; Susan Krug, Holocaust survivor; Alan Le Fevre, Holocaust survivor; Shalom Lichtmann, Holocaust survivor; Sarah Mandelbaum, Holocaust survivor; Judith Nagy, Holocaust survivor; Haya Newman, Holocaust survivor; Malka Pishanitskaya, Holocaust survivor; Joseph Polinsky, Holocaust survivor; Alla Polinsky, Holocaust survivor; Deborah Ramm; Holocaust survivor; Agi Rejto, Holocaust survivor; Edith Rothfels, Holocaust survivor; Horst Rothfels, Holocaust survivor; David Shaffer, Holocaust survivor; Sidi Shaffer, Holocaust survivor; Rachel Sheryaev, Holocaust survivor; Louise Sorensen, Holocaust survivor; Gerald Stanford, Holocaust survivor; Elizabeth Stern, Holocaust survivor; Evelyn Teichmann, Holocaust survivor; Henry Theilheimer, Holocaust survivor; Bente Thomsen, Holocaust survivor; Paula Verhoeven, the mother of the member for Richmond Centre, Holocaust survivor; Leo Vogel, Holocaust survivor; Robbie Waisman, Holocaust survivor; Jacob Wardy, Holocaust survivor; George Wertman, Holocaust survivor; Frieda Wertman, Holocaust survivor; Veronica Winkler, Holocaust survivor.

Together we honour your experiences, your memories and your commitment to never forget. We thank each of you for joining us today. We hope that the work done in this House in the name of democracy and freedom remains a tribute to all that your families and you have sacrificed.

As we learn the lessons of history, we remember that in the world today — while it is stalked by violence and hate and terror — it is people like yourselves who hold up the picture of faith, of love and of our common humanity that gives us all hope. It is our hope that we will rid the world of racism, we will rid the world of that violence and we will rid the world of that terror. We will do so by always remembering. We will never forget. [Applause].

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my privilege today to introduce a large delegation visiting us from the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, starting with three visiting legislators that are on the floor of the House with us. Hon. Jim Kenyon is the Minister of Economic Development for the territory of the Yukon. He's the president of PNWER. The vice-president of PNWER, Idaho State Representative George Eskridge is with us, and also Dave Coutts, a past president of PNWER, who is an MLA in Alberta. I ask the House to make these visiting legislators welcome.

Also, we're very privileged to have with us today Liz Luce, the director of licensing for the state of Washington, who is working with us on our B.C.-Washington driver's licence pilot project, and her staff Sharon Whitehead, the deputy director of licensing, and Becky Loomis, the project manager of border crossings.

We're also pleased to welcome Lewis Lukens, the U.S. consul general in Vancouver; Peter Lloyd, the Canadian consul general in Seattle; Prof. Don Alper of Western Washington University in Bellingham; Darrell Bryan, the CEO of the Victoria Clipper; Valerie Boxall with the Yukon government; Matt Morrison, the executive director of PNWER; and Brandon Hardenbrook, the deputy director of PNWER.

I want to mention to members of the House the reception this evening. They're all welcome, and I ask the House to please give the PNWER delegation a warm British Columbia welcome.

A. Dix: I want to welcome to Victoria and to the legislative precincts students from Windermere School in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. They're here today to learn about this place and what we do here. It's a remarkable school, Windermere School — an incredible community spirit and a great place to learn. I ask all members of the House to please wish them welcome today.

Hon. P. Bell: From the Pacific Northwest to the Pacific southeast, we are also joined today by two individuals from New Zealand: Her Excellency Kate Lackey, who is the high commissioner of New Zealand to Canada, and the New Zealand Minister of Maori Affairs, Parekura Horomia. Would the House please make them very welcome.

N. Simons: On behalf of someone we all know and count as our friend, Luana Daoust — the cashier hostess in the legislative dining room — has friends visiting from Calgary. I have the pleasure of introducing them to the House, and I hope the House will make Floyd and Helen Wheeler and Dan and Wilma Daw from Calgary feel welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Ten British Columbians were on the national stage this past weekend, and the question is: how do you spell success?

Today I would ask the members of the Legislature to celebrate with us the ten amazing British Columbians who were part of the CanWest CanSpell National Spelling Bee. Ten of our students made it to the finals: Leila Clark, Brennan Phillips, Curtis Bogetti, Daniel Leonhardt, Matthew Anderson and Haley Unger. Four of our competitors actually made the final round of 15 competitors: Theo Terry of Denman Island, Rachael McDaniel of West Vancouver, Athena Nghi Huynh of Prince George and Sonja Olsson of Prince George.

Rumour has it that one of the spelling words was oligopoly, but I can't actually….

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Nelson-Creston was a little younger, he might have participated.

J. Brar: I'm pleased to introduce a very special guest in the gallery today visiting from the great city of Surrey, representing a very popular local newspaper, Surrey Now. We have with us today Brian Howell, who is a very well-known photojournalist. He is here today to shoot a photographic account of a day in the life of an MLA. I will ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

J. McIntyre: I'd also like to honour the achievements of two residents of my riding, West Vancouver–Garibaldi. Two Squamish residents, Maëlle Ricker and Tom Velisek, just won the women's and men's events, respectively, in the Canadian open snowboard cross finals, which is a NorAm event.

The other very exciting news is that this was the first event held at the brand-new venue at Cypress Mountain. It's three years ahead of schedule, and we had two winners from Squamish. I'm so delighted. I ask the House to join me in congratulating them.

Hon. S. Hagen: As the minister responsible for volunteerism, I'd like to acknowledge National Volunteer Week, April 15 to 21, by thanking each and every British Columbian who contributes their time and talent to improving their community. About 1.58 million individuals currently volunteer an average of 199 hours each year in this province.

I'd say to all of you: you strengthen our arts and culture communities, keep our amateur sports system vibrant and provide a wide range of caring support to those in our community who need a helping hand.

Today I had the honour of having lunch with eight outstanding individuals from the Greater Victoria area who deeply care about their community, and they have joined us in the House today. I proudly introduce to you Cindy Donatelli from the B.C. Cancer Agency; Tony Wass from the Land Conservancy; Rob Greenwood from the Inter-Cultural Association; Rob Taggart from the Victoria Association for Community Living; Ruthe Tiessen from Our Place; Julian-Anne Cameron, who won the humanitarian award, which is the Manning Cup at Oak Bay high school — she is accompanied today by her parents; Heather Goode and Rachel Hill from the Children's International Summer Village here in Victoria; and Lori Elder, Volunteer Victoria.

Please accept my sincere thanks to all of you. It is your generosity, dedication and commitment that help make British Columbia the best place on earth to find a strong, healthy community.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, mindful as I am of the rules surrounding commentary about the presence or ab-

sence of members in the House, I trust you will allow me to bend the rule today and welcome back to the chamber the hon. Attorney General.

R. Fleming: With us today are two of my constituents, Ben Johnson and Emily Ann Paul. They have a vantage of the House this afternoon from the gallery, although only a few months ago they sat in these very chairs as part of the youth model parliament. Will the House please make these two youth welcome today.

G. Robertson: It is my honour to welcome two special guests today, Mira Oreck and Lena McLeod from the Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific region. Would the House please make them welcome and thank them for the work they did to organize today's remembrance ceremony as well.

Hon. M. Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Knowledge Network Corporation Act.

Hon. M. Coell: The Knowledge Network is operated by the Open Learning Agency and funded through the Ministry of Advanced Education. It has been British Columbia's public education broadcaster since 1981.

The network is a high-profile public service and is greatly valued by British Columbians. The Knowledge Network Corporation Act will support government's 2005 election commitment to maintain and improve the Knowledge Network as B.C.'s public education broadcasting network. The act continues the Knowledge Network corporation under new legislative framework that outlines the network's new vision and opportunities. It is consistent with the Crown agencies accountability system and reflects the licensing requirements of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. The proposed legislation will also enable the repeal of the Open Learning Agency Act.

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

Bill 23, Knowledge Network Corporation 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.

D. Chudnovsky: My mother has a photo of her grandparents in their tiny town in Poland. Two old people stand beside a rough shack, wrapped in overcoats and mufflers against the cold and snow. That photo is the last that our family in Canada ever heard from them. They and their family were rounded up by the Nazis, sent to a concentration camp and murdered.

My wife's father was sent away from home as a teenager, first to Holland and then to England. His parents and sisters stayed behind in Berlin. He kept and later translated the hundreds of letters he got from his family that described in mundane detail their increasing desperation as the noose tightened around the necks of the Jews of Berlin. Then the letters stopped. They were deported to a concentration camp by the Nazis and murdered.

I tell these stories because it's easy to regard the Holocaust as an abstraction, an outrage too big to think about. But it's really about individual human beings — six million people just like us who were murdered because they happened to be Jewish.

Today is the international day of remembrance for Holocaust survivors. It's important that we celebrate the lives of those who survived and vital that we remember the lives of those who did not survive. But more important than all of that, we must make sure that such an outrage never happens again — not to Jews because they are Jews, not to Muslims because they are Muslims, not to Christians because they are Christians. No human being should ever suffer because of their beliefs, and there is never an excuse for racism.

We have an obligation to remember those six million individual Jewish lives and the countless others: the gypsies, the homosexuals, the Catholics, the disabled, the trade unionists, the socialists and the communists — each life as precious as yours or mine, all murdered by the Nazis. We, every one of us, have a responsibility to make sure that such crimes never happen again — never again.

D. Hayer: Last week brought some very important events: for Christians, celebration of Easter; for Jews, Passover; and for the Indo-Canadian community, Vaisakhi festival, which began April 14. It is a time of renewal for both earth and faith. It is also a time for families and communities to come together.

Vaisakhi is when tens of thousands of British Columbians of Sikh faith observe the founding of Khalsa in 1699 by the tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh. At the same time, Buddhists celebrate because Lord Gautama Buddha was born on the full moon of Vaisakhi in 559 BC. For Hindus, it is called the Hindu/Vedic new year, and it is similarly celebrated throughout the world.

For all, Vaisakhi is the start of harvest season. It is a special time to celebrate our future and our togetherness. While we all look back over historic teachings, we also look forward to the hope and promise that our new homeland of Canada is providing us. There's no better place in the country than British Columbia to celebrate the success that so many of us have achieved.

Vaisakhi is also a time of tolerance, respect and honour. Like Easter and Passover, it is a time of rejoicing and reflection, a time to observe the past while celebrating harmony and peace. So as the House resumes its spring session, I would like all members in this House to remember the significance of the past two weeks and to join me in acknowledging all faiths and nationalities as we observe the sacred celebrations now and throughout the year.

R. Fleming: Last Tuesday evening the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce held their 2007 annual business awards and recognized winners in 14 categories. Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce works very hard on a daily basis, promoting business vitality in the capital region, and the Greater Victoria Business Awards are awarded to outstanding businesses and business persons that have demonstrated a significant and sustained commitment to positive business development, economic growth and diversity within our region.

I'd like to recognize just a few of the 2007 award winners. For business leadership, Dockside Green Windmill Development. This incredibly innovative, sustainable green community is being developed in Victoria West. It has been recognized for leadership by their business peers. Dockside Green is in fact already being studied by urbanists and planners from around the world because of its mix of residential density, its commercial and industrial zonings and its carbon-neutral power generation.

The award for small business was shared by Fuller Pearlman McNeil, which are employment, labour and human rights specialists, and Atomic Crayon, which is a graphic design firm.

For medium-sized business, the award was given to local broadcaster 98.5 The Ocean and Jack FM.

For large business, Monk Office again saw recognition for their excellence as an incredible Vancouver Island company.

Businessperson of the Year is awarded to Richard Gray, the station manager at A-Channel Vancouver Island.

Lastly, John Chew of Chew Excavating Ltd., a well-known company in this part of the province, was honoured for his passionate entrepreneurial spirit, earning the Governor's Lifetime Achievement Award. This self-made entrepreneur built Chew Excavating into the Island's dominant earth-moving company and used a work ethic and street smarts to spin other profitable ventures. I know Mr. Chew and his company have always generously supported the community with in-kind services, whether it's clearing the way for a new community centre or building soccer pitches with local sports organizations. I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating and thanking the award winners this year.

J. McIntyre: I rise in the House to pay tribute to the soldiers and families of the brave men who fought in the Battle of Vimy Ridge, on the 90-year anniversary of the battle that made a colony a nation. I am very proud that the province of B.C. officially named April 9 Vimy Ridge Day in honour of the 3,598 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives and the more than 7,100 wounded in the intense military barrage involving the 30,000-man Canadian corps that took the ridge.

Much has been written and said over these last few weeks about this battle and its importance, ensuring that today's generation and generations to come will remember and take time to stop and thank those who made the ultimate sacrifice to enjoy the freedoms and quality of life that we enjoy in Canada today.

My grandfather was one of those courageous Canadian soldiers who fought for our freedom. He was a member of the 3rd Battalion, which subsequently became the Toronto Regiment and now the Royal Regiment. He left the military with the rank of major.

My family is especially proud, as my grandfather was awarded a military cross for his heroic efforts in the Battle of Vimy Ridge. Today, in his honour, I'd like to share with you the citation on the medal which my father, John B. Gillespie, QC, has framed and that hangs proudly in our family home. When you hear the precise words, it provides a glimpse into the horrors of World War I and the memories that survivors had to live with, which have been graphically depicted in stories and books such as Pierre Berton's Vimy and Sebastian Faulks's Birdsong.

"Lieutenant John Krause Gillespie of Toronto for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty when both his guns had been destroyed and a number of his crews had become casualties. He rallied the remainder and pushed forward, killing a number of the enemy and taking prisoners."

I ask the House to join in acknowledging the sacrifices that so few made for so many following. We will remember them.

J. Kwan: Chinese Canadians have a long history in Canada. Since the 19th century Chinese Canadians have been pioneers and builders of this country. Their contribution to building the railway helped B.C. connect to a united Canada. Their photographs from that era are important historical artifacts in understanding the development of this province.

However, one of the first bylaws ever passed by the city of Vancouver put a geographic restriction on where Chinese residents could live. It is present-day Chinatown in my constituency of Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant. In 1907 the anti-Asiatic riots happened in my riding. Although Chinese Canadians were unjustly treated for many years, they proudly fought in Canada's armed forces, constituting the largest ethnic group to serve in World War II.

The history of Chinese Canadians is a testimony to the great virtues of Chinese culture. This community is hard-working and has displayed persistence, forgiveness and generosity in Canada. The history of Chinese Canadians is also testimony to Canada's continuing progress in social justice and human rights. In April 2007 the federal government formally acknowledged the damaging effects of the racist head tax immigration policy with a formal apology and redress for the surviving head tax payers and their spouses.

Since the 1980s Chinese Canadians have become a vibrant force which has brought culture, wealth, human capital, investment, experience and connections to their homeland. We also now have a vibrant Chinese Canadian media in the lower mainland, which enriches our public sphere with new ideas and new voices.

Chinese Canadians are an integral part of our society socially, culturally, economically and politically. They enrich our culture in diversity. They're an asset to our culture and are instrumental in building an economic advantage for British Columbia to the largest market in the world.

The future and prosperity of B.C. will be enhanced by recognizing the important contribution of Chinese Canadians in this province. I certainly support the call for the province to proclaim Chinese Canadian Week during May 14-20 to honour the contributions of Chinese Canadians, and I trust all members of this House will also join me.

V. Roddick: There are certain people in this world who absolutely shine, and Jay Drew is one of them. Jay lives in Tsawwassen and runs his own company, United Lock-Block Ltd., on Mitchell Island in Richmond — those interlocking concrete blocks, retaining-wall blocks, that you're seeing all over the place these days.

Jay is a mechanical engineer from UBC and began to work with the Tetra Society of North America in 1991, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating inventions that enable people with disabilities to overcome barriers. Since then, he's added more than 200 inventions to his name.

The Tetra Society was started in 1987 by current Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan after he learned that engineering solutions could revolutionize not only his life but others' as well. Speaking of Mayor Sullivan, Jay was the designer of the now world-famous flag holder that allowed Sam to receive the Olympic flag in Italy to start the countdown to the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Jay was one of eight British Columbians to receive a Governor General's Caring Canadian Award at a ceremony here in Victoria in January, presented by Her Honour Iona Campagnolo.

Currently he's working on a beeping puck for visually impaired hockey players. "It's real tough. I can get it to beep, but I just can't get it to stay together when it hits the goalpost at 40 or 50 miles an hour."

No one can say it better than Jay Drew himself: "Helping other people gives you the sense of fulfilment, and that's what makes you happy. People striving to find happiness only for themselves are doing everything wrong." Thank you, Jay Drew.

C. James: Last Friday the government quietly announced the merger of PavCo and convention centre boards. After years of denial and massive cost overruns, the government is finally acknowledging just how badly they've mismanaged the entire convention centre project.

Can the Premier confirm that his government received the Auditor General's draft report into this project, and will he release the details today so British Columbians can see — finally see — how deep the mismanagement really runs?

Hon. S. Hagen: I certainly have not received the Auditor General's report. It's possible that someone else has. I have not seen it.

C. James: It's pretty clear that British Columbians just can't trust this government to actually put the facts on the table. The Auditor General's draft report was due a month ago. His final report is due the end of this month. If the Premier is sitting on the draft report, he's hiding those recommendations from the public.

We know some facts, Mr. Speaker. We know that this project is grossly over budget.

C. James: We know that the government engaged in a public relations exercise on Friday. British Columbians have absolutely no idea whether this governance structure actually answers the criticisms that may be in the report.

Again to the Premier: will he release the recommendations today, and if he's already acted on them, what is he hiding from the public?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said in my earlier answer, I'm not aware of the Auditor General's interim report being released. Certainly when it is released, we'll be taking a look at it, and we'll be looking at whatever recommendations we need to follow, if any.

It always amazes me with this opposition. They won't take a stand on whether or not they're in favour of something. All they want to do is criticize what we're doing. I want to remind the opposition and the

people of this province that, yes, we're talking about a project in the range of $800 million. That's a big number.

But I can tell you this. We already have 50 conventions booked, and 27 of those conventions would not have been booked in the old facility because there wouldn't have been enough room. Those 50 events alone generate over $850 million worth of economic….

C. James: The minister wasn't aware of cost overruns a few months ago, either, and now it appears he's not aware of the fact that the Auditor General was doing a report and the draft was in. Again, I speak to the overrun of the Trade and Convention Centre — now close to $400 million and climbing. The minister may not think that's much of an overrun, but I can tell you that taxpayers care about that overrun in British Columbia. That overrun alone could cover off the deficits crippling health authorities with bed cuts and nurse layoffs.

The Auditor General's review explicitly deals with the governance structure. The governance structure changed dramatically this past week. It also reports on financial management. British Columbians want the facts. The facts are in the information that has not been released by this government.

My question, again to the Premier, is: will he release all of the details today, including the financial details, or is he just once again protecting his friends?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, the rhetoric is interesting, but it's meaningless. This facility that is being built in Vancouver is going to be one of the best convention facilities in the world. Back in…

Hon. S. Hagen: …the dismal decade of the '90s — 1997, '98 and '99 — the NDP government of the day promised a convention centre. Here's what they said. Back in 1999, without partners and with a $900 million budget, Glen Clark said: "I've always been dubious that the federal government will contribute" — which is not the case, because the federal government is a partner in this one — "and I've always said that the province should go for it on its own."

Hon. S. Hagen: If those members opposite care so much about cost overruns, why did they build those three fast ferries that are sitting across the water from the convention centre?

N. Macdonald: Let's bring this back to what the minister currently responsible for the mismanagement of the Vancouver convention expansion project says himself — bring it back to his words, because what he has told the public is that he is not worried about massive cost overruns in the project. It doesn't worry him. He's told us that he can find no one to blame for the doubling of costs.

Obviously, an average taxpayer does worry when they're asked to pay 100 percent more, and we all know that there is someone at fault. The people at fault are the people who have made every single decision on this project. It is the B.C. Liberal board that is handpicked by this Premier. Each one of those people is an associate, a friend, a donor of this Premier.

The question is…. Mr. Dobell and each member of the VCCEP board should have been fired on Friday. Why were they not?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, at the end of the day we're going to have the most incredible convention centre in the world.

Hon. S. Hagen: The convention centre will have the capability of helping us double tourism revenues by 2015, which is a goal that we have set for tourism in British Columbia. There will be 10,000 journalists in that building during the 2010 Olympics. They'll be flashing images all over the world about beautiful British Columbia, the best place on earth.

We've already, as I said, booked 50 conventions, 27 of which we would not have without this new facility. It is the most environmentally sustainable building of its kind in the world.

N. Macdonald: Well, there are two points in that. The first point is this. Every single number this government has put out that relates to this convention centre has been wrong. That is the first point. They have all been wrong — from the price in 2003 straight through to the present.

Second point. That is beside the point. People still want a project that is not mismanaged. This project has gone up so that it is twice the price that the government promised it would be — and promised repeatedly with each of the various ministers responsible.

Here's a quote from the Premier: "There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue. They should be fired."

By the Premier's own standards, this board should have been fired. The question is: why are they being protected?

Hon. S. Hagen: We took the opportunity on Friday to carry out what we've been working towards for the last several months, and that's combining the boards of VCCEP and PavCo. We've added some expertise to that board. It's a strong board, and it's got the construction experience. We're going to carry out this project, and the people of British Columbia are going to be very proud.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister is apparently totally unconcerned at $400 million of cost overrun. Can he tell this House at what price he shows concern? Is it $600 million? Is it $1 billion over? Will he tell this House at what point he gets concerned about the convention centre cost overruns?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm sure the member is aware — he's just forgotten — that we've been totally transparent on this project. Every time there has been a cost increase, we've been transparent as a government. We've told the public what that cost increase is and why.

Let's not forget about the size of this project. This is the largest construction project underway in the province — 1,500 piles being driven….

Hon. S. Hagen: There are 1,500 piles being driven. This building is built over water and also over land. It's a huge construction project and takes lots of expertise and engineering. They had to get cranes from Germany because the economy is so hot — because, I might add, of our economic policies….

Hon. S. Hagen: The other thing is…. They don't even talk about the jobs that have been created here. There are 7,000 people from seven provinces working on this site. I've got to tell you that they're proud to be in British Columbia.

H. Bains: The minister can look to the side. The minister that is sitting right next to him said $495 million, on budget, on time — guaranteed. Wrong.

Next, our current Solicitor General said he would say no to any more funding requests — not a nickel more. Wrong again. Then last year the current Minister of Labour added $50 million to the budget and said that was the final budget. Wrong again.

Now this minister says more is needed. We are over $800 million, and he isn't even sure. This is a gross mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars.

My question: did Mr. Ken Dobell, the chair of the board and a friend of the Premier, properly brief the ministers? Or were the ministers misleading the public with their assurances?

Hon. S. Hagen: Again, the member hasn't done his homework, Mr. Speaker. There has been no misleading of the public here. We have been totally open. Every time the government was given a new number by VCCEP, we put the number out.

Hon. S. Hagen: I mean, I don't want to refer to the opposition as being hypocritical, but the word does come to mind.

We are going to end up with a project that is the pride of British Columbia. We're going to be hosting conventions. It's going to be there for the media and for the 2010 Olympics. It's going to be something that the people of British Columbia will be very, very proud of and want to visit.

H. Bains: Let's talk about doing the homework. This minister's numbers don't add up at all. Mr. Dobell said that the cost of inflation of the construction was rising at the rate of 10 percent to 12 percent. Since 2005, between the two budgets of two different ministers, the cost has ballooned over 30 percent.

Tell us today, Mr. Minister: what is the final cost of the project today, and how much are the taxpayers asked to pay to bail out the government for its management by the friends of the Premier?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer to that question is that we have, for this fiscal year, a budget in the range of $800 million to complete the Trade and Convention Centre.

S. Simpson: We've seen the budget double for this project. We now have a minister saying that the budget is in the range of $800 million. Will the minister tell us: what is that range, and will he commit that no more money will be spent over and above that budget?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said before, the amount in the budget is in the range of $800 million.

B. Simpson: On March 1 of this year the Minister of Forests and Range extended a log export approval from public lands on the mid- and north coast. My question to the Minister of Forests and Range is this: can the companies Interfor and TimberWest export logs from public lands under that order-in-council?

Hon. R. Coleman: The communities and the first nations up the midcoast and to the central coast of British Columbia asked for the extension of that particular OIC. It was extended to August. They asked for a longer period of time. I only extended it to August with the intention of being able to deal with it in the coast recovery plan on log exports.

B. Simpson: I do. Can I get my first question again? Because I didn't get it answered. That's a redo, I think. Maybe it's just too technical for the minister when he's not versed on his file.

I'll answer it for him. Yes, Interfor and TimberWest can export logs on that order-in-council at a time when the number one constraint on the coast is the shortage of logs to keep mills open, including TimberWest's and Interfor's mills.

My question to the Minister of Forests is this: why would he allow 35 percent of the licences on the mid- and north coast to go to log exports at a time when we cannot keep mills open on the coast because of log shortages? Why did that happen?

Hon. R. Coleman: I understand that the member opposite doesn't care about the small communities on the midcoast and central coast and north coast. I understand that the member doesn't care if the people in the first nations communities in that area of the province are working. But they came to government and asked for the extension of the OIC for a very specific reason: so they would have opportunities to have some economy in their communities in a very tough time in forestry in British Columbia.

M. Sather: I wanted to find out if the Minister of Forests and Range has some concern about the forest industry in my community. Hammond Cedar has been an integral part of my community since 1910, and it's the largest red cedar mill in the world. That mill is not antiquated. It's a modern mill, and it's been profitable every year for 35 years. Now it's running a million dollars or more in debt every month, and the reason for that is the raw log export policy of this government.

Has this minister gone to the workers of Hammond Cedar? Has he talked to them about how he's going to assist them in the crisis that they're facing?

Hon. R. Coleman: That question just shows the lack of knowledge of the species in specific areas of the coast and in forestry. It also shows one other lack of information that the member obviously doesn't know. We don't export red and yellow cedar from the coast of British Columbia.

M. Sather: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker. I wish the minister would actually come out some time and talk to the workers in the affected areas. He hasn't done that. We have major problems. We had the Western Forest Products mill close recently in New Westminster, a loss of 300 jobs. Flavelle Cedar in Port Moody is running every other week. Half of the people at Hammond Cedar are sitting at home. They tell us they can't get enough logs, and they say it's because of the problems that this government has brought on.

I want to ask the minister again if he's going to go and talk to those members and how he's going to help them to ensure that that mill doesn't go down like the others have done.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's going to be interesting when the coast recovery plan is released — whether these members will actually support it — because it's going to take some big changes to build a strong future in forestry on the coast of British Columbia. Tough decisions are going to have to be made — ones that you refused to make in the '90s, which may have to be made today to make a future for forestry in B.C.

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Attorney General. Do he and his ministry intend to appeal the sentence in the Grant De Patie case?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue regarding whether or not an appeal is in order is something that the criminal justice branch within my ministry determines. They do so on the individual merits of any case. I can tell the House this. The last avenue of appeal in this case would be the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada rarely hears cases regarding sentence appeals unless the matter is of national importance or

In this particular case, the trial judge imposed a sentence of nine years. The Court of Appeal reduced that to seven years. In those circumstances, it is rather doubtful that the Supreme Court of Canada would grant leave to the Crown to appeal in the particular circumstances of the case.

M. Farnworth: The seriousness, hon. Member, of this particular issue, I think, would expect that you would give the question and this House the respect that it deserves.

The public has expressed concern and indeed a considerable amount of outrage over this particular sentence. The Attorney General has expressed concern about the reduction in the sentence.

So I think it is fair to ask that the leadership that is lacking on the government side needs to be addressed. The public expects leadership. Just because the Attorney General's ministry feels that an appeal may not be successful is not a reason to not proceed with what many people in this province feel is an important issue on a sentence that the Attorney General himself said he was concerned about.

My question again to the Attorney General is: why will this government and this minister not show the leadership necessary and appeal the sentence in the Grant De Patie case?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question of whether or not an appeal is warranted in the individual circumstances of the case is not a political one. It's determined on the merits of any particular case. The issue of whether or not an appeal is warranted depends upon the law and the circumstances.

The lawyers in the criminal justice branch determine these things on an individual case-by-case basis. The fact that some members of the public are outraged regarding a particular outcome of a case in and of itself is not grounds to launch an appeal. Keep in mind here that the Court of Appeal was unanimous in its decision. It was a 3-0 decision.

In those circumstances, the Crown would have to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, the Crown would have to ask permission and convince the Supreme Court of Canada that this is a matter of national importance. The lawyers in the branch are the best suited to determine that. It has nothing at all to do with political leadership. The whole issue is dependent upon whether, in law, an appeal is warranted.

C. Puchmayr: On November 17, 2004, Lyle Hewer, a 55-year-old millworker, was crushed to death while clearing a jam in a hopper at the Weyerhaeuser New Westminster division sawmill in my community. WorkSafe B.C. states this was a high-risk violation and that violations by senior management were committed wilfully and with reckless disregard.

Will the Attorney General commit to this House that he will appoint a special prosecutor so that this matter can be dealt with through the courts as recommended by the New Westminster police?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question of whether or not a special prosecutor is appointed is a decision that's made by the criminal justice branch. Special prosecutors are appointed under the Crown Counsel Act only in specific and particular circumstances. They're appointed where there is a perception of bias or there's a cause for a particular interest that's involved. Another circumstance may be that some member of government may be affected directly or indirectly.

So those are the circumstances under which, under the act, special prosecutors are appointed. I would point out that the Attorney General does not appoint special prosecutors. The criminal justice branch independent of the Attorney General appoints special prosecutors.

C. Puchmayr: Certainly, WorkSafe B.C. is involved in this, and a division of the New Westminster police department has recommended charges. WorkSafe B.C. levied a fine against Weyerhaeuser Canada, saying that mill management ignored safety concerns and condoned a culture where complacency in the face of danger became the norm.

WorkSafe B.C. said that violations were committed wilfully with reckless disregard. The investigating WorkSafe officers said that Weyerhaeuser management knew about hazards Hewer faced but did nothing about it.

Communications counsel for the Crown stated that the evidence presented to the Crown counsel was in the public interest to prosecute but did not support a substantial likelihood in a conviction. Again, this government is failing workers in British Columbia. What will the minister do to ensure that this process goes forward so the courts can deal with the justice and merits of this case?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, these are not political issues. If members of the Crown counsel office have determined that based on the whole of the evidence, there is not a substantial likelihood for conviction, then we don't proceed with charges.

It may be that something has happened. A death has resulted. But that in and of itself doesn't mean that in any particular individual case, criminal charges are warranted. Criminal charges are only warranted when in the opinion of Crown counsel, based on the evidence

produced to them by the police, there's a substantial likelihood for conviction, and secondly, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute some particular individual.

If the Crown counsel in this particular case has determined that charges are not warranted, then that's the end of the matter.

D. Chudnovsky: I have a petition from constituents concerned about cuts to the child care resource and referral programs.

S. Fraser: I have a petition with 386 signatures from the students and staff of Ballenas high school asking this House to support the safe antifreeze bill.

C. Trevena: Petition from residents north of Campbell River supporting Tom Bakken in his claim to homestead land.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 15, Security Services Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the Ministry of Education estimates.

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

M. Farnworth: The last time we were engaged in this discussion, I think, was two weeks ago. So I'd just like to go back over and have the minister bring the House up to date, and those at home who may have left off at our last episode, on the issue of out-of-province private investigators and the changes that are taking place.

"The registrar may grant an exemption from the requirement to hold a security worker licence if an individual (a) is a private investigator licensed or registered in a jurisdiction outside British Columbia…."

One of the concerns we had was the possibility of firms operating outside of the province that don't have the same standards as we would have here in British Columbia, but because of the close proximity of, let's say, Calgary or Edmonton — not to pick on them, but just geographically they're close — to engage in investigations that would otherwise be done by British Columbia licensed investigators.

How does he see this section dealing with that, or is that still an issue and a problem? If it's not, why would it not be a problem?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We are dealing here with private investigators as opposed to other categories of security professionals who might from time to time come into the province to conduct work. When they apply for the exemption, we clearly will have a record of who these people are, for whom they work and for how long they will be working within British Columbia. Typically, that will be for a relatively short period of time. We, of course, rely on the fact that they are licensed in another jurisdiction as evidence that they are qualified to undertake that work.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us what qualifies as a short period of time? Is there a set determination?

Hon. J. Les: The typical period of time for which these exemptions are granted is usually, on average, about five to seven days. If an individual is not able to produce evidence that they are registered or licensed elsewhere, that exemption will not be granted.

M. Farnworth: Does that apply to jurisdictions in Canada, or does it also apply to jurisdictions outside of Canada? Outside of Canada, if they have a licensing, would that qualify as recognition for the ministry?

Hon. J. Les: That provision would apply to all potential applicants from all other provinces of Canada, and we would expect that it would apply to those who would be applying from other countries as well, although I should hasten to say that heretofore we apparently have not had an application like this come before us.

M. Farnworth: While we may not have had an application, the fact is that there is always a first time for everything. We are going to be hosting the Olympics in 2010, and that is a two-week period. There are questions around that in this act that I'll get to in a minute or during the course of this debate. That may be an obvious place where…. Because you will have so many people here, it may be something that might occur at that particular point.

I would just ask the ministry and the minister to think about how this particular section could apply to outside investigations and some of the problems. We often assume just Canada or the United States, and in fact it could be much more outside those jurisdictions than we have seen in the past.

M. Farnworth: In section 11, hon. Chair, my question to the minister is this: are there any circumstances where the carrying on of the security business licence would not be required?

Hon. J. Les: In discussion with staff, it's not readily apparent that there would be exemptions that would be granted from the requirement to get a security business licence. The regulation, however, is provided to perhaps look after that rare circumstance where that provision might be required.

There's some speculation…. Just as an example, workers who are engaged in the security business vis-à-vis casinos, because they are regulated by other legislation that might be equally as effective or may in fact supersede this legislation…. That might be the type of application where this provision could be used. But if the member opposite were to ask me today who all is going to be exempted pursuant to this provision, I would say at this point the answer would be no one.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister outline exactly, in terms of…. It says: "…maintain the prescribed books and records…." Could he detail what's intended by that statement? Is it general records? Is it specific records related to the activities of the security worker?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I should point out that section 21 is the same as the corresponding section in the current act, so it represents no change. What we would be looking for would be the typical things: payroll records, personnel records, shift records, contracts with clients of the firm and that kind of thing.

M. Farnworth: So if one was concerned about records of incidents that occur…. For example, if you have a security officer who's dealing with, let's say, a store, and there's an incident involving someone and they are apprehending someone or holding someone until the police come, where would a record of that be kept, and when would a record of that be kept — what section?

Hon. J. Les: I think what the member is looking for is a record of incidents and enforcement activities that are out of the ordinary day-to-day routine of somebody engaged in this business. There will be a requirement to carefully document those activities, but they will come under a different section. As part of the complaints process, there will be a requirement that these companies keep a careful record of those kinds of instances.

M. Farnworth: We'll be exploring that in the complaints process. I take the minister's comments, and I focus on the issue "out of the ordinary."

So what about the ordinary day-to-day events that occur? What is out of the ordinary to somebody is quite often run of the mill and ordinary to somebody else. In order to determine what is out of the ordinary, it often helps to know what the ordinary events are that occur in a routine day and in a routine doing of the job. So where is the requirement to keep those records and those types of events — or is there?

Hon. J. Les: Under section 21 we're looking for general business records and evidence of the appropriate insurance and that kind of thing. What we're not looking for here is the kind of documentation of significant events, such as the security investigator having to call in the police to have someone arrested or where there's possibly even been some kind of physical altercation between a security investigator and someone else. Documentation of that nature is not what is contemplated by this section. I'm sure we'll be discussing that later under a further section in this act.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister indicate whether there have been any significant changes between this section and the previous act?

M. Farnworth: In terms of the carrying of firearms, in this section it of course makes provision for armoured vehicle personnel. Are there any other circumstances or areas in which the minister would see that the carrying of firearms is allowed?

M. Farnworth: This would not have any impact in terms of security measures on anything that's required, for example, during the 2010 Olympics?

M. Farnworth: In terms of licence cancellation and licence suspension, can the minister indicate what the differences are between this particular section and un-

der the old section? Has there been any significant change between the old act and this act?

Hon. J. Les: The major change that's being made here is one that requires the registrar to hold a hearing. That is optional now, but there will be an absolute requirement under this legislation.

A. Dix: I want to welcome students from Windermere Community Secondary School who are here in the gallery listening to the debate today, learning how legislation is made. I ask the House to give them welcome.

M. Farnworth: This particular section is a new section, and it's one that the minister has said in his second reading remarks was an important part of this particular piece of legislation. Can the minister tell me what levels of consultation took place in terms of developing this particular section and who the minister consulted with?

Hon. J. Les: In the working up of this act, and specifically with respect to this particular process, there has actually been very extensive consultation. I should point out that this act has been several years in gestation. During that period of time there's been consultation with a lot of different people within industry and with stakeholders in the industry. We've had consultation with inspection team members, with the police, with other regulators within the provincial government, with industry groups and with ministry staff as well.

In terms of the stakeholders that we consulted with, they were — just to give you a few: the locksmiths, alarm services, security patrol businesses, armoured car businesses, private investigators, the law society, the Industry Training Authority, the Safety Authority, the Justice Institute, the human rights committee, the fire commissioner's office, the police, the commissionaires, the bar owners and retail associations.

M. Farnworth: I would assume, then, that the minister would have also taken into account advances that were taking place in other provinces during this several years of gestation?

Hon. J. Les: That's correct. We consulted widely, and we took advice from wherever we could find it.

M. Farnworth: The reason I asked that question is because one of those provinces that has brought forward new legislation is the province of Ontario. In their particular piece of legislation they included a code of conduct, which is something that is not in this particular bill.

Can the minister tell this House if he examined the Ontario legislation and their section dealing with a code of conduct?

Hon. J. Les: We in fact have consulted with the province of Ontario. We have had them send to us all of the work that they've done with respect to the development of their code of conduct. We find a substantial amount of work there that is of interest to us.

We will be incorporating that into the regulations that will flow from this act. There are several places in this act where the word "conduct" is used. Pursuant to that, we will be developing code of conduct regulations once the act is proclaimed.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister's remarks, but is there anywhere in this current act where it specifically or explicitly states that there will be a code of conduct?

Hon. J. Les: No, there isn't a specific reference to the words "code of conduct." However, as I said — and the member can take my word on this — we will be developing such a code in the regulations.

M. Farnworth: I do take the minister's word that they will be developing a code of conduct, because I think that's important. In light of that, I would be pleased to move an amendment, at this point.

M. Farnworth: I'm moving this amendment — to the minister — because I think it's important that we spell out…. I understand the issue in terms of code of conduct in regulations, so if we're going to do that, then I think we should start to mention that or to have that in this legislation. The complaints process is key.

It comes back to what I talked about a few minutes ago in terms of records and in terms of making a complaints process that's effective. We should be able to say or people should be able to know that there is a code of conduct and that if they feel that code of conduct is breached, then they have the ability through the complaints process to actually be able to take it up on that basis.

That's why I am moving this particular amendment, because what it will do is strengthen this piece of legislation. The government and the minister have indicated that it is their intention to have a code of conduct under the regulations. So it's only appropriate that

that be inserted at this particular point — in accordance with practices "established by the minister, the registrar must deal with complaints from the public respecting matters that relate to this Act."

That would include an explicit reference to a code of conduct because at the end of the day, when the public has a complaint, they need something to judge it against. They need to know: at what point do I have a complaint?

Well, if there's a code of conduct — and the minister says there's going to be a code of conduct — someone can easily refer to that and go, "Wait a second. Here's the code of conduct, and here's what was supposed to have taken place or how I should have been dealt with. I've been dealt with this way. I've been dealt with by the rules. Okay, that's fine," or: "I haven't, and therefore I wish to make a complaint." That's why I think this is the appropriate place to put in that particular section.

Hon. J. Les: Frankly, I don't see a need for this amendment to go into the act. The section is clear. The registrar must deal with complaints from the public. So if there are complaints, whether they be against the code of conduct or pursuant to the Criminal Code or pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act or many other statutes I could enumerate that the public are concerned about with respect to the conduct of an individual who is licensed by this act, clearly the registrar would have to take all of those complaints into consideration.

I don't see any necessity to limit to a code of conduct that will be developed. I think the act as it's written now is very clear that all matters dealing with complaints from the public must be considered by the registrar.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us at what point and how long after implementation of this particular piece of legislation he expects the code of conduct to be developed?

Hon. J. Les: As I have said earlier, we have been working for some considerable period of time in developing this act. There are many reasons why this act is timely, certainly not the least of which is that the existing legislation is old and dated. I would be working with the ministry staff to ensure complete implementation of this act sooner rather than later. But in reality, what that means is that probably in October or November of this year, this act would be in force and effect.

M. Farnworth: I take it from the minister's statement that in October or November the act would be in effect, which would include a code of conduct being in place by regulation and in effect by October or November of this year.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad the minister has been able to be specific in a particular date because one of the things that does concern me is the fact that this legislation has taken several years' gestation. We have looked at other jurisdictions. There is in place, for example, in Ontario legislation — a code of conduct. The minister recognizes that there is a need for a code of conduct. It is something that he wants to put in the legislation.

I hope and want to see it in by October or November. I'm just concerned that in bringing this much-needed piece of legislation to the House, knowing that these things are going to be in it, knowing that we are going to make the regulation and knowing that there are examples out there….

Ontario is not that much different from British Columbia. They operate under the same legal system as we do. They operate under the same parliamentary system as we do. The last time I checked, people put their trousers on — if they're wearing trousers — one leg at a time, the same way as we do. I am still a little puzzled as to why it's taking so long to develop a code of conduct when this legislation has been in the works for so long.

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the member opposite's impatience, actually. I suffer from that myself from time to time. But I have come to learn that on matters such as these, it indeed does take a bit of time — generally a few months at least — to properly implement a piece of legislation. There are numerous regulations that will have to be developed.

As far as the code of conduct is concerned that the member refers to, we already have the material from the province of Ontario. Indeed, there is much there that we will be able to adopt into our regulations.

I should point out that the code of conduct regulations in Ontario are in fact just that. They are regulations. They are not written into the legislation itself, but they are adopted by regulation, as we propose to do.

We obviously will utilize that kind of material wherever possible, but we will always have unique situations here in British Columbia. We clearly come from a unique background as opposed to Ontario, where they had different legislation previously. With all of that, it will take us a bit of time to work through it, but I certainly intend and expect that this legislation will be in effect well before the end of this year.

M. Farnworth: I will take the minister's word and comments on that, and I look forward to seeing a code of conduct in October or November.

My final comments and question on this particular piece of legislation come back to why I think the amendment is important. Regulations are one thing. Many people often don't have access to the regulations.

So my final point to the minister would be: by ensuring that this is in here, by ensuring that that goes in section 34.1, it's readily accessible and available to just about anyone who wants to look at it — that there is in fact a code of conduct, and they can go and look for it.

I think it would strengthen the minister's hand in developing a code of conduct. I know the minister may well go back to cabinet with the regulations, but I also

know how cabinets work. Sometimes the best-intentioned regulations of a ministry can somehow find their way to not being enforced because of other cabinet priorities or other views around the cabinet table.

I would ask the minister this question. Given the government's stated policy that for every regulation brought in, two would have to be eliminated, would the bringing-in of a code of conduct by regulation have to result in other regulations being removed?

Hon. J. Les: The member raises an important issue. Legislative simplicity and regulatory transparency are objectives that I hope we all share.

Of course, with the adoption of the new act, the existing act disappears with all of its attendant regulations. I'm not sure there is actually a hard-and-fast rule that for every new regulation, we have to get rid of at least another. I know there have been cases where in fact we have had a net increase in regulations. But that is more than offset by other regulations in various ministries that are becoming redundant.

In this particular case, we are going to adopt whatever regulations are necessary to make sure that we have a viable act that does what it sets out to do. If we are looking for regulations that we might want to offset against any new regulations that will come into being as a result of this particular act, I am sure that in the 240,000-some-odd regulations that still exist within government we could probably find a few candidates.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's comments. I asked them slightly tongue-in-cheek but also because it has been an issue with the government, and it is wise to review regulations from time to time and make sure they are current and up to date. I also don't want to see an approach to stand in the way of implementing what I think is going to be and needs to be a crucial part of an important bill. It is something that I think needs to be addressed right now.

M. Farnworth: In terms of administrative penalties, can the minister explain if there are any differences between this particular section and the old act, and what they are?

Hon. J. Les: This is, in fact, one of the areas where this new act is a significant improvement over the old act in that not only section 35 but sections 35 through 41 are all new. Previously, it was a bit of a slapdash approach to administrative follow-through, but here we clearly set out the penalties and procedures. I think this is a significant step forward in section 35.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the two-year limitation date for imposing administrative penalty, is this in line with other administrative penalty options, or is this a standard one?

Hon. J. Les: In fact, this provision is consistent with similar provisions that are found in the Safety Standards Act and in the Debt Collection Act.

M. Farnworth: There are a number of issues around regulations, and the minister has commented around the code of conduct. He's indicated that October or November is when we can expect a code of conduct, the regulations and the act to be enforced and in place.

Can the minister comment on the issue around recording and reporting of critical incidents and how they will be dealt with? Are they going to be dealt with by regulation? In what form will they have to take place? For example, can he start to tell us what type of incidents will have to be recorded?

Hon. J. Les: The complaints process under the relevant section, which I believe is section 34…. Clearly, we're going to be consulting with relevant stakeholder groups and other agencies who have an interest in these matters. We want to be sure that we have something that is transparent yet relevant to people who wish to utilize those provisions. Again, I think it's important that we do this work quickly, as the current act is very much out of date. We need this new act to bring us into the 21st century, if you like.

M. Farnworth: What I think people are concerned about…. We've talked about the importance of having a code of conduct and that that will be developed by regulation. One of the things a code of conduct does is say what you can do and what you can't do — the types of things that are your responsibilities. It indicates to the public: "Okay, here's what a person can do; here's what they can't do."

What I'm concerned about is that you have records of those events. What types of events are required recordkeeping — for example, someone who has been handcuffed or someone who has been turned over to the police? Has force been used? Was there an assault involved? Was anybody injured — either the employee or the individual? Did you require calling for assistance from other security individuals, or did the police have to be called? At what point?

Where are all those things kept? What are the regulations going to be that make sure those things are in fact documented so that you have a record? Because if you don't have those records…. Was there an incident? How many incidents occurred in an industry? Well, if there's no requirement to keep things like that, then you're not able to have a proper sense of exactly what's taking place and whether or not your legislation is doing the job you want it to do.

So I'd like the minister to look at, in terms of the regulations, where those things are going to be dealt with.

Hon. J. Les: We referred earlier to the fact that a code of conduct will be developed as part of this legislation, and by regulation it will enumerate those things that must be recorded and reported.

In particular, I am sure that the member opposite would agree with me that issues arising from physical contact between a security investigator and a member of the public…. A situation where a physical arrest of a person is required — I think that the member opposite used the example of handcuffing an individual — or clearly, any interference with the freedom of another person would be something that ought to be recorded.

Any instance where injury occurs or where the police need to be called, any items of that nature, would be required to be documented under a code of conduct. Then, of course, the registrar can refer to those things and those records as he or she makes various decisions with respect to individual licensees.

M. Farnworth: Again, I come back to this issue of…. Okay, we're doing this by regulation. We recognize the need for this, and it strikes me that it would be pretty straightforward that you would want to know the type of — I don't want to use the term "offences" — activities that are taking place, such as if there are searches taking place or seizures or uses of force or if there are apprehensions taking place, so you get an idea of exactly what's taking place within the industry.

This is useful not only for the industry itself but for ensuring that the act is doing what it's supposed to be doing. It's also of great importance in terms of…. If I were a small business owner, I could look and see what's happening in my particular store, and I'd be able to get that type of information and what's happening in other retail outlets, for example, or other licensed establishments. The fact that we don't have that currently enumerated, even though we've had several years of working at this piece of legislation, does cause me some concern. I think it's the type of thing that we need to have now in place.

I'm going to ask the Chair's clarification here. I have two amendments that I'm contemplating moving. One would deal with sections 52(1) and 52(2), but also section 52(3). I'm wondering: do you need to have them in order, or can I go now to 52(3), which is actually the topic which I'm currently engaged on?

M. Farnworth: Why I'm asking the minister to accept this amendment is that I think we need to be specific that if this piece of legislation is to do the job it's required to do, we should be enumerating a whole series of issues in terms of recordkeeping that should take place relating to the work of security people who are covered by this act.

I think the act has a significant weakness if we are not doing that type of recordkeeping, if we don't have those types of statistics kept. I think they relate not only to the effectiveness of the act, as I said a moment ago, but also to things such as the code of conduct.

If you really want this act to do what you want, I think you have to look at ensuring that you're able to catalogue and understand exactly the type of pressures

that are being placed on security officials in the course of them doing their jobs.

Hon. J. Les: While I appreciate the intent of the amendment, I would submit that it is unnecessary. The legislation as it is written is clearly enabling. A number of regulations will be adopted as part of this legislation, and once that is done, it will form a complete package that will capture the intent of what the member intends with this amendment.

There are several other sections in the act that we've already covered today where licensing can be done on a conditional basis. I think that the powers of the registrar are certainly sufficient to ensure appropriate conduct within the security investigators industry. While the member opposite may want to become very specific in terms of the legislation itself, clearly that is the purview of the regulation development process that will follow the adoption of the act.

M. Farnworth: I don't doubt what the minister is saying, and I understand what he is saying. But I guess the point is that one of the key elements of this piece of legislation is to improve the security industry in British Columbia. It's been a piece of legislation that's been long in gestation, as the minister has rightly pointed out.

It's very necessary. It's a growing industry. It would seem that one of the key things of that is that you would want to know exactly what is taking place within the industry regarding such things as the work that individual security personnel will be doing. How many people are being handcuffed? How many people are you having to use force on? How many seizures are you making? How many arrests are you making? And it would seem that you would want to know that information, not just to make sure the piece of legislation is doing the job it's supposed to — if you need to make amendments, you're able to make amendments based on sound information — but also to ensure that in terms of a complaints process, you can determine whether something is an extraordinary event or whether it is an everyday occurrence in the duties performed by security personnel.

I am concerned that that's not specifically recognized in this particular piece of legislation, even in the regulations — to say that we will be doing this. I think it's one thing for us to say it in this House — and we all have good intentions — but I think that it would have a much stronger effect, it would be a much more powerful message, if that was clearly spelled out in the legislation. Either spell them out now or definitively say in this piece of legislation under this section that regulations governing this will in fact take place.

If that's not in here, then I think that will cause problems down the road. I think that despite the minister's best intentions, it may be some time. So I will ask the minister this question: if it is his intention to, by regulation, enumerate those activities that I've outlined, when will that take place, and when could we expect to see those regulations in place?

Hon. J. Les: I understand the member opposite's interest in the legislation being very specific, but what we are suggesting is in fact not at all out of ordinary in that legislation enables a certain direction to be taken. Pursuant to that, you develop a suite of regulations that give effect to that general framework. I think to a degree, with all due respect, the point the member is making is somewhat rhetorical.

When I talked earlier about the implementation of the legislation occurring well before the end of the year, I certainly envisioned that this piece of work would be included in that so that we would have this act fully operative well before the end of 2007.

M. Farnworth: I accept the minister's explanation about the specific and the legislative framework. I'd have a lot more comfort on that question if the regulations stated that there would be records kept in relation to force, arrest, detention, searches or seizures or even if the minister were to say that those events that occur during the day-to-day duties in the course of security personnel doing their job…. But they're not mentioned in here.

Even in the broad context it's not mentioned in here, and that's my concern. I'm going to ask the minister this question: even though it is not specifically mentioned in here, is it the minister's intention to have in place a regulation that will require the keeping of records related to the types of events that I have outlined in this amendment — related to the use of force, to the number of arrests made, to detentions that take place, to searches and seizures?

Hon. J. Les: As we develop the regulations that will flow from this act, we are obviously committed to working with all of the stakeholder groups to make sure that at the end of the day, we have an effective suite of regulations. It's my concern as well that when we do that, we have requirements around the recording of significant events — particularly, as I said earlier, dealing with the impediment of personal freedom that security investigators will perhaps experience from time to time.

I would say to the member opposite that while the exact framework through which that will occur is not yet completely developed in regulation, it will be in time. When that is developed, I am confident that we will have a legislative and regulatory framework in place that properly accounts for the conduct and the behaviour of security investigators and protects the public at the same time.

M. Farnworth: I got from the minister's answer: regulations if necessary, but not necessarily regulations. I'm going to try a different tack on this particular issue, because I think it's an important one. When we talked earlier in second reading debate, we said this was an issue of major concern about this particular piece of legislation. Was it going to have the teeth to do the job or would it not have those teeth?

We've mentioned Ontario. The minister has mentioned that they've looked at different pieces of legislation. Can the minister tell us if, in the course of their review of the Ontario legislation, they looked at how they keep records? Did they look at how these types of issues are dealt with in the Ontario legislation?

Hon. J. Les: We have received legislation and regulations from a variety of provinces — Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, to name just a few. We will look and have looked closely at each of those. We are of course not yet at the regulation-writing stage of this legislation. But when we do, we will be looking carefully again at each of those sets of regulation to determine what best works in British Columbia, so that we can gain from their experience and so that we have something that is, hopefully, the best available at that point in time.

M. Farnworth: The minister says he wants the best available legislation. Part of that means having the best available information and the best available sense of whether your legislation is working or not. Would the minister agree that it would be the right thing if we could say we know how often the use of force takes place, how many arrests take place, how many detentions end up as a result, and how many searches and seizures take place as a result of security personnel doing their duties?

Hon. J. Les: I have no doubt that once this act is implemented with the regulations, we will have a much better ability to monitor the industry and, specifically, the issues that the member opposite refers to — what is happening in the field on an ongoing basis, when we have a code of conduct, when we have a better iterated complaints process. Those are all mechanisms through which we will be able to better monitor the industry.

I gather that the member is frustrated that we don't have the regulations here, but that simply isn't how the system works. We're here to pass the legislation that allows for the regulations to be developed in time. The package — the regulations and the legislation together — is the mechanism through which this industry is going to be regulated and monitored.

Of course, the success of this project, of developing the new legislation, will be commented upon in time. Again, I think we have mechanisms within this legislation that I've already referred to that will allow the registrar and others to have a much better picture of how the people who are licensed pursuant to this act are performing and whether their conduct needs to be addressed in some way.

M. Farnworth: I ask these questions because I am not getting the answer from the minister that I'm hoping to hear — not necessarily even in the specific but also in the general. You can't monitor if you do not know what it is you're wanting to monitor. If you're not asking that certain records or certain activities be kept, then you cannot monitor what's happening.

I mean, police keep records of drinking-and-driving offences. By doing that, they are able to monitor what's happening with regards to drinking and driving. You know, water quality. You keep records of the coliform count in water. As a result, you are able to monitor the quality of the water and make decisions on that basis, because you've got specific information.

If there are no specific requirements to say we want to monitor these particular areas or we want this particular information and do it in regulation, then fine; do it in regulation. But at least commit to this House, to the public, that in the course of development of the regulations we will monitor these issues. There should be records kept every time there is a search and seizure. There are records to be kept every time there is an arrest. There should be a record every time you use a handcuff. It doesn't have to be very…. It's like you check a box: was this used? Yes, it was. That gives you an indication, and if you need to get more information later, then the registrar or the complaints process has the ability to do that.

If you're not doing that right from the get-go, then your process really isn't going to accomplish what you want it to accomplish. It really doesn't have the teeth it should have, and I don't believe that it will give the public the satisfaction they should have to know that not only do we have good legislation but guess what: you're keeping a record of things such as the number of arrests. You're keeping a record of when handcuffs are used; you're keeping a record of when there is a search and when there is a seizure. That's what I want the minister to commit to.

The minister has heard the point I'm trying to raise here. I've heard he doesn't want to support the amendment, but will he at least go on the record and say that those issues that I have addressed — those ones specifically, which may in fact be expanded to include others — will be part of a regulation that his ministry and his officials will develop, that will be in place by October-November, when the minister said, for example, that the code of conduct would be in place and this piece of legislation would come into force?

Hon. J. Les: Again, I guess this might be an area where the member and I won't quite agree. However, we have already discussed this afternoon where in this act we are going to see an enhanced code of conduct, as well as a more robust and transparent complaints process.

Clearly, when issues arise with respect to how members of the security investigation industry behave and conduct themselves, they are going to be more readily and easily dealt with. At least, that is our expectation.

When it comes to a code of conduct, clearly the professional behaviour required of individuals in this industry will be canvassed, I would think fully, within that code of conduct so that members of the public will be able to avail themselves of that, as to the kind of behaviour that is expected of people who work in this industry.

As well, of course, there are many other relevant statutes that apply to the behaviour of anyone in the industry. For example, you simply don't go around assaulting people without just cause. The member used the notion previously of somebody in the security industry handcuffing someone. In very exceptional circumstances that may be necessary, but you don't go about doing that unnecessarily or at random.

Clearly, there are behaviours that are never acceptable, regardless of what profession one finds oneself in. Once the regulations are developed under this act, and when you put that into context with all other relevant legislation and laws that govern individual behaviour, I think we will have a situation in British Columbia where the security investigators of this province will have a responsible piece of legislation.

M. Farnworth: I'll use the minister's comments to illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Can the minister tell us…? The current situation in regards to handcuffing is that if you're a security guard working in a department store, for example, you cannot handcuff someone at the current time. Is that correct?

M. Farnworth: Under this new legislation, you would be able to do that. Is that not correct?

Hon. J. Les: There is nothing in this act at the current time that would permit an expanded use of handcuffs. If in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders it was determined that this is something that should be allowed in the future, there may well be provision for the registrar to allow that. But it would be in consultation with the industry, stakeholders and other people who have an interest in these matters and would, I think importantly, involve additional training.

We need to always draw a clear distinction between the powers that are vested in security investigators and the powers that police have. Clearly, they are two very different things. This legislation, of course, regulates more carefully the conduct of people who are in the private security business but does not seek to turn them into quasi police officers.

M. Farnworth: No, it doesn't seek to turn them into quasi police members, but it does anticipate that they have the ability to do that. Not wanting to turn them into quasi law enforcement officers, but the issue of handcuffing is something that is anticipated in the sense that the registrar would have the ability to do that — as the minister says — through consultation. That is one of the things that the industry has been wanting to do.

Whereas before you couldn't, now you can. So that's an important change moving with this legislation. I think it's fair, then, to ask that if this change is allowed — and there is no reason to suggest that it wouldn't be…. After proper consultation — and as the minister says, the necessary training is in place — you would be able to handcuff. It would seem to me that you would want to know when it's happening so you get a good understanding of the frequency with which something like that was occurring and that you would want to spell that out by way of regulation.

I know the minister is reluctant at this point to spell that out, but I'll ask this question. If the registrar deems that handcuffing can in fact take place after the proper training and consultation process, would there be a regulation in place that also states that you should be keeping a record of every time that does take place — that the handcuffing does occur?

Hon. J. Les: Of course, it's important to keep in mind, in the first instance here, that no decisions have been made with respect to expanding the use of handcuffs. I can say that it's certainly not my primary preoccupation at this point in time. This legislation seeks to do quite a range of other things that I think are a lot more important than that, long before we ever get to using expanded powers of impeding personal freedom.

That aside, however, I think that if there is consultation within the industry and amongst the public generally and if it is decided at some point in time that this would be an important new power to invest in security investigators, at that point there is, I think, considerable discretion made available to the registrar to determine exactly how those new powers would be utilized by the security investigators.

Again, I think we have all of the tools available to us within the act. Once the act, coupled with the regulations, is proclaimed, I think we will have a very workable situation.

M. Farnworth: I agree that the registrar would have huge discretion to do what the minister is talking about. So in order that the registrar, if it comes to that point, is able to exercise his discretion effectively, does the minister not believe it would be appropriate to then keep a record of those types of incidences if handcuffing takes place?

Hon. J. Les: Again, as we develop the regulations and the powers of the registrar, these are all areas that will be given careful consideration. As we do that, we will consult with everyone, with a view to making this legislation responsive to the public so that the security investigators can do their work, but in a way that doesn't in any way impede personal freedoms unnecessarily and, also, in a context of a complaints process administered by the registrar under the act, that responds more fulsomely to public complaints than has been the case before now.

M. Farnworth: Okay. Does the minister believe that if someone was handcuffed, there should be a record kept of that event taking place?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's important to maintain a little bit of perspective here. What we are trying to guard

against, of course, is the excessive use of force by anyone, whether it's the police or whether it's a security investigator. There may well be — if, and I say if, the registrar under this act were ultimately to allow to some limited or other degree the use of handcuffs — numerous instances of the use of those that are not a cause for any particular kind of alarm. But in the case where there are problems and it results in a complaint, then obviously there would have to be a full investigation and a full disclosure as to what happened.

In terms of how that happens in the future — what the regulatory framework is around that and how the registrar deals with that…. First of all, I think that needs to be left to the regulation-writing process and, ultimately, to the discretion of the registrar who will be administering the act.

Clearly, I think we share the same objective. How we get there, whether we specifically spell it out in legislation or whether we rely on the regulation-making process and then the discretion of the registrar, I think is almost semantic. We clearly, I believe, share similar objectives.

M. Farnworth: The registrar would have a lot of discretion. The regulation writers would clearly look at the legislation, the intent of the legislation, and they would write the regulations. One of the things they would also look to in determining the intent of the legislation, both the registrar and the regulation writers, is not only what's in it but what the minister has said the legislation should do. So if there is a reluctance on the part of the minister to say if someone is handcuffed, for example, that there should or should not be a record of that occurrence taking place, then they're not sure exactly what is meant.

That's why a statement in this House on the record from the minister saying that if someone ends up, because the registrar has allowed handcuffing to take place — which is a very distinct possibility given, as the minister says, consultation and proper training….

For the minister to say there should be a record of that event taking place if such an occurrence occurs is a strong signal to the drafters of regulation. It's also a strong signal to the registrar that that's important. Wouldn't the minister agree with that?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, I agree that everything I say in this House is actually recorded, and that does give direction to staff, ultimately, in preparing regulations and actually interpreting the intent of the act.

In terms of restraining individuals, clearly that is something that one would want to see exercised only by exception. But there are numerous situations in which that can occur. For me to make a blanket statement to say that anytime that happens it must be recorded, reported and what have you would, I think, be somewhat irresponsible.

Even the police in carrying out their duties from day to day do not record all of those types of events. The police report out only on those events of the most significant nature — for example, when they draw their firearms and those kinds of things. But the other normal things they do in the course of exercising their responsibilities are not necessarily specifically reported upon.

Again, as I've said earlier, what we are not doing here is creating a quasi police force. Clearly, the activities of security investigators are extremely limited in scope as compared to police. I think we need to allow the public consultation process to work. We need to allow the discretion of the registrar to be brought to bear here, to determine ultimately what is the best code of conduct for security investigators.

M. Farnworth: The minister's point about police is appropriate. In the case of drawing a weapon, it is recorded because it is an unusual circumstance. Likewise, the use of handcuffing someone you would not expect to be a normal occurrence. That would hopefully be something unusual. But you're not going to know that that's in fact the case unless there's some record, some indication of how often that's being done.

Surely the minister would recognize that you've got to have something to start from. A record of when someone is handcuffed would be an event that is worthy of recording. It doesn't have to be a full-scale report. It could be something as simple as just checking a box, saying: "Were handcuffs used?" Check. Nothing onerous there.

Particularly in the event, for example, if police were called…. An indication from the minister that police being called and handcuffs being used by the security official is something that he would consider should be recorded clearly would send a message to the drafter of the regulations and to the registrar that that is something that should be recorded. So I would ask the minister: would he at least think that is something worthy of being recorded?

Hon. J. Les: Of course, at any time in the future if new powers were to be granted to security investigators, there could be conditions imposed on those new powers. One of the conditions could be that anytime that additional power was used, it would be required to be reported upon.

I think we should also give some consideration to the fact that with a more robust complaints-processing ability in this act, that will provide another window on the industry for the registrar as to what is happening out there — whether there are more problems and whether there are more complaints from the public. If there are complaints, what is the nature of those complaints? Are there more complaints of assault or more complaints of the use of restraint where that is not warranted?

I think there are at least several mechanisms by which the registrar and the ministry generally can monitor this industry to see how the professionals within the industry are performing and whether there is a need for further regulatory change.

M. Farnworth: One of the things we want to do is try and avoid the need for further regulatory change by

doing it right the first time. I'm dwelling on this, and I'm dwelling on it for a reason.

I'll move off the issue of handcuffing, to which the minister seems reluctant to give a definitive statement in this House that would serve as a guide to those who write the regulations. It would serve as a guide and as a signal to the registrar about the importance it would have in terms of ensuring when someone is handcuffed, even if it involves calling the police….

I'll ask the minister a similar question on detention. Does he think that detaining somebody is something that should be monitored by the keeping of a record?

Hon. J. Les: Actually, the ability to detain an individual is not a terribly unusual event in the life of a security investigator today. However, they can only be detained and the police have to be called in a relatively reasonable period of time, and that individual then has to be turned over to the police. That event then becomes a matter of the police record. Given that that seems to work fairly well today, I'm not sure there is a lot of renovation required of that process.

M. Farnworth: There is a police record. Does he not think there is value, though, in there being a record with the security firm itself? If, for example, there is a complaint made, the registrar can deal with it directly and determine that someone was detained and the police were called. It allows for an efficient way of dealing with the complaints process, as opposed to now. We now have to go and involve the police, whereas if the record had been kept by the security company in the first place, the registrar would be able to deal with it from that point. Does the minister not see the benefit of having a record to deal with those types of situations?

Hon. J. Les: I think that anytime we want to develop new requirements or processes, we actually have to be able to anticipate that it will add something of value at the end of the day. In the hypothetical example that we're using here — where a security investigator detains, let's say, a shoplifter — those individuals must be turned over to a peace officer within a short period of time.

If there are problems with how that individual was detained…. As a matter of fact, from time to time police officers today report on that. When there is a problem, I'm not sure that we will gain anything by requiring the security company or indeed even the individual to report. If there is an investigation, clearly they have to report. As part of the investigation — and certainly if they are ever asked to give evidence — they will indeed report under oath.

Again, I think that the situation with respect to the detention of individuals under the current act is actually working quite well. I think we can adopt much of those kinds of procedures under this legislation.

M. Farnworth: Well, adopting those procedures or much of that would in fact, I suggest to the minister, mean keeping a record. I think it's important, and I keep coming back to this.

There needs to be some documentation, some taking of record, of what is occurring during the fulfilling of duties of security officers. It makes it that much more effective when you have a complaint that you are not just dealing with what someone says under oath, but there is a record there that says: "Yes, we used handcuffs," or "Yes, someone was detained and turned over to the police," or "No, they weren't," or " Yes, there was a search," or "Yes, there was a seizure."

It makes it that much easier for an investigator to get right to the heart of the complaint about what did or didn't take place, how that search or seizure was carried out and how it goes with the code of conduct. It protects the security personnel, and it protects the public.

That's why I think it's important, Minister, that you send a signal to the people drafting the regulations and to the registrar that keeping a tally, a running score or some sort of documentation…. This number of seizures was carried out, this number of searches was carried out, and this number of handcuffs — if they get the power to do it — was applied. It makes for a much more effective process, and it will allow you as a minister and a ministry to have much better information in terms of whether the legislation is working and about what improvements or changes should be made — if they need to be made — in the future.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. Carpe diem. Send a message to your officials in the ministry, who look to you for guidance. They look to you for guidance, Minister, with the tablets, to say: "I, Solicitor General for the province of British Columbia, think it would be a really good idea, when we are doing the regulations for this piece of legislation, that the registrar recognize that I as a minister think it's important that there is a record."

If and when a search and seizure is made or if and when at such point in time handcuffs are allowed to be used, that is in fact something that should be recorded.

Do that, Minister, and you will be doing your legislation a great service. You will be making this act that much better. You will be doing a service to the legislation and a service to the public of British Columbia. So I ask you.

Hon. J. Les: It is obviously important that we develop legislation to the very best of our ability. At the same time, however, it's always important to keep in mind that we need to be practical as well.

In years past, on the odd occasion I would ride along with a member of the local police department. It wasn't all that unusual that we would be called to a local department store, where someone involved in providing security for that store would have apprehended an individual for shoplifting. Typically, they would have been detained in a small office or other

room designated for that purpose and held there in the company of the security investigator until the police arrived.

When the police arrive, they typically take a statement as to the circumstances of that apprehension, and a full report is eventually developed by the police. So we can prescribe all kinds of additional regulatory requirements that don't really help very much or don't provide much in the way of new or additional or valuable information.

At sporting events there are often significant security personnel on site, and in fact there are quite often a lot of seizures, usually of the liquid variety. Do we really think it would be useful that all of those interactions — could be many hundreds in one night — would actually be documented? I am not sure that is necessarily useful.

What all of that points out is that, yes, documentation where necessary, but not necessarily documentation. I think that would be one of the rules of thumb I would use here. Clearly there are, as I've said before, several other processes and requirements in this act that will enable the registrar, and by extension government generally, to develop a much clearer picture as to what's going on in this industry.

I think the framework we've laid out here, with the regulations that will be developed, will deliver the kind of improvements that the member opposite is looking for and indeed that I am looking for as well. It's results that count.

M. Farnworth: I recognize that you do need to use common sense. We do have events, and liquor seizure is one of them. I think anyone would recognize that there needs to be common sense in terms of regulations, but there also needs to be a sense that there are things that are important.

That's what I have been asking for from the minister today — to give us some level of confidence that there are things that are important that should be recorded as part of the duties of doing the security job because it allows for a better complaints process, as I've said. It protects the security worker, the individual and the company.

It also allows for a better system of monitoring exactly what is taking place, exactly how the legislation is working and whether or not it is intended to meet what the minister wants it to meet. That's why I've been pushing the minister to give some sort of commitment.

I will take this from what the minister's comments are — which is that, okay, he wants this legislation to work. He wants the registrar to recognize that the legislation needs to be effective. I won't put words in the minister's mouth, but the impression he has left me is that we want this to be the best legislation it can be.

If that is the case, then we need to recognize that if we don't keep a record of issues such as detention or handcuffing or search and seizure…. It doesn't have to be liquor at a football game, but certainly in terms of a department store, if you wanted to get a sense of what's happening in terms of shoplifting and the number of offences of shoplifting, I think that would be very important to know.

I think it would be very important to know not just for governments and in terms of policies developed within the Attorney General's ministry in dealing with shoplifting crime but also within the retail business itself. Those things are important in terms of the ability of the registrar to expand powers, given proper training. All those things require and cry out for the ability to document or the requirement for documentation of these things.

I will close my remarks in terms of the amendment and say that we will be monitoring this very closely. We look forward to seeing the regulations that do come forward and urge the minister to recognize the importance of what we have discussed here today to ensure that this piece of legislation works. Without that, then I do not believe this legislation will do the job that the minister wants.

Hon. J. Les: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 15, Security Services Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be read a second time.

This bill proposes a number of amendments to the taxation and revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. The amendments in this bill reflect our commitment to continuously improve customer service, streamline and simplify regulations, collect all outstanding amounts due to British Columbians and make British Columbia the most small-friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

This bill proposes amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act will enhance taxpayer fairness by ensuring that advanced tax application rulings received from our ministry are binding under circumstances established by regulation. A taxpayer will be able to submit a set of facts and ask for a ruling on the related application of sales tax and be confident that the ministry's written tax ruling will be binding.

Amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act will broaden the administrative penalties available for use in tobacco enforcement and leave the use of court time for more serious offences. This will be more timely and cost-effective for all involved.

Amendments to the Property Transfer Tax Act allow beneficiaries of critical illness or critically injured insurance policies to maintain their eligibility for a first-time-homeowners exemption where their indebtedness is reduced or eliminated by the proceeds of their critical illness or injury insurance. To ensure homeowners under the program are treated fairly, this amendment mirrors the exemption already provided to homeowners who receive a payout under a life insurance policy.

Amendments to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act will allow government to send a replacement tax notice to taxpayers who do not receive their tax notices due to changing their place of residence around the same time that tax notices are mailed. These amendments only apply to address or ownership updates received from the British Columbia Assessment Authority. This improves customer service for those homeowners whose change of address is not received by government by other means.

Amendments to the information-sharing provisions of the property acts — the Home Owner Grant Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act — streamline and simplify administration by eliminating the need for taxpayers to provide the same information several times to government. These amendments also enhance the administration of the homeowner grant and property tax deferment program and help identify applicants who are eligible for tax relief.

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act provide the commissioner the authority to refuse or cancel a registration certificate if the commissioner knows the retailer is not or will not comply with the government regulations or proposes to commit an illegal or regulatory offence. This will prevent retailers from procuring a registration certificate as the government's approval to collect social service tax for illegal activities.

The amendments are also being made to the Social Service Tax Act to clarify the authority of the commissioner of the act to make a valuation on goods or services for the purposes of taxation. This will support the government's administration of the Social Service Tax Act by ensuring amounts owed to government and all British Columbians are received.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act will ensure provincial income tax administration harmonization with the federal income tax system and ensure definitions in provincial and federal acts are consistent. This amendment will ensure that the province's intent behind the tuition and education tax credit and the British Columbia mining flow-through share tax credit programs is maintained.

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Hotel Room Tax Act will provide clear legislative authority for netting of moneys owed to government by taxpayers against moneys owed to taxpayers by government when both a refund and a payment are due at the same time.

The government is also streamlining and simplifying tax administration in British Columbia by clarifying definitions within the tax acts — for example, the defi-

nition of a purchase price under the Social Service Tax Act, commercial vehicle under the Motor Fuel Tax Act and taxable insurer under the Insurance Premium Tax Act.

Other examples of striving for tax administration and customer service excellence include amendments to the Social Service Tax Act clarifying how tax applies to discount transactions. Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act also clarify how sales tax applies to items businesses buy, or lease and then re-lease to their customers. These amendments to the Social Service Tax Act support the intent of the act: the end user should pay the tax.

Amendments to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Mineral Land Tax Act provide the appropriate authorities with discretion to not issue tax notices for small amounts. This change provides for better customer, improved administrative flexibility and reduces the administrative costs of preparing and sending these notices for small amounts.

Finally, all of the amendments proposed in this bill are consistent with our government's goal of providing customer service excellence, a streamlined regulatory environment, competitive small business growth and the collections of revenues owed to all British Columbians.

G. Robertson: I rise just to voice general support from the opposition side for Bill 19 and its many initiatives around streamlining and simplifying regulations and tax issues. No doubt there can be further simplification and streamlining done, as long as it's done very carefully.

I'll start by applauding the staff of the ministry for the careful work they've done to put together many of the pieces in this legislation that do streamline and simplify the regulatory and tax framework for small business, in particular, and also the general initiatives within this bill that will both improve the administration within the ministry — hopefully, that can save the taxpayers some costs in terms of administering the complex tax and regulatory framework that we do have here in the province — and, at the same time, are capable of improving customer service. This is no doubt very important for small business owners who are faced with an incredible array and complexity in the amount of paperwork required for them to comply with regulations and to live up to their tax responsibilities.

It's with pleasure that I'm able to stand in general support for this bill. At the same time, I'll have questions for the minister and staff at the committee stage as we go into more detail.

There are many details to this piece of legislation which I will be raising at committee stage, wanting to understand the complexities that are within this piece of legislation and how it will be applied — notably, a concern around the potential exemptions that certain businesses may get from paying certain taxes related to the tax rulings and advance rulings.

There appears to be some discretionary ability for staff members in the ministry around what exactly is applied in terms of taxes. There is some detail that needs to be understood there, contained within that bill, particularly as it relates to resort areas such as those that were defined in section 15 of Bill 11 and the connection therein between these tax rulings — the amendments that define little and do allow lots of leeway to the regulations and to the director or the commissioner who will make the decisions on a case-by-case basis. That's a particular arena that we'll like to explore in the committee stage of the bill.

Of course, questions need to be answered around the advance rulings and the nature of this. Our understanding is that the advance-ruling model is meeting with great success in Ontario, other provinces and, of course, here in B.C. These binding rulings on the ministry can be very beneficial for small businesses and investors that need clarity around what tax will be applied to transactions that they are considering. That will be helpful to have some more detail specifically as to how this will operate within the ministry, at what cost to taxpayers, and what the upside looks like in terms of investors and small business, where this does benefit the broader population and the economy of the province.

One concern, as well, is that while it does make imminent sense in terms of minimizing the paperwork and reapplication that is required, in terms of sharing personal information, it is always a sensitive subject. There may be very strong rationale for minimizing the regulatory red tape and paperwork required to do these filings and ensure that homeowner grants are dealt with in an expedient fashion. That said, the nature of that personal information sharing related to several of these tax acts…. It is really critical that there are appropriate safeguards within that system, that people are looked after and that there's no possibility that personal information goes errant.

Those have been concerns that the opposition has raised with this government, particularly around the management of personal information to private contractors that have access to that personal information from government contracts, partly in this ministry. There are concerns that that information is potentially vulnerable due to the terms of the Patriot Act in the United States. The United States or offshore-based corporations that are doing business with that information, who have those contracts…. These concerns have been raised many times by the opposition and will continue to be, as we ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place with the personal information of the citizens of B.C.

That said, it looks like a sensible approach to be sharing that information between the various departments to ensure that that work is streamlined.

There are several other details that I will be raising at committee stage on this bill. It perhaps will be easier to save those details for the committee stage.

It is a very complex act, I think. In terms of light reading, it is anything but. It will be very difficult. If there are people watching today, to wade through the details of Bill 19 is a challenging activity even for those of us here at the Legislature who show up to work raring to go and dig into these bills and tease them

apart and figure them out. Credit to the staff who work hard at putting these pieces of legislation together. They take an enormous amount of patience and I'm sure years of work to basically ride the razor's edge, in particular with some of these issues like personal information, with providing binding tax rulings on the government. These are important to get right, and there is quite a bit of detail here within the bill to look to.

Just finally, I think, before I close, I just wanted to thank ministry staff and the minister for the briefing on this bill and the finer points of the bill. I was hoping to have some information related to the international fuel tax agreement and the Motor Fuel Tax Act, some of which is addressed within this bill. The minister and I had exchanged some debate on this in estimates. I was hoping to have some clarity on the budgetary implications and whether there's a connection with this bill in particular and the changes in implementing IFTA — the international fuel tax agreement — here.

There are impacts on the provincial budget that are noted and that we discussed in estimates. What is not clear to me is whether they are connected in some way, shape or form to the implementation here from this bill if it is enacted. So we will look into that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Fairview for his positive comments and his general support of the bill. As the member has pointed out, when you get into tax statutes, it can become quite complicated and technical.

I do want to make sure that members of this House — and more importantly, British Columbians — know that a driving force in these changes has been our taxpayer fairness and service code. We are now on our third edition. Twenty taxpayer round tables were held throughout the province of British Columbia in the past year. So I have to thank the input of taxpayers. I have to thank the various industry associations. I have to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their inputs on how we can make things simpler and streamlined.

Of course, I want to thank very much my staff in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue who have worked tirelessly during the past year on this legislative package and also our round tables throughout the province of British Columbia. Again, I look forward to debate in committee stage.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 19 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 8, Coroners Act, with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; S. Hammell in the chair.

M. Karagianis: I have a question for the minister. In this section it refers to reporting out the circumstances relating to the death of a child and then lists as a result of violence, as a result of self-inflicted injury, as suddenly or unexpectedly. In fact it doesn't really spell out 100 percent of children's deaths. Could the minister explain why we specifically listed and not considered that 100 percent of children's deaths be reported on?

Hon. J. Les: In fact, if one reads sections 2(1) and 2(2) in their entirety, in subsection (1) there is indeed an enumeration of the kinds of things that would give rise to a reporting of those deaths. It goes further in subsection (2) to say: "If a child died in circumstances other than those described in subsection (1), a person who, by regulation, must report child deaths, must immediately report to the chief coroner, in the form required by the chief coroner, (a) the facts and circumstances relating to the child's death, and (b) any other information required by the chief coroner."

I think, Madam Chair, that's quite self-explanatory, and it would seem to me that if something is not caught in subsection (1), it would certainly be caught in subsection (2).

M. Karagianis: That actually leads me to my second question on this. It was that the language: "If a child died in circumstances other than those described in subsection (1), a person who, by regulation, must report child deaths…" etc. So the actual term "by regulation" seems to me to be questionable. I'd like to know what exactly that means. Why do you very specifically have wording that it has to be a person who, by regulation, must report?

What I'm trying to do here is see that, in fact, all children's deaths are captured unequivocally and that there are no barriers to that. I'm well aware of the kind of statistics and information that the Coroners Service compiles and reports out on with regard to deaths and the type of deaths that children are subject to here in the province.

Again, I'm looking to capture all of these, and I'm not certain that the term "by regulation" doesn't in some way constrain that.

Hon. J. Les: What is accomplished here in section 2 where the individuals who must report these deaths are going to be described by regulation is to get around a situation where there is a death of a child in a family, and if we were to say in the legislation that anyone must report that death, we could put family members in an almost tragic situation.

So we will, in regulation, require those professionals — medical professionals, funeral directors, ambulance attendants, those kinds of people — who will in some way be involved with the death to ensure that that reporting happens absolutely in 100 percent of the cases without necessarily saying that it could be, by exception, a family member who would be required to report to a coroner.

That, as I'm sure the member opposite could appreciate, could be extremely upsetting and what have you, and so that is clearly a function that is best carried out by someone who is at a slight distance, certainly emotionally, to carry out that reporting process.

M. Karagianis: I can appreciate that what the minister is referring to is the case of a tragic death of a child where the family member would then presumably call 911, and those personnel would then be the individuals by regulation that would make that reporting.

Now within this legislation, though, because it very carefully lays out very specific circumstances, is there a possibility in any way that the death of a child could go unreported given the various prescriptive language in the clauses all the way through this section on reporting?

Hon. J. Les: I think it is clear, and certainly the intention is to be clear, that all child deaths should be reported, whether they are natural and expected or unnatural and unexpected.

The objective here is to make sure that all deaths are reported. Clearly, that then leads to a more complete process of child death review, as well, to determine trends as to what is giving rise to child deaths from time to time.

M. Karagianis: Under this section, starting with section 7: "A coroner must conduct an investigation if the coroner receives a report of a death and is satisfied that the matters reported, if true, suggest that the death was required to be reported."

Throughout this section I will be looking for some assurance with regard to time frame for this. There are no specifics, certainly, in this particular clause that refer to time frame. Perhaps the minister could elaborate a little bit on the expectation of when the coroner would start an investigation — the time frame for that.

Hon. J. Les: I hesitate to go back in the legislation, but if the member would refer to the beginning of part 2, section 2(1), it says: "A person must immediately report to a coroner or peace officer the facts and circumstances relating to the death of an adult or child who the person has reason to believe has died."

I think that's the operative principle throughout, that reporting is required and it's required immediately upon the occurrence of the death.

M. Karagianis: I would expect, once a death has been reported, that it triggers, obviously, the coroner's involvement immediately in that investigation. Often there are other barriers, I think, to reviewing and reporting. Much of that's around investigation of suspicious deaths. We're very familiar with the time frames that these investigations often can take.

Really, what I'm looking for here, throughout this and through into section 11, is some assurance around timely reviewing and reporting. Whether or not there's going to be…. I know I discussed this at the introduction stage of this. I did give notice that this would be one thing that I was looking for: some assurance around timely reporting and timely reviewing and not excessive lengths of time going by before these reports are known, certainly to family members.

That's really the root of what I'm looking for here. I understand what triggers them, but does that process have no end time in view? Can it be interrupted by investigations?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question from the member opposite because timeliness of these procedures is sometimes a concern. What is equally, of course, a concern is that these investigations, when they are complete, deliver as much information as is possible without at the same time impacting negatively on other procedures and processes that sometimes attend these situations.

I will hypothetically use a situation where someone is murdered, just to use the standard analogy. Obviously, it will trigger a coroner's investigation, but at the same time it will also trigger a criminal investigation. It's always important to ensure that the criminal investigation is not negatively impacted by the coroner's investigation and perhaps by the coroner's inquest.

Often we find that a criminal investigation and the disposition of any charges that might arise from that criminal investigation take a considerable period of time. That is why we have had situations where a coroner's inquest happens, in some cases, some years after the actual event. If we could avoid that, I'm sure that we would all love to bring about a somewhat different result.

However, in the circumstances it is important always to protect the integrity of our criminal investigation and criminal proceedings because, as important as it is to determine how someone met their untimely death, it is equally important to ensure that anyone responsible in a criminal way is brought to justice without any compromise of the process that might lead to appropriate sanction.

M. Karagianis: I can certainly understand the analogy that the minister has given us around a murder. In fact, I can think of real-life experiences that have

occurred in a child's death last summer that are currently under investigation. All the details, of course, at this point are unavailable while that investigation takes place.

My concern is about ensuring that the coroner's service has the ability to carry out that child death review, perhaps separate from the criminal investigation, because the criminal investigation of an accused murderer could go far beyond the actual reporting out of how the child's death occurred and other implications of that.

I'll allude to another fairly well-known case, a child's death in Port Alberni, where during the course of the review another child lived in jeopardy in a situation. We have two very real incidents where the investigative process for the coroner should have been separate or could have been separate from the criminal investigation and, secondly, where other existing situations in the environment where a violent death has occurred are also tied up in that.

Again, with open-ended time frames or open-ended expectations on how investigations could take place, it leads to further questions I'm going to have later on, on this act, about the impact on the family members or children left in questionable or dangerous circumstances around that.

Really, that's at the heart of my questions about the time line. It's just to ensure that the time line for a coroner's inquest is not tied to a criminal investigation per se and can occur separate from that. It's not tied up for five, six or seven years while a criminal investigation goes on. In fact the child death review and reporting-out process, which is so important, can take place and occur and report out, thereby allowing other family members to take care of personal matters, recover from their tragedy and protect other family members.

I'd like to clearly see that they're not inexplicably tied to criminal investigations because often they can be much longer than what a coroner's review and report could be.

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, as I've already indicated, timeliness in these things is extremely important. However, to go so far as to suggest that a coroner's inquest could in some cases precede the conclusion of criminal proceedings, I would suggest, is actually wrong. As I'm sure the member will be aware, a coroner's inquest takes place with evidence being taken under oath in a court-like environment. It is not difficult, I don't think, to anticipate that the evidence taken in an inquest would be highly relevant to the proceedings in what would then be the subsequent criminal proceedings in court.

While I'm sure the members opposite and I can sometimes be very frustrated in terms of how long these things take, it is still important to protect the criminal proceedings that hopefully will ultimately lead to the appropriate criminal sanction being applied.

The same would apply to the child death review process. I think a coroner would always want to be very careful in commenting on those cases where criminal proceedings were not complete simply because of the fact that those criminal proceedings could be fatally contaminated if there was inappropriate disclosure ahead of the proper criminal proceedings.

D. MacKay: Just a couple of quick questions to the minister under section 8, dealing with the "Coroner may investigate deaths outside British Columbia." Is this something new that is being added to the Coroners Act?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, this is a new provision in the act and quite deliberately so. In spite of the fact that a death might occur outside of British Columbia, the circumstances that gave rise to that death may well have occurred inside of British Columbia. In that case, the coroner's office will want to learn as much as possible from those events, as is customary in the Coroners Service, to attempt to prevent other deaths similarly in the future.

D. MacKay: It mentions here that it must have a substantial connection to British Columbia. Does that refer specifically to a B.C. resident who perhaps goes to Mexico, something happens to them in Mexico and there are some questions still asked by the family members as to what happened down there?

Does this give the B.C. Coroners Service the authority to investigate what evidence is available to them within British Columbia to help the family come to some conclusion over the loss of a loved one outside of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: No, that is not quite what is intended here. What's intended here is that if a death occurs outside of British Columbia but the factors that gave rise to that death largely occurred in British Columbia, the coroner would then be able to investigate outside of British Columbia's borders — but to support the investigation which would actually, I would suggest, largely occur inside of British Columbia. The investigation that would occur outside of the province would complement the investigation within the boundaries of the province.

D. MacKay: Following up on that, under subsection (b) of section 8, it says, "…are such that, had the death occurred in British Columbia, it would have had to be reported under Part 2," and part 2 refers to deaths where people die from "violence, accident, negligence, misconduct or malpractice." So it brings back the question that if somebody is killed outside of British Columbia, it falls under section 2, from my reading here, because part 2 under Bill 8 still refers to someone who dies from violence or accident or negligence.

They may not have had something that was pre-existing in British Columbia that caused them to die while on holidays, but if they do die while they're on holidays, does subsection (b) under section 8 not give the Coroners Service, with the consent of the chief coroner, the right to investigate that death?

Hon. J. Les: Just to perhaps be clear, I'll use an analogy. The analogy that we like to use in discussing this particular section is the individual who is skiing in

eastern British Columbia, perhaps in Golden, has a serious accident, then is medevacked out to Calgary and subsequently dies in Calgary. That is the kind of case that would be captured by section 8(b).

D. MacKay: Well, I can understand if that was subsection (a), but subsection (b) talks about deaths that had they occurred in British Columbia, would be reported. Under part 2 under "Reporting deaths," it says: "A person must immediately report to a coroner or peace officer the facts and circumstances relating to the death of an adult…who the person has reason to believe has died…as a result of violence…."

So I'm talking specifically about where people are on holidays and die from the hands of a criminal, such as homicide, or a car accident. It was nothing to do with what happened to them in British Columbia, but they had an unfortunate demise in a country outside of British Columbia.

I don't like to belabour this, but I still am confused about the answer I had on that one.

Hon. J. Les: In the case of someone meeting their untimely death in a foreign jurisdiction where the event that gave rise to their death had nothing to do with any events in British Columbia, this section does not give the ability to the Coroners Service of British Columbia to go into a foreign jurisdiction and conduct an investigation.

That is clear. There has to be some substantial connection, as it says in section 8(a). In the example that I used, where someone was in fact skiing in British Columbia and had an accident, that would be the substantial connection which would give rise to the coroner being able to carry on his investigation and complete it — in Calgary, in that case.

D. MacKay: I apologize to the minister. I didn't see the word "and" after subsection (a). I apologize for belabouring that issue.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister if that section might have any relevance to a very infamous case, I guess, from my community involving a young Indo-Canadian woman named Jassi who met her death in India, but there was an extensive involvement, by all accounts, of the family in Canada both before and during the event.

I don't know…. In fact, the minister can perhaps tell me if there has been already a coroner's inquiry. I don't recall that there was, but if there hasn't been, and there is a connection between the two jurisdictions, might that give any…. Because it's been a very frustrating case, where no justice has really come about.

I'm just wondering if there's any way that might have any bearing on that kind of case.

Hon. J. Les: I am somewhat familiar with the case that the member cites. However, I think it would be unwise for me or anyone else in this House to comment on specific cases. As difficult as some of these are, they are best left in the hands of the authorities and not to speculation or suggestions in this House, however well-intentioned they might be.

I'm not trying to evade the particular case, but I have a real allergy to meddling in cases that are, by their very nature, extremely difficult and intricate and that are actually in the hands of professionals who are doing the best they can to resolve them.

M. Sather: Just one more question. I understand that the minister would not want to become involved in a particular case. If I could put it another way, notwithstanding or with reference to that case, if there is a situation where a crime occurs in another country…. I didn't hear the minister rule out the other country issue with regard to the last member's statements. If it's a crime that occurs in another country but part of that crime occurs in Canada, in British Columbia, could it have some relevance, in a general sense only?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's important to be clear here. Where a crime occurs in another country, that is beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities from British Columbia and probably Canada as well. Clearly, what this section contemplates is where misadventure largely occurs within British Columbia but the person, upon death, finds themselves in another jurisdiction or actually dies in another jurisdiction as a result of the substantial event that occurred within the province of British Columbia, then these powers apply.

M. Karagianis: In reading through "Powers of investigation," the coroner has a substantial number of duties here once a death has been reported in any of the circumstances under part 2. I'd like to ask where in here is there an indication that the coroner would have a duty to report on existing circumstances in the household? I'm thinking about child deaths again.

I see that the coroner has a whole number of actions here, including seizing anything that the coroner has reason to believe is relevant to the investigation through to requiring people to attend the coroner, but I don't see any language here around a duty to report, especially where there is a circumstance of a suspicious death. Again, I'm thinking very specifically of a historic case that has occurred and that should trigger, I think, closing the gap and any ability for that to be missed in the process.

Certainly I feel that in fact children's deaths have been one of the catalysts that have spurred the amendments being made to the Coroners Act around this. The duty to report…. There will obviously be some other opportunities in later clauses around this, but this seems to me to be the first case where there could be a trigger for the coroner to then trigger some kind of information flow back into the family or caregivers or protection officers that are involved with the family.

Hon. J. Les: As is often the case with legislation, when certain matters are already canvassed in other legislation, there is no need to repeat those requirements. In this particular case, in response to the member's question, in section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act there is a provision that every person who has reason to believe that a child needs protection must promptly report the matter to a director or a person designated by a director under that act. It's covered in that act, and I think that is what the member intends.

M. Karagianis: I am aware that we already do have some legislative protection there, but certainly in the case of the Coroners Act, where the responsibilities for children's deaths have been somewhat of great focus here…. We do realize and know from historic events that took place that the duties the coroner undertakes do not necessarily extend themselves into child protection as part of, I guess, the lens through which investigations are launched and carried out.

Again, I just need some assurance here from the minister that in fact when a coroner begins an investigation there are other triggers there that alert the government and/or family and/or other agencies perhaps that are involved with the specific child death around other members of the family who may be at risk. Because we have seen very specifically an incidence of this — and I do not believe that I see here in this language that it has been addressed — I'm asking the minister at this point: where is the trigger, then, for the coroner to think slightly beyond the prescribed mandate into the ramifications around other actions with children, in child death reviews, where this is particularly important?

I'm sure it may occur in other circumstances, but in this case, given the history and our understanding of a very specific situation that occurred in a child death review, where a subsequent sibling was left in a very dangerous situation for a very long time…. Where in this amended legislation do we see that gap closing or perhaps that mandate, that lens, being put on to this legislative language? And if it's not there, then why would we not see this amendment as an opportunity to make sure that is there?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the member opposite's concern around these issues because clearly sometimes in these very tragic situations it's imperative, actually, to make sure that there are no further people being put in danger, whether they're children or otherwise. But as I've just recited from the Child, Family and Community Service Act, it is the law today that people must report if they believe that a child needs protection. It's the law already today. It doesn't need to be specifically recited in this act.

Everybody who has anything to do in investigating a child death in British Columbia, by virtue of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, already is legally bound to ensure that they report any situation that might be jeopardizing the safety of another child. So I think that legislation is very clear, and it applies to anybody who is acting in those circumstances.

M. Karagianis: We did have a circumstance and, I think, very clear statements made by the Coroners Service that the coroner perceived their job to be to examine death and only people who had died, versus extending their duty around investigating and reporting on the environment in which the individual that died was living or was subject. My concern here is that.

Clearly, the coroner's job is to review deaths and is not necessarily extended to people who are not dead, other than in the course of an inquest or investigation. That is my big concern here. Given the imperative around children's deaths and all of the subsequent events that have occurred here in this House around that, I would like some comfort that in rewriting this legislation and amending the Coroners Act, we are in fact broadening the Coroners Service and its ability to look beyond just strictly a very prescripted and very narrow interpretation of its mandate to simply examine someone who has died, rather than the circumstances around those left in that environment where the death occurred. I think that's a really important distinction here in child death reviews.

I realize that we've certainly covered some of this off, and by instating the children's representative and things, we've put in a number of other resources here. But if in fact we're rewriting this act, then I would like some comfort that those assurances are here, that the coroner's view of the world has been expanded somewhat to include those left in a dangerous situation after a violent death.

Hon. J. Les: While it is true that the primary mandate of the Coroners Service is, as it is often termed, to speak for the dead or, to put it another way, to ascertain the facts as to what happened, how and why someone died, no one in society is exempt from complying with the law. When a coroner is investigating a death and uncovers situations where any normal, reasonable-thinking person might anticipate that someone else is being put in danger, particularly a child, that coroner at that point in time has a duty to report that circumstance. The member opposite and I, in that situation, would have a duty under current law in British Columbia to report that situation.

I think that the member's concerns are very adequately addressed under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. They certainly apply to the coroner in the conduct of his or her duties, so I don't see any gap here that needs to be addressed.

M. Karagianis: If the duty to report was not carried out, what action does government have to take, then, towards the Coroners Service if it was found that the Coroners Service, for whatever reasons, did not look beyond their immediate mandate of investigating a death? I mean, we know of a very specific incident that took place, and there was a report that came out that didn't have a lot of very harsh recommendations. What actions does government take in the case where that kind of negligence has taken place?

Hon. J. Les: In any of these kinds of situations there is always going to be the necessity for professional

judgment, for a reasonable assessment of the facts and then a conclusion to be drawn from that.

I think we always have to be careful to ensure that we don't jump to conclusions afterwards. Hindsight is always 20-20, and we have seen over time some extremely difficult cases that are actually much easier to adjudicate after the fact than at the time that people are doing their very, very best to try and deal with what are often horrendously difficult circumstances.

Clearly, however, if on a reasonable review of the facts a horrendous error of judgment has occurred or there's demonstrated complete incompetence, then the usual remedies would apply. We are not in the habit, in these kinds of situations, of maintaining people who simply are incompetent in the employ of important agencies like the Coroners Service.

On the one hand, we have to recognize that these are extremely difficult situations, often attended by a great deal of anxiety and emotion and sometimes, as well, not a very clear-cut set of circumstances, perhaps. But on the other hand, we have to be able to always be in a position where if there is clear incompetence, we deal with that very directly as well.

M. Karagianis: Similar to my question earlier about investigation time lines…. Again, inquests. It says when an inquest is to be held. We know of circumstances — I think the minister even alluded to it earlier — when inquests often can be delayed for an extraordinary amount of time. I know of several cases recently where we saw inquests occur five and six years after the death.

I'm wondering why we cannot find a way to conduct this particular aspect of investigations and reviews in a more timely manner. Six years after the death of a child is an enormous amount of time for a family to wait for clarification on the conditions of the child death.

Hon. J. Les: Again, as I said earlier, timeliness in these things is critically important. When an investigation and an inquest go on for a prolonged period of time — and the member opposite is right; we've seen one or two cases where it's been as long as five or six years — clearly, that tends to be pretty unacceptable, certainly for the families involved, but it's not always avoidable. I guess that's very, very unfortunate, but in some cases it will simply not be avoidable because of other processes, particularly criminal processes, that are ongoing at the same time.

I suspect that there have been cases in the past where there could have been some additional haste, if you will. With a view to that, the Coroners Service has recently brought on staff in-house legal counsel to advise the Coroners Service on a case-by-case basis where legal advice is required. I think that's a valuable addition to the Coroners Service so that we can look for those opportunities to speed up the process, giving due regard to other processes that are ongoing.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I'm actually very happy to hear that legal advisers have been brought on to try and hasten the process.

I have one other question on this. I guess one of the questions that comes to mind here is: are there enough other resources for the Coroners Service to carry out these inquests in a more timely manner? Are they in fact delayed, much the same as court appearances, by backlogs in courts rather than investigations?

It would seem to me, and I know that in the circumstance of the child's death on Texada, the six-year span that went on…. The criminal investigation certainly would have been completed in much less time than that. Are there other resources that play into this? Is part of the backup somewhat like court systems, where it's simply a backlog of that kind of work that needs to be done and that doesn't have the adequate resources?

Hon. J. Les: There are, of course, a variety of reasons why it sometimes takes a long time to schedule a coroner's inquest. We've seen one recently where it was the family's legal counsel who was not available for some considerable period of time, leading to some delay in scheduling the inquest.

At other times it is the coroner's time that might not be readily available. At other times it is key witnesses who need to be available and aren't for whatever reason. Quite often the Coroners Service finds itself trying to coordinate the availabilities of quite a range of people to be able to schedule an inquest where all of the various required parties can attend.

We today have a wide range of people and services and expertise available within the Coroners Service to expedite these matters, so it can readily be said that where delays occur today, they certainly are not the result directly of delays within the Coroners Service itself.

M. Karagianis: That leads to the latter part of this section where it says that the minister may require an inquest. The minister has the capacity, then, to override a number of these concerns. It says: "The minister may order a coroner to hold an inquest if (a) the coroner has not held an inquest but the minister is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable in the public interest…."

The minister has the capacity to push the buttons on this one and say, "I want an inquest," and force that situation. Can the minister explain why that would be possible — that he could override the system — and yet in the natural course of events we end up with these protracted time frames that are ridiculous?

Hon. J. Les: I know that the time is moving on. I will finish up by providing this answer.

It is true. The minister responsible for the Coroners Service is able to ask for an inquest, but simply asking

for an inquest doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be scheduled tomorrow morning. You still need to have the appropriate parties ready to attend the inquest before the inquest can physically be held.

I suspect we will have further discussion and debate on this section and others. But noting the hour, I move that we 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.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

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

D. Cubberley: We've had a bit of a hiatus since we began this. Where we left off last time in my questioning was around some aspects of the financing of public education. I just have a couple of questions that I would like to follow up on because I didn't have the opportunity before.

We had been discussing this thesis that had been put forward by Mr. Searle about the two pots of money and the inequitable access for some of the smaller school districts to the main source of funding. One of the comments that were made, on page 6611 in the Blues, was: "We've provided a series of buffer grants. There are a number of supplementary grants that are not contemplated, I think, in Mr. Searle's work." I wanted to come back to that and ask questions.

What are those supplementary grants that are not contemplated in Mr. Searle's work? How is access to those grants accomplished? Are they available to every school district, every smaller school district? Is it a function of districts that have low population relative to size? Do they relate to composition? Just how does that work?

As the member opposite pointed out, we have been on a bit of hiatus, and because of that, I should remind the members who I have on this terrific team today. Well, I have a terrific team every day, but I wanted to remind you who those members of the team that are here might be. I have with me today Emery Dosdall, who is the deputy minister. I have Keith Miller, Neil Matheson and Rick Davis, who are all key parts of the executive of our ministry. I appreciate their support today and every day in the work we do.

The comment I was making to the member opposite about buffer grants was related to enrolment decline. We have built in a process in the formula so that if a district faces decline, there are some funds that go with that decline to help them through the transition.

There are three stages, in essence, with those grants: a 1-percent threshold, so that if a district loses 1 percent or more of their students, there are some supplementary funds; 4 percent, and obviously the threshold of funding would change at that level; and then 7 percent, which is an accumulation of decline over a two-year period. So there are really three ways that districts in decline receive additional funding.

The other question I think the member had is: how do they get that? It is part of the formula. It's automatically added to a district's budget dependent on their enrolment numbers.

Finally, the other thing we have made sure of in the last two years is that no district has actually dropped below the previous year's funding. So in fact, we built in some protection for them.

D. Cubberley: What I'd like to know about that is: is this money that comes available for a year and which is intended as a buffer and then disappears at the end of a year, unless the decline is of such an order that it triggers the higher amount? And in ministry figures made available to the public, how would these moneys show up? How would they be broken out? How would someone wanting to know that a district did or didn't qualify ascertain that?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct, in that the money doesn't disappear, but the money is based on the premise of declining enrolment. It's recalculated each year. So if you've lost 1 percent one year,

obviously you look at that again the next year. If they lose another 1 percent, then that's added that year.

It is recalculated every year, and yes, the breakdown is made public. It's in our operating grants allocations, and that is actually published on our website. It does break down a district's budget in terms of those specific amounts attached to each of those categories.

D. Cubberley: Just to come back, because not being inside education finance, I do find this somewhat challenging. Mr. Searle's thesis about funding was that the smaller and more remote school districts generate a larger portion of their funding from supplementary pots of money. Even though the lion's share of that money goes to larger school districts in the supplementary pots, they are confined to generating more of their overall revenue from the supplementary pots.

He also makes the point that over time the main FTE-based funding that applies to all school districts has increased by a certain factor, but the supplementary forms of funding have increased by a lesser amount. I don't have the numbers ready to hand, but I can get a copy of the report to staff, although I'm sure they have seen it.

The question is: if the thesis is correct about the more remote and smaller school districts being more dependent on access to the supplementary funding for their total allocation, doesn't the lack of comparability in additions to offset inflation inherent in the structure in fact disadvantage them?

Hon. S. Bond: I guess one thing I feel necessary to restate for the member opposite is that this discussion around Mr. Searle's thesis is one that is not new to us. Certainly, as a ministry, we have spent considerable time debating and looking at the thesis, and we agree to disagree with Mr. Searle.

What I really take very seriously is the advice provided to me as minister by the technical review committee, which is a group of experts who actually work in the field and understand the issue. They bring back recommendations about how to ensure that the formula is equitable. We do have a population-based formula, and so one of the things we have done is build in those protections for some of the rural and smaller districts in particular, who are facing significant enrolment declines.

I think we try to create a formula that is as equitable as possible. The technical review committee does its work and reports to the ministry and the minister every year, and we try to take that information, analyze it and adjust the formula accordingly.

I think I shared with the member opposite before our working break that in fact, this year there were recommendations made around English-as-a-second-language funding and also first nations student funding. We thought that those recommendations were certainly excellent, and we have now adjusted the formula to reflect that advice from the technical review committee.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that response. I just want to come back to another thing that we canvassed.

We were looking at what there might be by way of new money for new programming that was in the budget. We had gone through an elaborate process of discussing that and, I believe, gotten to something in the order of $20 million, which related to…. Perhaps it does or doesn't relate to Bill 33 implementation. The minister can enlighten me in that regard.

We had also been canvassing money that, for lack of a better term, is called holdback money, which is based on, I guess, a safeguard in the event that the projections of enrolment in reality vary over what they were at the time when budgets were set.

One of the things I want to ask about is the suggestion that there was, in the course of this past year, I believe, a quiet change in ministry policy. If I have this right, the policy in the past had been that the holdback money would be distributed within the system at the end of the year. However, it would reflect the actual elements of enrolment, and it might be allocated to discretionary things. I could be wrong about that, but it might be allocated across the system if in fact it turned out to be surplus to what was actually needed based on actual enrolments.

Is there any truth to the suggestion that that money is now being held back within the ministry and that it is not being allocated in the manner that it was in the past? We'll start there.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we did canvass the discussion around new money in public education, and I think we need to be clear about the new money that's going in. It's all new money. It's where it's allocated or not and how that has been done.

In '05-06 we added $150 million to public education, and that was with the recommendation to look at things like special education funding, arts and those kinds of things. We said: "Here are 150 million new dollars, and here is where you should consider thinking about using it."

In '06-07 we added $470 million, and I think that's the discussion we were having. It was around the $470 million. It may well have been. I don't remember precisely, but $470 million, the vast majority of which was to honour our commitment to pay for the negotiated contracts.

Yes, there is $20 million, tagged not directly to Bill 33, but when we sent the final grants to school boards or to grant allocations, we certainly made it clear that class size and composition was a priority and that that should be considered as boards made those decisions.

This year alone we're adding 116 million new dollars. I think it's important to note that all of those dollars are new. The fact of the matter is that many of those dollars are assigned to funding the contracts that we settled. We made that commitment, and we honoured it.

In terms of the holdback, I don't think there has been a silent shift in ministry policy. We've always said clearly that dollars would be distributed, but we do have to make adjustments based on final numbers and special education students. That practice continues, and that information, with adjustments made along the way, is given to boards with their final grants.

D. Cubberley: My next question would be: in the event, say, that enrolment was less than it had been projected to be and there was an amount of money left in the holdback, would that money be distributed across the system for other purposes — within operating funds, let's say? Or could the money become available for use for capital funding? Could it slide over into another spending envelope?

Hon. S. Bond: It would not slide across to capital, for example. These are operating dollars, and that's expected. But we are expected to make adjustments based on…. Enrolment decline wouldn't be the only factor. For example, the composition would be an important part of that. If there are more English-as-a-second-language students than expected, we adjust for that.

Certainly, as time goes on, we need to adjust the funding to meet the needs of the system. The money stays in the system, and we are looking at allocating those dollars. For example, we're looking at more money for ESL students and first nations students. We look at those kinds of adjustments.

I think the bottom line…. I certainly understand the questions about a funding formula, but the reality of the way we're funding public education is that it's at the highest level it's ever been at. We have ongoing enrolment decline, and we see ongoing increases in budget for the next years out. I do think that we need to look at priorities, but we are committed to continuing to fund public education in a similar way that we have. There will be some adjustments, though, as we look at enrolments and as we look at composition as well.

D. Cubberley: When the minister says that the funding is at the highest level ever…. Obviously, it's a statement of fact. The dollar amounts are bigger now than they have been in the past. Typically, that happens even if we don't do anything, because there's some creep in inflation that leads the same program to cost more each year.

My question would be: are we at the highest per-capita funding level ever — I believe she said in the history of the province — relative to program delivered? For example, if we included what happened in the first term where, say, a portion of a teacher's settlement was off-loaded onto the districts and they were asked to pay for some percentage of that — perhaps 50 percent — or where they were asked to pick up the increases in MSP premiums for their workers or the increased costs of operating buildings were asked to be absorbed….

If we included all of those things and we allowed for the fact that funding the same number of teachers to do the same program, even if it cost more money, isn't a real increase — that is, it's a notional increase; it costs more dollars, but we are not actually funding at a richer level for programs delivered — is it the highest level of funding?

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the challenges we all face is the complexity of the formula, and yet it's much simpler than it was. Certainly, when I was a school board chair, I remember that there were all kinds of targets and things attached to it.

Having said that, yes, it is a statement of fact. The actual dollar amount for funding public education is the highest it's ever been in British Columbia. I think we are at risk, though, if we don't put the other factor into that equation, and that's the fact that we also have, as of next year, more than likely 50,000 fewer students.

When the member opposite asks about the delivery of programs and all of those kinds of things, it's not a simple trade-off. Again, we have 50,000 fewer children. Again, complexity of the classroom also changes. Who is in that classroom, and how do we serve special needs children?

It is really complex to try to sort that out, but if you look at the measure that we use, which is per-pupil funding, our average per-pupil operating grant goes up, just in 2007-2008, by $336 per student. That makes it about $7,932 — the highest ever. We were at $7,093 in 2005-2006, so you can see that even over two years we've seen an increase in that per-pupil number, which is really, I guess, the best measure we can look at if we take the complexity of the system. Obviously, costs go up.

I think the other thing that's also a bit troubling in the member opposite's analysis of it…. You can't pluck salaries out of those things. You can't take out pensions and harmonization — all of the pieces that go into funding public education. That is probably about 89 or 90 percent of how we've funded public education historically.

Really, the vast majority of the funding for public education is in people. It's hard to sort it out by program versus people, but it is a factual statement. It is the largest amount ever. Consistently, we have seen that per-student funding — granted, rising by smaller increments at the beginning of the mandate, as the member opposite pointed out — increasing nonetheless.

D. Cubberley: I think the challenge with numbers is always to sort out what we're actually buying for a dollar expended and to try to find ways to compare like with like. It is a very complex thing, in dealing with health care or education, to establish like and like for the purposes of comparison.

Just a couple of questions before we leave funding. Just to give you a sense, where I'm hoping to go is into some English-as-a-second-language queries after this. A couple of coarse measures: education spending as a percent of GDP today versus sometime in the first mandate. It could be at the beginning or wherever you want to measure it from. Is it as it was? Is it rising? Is it falling?

Hon. S. Bond: That isn't a measure. Just sort of canvassing the ministry, it's not one that we would use in terms of how we measure, to quote the member

opposite, what we're buying. So in fact, we don't have that comparison in those terms.

D. Cubberley: Well, I can understand that you might not have it to hand. I would ask if the minister would give an undertaking to generate it. I think from an economic perspective and from a business perspective there is a connection between what we invest in our public education system and the kinds of economic opportunities that are created through the development of human capital, through social capital, both of which…. The education system is the primary creator of new capital.

It may not be the only measure that we would use in trying to evaluate how well we're doing, but typically as GDP increases, so do government revenues. It is an interesting measure to look at over time as to whether we're allocating more of our GDP, whether we're keeping up with the growth in GDP and allocating that to public education, whether we're flat, or whether we're actually decreasing as a share and education is or isn't getting a portion of those resources.

I would first ask the minister if she would be willing to have staff generate that number. It's not of concern whether it's available this moment or not. The second thing, which would be easier to do, I would think, and might be informative as well, is to ask about education spending K-to-12 as a percent of the provincial budget over time. Is it increasing? Is it falling? Is it stable?

Hon. S. Bond: We will endeavour to get the provincial budget percentages, but suffice it to say that in terms of increases to public education, if you look at 2001-02, we started out with the block funding budget being $3.7 billion, and in 2007-08 we're at $4.3 billion. This is just the block funding amount that goes out to school districts.

At the same time, we have seen an estimated drop, by 2007-08, of 50,000 students. If you were to look at a five-year change, when you look at enrolment decline, we're down by almost 7 percent. Through that same period of time we're at over 14½-percent increase in the budget.

We have to actually look at that cumulatively because you're dropping by 7 percent over those years, and you're increasing the budget by almost 15 percent there. I think it's 14.6-something percent. We will endeavour to get the percentage of the provincial budget for the member opposite.

Of the 7 percent decline in enrolment in public schools, what portion of that would be attributable to parents choosing to enrol in private schools in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: There is absolutely not anywhere near a direct correlation between the drop in enrolment and independent schools. There is some attrition that we can potentially track to independent schools.

If we look at the numbers that we most recently have — and I can give you one year as an example, the last year — in the public education system we lost about 12,000 students, and about 1,700 we can track went to independent schools. So we had a drop last year of 12,000 students, and I'm told that that number might be nearer 1,700 that went to independent schools.

D. Cubberley: I'm going to cede the floor to a colleague who would like to pose a more local question to the minister.

N. Macdonald: In the throne speech last year the minister committed to visiting all of the school districts. Based on that, assuming that you had all the time in the world…. Of course, you had a letter from Martin Morigeau parents. They were wondering: when you have the opportunity to come, would you meet with them?

My experience has been that they will have a perspective that is valid, even though in terms of the formulas I think it's complex for all of us to fully understand the implications of that. I can tell you that the experience they have is a valid experience, and that it would be useful for you to meet with them.

As an MLA, I fully understand the complications of time and trying to get to all of these places, and Canal Flats is quite distant. What I would say is that there is a group of parents that would very much like to meet you. I think they would accommodate your schedule.

That's what I put to you. Is it something that you can work into the schedule? We do that with the assumption that there is a commitment to the future of these small rural schools. It's something that I feel strongly about. I was principal of a school that was about 100 or 120 students, and there were complications with that size of school. We've talked about this before, but I'll leave it with you.

Is that something that we can look at arranging? I certainly would be very happy to host you in Canal Flats.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite. I do appreciate the invitation.

The member opposite is exactly right. I have been out visiting districts across the province. I have done 47 school districts. I don't think it's ever been done before, and I know why: because the geography is incredibly challenging.

It's been fantastic, I can tell you. Really, it isn't about the size of the school. I have just come back…. During our break, when we work in our constituencies, I'd actually been in Bella Coola, Hagensborg, Port Hardy, Ashcroft, Lillooet — all kinds of wonderful places.

The Kootenays is on our list. Actually, it's probably going to take me about a week to do all of the school districts in the Kootenays in its entirety.

I'm happy to work with the school districts. Normally they set up the visits, but I can certainly mention this one. I'm very much looking forward to about a week, I think, in the Kootenays, to get all the school districts done up there. We'll get them done before the end of this school year.

R. Chouhan: This is to the minister. I got a letter from one of our teachers in Burnaby-Edmonds, Laura Mathers. She asked me to ask you this question so she can have your response for her students there.

Hon. S. Bond: I just wanted to get the most information I could for the member opposite so that we get this. First of all, I should let you know that my deputy minister is actually talking to the superintendent of the Burnaby school district about that very issue. Obviously, if children come as refugees and they have language deficits, there is an issue. I'm told by my staff that if there is a language issue for FSAs, a student can be excused if they obviously can't master the English.

We are aware of the circumstances in the Burnaby school district, and we are trying to find a way to make the best situation possible for those children in that school district. One of the things I think is important is that we do work with the Ministry of the Attorney General to try to provide things like settlement funding and work with them in partnership. We've had a really good opportunity to have some discussion about that in terms of the distribution of federal dollars attached to that program.

The other thing is that this year we have, as a result of information from the Technical Review Committee, increased funding for ESL students by $64.

Hon. S. Bond: It's $74. One went up $64; one went up $74. So it's $74 per student to try to provide additional resources for children who are receiving English-as-a-second-language services. We are increasing those dollars. We are working with your school district.

In terms of foundation skills assessment generally, we do believe that it is one of the tools, not the only one, but certainly one assessment tool that helps school districts and teachers and ultimately the province make sure we have a strategy for ongoing improvement.

We would be happy to get back to the member after my deputy has had some further discussion with the superintendent of the school district.

R. Chouhan: I appreciate the response, Minister. I just want one more clarification. The minister mentioned the settlement services money coming from the federal government. Is the minister aware of how much money this year we will be receiving and how much money of settlement services will actually be used for ESL training in these areas?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't know the amount, but I'm certain that in canvassing that with the Attorney General he would have that right at the tip of his fingers.

The Chair: Saved by the bell. Division is called. We will stand recessed until following the division vote.

D. Chudnovsky: A few minutes ago the minister, in responding to a question from my colleague from Burnaby, suggested — and I think she was right — that for some students for whom English is a challenge, it's inappropriate for them to be tested on the FSA tests.

I was wondering if we could pursue that discussion a little bit with the minister and get a sense of what she thinks are the parameters of that inappropriateness or impropriety. That is, which students might it be inappropriate for and which might it be appropriate for?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we need to be clear that the answer to that question was given when asked about refugee children who had arrived in Canada, who had not had an experience in school. One would expect that there should be some flexibility in a principle around assessment and that — based on the best professional judgment of a professional, not the Minister of Education — there be some leeway for students such as the member from Burnaby described to us.

Having said that, there is an expectation that students participate in FSA. It is not voluntary. There is an expectation that students, for the most part, participate, and only when in the best professional judgment and in a situation where children have never been in school

D. Chudnovsky: It's that very flexibility that the minister talks about that I wanted to explore with her a little bit. Is it the case, then, that it is the professional judgment of the teacher in a classroom that determines the extent to which the otherwise non-voluntary nature of the FSA test gets administered?

The minister has said there are some kids for whom it's inappropriate. The teacher, as the professional, gets to decide that. I just want to make sure that I understand her correctly.

Hon. S. Bond: No, that's not what I said. I know this discussion will take place in the context of two people who have a difference of opinion about this subject. I think we have to be thoughtful about how we answer and respond to these questions.

What I said was that in the case that was brought to my attention about students who were refugees to British Columbia and had not had a school experience, there may be, in the professional judgment of those teachers, an opportunity to accommodate that circumstance.

Having said that, foundations skills assessments are required for students, and so we're not looking for a wide band of exceptions here. We are looking at those extraordinary circumstances where, in a professional's judgment and where the student has significant language challenge, obviously that would be a place where there should be some flexibility.

D. Chudnovsky: So I understand her to say that there are some extraordinary circumstances — what she calls extraordinary circumstances. Fair enough. We may disagree about all kinds of stuff, but we talk to one another here in the Legislature, and we try to understand what each other is saying.

I'm not going to change my point of view on FSA, and I know the minister isn't going to change her dogmatic and inflexible view of FSA either. But I want to understand what she's saying. I think she is saying there are extraordinary circumstances when a teacher can make a professional judgment about whether it's proper for the student to write the FSA test.

My question to her is: can she think of other extraordinary circumstances that might occur where that might be the case?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is ultimately the decision of the administrator about who will participate in FSA exams. I would assume that if a teacher had a significant concern about a particular child and their challenges, they would go to the administrator.

It isn't the minister's job to make that decision. It is the professionals'. It is in their judgment, but again, the member opposite is absolutely correct. We believe there's a role for foundation skills assessment, and we do not have a list of exemptions from that. We expect there to be some professional judgment.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for what I think is a useful clarification of her view of the matter.

I just want to ask one more question. It may lead to one or two others, but I don't think so. But who knows, you can never tell with the member for Vancouver-Kensington. The minister also has some input into how long this is going to take.

With respect to the FSA and the necessity or…. I can't remember the minister's exact words, but I think she said it's not voluntary. And she is the minister, so we better listen to that. But she has carved out a category where it might not be required, and I just want to clarify that there is one other category of which we're all aware, which is a category of students whose parents request that they not participate. Is that also the case?

Hon. S. Bond: If a parent has a significant concern about their child, they can go and speak with the administrator of their school. But generally speaking, I can tell the member opposite that the organization that represents parents in this province has for a number of years supported foundation skills assessment as an organization and has actually made that clear on numerous occasions. Generally speaking, parents want more information, not less.

In order to answer the question specifically, if a parent has an issue, they can go and speak to the administrator. It would be a decision the administrator would make.

D. Chudnovsky: See, she did it. We didn't predict it — anticipated, perhaps.

So is the minister saying that if a parent comes to the administrator and says, "I have concerns, and I don't think my child should write this test," the administrator could say: "Nope, you're wrong. The kid has to write it"? Is that what she's saying?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, that is far too simplistic — is it this way or is it that way. I'm sure the member opposite, who has had a career in public education, recognizes that there are some things that students are required to take.

I'm sure if a parent came to the administrator and said, "I don't think my child should take language arts," we might have a discussion about whether or not that should be an acceptable response from the administrator.

We actually believe that parents have a meaningful role in public education. They should speak to the administrator, and if there's a bona fide reason that a student may not take that course….

Generally speaking, we need assessment. We need measures along the way that actually show us that our students are being successful. Let's remember that foundation skills assessment is not about: "We can study for this test." It's a way of capturing a student's skill set at a particular point in time, twice in a ten-year period.

I'm hopeful and confident, after hundreds of visits to schools and classrooms, that teachers, parents, stu-

dents and administrators will work together to make decisions that are in the best interests of those children.

D. Cubberley: Just listening to that, I found myself wanting to ask the following question: what percent of kids overall don't write the FSA? Do the percentages vary with subpopulations within the overall school population, and do they vary between elementary school and high school?

Hon. S. Bond: The percentage is extremely high. I don't have the specific number here. Of course, FSAs are written only in grades 4 and 7, so it would just be….

Hon. S. Bond: Yeah. Grade 10 would be provincial exams, in terms of moving forward.

We don't have the number off the top of our heads, but we will certainly look it up. It's probably around 90 percent of our students that actually take FSA.

D. Cubberley: On another topic that we were canvassing before, a decrease in enrolment, we were talking about what portion might be being bled off into private schools. You had given 12,000 as roughly the number for decline in the past year and about 1,700 students that were additions to private school. So that would be — I've never been great at math — about 15 percent?

Hon. S. Bond: Let me just give you the numbers because then I can give you the rationale that we have. It's not as clear as 1,700 from public to independent. I want to be really thoughtful about making sure that's clear.

In 2005-2006 the number of students we had in public education was 599,506, and in 2006-2007 it's 587,819. Then if you look at the independent school numbers, in 2005-2006 we had 66,137, and in 2006-2007 we have 67,885. Those were the sort of gross numbers that I gave to the member.

The challenge we have is that we can't track them directly from public over to independent. It could be new kindergarten starts, and they could have also come from another province. That number is not pure in terms of a straight transfer.

D. Cubberley: Clarifications are always useful, and I didn't want to make the case or even begin to make the case that it was a straight transfer. But it is the case that private school enrolment is growing, and substantially, at a time when public school enrolment is declining. Irrespective of whether those two things are directly linked or not, those two things are happening in tandem.

I had promised to get into ESL about a half-hour ago, so I'm going to try and do that now. I just wanted to get a little bit of information to frame the discussion so that we're starting from the same point. I'll begin by asking how many ESL students we have in the public system now, what percent of the overall population they are and is it continuing to rise, and like that.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the challenges I'm facing now that I've had a fairly significant birthday is that they keep giving me pieces of paper that are so tiny, I can barely…. I'm admitting I can hardly read this; I have to put it a bit farther away here.

It actually went down. In 2005 we had 57,585. Is that right? It looks right. In 2007-2008 if we look at our estimated number, it's 57,315. In 2006-2007 it went up 0.2 percent. So we see 57,585; 57,723; and then 57,315.

We've seen a 0.2-percent increase only, and then it will drop by 0.7 percent in the coming year.

D. Cubberley: It's interesting. I'm surprised in some respects that there isn't more sign of growth, because I understand that immigration is rising overall in Canada and that B.C.'s share of it is substantial and increasing. I believe we received 45,000 in '05-06, 40 percent of whom were children and youth.

Let me ask this question. Is the number that we calculate the number of kids who are within a five-year funding envelope for ESL, or is it all kids who begin as ESL students?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. There is a five-year funding envelope for students who utilize English-as-a-second-language services. These numbers are simply the accumulation of the school district totals that they give us about children designated as English as a second language. They would simply check it off, and we would add up those totals. So these would be students that were being served in that current year by the school district.

The member opposite made an interesting observation around immigration. I don't have any sort of studies or facts, but anecdotally, we've heard that immigrant families are similar to ours in that when they come, they're coming with fewer children. So we are seeing a similar decline in that early school population, as we are in all families around the world, in fact.

D. Cubberley: Just to clarify on that point though. The number that we claim as ESL kids in the system, is that only children within the five-year funding, and once they pass out of that, they're no longer rated as ESL kids by the system?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member has it absolutely correct. Let me just reiterate to make sure we're in the same place. They are counted while they're in the five-year window, and when they move outside of that five-year window, they are no longer counted as an English-as-a-second-language student.

D. Cubberley: I'm going to read something which is, I believe, drawn from Ministry of Education literature as a description of what ESL is doing. Then I want to ask a question which is philosophical but not a trick question.

What I have is that ESL is described as a transitional service — which would fit with this idea of the five-year window — to ensure successful integration into regular classes as soon as possible, and that the goals for it are: to become proficient in English, to develop intellectually as citizens and to enable ESL learners to achieve the expected learning outcomes of the provincial curriculum.

I have a question around this is. When we teach French as a second language in British Columbia, we have a French immersion program which begins and doesn't stop at the end of five years. The approach that we take for ourselves to learn a second language is as an ongoing program which lasts presumably throughout the entire school career.

My question would be: why do we conceptualize ESL along lines that are entirely opposite for the acquisition of a second language from the way in which we conceptualize the acquisition of French for ourselves? There would seem to be similarities. Probably there are some differences, but I'm just interested in why that's the case.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think it's an interesting question. I think the difference…. We've just been talking about how to answer a question like that. As I have chatted with parents across the province and certainly in ESL opportunities to speak with parents of children who have English as a second language, many of them actually want their children to be integrated as quickly as possible.

In many ways, children in French immersion already live in an English culture, so for many of those children, the only place they hear French is in school. So I think there is a bit of a different approach to it. I would hope that part of it is that we don't want education to be one-size-fits-all.

Part of what's important to many — I'm not saying to all — English-as-a-second-language families is the ability for their children to be integrated, certainly not to the exclusion of their culture or anything like that, but as quickly as possible into a more regular public school classroom.

D. Cubberley: Yes, and I think that's true. In fact, I'll have occasion to come back to this later on.

There's some evidence from ESL researchers that families apply significant pressure on kids to get them out of ESL and that they may, in some cases, be leaving ESL prematurely because the families and some of the kids view it as a bit of a ghetto, which is challenging. I think if you put yourself in the shoes of somebody who's having this experience, you can see why that might be the case, if in fact the ESL curriculum doesn't generate credit in lockstep with other programming.

One of the questions I have is: are the minister and the ministry looking at this phenomenon and asking themselves whether the design of these programs is optimal from the point of view of getting students to the point where they are proficient in English, capable of participating as citizens and achieving the expected learning outcomes in the regular system if, in fact, they're in a hurry to get out of the very training program that's been set up to give them their passport?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the enormous advantages to a commitment to travel around the province and visit school districts is really the opportunity to see pretty amazing things happening. School districts design their English-as-a-second-language programs very differently, but all of them work very hard to meet the needs of their students.

I think one of the measures of that is, when you look at how well our students are doing, when you look at school completion rates, our English-as-a-second-language students actually outperform other students in British Columbia. In 2005-2006, 82 percent of our ESL students completed high school, compared to 79 percent of our non-English-as-a-second-language students.

I think programs are different across the province. They are working very hard to meet the needs of students. In some schools it is a far more complex issue because of the numbers, and the percentages are higher in some schools than in others. But if you look at the results, our students are doing very well as a result of that innovative programming and hard work in school districts.

D. Cubberley: I take it from what the minister has said that school districts and the ministry track ESL students. Even though they pass out of the funding envelope, they track them. I'd be interested in hearing a little bit more about that just to confirm.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. We do track English-as-a-second-language students, as we track other students, in order to look at the completion rates. We're able to do that because they have their PEN number, and we do track them. We also will be able to look at post-secondary transition and how they do when they transfer into post-secondary institutions.

We've done two reports over time in the ministry called How Are we Doing? We have typically done those for first nations students. We just recently — last year, I believe — did our first one for students with special needs, and we're now contemplating whether we can look at a report similar to that same style for English-as-a-second-language students.

Certainly, we do track. The number that I gave the member opposite is a result of tracking those students through to high school completion.

D. Cubberley: A number of Canadian researchers have looked at ESL across the country — and a number in British Columbia as well — and have made the suggestion that while completion rates give you one picture of how ESL kids are doing overall, if you measure by other things like dropout rates or disappearance from specific academic courses or by low achievement, the picture is different.

I guess my off-the-top question would be: do we track ESL students by any of those other measures? Are we looking, for example, at the disappearance from mandatory courses or the lack of participation in

English language–based courses like communications, English, history or social studies as indicators of performance, or only looking at the completion rate?

Hon. S. Bond: When we talk about the potential for a "how are we doing?" report similar to the other two areas that we currently do them in, those are questions that we do need to spend some more time thinking about. We do not have mechanisms in place to the degree that we would like to in some of the areas that the member opposite mentioned. But I very much think that we will continue to look at a report similar to the one we do for first nations students and also for students with special needs, which breaks down the information much more significantly.

Overall and generally speaking, when we track our students, we see that English-as-a-second-language students do very well. To graduate, of course, they must write either English 12 or something in that subject. So in essence, there's more work to be done. I feel very confident that we are seeing some really excellent results, but obviously there's more work to be done.

D. Cubberley: Just a little add-on question there. Is the graduation rate different from the completion rate? Is the graduation rate the number who graduate with sufficient credits to be able to engage in post-secondary versus the completion rate, which is those who pass out of grade 12 but who would not be able to step into post-secondary?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they are different. The completion rate is actually the students who are able to acquire a Dogwood within six years. From grade 8 they get six years to do that. The graduation rate is actually the students who are eligible to graduate in their grade 12 year, and they do graduate.

The completion rate is an additional year. It is six years. You have that window to complete, and you receive a Dogwood degree. Neither actually relates directly to post-secondary. One or the other doesn't relate directly to post-secondary admittance because, obviously, institutions have different policies and parameters. But they are a different measure.

D. Cubberley: A couple of studies that I've had a look at have been done specifically on B.C. kids, one by Toohey and others and another by Gunderson in 2004, both of which are looking at samples. The Gunderson sample was almost 25,000, so it's a much broader sample. The Toohey sample was much more limited, but using school grades as indicators of success, Gunderson found dramatic differences in the secondary school achievement of various ethnic groups.

When you start to separate the population out on the basis of where they come from, the results start to look very different from how they look for the totality of ESL kids. He found, for example, that while Mandarin-speaking students scored phenomenally well, Vietnamese students failed to flourish, and none took grade 12 social studies or English. He concluded they were more educationally at risk than Mandarin-speaking Chinese students would be, judging by their enrolments in courses where there were examinations.

The question I have is: are we tracking performance by language or country of origin, and are we seeing patterns emerging where some groups are flourishing just fine with the system that we have in place and other groups are struggling a great deal more? If so, what interventions are we considering?

Hon. S. Bond: We always want to be very sensitive about how we track students based on language, and I know the member opposite would absolutely agree with that.

The work that Gunderson did is work that deserves further analysis and further reference. I've been told that our staff is actually working with Gunderson to look at some of the observations and some of the data, because if there are barriers or issues that are specific to groups of students, we would like to know about that.

I've certainly just been informed that my staff is working with Gunderson to actually sort through some of that data. Again, that would be something we could help work on with this report that we're contemplating for English-as-a-second-language students, like the other models that we use. I'm encouraged to hear that we are following up on the concerns that were expressed in that research.

D. Cubberley: That's encouraging, and I would urge it. I'm not expert by any means, but there's a lot in the study. One of the things that he did that's interesting — and I would be interested to know whether the ministry favours this as an approach and whether they'll be undertaking it — was to actually interview students and families and get them to describe their experience in the school system as a basis for evaluating not just their perceptions about how it is working, but what kinds of modifications and programs might be suggested by the degree of ease and comfort that students feel in coming into these classrooms.

So I would ask if that is something that the ministry does or has encouraged school districts to do as a way of finding out how we're doing.

Hon. S. Bond: It's not something the ministry has done in a systematic way, but I think it's always really important to actually talk to people who the system impacts. I think that's a good suggestion. I'm not sure how the mechanics of it would work, but I do know that we recently held our first-ever student congress in the province, which brought together 120 students from across the province. We got some great advice and great observations.

As I visit districts, one of the things I try very hard to do in every district is meet with students that reflect a broad cross-section.

I think that's a good suggestion. We have not used that practice systematically, but certainly there is room for us to consider doing that.

D. Cubberley: One of the things that Gunderson found was that in schools that enrol proportionately more kids from less affluent families, the disappearance rate of ESL students — that's after the five years is up — is particularly high. So what he is seeing is a correspondence, again, in an immigrant population of a dynamic that we see to some extent in the overall population, which is that the socioeconomic status is a predictor of success in some respects.

I guess the question is…. Given that upon arrival in Canada immigrants increasingly find themselves living in poverty, we see a direct connection there between these two possibilities. I would ask: is the minister aware of this? Is the ministry aware of this? Are they looking at what needs to be done to offset that dynamic?

Hon. S. Bond: We obviously recognize that a large number of factors go into helping students be successful or provide barriers. I think one of the things we are very interested in looking at as a government is: how do we do things in different ways that are actually going to reach out to those almost 11,000 students who don't complete school?

I would suggest that a percentage of the students that the member opposite is referring to are probably in those 11,000 students. I think we do need to be innovative. We have to think outside of what is one-size-fits-all, and that involves uncertainty, because we get used to doing things in a certain way.

Informed partially by the work that Gunderson has done but also by work like the EDI numbers of Clyde Hertzman…. Are there ways to take that data and inform our policy that would help us deal with some of those barriers?

We're very concerned about 11,000 students who don't complete high school in this province. I know the member opposite is as well. So I do think we have to think differently. We have to challenge the system.

I think that this work our staff is doing, not just with Mr. Gunderson but also looking at the potential of an ESL report…. All of those things will help us find better practice to serve the students that the member opposite is referring to.

D. Cubberley: This is out of Toohey. But the same thing is essentially said in Gunderson, which is that while the figures overall for completion rates are accurate, in a sense they are misleading us about what's actually going on.

One of the authors speculates that there may well be a preponderance of very high-performing, high socioeconomic status ESL students in some areas — for example, the Richmond catchment, which has done exceptionally well and has had up until now, but it's changing there as well, quite uniform immigration from country of origin and class of immigrant into the district — and that that preponderance of those groups masks what's happening in other areas.

I guess my question is: is the ministry aware that in dealing with numbers at such a core scale as the overall completion rate, we may actually be missing the challenge that's happening with the changing ethnic composition of immigrants coming into British Columbia, many of which may present a far higher degree of challenge than past populations have?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things it requires us to do — and I think we've begun that process — is that in public education we need to focus on individual students. We actually need to try to sort out why students aren't completing. I think it requires us to drill down, to do more work and to actually look at: if a student isn't completing, why is that the case?

We are working with superintendents as we speak to have them actually identify individual students who did not complete school and then begin to ask questions about why. Then what we need to do is take that information and data and start to look at programs and opportunities for those students for whom the system is not working at the moment.

I'm always very cautious about how I describe that because…. I know that we agree on this. We have a great public education system that is meeting the needs of the vast majority of our students. However, there are populations, there are regions and there are individual students for whom the system is not working well.

I can assure the member opposite that we are aware of the challenges, and certainly the research does help inform our practice. I think there's just more work to be done in terms of analysis and then being bold about — once we understand what some of those problems are — having the courage to make some changes that will actually…. I think that one of the things we need is additional accountability that says: what are we doing to help this individual or this group of students?

D. Cubberley: The data that Toohey presents, which is a much smaller sample than the Gunderson work, led them to the conclusion that there are distinct differences in graduation rates across first languages. They say and conclude, and these are people who are speaking with empathy for people who are learning a second language: "These data illustrate the generally dismal picture of education experiences for certain Tagalog, Vietnamese, Spanish and Indo-Punjabi language groups and suggest that social and educational policies might target these students in particular to improve performance in the system."

The question is: are we at a point where we're recognizing this and seeing that…? The composition of our immigrant population is changing dramatically, to the point now where it can be any one of 93 different languages showing up in the classroom. The system which worked so very well when we had predominant immigration from certain areas — in particular China, where there was high socioeconomic status, a presumption of some exposure to English prior and the availability of tutors for kids in schools — will require real evolution in the next period of time in order to sustain results. So that's my question.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't disagree with that. I think the member opposite is absolutely right. We are aware of both the research that's been presented and the challenges that children face. I think we've actually been very clear, as we look ahead to our agenda over the next six months to a year, that it is time for us to look at a new approach to some issues so that we can ensure that children like this have some options. The system tries and works miraculously well at trying to meet the needs of every student who arrives at the front door of their school, but there is some work that needs to be done.

In addition to the work we're doing with Gunderson and also the report we're contemplating, we're working with the Ministry of Attorney General to conduct research into appropriate models and how we might better serve school-based settlement needs for children who are school-age immigrants and refugees.

We are trying to look not only in the Ministry of Education but across our government to say: "What can we do together to better help these children as they either arrive or are here in our province?" I think those are thoughtful questions. I think we are on an agenda that says we have some more work to do and we're committed to trying to find a way.

First, we have to understand the data. I think that reaching out to those kinds of researchers is an important thing, and we've made that connection. So I think that's a good first step.

D. Cubberley: I'd just like to ask a little bit more to get a sense of the awareness on the ministry and the minister's part about the changing composition of the ESL population. One of the measures of changing composition is obviously greater diversity of languages — mother tongues. So I would be interested in knowing what implications we think that has for how programs are delivered.

I'd also like to ask whether the number of ESL kids presenting with limited literacy skills, in total, is increasing and what percentage of the total population that may be at, at the present time.

Hon. S. Bond: I think that one of the reasons we are looking at new ways of gathering information and trying to bring more information together is that we don't have many of the answers to the questions that the member opposite has brought to the table.

Are we aware of increased complexity and increased diversity? Absolutely. We also are aware that as refugee families come to our province, many of them don't even have a formal education in their own language, much less English. I think we're certainly aware of the challenges, and I think the staff is working very hard to try to find ways to first of all collect the data — being sensitive, because I think we also have to be very cautious as we start to identify this and attach it to particular languages or mother tongues.

I think we have a responsibility to get as much information as possible, create some baseline data and begin — in the same way as we have dealt with first nations education and students with special needs — to have that informed dialogue about the changes that might need to take place.

D. Cubberley: Well, yes, I think it's important, too, that the minister raise the matter of refugee families, because that is one of the important changes in the composition of the ESL population. I don't know what the percentage is myself. I think I have seen numbers that suggest it could be as high as 3 to 5 percent now.

I know that there have been changes to the federal government's immigration policies that enable more of this to happen, and I do know from talking to ESL teachers and trustees in districts that have lots of ESL kids that that population is rising, that it is an extremely difficult population for schools to deal with because, as the minister noted, the lack of literacy in the home culture is not something that can be easily overcome. It's not the same as taking a child who is literate in their mother tongue and teaching them a second language.

There's the additional challenge that a lot of these kids are arriving after having lived in camps. They have post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychological problems, and they may not have a family with them when they arrive. Amongst the things that are determinant of whether kids can thrive or not upon entering school, these kids would seem to be deprived of any of those assets in many cases.

So the question is: are we looking at that? Are we asking ourselves whether we are resourcing school districts that are receiving these kids to adequately deal with them? What kinds of measures may the ministry be looking at proposing in order to do a better job of receiving this population?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think that we are trying to find new ways to support those families and certainly those schools and school districts who receive children with those challenges. We have a number of ways of trying to provide additional support. One of the things that we do is actually through Community LINK programs.

Obviously, we try to provide additional dollars for some of those services, but we do recognize that we need to provide additional support. Right now we are working across eight ministries in government to look at how we can assist immigrant and refugee families in particular, and one of the models that's been contemplated and hopefully one that we can pursue is making sure there are actually settlement workers in schools. So that, I think, is an opportunity in partnership with the Ministry of Attorney General. We are working on that as we speak, and I think that would go a long way to address the issues that the member opposite has brought to the floor today.

We are in the process of trying to work through the viability of programs like that We recognize that not only for the teachers and the staff, but for these families, it's a pretty remarkable set of experiences that

bring them to a classroom in British Columbia. We do need to be sensitive about that. I think we've done some good work across government. I look forward and I'm cautiously optimistic that, for example, an initiative like that is something that could make a difference.

D. Cubberley: I'm encouraged to hear the minister express herself along those lines. I think that one of the things that's needed, and not just for refugee kids, is the availability of settlement workers in schools that have substantial populations of ESL kids. I think that negotiating to have schools recognized as primary venues for the delivery of settlement services is something that is long overdue. They're functioning de facto in that manner in order for schools to ensure that kids thrive.

When they have ESL families, they have to be able to contact those families, communicate with them in whatever their host language is, and begin to ensure that they understand the role we expect a family to play in a successful student career in our system.

That is a very large undertaking, and I think it's very helpful that the minister and her staff are open to the possibility. I would encourage her to go further and look at the possibility of formally identifying schools as a component of the system for settlement services. I would ask for her opinion on that.

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of the comments about making schools a core component, I think the work we're doing is really…. I'm actually very excited about what we're contemplating with the Ministry of Attorney General. I should make sure we give credit where credit is due. The model we're looking on is…. There has been a pilot project in Ontario that has looked at school-based settlement workers. Those particular services would be provided using front-line workers in their schools. We've actually been consulting, probably for the last year, about how to better serve newcomers, especially young people. We did talk about this model with the superintendents of the 11 largest immigrant-receiving schools in the province.

School-based settlement workers were a suggestion that we actually heard from our consultations, so we expect to continue that discussion. I certainly think that that very much puts schools in the centre of how we better serve those families and those individuals. I think that's an exciting opportunity we have and something that, as I say, we're working on very positively with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Just in terms of numbers. The member opposite asked about government-assisted individuals in terms of settlement, and staff has just provided me with numbers for school-age students in terms of settlement issues and how we have provided services.

When you look at students that are five years old, there were 108. If you look at students between the ages of six and 12, there were 121. If you look at 13-to-18-year-old students, there were 100 students that we sort of dealt with on settlement kinds of issues. If you look at the 6-to-18-year-old bracket, which would be the school-age component, it's about 221 students.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that response. One of the things we've been talking about is the change in composition of the ESL cadre in schools. I think the evidence is pretty clear from looking at what Gunderson and others have done.

With the diversity of languages coming into the school and the different status of the immigrants who are bringing them — much more family class and fewer entrepreneurial class kids coming in…. Many of those kids are bringing less social capital to the school with them, including having the challenges we talked about or perhaps having less exposure to schooling in their home language or none, but also not necessarily having the resources within their family that can offset things that may not be given in the school system in the quantity that's needed.

We have currently, and have had traditionally throughout the '90s and continuing now, a cap of five years on the number of years that we fund ESL. My first question on this would be: are we reviewing whether that is adequate for populations for whom it is a higher challenge to acquire English as a second language?

That appears to have worked well in the '90s with a less diverse immigrant population. It's a much more diverse population now which, I would argue just because of diversity, imposes substantially greater challenges on classroom teachers to accomplish, especially in blended classrooms.

Are we looking at enabling an extension of that five-year funding for kids who need more ESL? One could have refugee kids at the front of one's mind in thinking about that question.

Hon. S. Bond: We were just using the collective history and wisdom of my staff back here to sort out when that actually took place. We think that the five-year limit was placed somewhere around 1999. Obviously, and as staff points out, they looked at the research of the day and felt that five years sort of matched up with what was best for students.

I think it's fair to say that as we continue to explore this, and as we look at an analysis, particularly as we break down the information and look at specific targeted areas…. If it warrants a look at whether or not five years is sufficient for all of our children, I think we would have a look at that. We're not contemplating that at the moment, but as we continue to look at the results and the work and as we look at the research, I think it's important that we do reassess those kinds of decisions.

We think it's been in place — we'll double-check — since about 1999, based on research then, the best that was available. I think as we move forward…. Is there an opportunity to contemplate something different for some students? I think that is a possibility. We still have work to do whether or not we would determine that's important to do.

D. Cubberley: I would urge the minister to do that and I'm encouraged to hear that. I know, from the limited amount that I have read, that the ESL research community thinks it's five to seven years to achieve the outcome that's wanted.

I think with increasing difficulty and complexity in the classroom, we may well find that in some respects some school districts are subsidizing ongoing ESL beyond the funding envelope in order to deal with the reality that some kids are not getting to a point where they can use the language well enough to be able to not just engage in survival English but prosper in the classroom and meet the expected outcomes.

I apologize for jumping around on this. We had talked a little bit about the current design of program with ESL as a separate stream. There is a phenomenon where ESL kids actually want to get out of ESL classes before they should, before they are at that point. As soon as they get survival English down and the like, then they want out of those classes. There is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that parents from certain ethnic backgrounds are pressing for this outcome because they see ESL training as second-class status, and that in order for the kid to be integrated and their family to feel as though it is integrating, they need to see success in the terms that other kids experience it.

I contrasted that with the idea of French immersion, which we deem, once it starts, to continue throughout an entire school career and to be for credit from the start.

My question is: are we looking at the fact that ESL doesn't count as credits as a contributor to this phenomenon of kids wanting to get out of it too quickly? In terms of making the best investment of our dollars and getting the best outcomes, does the ministry have a position on this? Have we looked at whether we should in fact be giving credit for ESL training as a way of holding kids in the courses?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's how you look at English as a second language. We see English as a second language as a support program to help students actually be successful in the rest of their courses. As we look at what English-as-a-second-language students bring, they also bring an asset, which is a second language. They often can receive credit for their own language, because obviously they don't need to take courses in whatever language that might be. I think it's a matter of English as a second language being the support mechanism that allows students to be successful in the rest of their academic career.

We haven't contemplated the credit aspect. We've looked at it more as trying to take advantage of their asset, as well, and give them credit for their own language, which is an important step.

It was interesting. As we were looking at research and what it says…. I think the member opposite was correct on the upper end of what research tells us about when a student can be proficient. The range is actually three to seven years. Probably five years, when you look at that information, was a good starting place.

As we explore this subject more thoroughly — I think our commitment today as we discuss this is that we have homework and further work to do — one of the things we would consider is: is the five years enough for some groups of students? Is there another way to approach English as a second language in terms of how that is presented in classrooms?

One thing I hope is that even though research might make a number of statements, I can honestly say that as I visit classrooms and schools across the province, what's happening for English-as-a-second-language students is really extraordinary. Teachers work incredibly hard with very challenging circumstances. The outcomes are, generally speaking, very good for those students. We do have some work to do, but I don't think we should underestimate the success and the power of the programs that already exist within our system.

One of the challenges we face, and the member opposite mentioned this earlier, is that much of this is about cultural and parental pressure as well. I remember meeting with a group of parents who said: "I would rather my child was not in this program for a five-year period." I think it was less related to credit than it was to wanting that integration into what's perceived as a more regular classroom. If there are ways that we can help to change some of the perspective around those programs, maybe that's where we should be spending some more energy.

D. Cubberley: The minister's last comment is spot on. I think that's exactly what's happening. The parents as much as the kids attribute low status to ESL, so to get out of it as quickly as possible is a measure of success. That's not always helpful to people who are trying to acquire a language.

I won't dwell on this further, but I would urge further reflection on the complete difference between the way that we teach ourselves French as a second language and the way that we are attempting to teach people English to get them ready for a curriculum. It's like chalk and cheese. They are entirely apart.

One of the curious things…. I had some exposure to second language training myself, having taken some French language training in an immersion environment, having failed fairly miserably to learn it in high school. One of the components of successful learning of a second language is surrounding yourself with that language, so it's immersion.

Another area where we should be looking at results in classrooms is, in my view: what happens when more than 60 percent of the kids in the classroom are ESL kids? The context isn't immersion in English when English is the minority language in the classroom. We're getting concentrations in Vancouver school district and Richmond school district and Surrey coming along. These concentrations of ESL kids go beyond that initial design of the classroom environment where they were going to learn.

I'll leave it to you, if you would like to comment on that. If not, I'll go on to my next question.

Hon. S. Bond: Simply to comment that I think one of the encouraging parts of how we operate in public education is that it isn't one-size-fits-all. Districts do this very differently, based on the group of students they have in front of them. In some parts of the province ESL is a pullout program, where students come out of the classroom and then they go back into the classroom. Numbers are definitely part of it, but so is sort of a pedagogy in practice. How do we better meet the needs of this group of students?

As the member opposite has mentioned throughout this discussion, we can agree that we need to do some more work. We need to analyze the information that's provided both by research experts and by practitioners — by teachers and others who provide the service. We should be talking to students and families about some of those perceptual issues that we have.

At the end of the day what I have confidence about is the fact that teachers work very hard every day and that the results, at least the ones that we can identify, are very positive and show incredibly successful results for our students — in fact, so much so that the completion rates are actually higher than for non-ESL students. That is a positive thing, and we should always look at that side of the story as well.

I think we agree that there's more work to be done, and I look forward to updating the member as we work through some of the research issues in the future.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate those comments. One other angle of this that I'd like to ask about is considering the scale of population that we're dealing with in the province now who are involved in ESL, our training of teachers appears not to recognize that in the way that might be desirable. As I understand it, there's no provincial ESL requirement for public school teachers. In some programs there's a course you can take, but there is no mandatory requirement for an ESL component.

One of the things we're seeing is that while it has traditionally been concentrated in parts of the lower mainland, immigrants, as do non-immigrants, will settle where they like — where job opportunities are, or where they hope they are. We're seeing the emergence of ESL populations, broadly speaking, across the entire province.

I'd be interested in hearing the minister's view of that as to whether there should be some mandatory component and what the complexities are of achieving that, if she happens to agree with it.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that we have to look at is teacher training in the province, and professional development. It's a combination, because obviously we have an incredible group of trained teachers already in the system who have faced a very different classroom over time. As we both visit schools, we know that that is true. The complexity is changing, and that's one of the issues.

We have to look at professional development in an ongoing way to provide assistance to teachers who are in those circumstances. The challenge with looking at how you modify teacher training is that in essence it really is a responsibility of the College of Teachers, and obviously Advanced Education has a role to play there as well.

If we were going to think about the training of a teacher today, are there some things that probably need to be addressed? I think yes. I think the member opposite would agree with me that it wouldn't simply be English as a second language. It would probably have a first nations component. It would address children with special needs because, again, those are children who are now in mainstream classrooms, and rightly so.

I do think that as we look at the classroom and the practice, we also should look at the professionals that we're training to be in those programs. Again, that's not something that as a ministry we can mandate or in fact even change. There is a process around that involving the College of Teachers. I think it merits discussion. Even with the B.C. Teachers Federation those are the kinds of discussions we should be having about professional development, about teacher training, in order to help.

I get that resources are a big part of the discussion; so are class sizes and all of those things. In fact, so is training. We have to have the courage to actually challenge some of the programs that exist today and say: "Are we training professionals for the classroom of today?" There are many innovative things happening. I know recent teachers have graduated, and they're great. Are there some changes that we should contemplate? I think that's probably the case. Is it easy? I don't think that's true.

D. Cubberley: One last question before I pass the floor over to my colleague for some questions. You had mentioned there was an increase to ESL grant funding. I'm interested in knowing what that was and what it's intended to take account of.

Hon. S. Bond: It is a $74 increase per English-as-a-second-language student. That would be added to a district's funding for ESL, and they would choose to utilize those dollars however they would normally. The amount now would be $1,174 per English-as-a-second-language student. We also increased the funding for first nations students, and I believe it's $964 for the first nations component. That would be an increase of $64 that is added to the block. Those recommendations came to us from the Technical Review Committee.

J. Kwan: Just to clarify for me, could the minister please advise whether or not ESL students are funded for five years of ESL programming in schools? If necessary, if they need to go beyond the five years, are they funded beyond the five years up to seven years?

Hon. S. Bond: Students are funded. If they stay in an ESL program for five years, they are funded for the five-year period. The five-year limit was put in place in January of 1999, and that remains today. We do not go

beyond that to seven years. In the previous discussion with the Education critic, we said that we're currently doing some work with researchers and others. If at the end of that discussion there appears to be some reason to contemplate an expansion, that is something that we would consider at that time.

J. Kwan: Is the minister collecting information from the school boards on how many students need ESL service beyond five years?

Hon. S. Bond: It's not something that we've had a lot of — I shouldn't say an overwhelming amount of — feedback on. Obviously, there have been some comments about that necessity. It hasn't been an enormously high priority in the discussions I've had with boards across the province. Again, that will be one of the factors that we contemplate.

We are not contemplating expanding beyond five years at this point in time, but we're always open to that discussion. In light of some of the complexity of classrooms today, we are thinking about whether or not at some point it might be necessary to have a bit more flexibility for some students.

J. Kwan: Will the ministry be asking the school boards to collect that information and get that information? I think that is essential. If the minister and the government are to make an informed decision on this, one needs to know how many students are needing ESL services beyond the five years.

It used to be the case that ESL services were provided to the students beyond the five years if they were deemed necessary. Therefore, the funding would actually accompany that, and that's now changed.

Hon. S. Bond: Just remembering where we were at, the member opposite had asked us about whether we would ask whether or not districts found this to be an issue. Also, the member opposite did point out, correctly, that this used to be more flexible, that there was room to go to seven years if you applied or if you made us aware of that. It's not an issue that we've heard an overwhelming sort of concern about from large numbers of school districts.

Having said that, we are aware that for some students it may be an issue — having a seven-year program. The deputy minister will put it on the Education Advisory Council agenda — where representatives come from administrators and teachers and all of those partners — so it will become an agenda item, and we can see if there is any feedback at that point.

We have not made a commitment to expand it to seven years, and it's not being contemplated at the moment. But if it warrants that kind of consideration, then obviously we should have that discussion. We will put it on an agenda for the partner groups, and we'll continue to have that discussion.

J. Kwan: Thanks to the minister for that answer. It's tough, I know, because we had a break, and it interrupted the flow.

My question, though, was whether or not the minister would actually ask the school board to collect the data on how many students actually need ESL training and support — and, therefore, ESL funding from the government — beyond the five years, so that you'd have the data to go with to make that assessment on determining a funding formula.

Hon. S. Bond: We weren't planning to ask for that specific process. What we'd like to do to begin with is go back to EAC and say: "Is this a big issue? What are the challenges facing school districts today?"

As I suggested to the member opposite, this isn't an issue that has been brought on a regular basis to my attention on my school visits across the province, or to the deputies. But we are prepared to have some dialogue. We thought a good starting point would be EAC, before we simply mandate that school districts have to collect more information.

J. Kwan: I would certainly urge the minister to go down that direction to get the information. Upon her consultation, if she could ensure that her ministry provides that information to my colleague here, the critic for Education, so that we are aware of what the response is and of the next steps from the government, I would appreciate that.

Can the minister advise whether or not she is aware of the recommendation from the Canadian School Boards Association where they recommend that the provincial funding formula for ESL and English-language development be recognized for a five-to-seven-year period in order that students achieve academic proficiency?

Hon. S. Bond: I wasn't personally aware of that recommendation, but certainly the ministry staff was. I should point out, though, that when we look at the limit in other provinces…. It's important to have this context, I think, in this discussion. When we look at funding for ESL students, Alberta has a three-year window plus two years discretionary, so that would add up to our five if every student took it. Saskatchewan is two years plus one year discretionary. Manitoba is four years, Ontario is four years, and Quebec is three years.

Probably part of the reason that other provinces feel somewhat comfortable in those areas is the fact that the

research that we based the five years on — at least the ministry did — was that the window is three to seven years. I'm assuming that in 1999 the best advice was: we'll make it five, with that discretionary period that the member opposite referred to.

We are going to do more work on the whole issue of English as a second language. We canvassed that thoroughly with the previous member. We do want to see if there are gaps, and we're prepared to consider how we might address those gaps once we've actually done the homework.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear on the five to seven years. Formerly, to my recollection, the five to seven years was such that with ESL training, if you needed to go beyond the five years, the funding would actually flow to seven years. Not just the service — the funding as well.

It is my understanding now that the funding will only flow to five years. The service will flow to seven, but that would mean that the school board would have to eat up the extra years beyond that, because that's not actually being funded by province. I just want to clarify that and to make sure that we are clear on that point.

I'm wondering whether the minister — and I'm sure the minister is or her staff would be — is aware of the speech that was made by Chris Friesen, the director of settlement services of the Immigrant Services Society of B.C., to the BCSTA on February 9, 2007. Maybe I can ask this first question, and then I'll go into the details of my other questions related to his speech.

Hon. S. Bond: Let me just go back before I answer. The answer to whether we were aware of that speech: I personally was not and certainly I don't think my staff is aware of the content. I'm looking at everyone in the room that is related to me in some way, and they are all shaking their heads. We look forward to being enlightened about that.

Obviously, if we were contemplating moving the window from five years and perhaps going back to a policy of some flexibility for six and seven, we wouldn't simply assume that school districts would fund that. We are not contemplating that at the moment. We have a five-year funding window. What I did suggest was we're going to do some homework, and we're going to look at whether or not there are gaps.

I simply pointed out that in all of our discussions this has not been at the top of anyone's agenda items. Probably after this discussion the number of comments will increase, but that's okay. We're simply saying that we've got work to do, we will look at that six and seven years, and we will look at what the implications are for our students. But we're not aware of the speech that the member opposite is commenting on.

J. Kwan: Again, I would urge the minister to undertake that review and that work. I would urge the minister to consider actually extending the funding beyond five years, because I think that while not all students necessarily need that funding, some students do. More and more, as information surfaces around ESL students and the challenges that they face in the school system…. Some of the dropout rates that have been reported by Dr. Lee Gunderson really do indicate a need for stronger support in the education system for some of the immigrant students.

ESL is one of the first component pieces for students' ability to integrate into the school system and to learn. Being an ESL student myself, I know how difficult it can be for students to really learn that language, to be in a new setting and to blend in — the wish to do that but not having been equipped with the skill set to do that — and how difficult it could be for children and families. I would urge the minister to move in that direction and provide the funding for beyond five years, consistent with other people who have called for that change.

Let me just focus in on the speech. I think that the reason why I want to focus on the speech is because it very much touches on the need for a revised educational approach for ESL students or some issues for consideration impacting immigrant students. The speech was made on February 9, 2007. I'd be happy to share a photocopy of the speech with the minister when we finish this work.

First off, the speech makes note of the fact that over 717,000 ESL students or youth arrived in 2005 — about 40 percent of total immigration to B.C. That's a 26-percent increase in children or youth from the previous year. Last year some 43 percent of all government-assisted refugees were children or youth under the age of 18. Immigration has largely remained a lower mainland phenomenon. It's projected to increase and expand throughout B.C. as we grapple with the challenges of an ongoing aging population, declining birth rate and growing skilled labour shortage.

Let me just sidetrack here for one minute. We are in fact in a situation where we do have declining enrolment. Fewer and fewer people are having more and more children, I guess relative to years before, and so therefore we do rely very much on the immigrant population to repopulate the province. The case in point, then, is as we get more children into the education system through the immigration avenue, we need to really focus in on the educational process and to ensure success for children who are immigrants.

In the speech it also goes on to say that a case in point is Fort St. John and the oil and gas industry that is desperate for skilled labour. If the head of the family is recruited to work in the oil and gas industry, what will happen to the non–English speaking kids and spouse?

This situation could be said of many northern B.C. communities. Our school districts outside the lower mainland prepare to deal with ESL learners. I think a valid question, indeed as the demographics change, particularly outside of the lower mainland, is: how well equipped are we in providing the educational resources in different communities in order to ensure that those children have the best opportunity to succeed?

The speech goes on to say: "This year alone the government of Canada set the highest target for immigration in 25 years. By 2011 more people will be leaving the labour market than entering it. With this projection, immigration is increasingly being discussed as one solution to our impending economic challenges. The very essence of what we're discussing today speaks to the issue of nation-building and social cohesion." Then it goes on to raise a number of different points.

The seven points that were raised were suggestions to improve school success for ESL students, build more welcoming and inclusive schools and put in better supports for ESL parents so that they can, if they choose, actively participate in their child's education.

Point 1 is around the issue of new assessment tools that are needed for ESL students. Currently most assessment models or tools are limited to testing the inabilities of ESL learners. Understanding the students' competencies is necessary for placement purposes, but they don't provide a full picture of the individual. What is the psychological impact of the current deficit-based assessment models on immigrant-refugee youth? The suggestion is that we need to develop culturally relevant assessment tools or processes on a provincewide basis that will not only assess what a student can't do, but also include risk and resilience factors.

It is time to explore the concept of a newcomer family assessment model that incorporates ESL students within the broader context of the family. On this first point, let me just ask for the minister's response and reaction to the suggestions made.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I have an excellent staff in our ministry. I should have known that somebody would have been at the speech. They're not physically present in this room, but we've just heard that actually one of our staff members was at the speech. I appreciate her making us aware of that.

I don't think that any of the suggestions or comments made in the speech that the member opposite is sharing with us are things that we wouldn't consider. Our whole goal, as we look at how we're going to actually address the gaps in public education…. We have about 11,000 students that don't complete their education every year. Perhaps this is part of the population that fits in that number.

Of course we need to look at things differently. I appreciate the offer of the speech. I think that would be helpful for us. Certainly, we can discuss that with another staff member who was actually present. I think that looking at assessment tools that are appropriate is always an important practice. I haven't heard anything from the member opposite in the speech that she's reading that we wouldn't consider in the regular course of the work we do.

J. Kwan: That's good news. Maybe the minister, then, can enlighten this House on where things are at with respect to the suggestions that have been made, whether or not it is on a workplan somewhere and what the timeline is.

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be happy to. In fact, we spent a long time canvassing this earlier. I think one of the things we've said clearly is that Gunderson's work did provide some important information, for example, but also some concerns to the ministry. Our staff is actually working with Mr. Gunderson, looking at the results and the data he has. We should actually take advantage of his expertise. We are, I've been told, doing that.

I understand that in the speech there were at least three significant issues, and certainly assessment tools wasn't one of the ones I was provided with. There is the issue of the five-year cap. I've said here in the House today that we will do our homework and look at whether or not there is the kind of demand for some flexibility around a six- or seven-year cap. We are not contemplating changing that at the moment, but we're prepared to do some work.

The issues apparently also called for more dollars for ESL students. We've just increased the funding in the formula for students this year by $74 per student. If that was an issue in the speech, we're addressing that.

In terms of settlement, I shared the very exciting thinking we're doing with the Ministry of Attorney General that would actually find us having school-based settlement workers to deal with those front-line issues. So I think we're actually making some progress.

I've said that we have more work to do, and in fact we are looking at a report, similar to the ones we use for aboriginal students and students with special needs, for English-as-a-second-language students. I actually think we've made some progress and have said clearly that we have more work to do.

J. Kwan: Yes, generally, conceptually, the minister says: "Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is all good, and we're looking into it." When we got down to the specifics around the recommendations, we got generalities. That's what I just heard from the minister.

I appreciate that there were some earlier discussions with my colleague around it, but here I want to actually get into some of the fuller details around the suggestions made, which I think are indeed valid suggestions. I would appreciate some specific answers from the minister, rather than just generalities.

Let me just talk specifically around funding, then. In the speech it was raised that the issue around accountability for ESL funding and ESL learners' performance…. It was suggested that it's time to look at performance-based ministry reporting for ESL learners, similar to what currently exists with aboriginal students.

Why is it that ESL teachers often complain that they cannot get the resources they need to address the diversity of ESL learners in their classrooms? ESL classroom teachers need more classroom-based resources, funding for learning materials and other resources because the current textbooks are largely irrelevant to many ESL learners.

Specifically in terms of the funding question on resources and materials for the teachers in the class-

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's pretty specific to say that I actually have mentioned more than one time that in fact we've increased funding directly for English-as-a-second-language students by $74 per student, which brings the total funding for that to $1,174 per full-time student. That's pretty specific.

I have read into the record previous to this discussion the fact that we are contemplating school-based settlement workers, which came about as a direct result of consultation with school administrators, teachers and trustees. We think it's a great idea. We've consulted directly with the 11 largest immigrant-receiving school districts earlier in March. In fact, that took place. We're working with the Attorney General. I think that's a fabulous good-news story for students in this province that we might actually partner with eight ministries to say that we're going to put settlement workers right in schools. That's based on an Ontario model.

We've added money, we're looking at settlement workers, and we're doing our homework on the five-year cap. I'd suggest that that's pretty specific.

J. Kwan: Specifically on the funding, the minister says: "Well, we've raised that funding. Therefore, it's all good." Yet information is coming back to say that actually, there aren't the appropriate resources in the classroom for ESL students.

Maybe the minister can elaborate on that — on the issue around resources for students, around textbooks, around updated information. When was the last time the textbooks for ESL students were upgraded in terms of their curriculum, and when is the planned curriculum review for ESL students?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, in 2006-2007 there were 63,727 students in this province that were receiving English-as-a-second-language funding. That totals more than $63 million in this province for 67,000 students — incredibly important.

We put an additional $10 million in school districts two years ago to discuss the very kinds of concerns the member opposite has about textbooks and curricular issues. If there are recommendations about curricular change, we are delighted to hear about them. We are constantly reviewing curriculum in this province, as the member opposite would be well aware. There's a regular review cycle.

To at least make this point to the member opposite: we've said this afternoon that we are engaged in a process to improve circumstances for English-as-a-second-language students. I would hope that that actually is viewed as good news. We've made some significant progress, and we've been clear that there is more work to be done. If there are specific concerns about curriculum, my staff would be delighted to hear about that.

J. Kwan: The minister actually didn't answer my question. My question to the minister is: when was the curriculum reviewed for ESL students? And when is the next planned curriculum review for ESL students?

Hon. S. Bond: English-as-a-second-language curriculum is not content-based. It's not something you can review. English-as-a-second-language instructors and teachers across this province use a vast variety of resources. They are as different as one could imagine. There are no two classrooms that approach things in the same way across the province, and I've been in hundreds of classrooms in the last eight months. It's not as if there is a stand-alone curriculum for us to actually review.

We are interested in working with professionals to find the best resources possible, but many of those decisions are based in local classrooms, with professionals making those decisions about the resources they utilize.

J. Kwan: If the minister has been to hundreds of classrooms, as she says, has she not heard anything from anyone in those hundreds of classrooms where there might be an issue around the materials that are being used, in terms of the current textbooks for some ESL students that are actually not relevant to their learning environment and learning situation?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, if the member opposite would like to have a look at the school districts and schools I've visited, there is a journal of all of the districts that I have visited in British Columbia. I'm very proud of the fact. It's been 47 school districts and hundreds of schools. I'm not certain the member was questioning the veracity of my comment.

Having said that, teacher resources and learning resources are allocated and purchased by individual school districts. So if there is a problem with a particular resource, I'd be delighted to hear about it, but in fact those resources are not ministry-prescribed. It is a skill-based program. In other words, teachers use a whole, vast array. In fact, many of them are developed by themselves. They develop them themselves as they work through programs.

To answer the member opposite's questions: in those classrooms I can honestly say that I don't remember a large number of people saying that ESL resources were an issue for them. I can only give you the best recollection I have after being in 47 school districts.

J. Kwan: I can say this. For a lot of the educators and students, there are problems in that they don't have the funding to get the resources. That is the point. Some of the material being used because they don't have the resources to get new materials is not necessarily relevant or all that useful in that setting. But having said that, that's what they've got to work with, and that is the issue.

That's one of the seven recommendations from Chris Friesen, the director of settlement services, in his speech at the BCSTA conference earlier this year. So I would ask the minister actually to seek this information out and maybe ask the education system, ask the

school boards about their issues with respect to the resources available to them for ESL students.

I can think of several school trustees who raised that issue with me in terms of the lack of resources and lack of funding to provide for proper materials for the students in the classroom. I'm going to park this issue with the minister, then, at this time, and I'd be happy to gather further information with the minister with respect to this.

The other issue that I want to raise is around the funding formula. The minister is saying that she will be reviewing the funding formula for five years to seven years. Seven years was the limitation that was in place before for ESL students. It is now reduced to five. If a student then needs support beyond the five years, the funding does not accompany that from the province.

There is also a call for the government to review the funding amount for high-risk ESL learners — particularly refugees. The recommendation goes on to say that:

It goes on to talk about some of the places where the refugee community might have come from. Specifically on the review, aside from the five- to seven-year component, the question is around high-risk ESL students and whether or not the ministry will be looking into that. I would certainly urge the minister to look into that as a component piece within the five- to seven-year formula funding question.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I just want to clarify something. I want to make sure we get this properly on the record. There has never been a seven-year, across-the-board funding envelope for ESL students. As I best understand it, in the information I have been given, there were five years with exceptions. In other words, if there was a student identified that needed some additional support, they could apply. I probably didn't answer that as clearly as I should have. They could apply for additional funding. We've never had seven years.

I also did read into the record the fact that British Columbia leads the country in terms of the program it has or, at best, is tied with someone else for the support we provide. So to answer the member opposite's question one more time: yes, we are going to do some homework, working with the research that's been provided through the recent reports, talking to school boards. I have committed to the deputy minister, having a discussion at the organization that has representatives from all of those groups, to look at the way that we can better serve English-as-a-second-language students.

I've commented on the fact that I think we're on the verge of doing a great thing in the province, which is settlement workers in schools, which goes directly to the point that the member opposite is reading out. I'm not certain where that information is from. I'm happy to hear the call. I'm not certain who's making it. But the point is that we're trying to find new ways to meet the needs of all the students in this province, including English-as-a-second-language students.

To suggest we need to review the funding formula…. We did review the funding formula, and we increased English-as-a-second-language funding by $74. In fact, what that means for English-as-a-second-language funding in this province — and maybe part of the information needs to go out to those English-as-a-second-language teachers — is that that adds an additional $4 million to the funding, which I said was $63 million. In the coming year it's actually going to be $67 million.

If we look at the projected number of students who are English-as-a-second-language students — we look at the numbers the boards have given us — the actual number of students is anticipated to drop by 0.7 percent. So we have four million additional dollars — 0.7 fewer students. We're contemplating settlement workers, we've increased the funding in the per-pupil formula, I've committed to having our deputy talk to the boards, and we continue to do our homework about how to better serve those needs. I would suggest that that's a pretty positive and concrete agenda.

J. Kwan: The minister can say that they have achieved a lot. The reality remains that in the classroom there are a lot of challenges: challenges with ESL students, challenges for the educators who try to provide educational opportunities to students, challenges for students who are dropping out of schools — who are immigrant students, and that being the point.

Maybe the minister feels like she needs to pat herself on the back on what a great job she's doing. We cannot ignore the fact before us. Hence, I'm raising these issues with the minister in the estimates process around some of the suggestions that have been put to

I'm not all that interested in the minister just saying: "Well, we're doing a great job." What I'm really interested in is for the minister to focus on the areas where there are challenges and to work with the broader community around the solutions that are being offered.

On the high-risk ESL learners, I think it's worthwhile to look into what can be done differently on a funding formula. Right now the funding formula is across the board for every student — regardless. ESL students in some ways can be compared to different students' challenges and needs — let's just say, for example, special needs. There are different levels of special needs that a student may have when they enter into the school system. Different levels and therefore different levels of intensity in training and perhaps different approaches maybe warrant a different funding formula accordingly.

I would urge the minister to actually take a moment to look at these recommendations, which I know she has not seen. I know that some staff person advised that they were at the meeting when the speech was given, but I take it that the minister herself has not looked at the recommendations. I would urge the minister to do so, to reflect on them and to work with her staff in considering how these recommendations may actually yield an approach in change to supporting ESL students in our educational system. I'm going to leave the ESL funding formula, particularly the high-risk ESL learner component, and move on to another piece that has been raised.

The minister talked about settlement workers in the classroom or bringing them into the school system, which is a good thing. I want to be clear about that. I think that will be useful and helpful for the students. Can the minister advise whether or not the settlement workers will be working with the parents, as well, in the school system? All too often we see and actually expect parents to be involved in PACs, to lead student conferences and so on, and to really participate.

Again, being an ESL student myself, I can tell you that my parents could barely speak English. They could barely get by on a day-by-day basis on their own on the issues that they needed to be involved in as parents and as people trying to support the family and finding work and so on. A lot of stuff actually went on in the education system relative to me and my siblings that were, shall we say, unmonitored by my parents. I won't tell you specifically what some of the issues might have been. I'll leave that aside for a moment.

It's a real challenge in terms of parent involvement because of language difficulties. That's the point I want to raise, and whether or not settlement services and workers in that capacity would be able to or be mandated to work with the parents to engage them and to involve them in some ways with the education system?

Hon. S. Bond: I will respond to that question, but I really want to go back to the member opposite's comment about patting ourselves on the back. It's unfortunate that the member opposite wasn't in the room during the thoughtful discussion we had for over an hour this afternoon. I apologize for that. I withdraw that. That the member opposite actually comments on ESL in the manner that she has chosen to this afternoon….

We spent a significant amount of time this afternoon canvassing the fact that we actually recognize that there is work to be done. We've said clearly that we have a work plan. Of course we're going to contemplate at-risk English-as-a-second-language students. We spent half an hour discussing some of the particular groups that may be more significantly at risk. We're going to work with the latest research. We are going to be working with the providers of English as a second language. We're simply pointing out that it's not a matter of back patting; it's a matter of the facts.

We've responded to funding concerns by increasing funding to English-as-a-second-language students. We actually are contemplating settlement workers in schools. We are looking at the five-year window and whether or not there are students for whom it would be beneficial to give some flexibility. We're simply pointing out what we are working on, and I've reiterated numerous times this afternoon that it's a work-in-progress, as education should always be.

In terms of the settlement workers program, it's an amazing program, and I wish we could take credit for having sort of looked at the model. Working with the Ministry of Attorney General, we're going to develop, we hope, a model based on one that has been piloted in Ontario. We referenced this earlier today. It enhances services for young people by having frontline settlement workers directly help school-aged newcomer immigrants and their families. We're hopeful that of course it would include parents. We've had a long discussion about refugee families in particular this afternoon.

This is about workers who assist youths and their families to better understand and adapt in their new schools and communities. We've had significant discussion in March with superintendents from the 11 largest immigrant-receiving school districts. We've been consulting for over a year on the needs of newcomers, including our young people. We're simply saying it's a work in progress. This would be a great step forward, and the plan would certainly contemplate settlement workers working with families and not just students.

J. Kwan: Actually, I've been in this chamber since four o'clock listening to the debate, and I didn't hear the answers to the questions I'm putting to the minister. She may not like them and she may not like my response to her answers, but I'm putting these questions to the minister and she can check Hansard in terms of what her answer has been and whether or not she has actually answered the question. I'll leave that to the minister to do on her own time.

Let me just say this: I'm glad to hear that settlement workers will be in the school system and will be work-

ing with parents. The ministry references that this is a work in progress and that further information will be forthcoming. What's the time line with respect to this work?

Hon. S. Bond: We're continuing to develop the model, and we'd love to see it in place as soon as possible. We're still working with eight ministries across government to bring this to reality.

J. Kwan: Is there a time line at all? Are we talking about one year, two years, three years, ten years, 20 years? What are we talking about?

Hon. S. Bond: We are working on this process, and obviously there is also a link to the federal government with funds that are being provided through settlement. There are a number of factors. I think the work is being done, and we'll hopefully be able to make this a reality sooner rather than later.

J. Kwan: I'll give this one last shot. Is the minister saying that they have no time line then, that this will be a work in progress with the federal government, with a variety of different people, and when we see it is when we will see it? Is that what the minister is saying to this House and to British Columbians?

Hon. S. Bond: What this member is saying to British Columbians is that it's a great project. We're reviewing the Ontario pilot. We're working with eight ministries. We're also working with the federal government. We will move the project forward as quickly as we can, and we hope to make it a reality. That's exactly the homework that's being done today.

J. Kwan: Hopefully it will be a time when we're still alive to be able to see the results.

Let me ask this question of the minister. Part of the work that the minister may or may not be contemplating would, I hope, include pulling together and reviewing current materials so that some form of standardized basic multilingual information could be translated and distributed by all school districts regardless of their location in British Columbia. That is to say that in the process of involving parents who have language challenges, that materials could be translated and provided to those families so that they can receive the information and be able to understand or at least get a grasp of some of that information.

My question to the minister is whether or not that aspect of work will be contemplated in this work-in-progress that we will see sometime in the future?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the ministry regularly translates information that goes to parents across the province. In fact, when you look at government's emphasis on that, we've made pretty significant strides.

I was delighted to be in a temple on Sunday morning where we were happy to talk about the fact that the health guide in British Columbia has just been translated into new languages. Of course we're interested in communicating with parents. We're going to look at ways we can improve that dialogue. But there is regular translation of information that is sent to parents.

J. Kwan: Then maybe the minister can give me some examples of what has been translated.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, some examples will be Ready, Set, Learn information, which is our program for three-year-olds. We have the kindergarten information that's translated. School districts translate information.

You know, I think what's important to note here is that we're interested in seeing success for all students in British Columbia. We're interested in looking at new and innovative ways to do that. If there are ways we can improve communication with parents, we're all for that. But to suggest that no translation is done is inaccurate. We have a variety of places where it is used, and I look forward to seeing increased translation similar to the way that we've approached this in Health.

J. Kwan: I don't think anybody has suggested that no translation was done. The suggestion was to standardize the material so that the translated material is provided for all school districts, because I know for a fact that some school districts get the translated materials and some don't. Some get a heading that says: "Make sure that you get this information translated because it is important." Others scrape up what they can within the schools, not funded by anybody. They scrape up what they can to get the materials translated and back to the students' families.

The call here is to ensure that there's some standardized format with respect to this. If what the minister says is true — and that is that we want all families to be able to participate or have the opportunity to participate and to succeed — then one would be interested in ensuring that there is some sort of standardized format here so that everyone can get the information accordingly — that being the point.

The other piece that I want to canvass with the minister is this: on the issue around designating schools as community/neighbourhood program spaces, can the minister tell this House what work is being done with respect to that?

Hon. S. Bond: Could we ask the member opposite to just clarify that question? We were still contemplating translation on this side and putting a list together, so if you could re-ask us the question, I'd be appreciative.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is: what work is being done, or is the minister looking into the issue, around designating schools as community/neighbourhood program spaces?

Hon. S. Bond: We've been clearly saying that we're interested in looking at a new process in terms of how we deal with capital in this province. We think there

are better ways to utilize what are, in essence, public assets — the buildings that we have. We are not contemplating a designation of community spaces.

Having said that, there are some fabulous programs and amazing partnership opportunities taking place. For example, we gave the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. School Trustees Association $10 million to administer a program called School Community Connections.

That's the kind of program we're excited about, where partners are coming together and saying: "How can we create new programs together in our communities and utilize community assets in a new way?" We've had a really positive reaction to that as I've travelled across the province. People are excited about looking at new ways to use those buildings — but certainly not designated spaces.

I'm not certain if the member opposite means "space" in the generic sense of the word. We are talking about how to use that space, but certainly not as to individual spaces.

J. Kwan: Let me just elaborate, then, for a moment in terms of community/neighbourhood program spaces. As we know, school often plays a critical role in the settlement process of children and youth, but they, of course, can't do this alone.

We value that community-based organizations like immigrant-serving agencies could leverage certain resources and expertise unavailable through schools for after-school and summer programs, but in many districts agencies are being charged fees. At the same time, the school remains closed throughout the summer as community-based agencies search for space.

If there's an opportunity through which the school space could be made available in partnership with the agencies of the community and provide programming to the community at large, that would be, I think, a contributing factor not only to our educational system but to the utilization of space, to really building communities.

In this instance, I'm specifically referencing immigrant-serving agencies. I know that the fees are charged by the school board in some cases where they own the buildings themselves. But having said that, maybe it's time for the province to look at a provincewide policy regarding utilization of school spaces and making that space available in partnership with broader community groups in providing supports to those in our community. Then we utilize the infrastructure, but more importantly, we utilize the space in a way that will actually contribute to the development of the community and will support the community.

Hon. S. Bond: I have suggested that we are looking at a new way of utilizing capital. We are encouraging and exploring partnerships, including providing resources for communities to do that.

School districts across the province have been charging fees for the utilization of their space for a long time. I recall my role in that when I was a school board chair in the middle of the 1990s, so that's not a new practice. We would expect school boards to do that in a reasonable way.

Some of the community programs that exist across this province are absolutely amazing. I have been in many of those centres where communities have taken advantage of space to partner and share services. We think there is lots of room for discussion about community hubs and about serving children better within neighbourhoods. We're going to be exploring those possibilities with school boards. We've been saying for a year now that we are looking at capital quite differently than it has been looked at before.

J. Kwan: I have a copy here of the speech, actually. It details the seven points that were raised at the speech. I'll pass a copy to the minister. I also urge the minister to consider responding to Chris Friesen directly with respect to the points that he has raised. I will treat this as though it's a letter that has been given to the minister, and I'll pass it along.

C. Evans: The minister knows that at this time of year every single year we get to ask questions about Bountiful, just to make sure that it stays before the public's eye. I'm very pleased by the fact that last year I was asking questions about the inspections of the Bountiful school and it's my understanding that inspections have happened three times over the last year. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: I will get the information specifically about the dates. I believe it's three times. I want to be accurate. It's been at least five times in the last number of years. I will get the information sent in immediately. But yes, most recently, just in February, we did another inspection.

I will get the dates and times for you. Actually — well done, thank you — my deputy is faster than lightning.

I get to answer this more directly. The school has been inspected six times in the past six years, including a monitoring inspection in 2001; external evaluation, 2002; investigation committee, 2003; unannounced monitoring inspection, 2004; unannounced follow-up visit in 2006; and unannounced external evaluation, February 2007 — and that was a three-day investigation or evaluation that was done. So there have been 2004, 2006 and three days in 2007.

C. Evans: That's great. Did the Bountiful School…? Actually, I'll ask a more general question. Is that an evaluation of the two schools, or have they been collapsed into one?

Hon. S. Bond: There are still two schools, and there have also been investigations of Mormon Hills. I don't have that information in front of me, but they are separate. This would be just the dates that Bountiful was looked at.

C. Evans: Well, I would be interested in the Mormon Hills information, as well, in the long run. Did the Bountiful School pass the inspections on the last two occasions?

Hon. S. Bond: The Mormon Hills evaluation has been four times in the last three years: unannounced monitoring inspection in September 2003; unannounced monitoring inspection, May 2004; unannounced external evaluation, November of 2004; an unannounced follow-up visit in February of 2006; and an unannounced monitoring inspection and program evaluation in February of 2007.

I reviewed the results just recently, actually, in terms of where we are at. When we look at Bountiful, the school received an external evaluation February 5 to 8. When we do those evaluations, they are very thorough.

The independent school educational program actually monitors meeting administrative and student records, certification of all teachers, criminal record checks being in place, and also making sure that they meet curriculum. That certainly was proven to be the case once again in the evaluation that was done.

C. Evans: Citizens have written to me asking whether directors in charge of the school have engaged in marrying students at the school. My question is: did the investigation ask the question whether teachers or directors in charge of the education were also maritally or sexually involved with the student body?

Hon. S. Bond: To the best of my knowledge, that would not be a question that would be part of an inspection. In fact, the inspection follows a very significant protocol. There are certain expectations we have in terms of funding that a protocol is followed. To the best of my knowledge, I would not believe that to be a question that was asked.

C. Evans: I would presume that if in a public school a member of the school board or a teacher was involved sexually or maritally with one of the students, it would come to the minister's attention. Could the minister tell me who it is that would be appropriate to ask whether or not such activities take place?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I am almost reluctant to comment. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have legal experience, but the best way I can answer that for the member opposite is that we would not ask those questions of either a school trustee or, in the case of Bountiful, a member of the board of directors.

If there were allegations made, those would be followed up by the appropriate agencies. It may be the College of Teachers, or it may be others. But those are not questions that would be part of a process we would engage in.

C. Evans: I make no allegation. However, citizens have written to me in the belief and perhaps completely inaccurate belief…. If it is not the appropriate role of the inspectors to ask such questions, will the minister advise me what minister I might refer the issue to in order to ascertain whether or not these allegations are true?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I could only imagine that it would probably be the RCMP or someone of that nature. It is not something that the independent school inspector…. That would not be a question they would ask.

C. Evans: I'll move on now to the nature of the school. Can the minister tell me: of the percentage of students at Mormon Hills and Bountiful, what percentage of boys and girls actually graduate?

As the minister probably knows, one of the problems we have in the Creston area but also in the Cranbrook area is a large number of young boys who haven't finished grade 12. They are really unable to enter the workforce in any competent way and tend, if they leave the Bountiful circle, to fall into social service agencies or sometimes even the RCMP or a criminal situation, because they're really unprepared for the work life outside the communal nature of the Bountiful community.

I would like to ask if the minister is aware of this situation and whether her inspectors could in future attempt to encourage the men and women who are the directors of Mormon Hills and Bountiful to attempt to keep students in school prior to sending them out to work or marriage — in other words, whether we could move graduation to part of our test. I think that by failing to graduate students, we are discouraging the ability of any young people to leave the Bountiful community because they are unprepared for the outside world.

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: to the best of our ability, we want students to graduate in this province whether they're in public or independent education programs. Certainly, we can make the concerns of the member opposite known to our independent school inspector. I'm sure she's well aware of the issues, having spent a lot of time, over the last number of months in particular, looking at these two independent schools.

We can continue to reiterate the importance of students completing their high school, their graduation. These students, as the member opposite would know, use distributed learning to finish their programs in most cases, but it's still important that students complete high school. I will certainly take the member's comments and pass those on to the independent school inspector.

C. Evans: I do this every year, but someday I'm not going to work here. What I would really like, to encourage the minister, is a graph. Like, if 14 percent graduate now, we could maybe drive for 25 percent and attempt to normalize the situation so that we're not graduating young people into a life that is abnormal by definition from the get-go.

Moving now to the public school system, last year I was complimenting the minister on the Yahk school's attempt, with younger elementary students, to bring the Bountiful Mormon community into a public school experience. I would like some assurance that the Yahk school will continue, and as to whether or not the minister knows if the Bountiful families are going to continue to send their kids.

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: I have not had a recent update on the Yahk school situation but have been advised by my deputy that from all indications, at least…. It is a school board decision, obviously, as to the Yahk school, but certainly it seems to have been a positive experience. There doesn't seem to be an issue, but I will commit to the member opposite to get an updated briefing about that from my staff. It's not something I've had in the last number of months.

C. Evans: Noting the time, I'll conclude the questions. I would just like to encourage the minister once more. I try to get with the Attorney General, with Education and with human services. I think that the Bountiful situation will be resolved by cross-ministerial activities, and a stovepipe system has never worked. I would like to encourage the minister to work with other ministers so that the things that we are doing we do in unison.

D. Cubberley: In light of the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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


	YEAS — 31

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Fraser	Horgan
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Macdonald
	Conroy

	NAYS — 43

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad


	YEAS — 29

Brar	S. Simpson	Farnworth
James	Kwan	Ralston
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Dix
Trevena	Robertson	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Austin
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy

	NAYS — 41

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Les
Richmond	Bell	Krueger
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Jarvis	Nuraney	Whittred
Horning	Cantelon	Thorpe
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Bennett	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad