Hansard — Monday, April 23, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Tributes		6997
	Pennie Jamieson
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Introductions by Members		6997

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6998
	Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		6999
	Organ donations
	K. Conroy
	Prevention of violence against women
	K. Whittred
	Earth Day celebrations
	G. Robertson
	Arts and culture awards in Prince George
	J. Rustad
	Homelessness solutions proposed by Windermere Secondary students
	A. Dix
	Cloverdale Trades and Technology Centre
	D. Hayer

Oral Questions		7001
	Privacy Commissioner review of lobbying activities of Ken Dobell
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Conflict-of-interest concerns regarding lobbying activities of Ken Dobell
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Privacy Commissioner review of lobbying activities of Ken Dobell
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. M. de Jong
	B. Ralston
	N. Macdonald
	Disclosure of ICBC executive bonuses
	G. Gentner
	Hon. J. Les
	G. Robertson
	S. Simpson
	Emergency planning for ambulance dispatch centres
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Flood protection funding for New Westminster
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. J. Les

Committee of the Whole House		7006
	Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 16)
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7010
	Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 16)

Committee of the Whole House		7010
	Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7017
	Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)

Second Reading of Bills		7018
	School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20)
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Cubberley
	J. McIntyre
	D. Chudnovsky

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7030
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology (continued)
	Hon. M. Coell
	R. Fleming
	H. Bains

Hon. R. Thorpe: It is with sadness that I rise in this House today on behalf of the Speaker and myself to advise of the passing of Pennie Jamieson. Pennie passed away last Thursday after battling leukemia for the past four years. Pennie served 22 years on our school board, starting in 1985 and serving as the chair for eight years. Pennie was a great school trustee who gave so much to our students and to her community. Pennie will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you, on behalf of all members of the Legislature, pass along our most sincere sympathies to Pennie's sons Neil, Ross and Don, their families as well as Pennie's five grandchildren.

H. Lali: I have two sets of introductions. I'd like to start off by introducing three friends of mine from the district of Lillooet. They're here to meet with the various ministers. They are the mayor of Lillooet, Mayor Christ'l Roshard, Councillor Patrick St. Dennis and also Administrator Grant Loyer. Would the House please make them welcome.

The second set of introductions. We have some students from the Canadian Federation of Students, who have been here meeting with various Members of the Legislative Assembly. I'd like to introduce from Local 3, UBC Okanagan Students Union, Krystal Smith, and from Local 72, North Island Students Union, Michael Jensen. Would the House please give them a round of applause.

V. Roddick: It is a delight to introduce to the House Mr. John Powell, teacher, and Principal Ray Holme, along with 50 students from Delta senior secondary high school in Ladner. These students are all enrolled in a grade 11 civics class that I previously visited at Delta senior secondary. I was invited there to discuss the role of a Member of the Legislative Assembly. They've now come to our House to see firsthand if my job description actually pans out.

I would like to express to the House that these students are here because of the keen interest they have in how our government functions. Every one of them has proven to me that the youth of today are indeed aware of and interested in the actions of our province. They are tomorrow's leaders. I would ask all in the House to recognize them.

C. Wyse: I have two sets of introductions. The first one is Ben Vinje. Ben is a resident of my constituency. He's a graduate from UNBC, and he is here to visit us in the House. I would ask the House to make Ben welcome.

Carrying on with introductions for members visiting us from the Canadian Federation of Students, there are two groups I would like the House to make welcome: from Local 13, College of New Caledonia Students Association, Valentine Crawford and Justin Simon; likewise, from Local 15, Thompson Rivers University Student Union, Nathan Lane.

J. Rustad: It's my pleasure to introduce a constituent from my riding, Cristy Hogan of Prince George. With Cristy is Alan Preston from Prince George, and Christy's grandparents Mary and Gerald Bjorgaard of Victoria. Will the House please make them welcome.

G. Coons: It's my pleasure to introduce three North Coast constituents from the Chatham Sound Charter Boat Association: Jim Robertson from Hot Spot Charters, Don Pederson from Albacore II and Dave Anderson from Coast Charter. They were here to meet with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. We had a very productive session as they voiced their concerns about net-cage salmon farms on the north coast. Please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: Like other members, I've had meetings with the Canadian Federation of Students today. I'd like the House to welcome Ewan Maclean, Kiersten Ballard and Shamus Reid. Please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I am pleased today to welcome to the Legislature 17 students from Lord Nelson Elementary School. They're here studying provincial government, and they're joining us along with their teacher Ms. Tricia Stec and three parents, Nina Angeli, Lana Leeson and Xia Jin. I hope the House will make the students from Lord Nelson very welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to join with the minister and introduce some students from our area here in the lower Island. We are joined today by students from the University of Victoria Students Society, Canadian Federation of Students Local 44: Tracy Ho, Caitlin Meggs, Penny Beames and Jamie Strachan.

All of these individuals are recently elected or recently re-elected, as the case may be. Their terms haven't even started yet. I think they begin next week. They're already here with their feet hitting the ground running, lobbying the government on various positions and working with the opposition on various issues. Would the House please make them all feel welcome today.

Hon. P. Bell: I am very pleased today to be able to introduce to the House three individuals from the B.C. Food Processors Association. They are Gay Hahn, Tony Toth and Robin Smith. I would ask that the House please make them all very welcome, because you have to eat to live.

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to also introduce two students from Local 5, Capilano Students Union,

that are visiting the Legislature and lobbying on several issues. I'd like the House to welcome Kiersten Ballard and Ewan Maclean, and give them a warm welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today are two friends and supporters of mine, Brock Rogers and Gord Keller. They're here for a meeting with the Solicitor General. Could the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: I join with my colleagues to also welcome the Canadian Federation of Students in the precinct today and in the Legislature. More specifically, Locals 73 and 76 from the Vancouver Community College student unions are here. They are Michael Glover and Jean Chapman. They're here to educate MLAs on the importance of eliminating barriers to access post-secondary education and particularly for adult basic education students. Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

J. McIntyre: I just wanted to add my voice of welcome to Mr. Tony Toth, who is here with the food producers. I look forward to seeing them in the rotunda later today. Tony is a constituent and a personal friend of mine. Welcome.

K. Conroy: I too would like to welcome members of the Canadian Federation of Students. These two young men I've worked with quite a bit because they both went to Selkirk College in Castlegar. Dustin Grof is here representing Local 4 of the Selkirk students union, and Dave Westmacott is representing Local 53 from the Okanagan College student union. Although I'm really happy to introduce both of them, I'm really sad because they're leaving my constituency. Dave has already moved on to the Okanagan, and Dustin is moving down to the lower mainland to work with the Canadian Federation of Students. So please join me in wishing them well.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome Pat Barbosa of Local 61, Malaspina Students Union, Canadian Federation of Students.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to wish a happy birthday to one of our legislative interns, Stefan Currie-Roberts, who is witnessing all the events from up in the perch.

S. Hammell: On behalf of all of us assembled, would you join me in welcoming the following students who are participating in the Attorney General's articling program, continuing legal education, and are here working in the Legislature. They are Nina Bindra, Maria Coley, Lucas Corwin, Maureen McDowell, Andrew Mickelson, Susan Neary, Eva Ross, Jennifer Stewart and Genevieve Tamosiunas. Genevieve is the daughter of our facilities manager here, who is Al Tamosiunas, and Joanne Rada. Their parents are also here. Could we all make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a pleasure to introduce to the House Laura Anderson, Titus Gregory and Robert Komachek. They are student representatives, Kwantlen College, Local 26 of the Canadian Federation of Students. It was really quite heartening to meet this group today, because one mature student is actually my age. I'd just like to extend to everybody here that there's hope for all of us.

A. Dix: On that note, I wish to welcome to the precinct today 30 students and their teacher from the civics 11 class at Windermere Secondary School. The students all recently participated in the Encounters with Canada program and are here to learn about what we do in provincial jurisdictions. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Robertson: I too would like to acknowledge the presence here today of several of the Canadian Federation of Students B.C. office folks. Shamus Reid, Summer McFadyen, Scott Payne and Jen Arnold are here. Also from Emily Carr student union in my riding is Meghan King. I'll just welcome them all here. It's great that they're here to bring attention to the cause of adult basic education and the necessity of good support services for everyone seeking education. Will the House please make them all welcome.

One more introduction. I had the great pleasure of having lunch with Jane and Maurice Wong from Vancouver. They are here visiting the building today and are proud supporters of Theatre Terrific in Vancouver, which is western Canada's oldest theatre company for people with disabilities. Welcome to Jane and Maurice, and congratulations to Theatre Terrific.

Mr. Speaker: Again, it's one of those days when I think we introduced everybody. But if you weren't introduced, welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 30, entitled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I am pleased to present Bill 30, entitled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007. The throne speech in

February and our B.C. Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership, announced in February, voiced our commitment to ensuring that British Columbians will have a reliable, clean source of energy to meet our growing needs now and well into the future.

The energy plan identified the creation of a new $25 million innovative clean energy fund to support the development of clean innovative technologies to help us fulfil this commitment. This fund was recommended by the Alternative Energy and Power Technology Task Force, which was made up of representatives from government, utilities, industry and other organizations. The innovative clean energy fund will support the development of clean and alternative energy sources not just in electricity but in transportation and the oil and gas sectors. It will also help us take action on climate change.

The fund will support the development or adoption of pre-commercial clean energy technologies or clean energy technologies not currently used in British Columbia and reduce the environmental impact of the use, production, generation, storage, transmission, delivery and provision of conversion of energy. It will demonstrate or promote B.C. clean energy technologies that have good potential for market demand in other jurisdictions. It will reduce the cost or improve the reliability of clean energy sources or associated technology and will support energy efficiency and conservation.

Today we propose an amendment to the Social Service Tax Act for a proposed 0.4-percent levy on all final sales of electricity, natural gas, propane, fuel oil used for heating — not including transportation fuels. This levy will provide the necessary moneys for the clean energy fund.

British Columbians are concerned about climate change and sustainable environmental management. We are proud to be leaders in this area, and I know we want to continue that leadership. We know that as stewards of this province, we all share the responsibility for protecting our natural environment while ensuring that we have reliable, competitively priced and clean energy in B.C. The clean energy fund underlines our commitment to environmental protection, economic diversification and opportunity and innovation in clean renewable energy.

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

Bill 30, Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

K. Conroy: This week in B.C. is organ donor awareness week. As many in this House know, my family has become well acquainted with the need for organ donation. As someone whose husband has survived two liver transplants, I'm acutely aware of the needs in this province. We are very grateful to the services of the B.C. Transplant Society and the transplant program at Vancouver General Hospital for the amazing work they do to ensure that people in this province benefit by this incredible gift of life.

However, today I want to take the time to acknowledge another group who makes this gift possible — the donor families. These are the unsung heroes, who in an incredibly tragic time in their lives ensure that their loved ones' organs are donated for transplantation. What makes a difficult situation more palatable is when they are actually carrying out the wishes of their loved ones — those people who have taken the time to register as an organ donor.

I think that the experiences of those who have been there say it best. Pia, a donor mother, talks about her son Len: "When Len suddenly and unexpectedly passed away a few years ago, we were so grateful that he had made his wishes known regarding organ donation. That was one decision we didn't have to make. When he signed that form years earlier, little did he know that he would save the lives of five people."

From Raymond, whose wife Leah tragically passed away within a year of them being married and weeks after she gave birth to their daughter:

Today I echo those words and encourage everyone: if you are not a registered organ donor, please become one. It is never easy to think or talk about dying or to deal with difficult decisions when it is your loved one who has died. By registering as an organ donor, your gift of life will not only be a comfort to your own family but to the families of lives you save.

I encourage you all to register or to ensure that you are registered by simply going on line to www.transplant.bc.ca and make sure you are.

K. Whittred: This is also Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. When a woman is the victim of violence, it impacts all of us. These are mothers, sisters, daughters and grandmothers. A violent act against

As we mark the beginning of Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, I ask the members of this House and all British Columbians to join in the effort to end violence against women.

It can be incredibly difficult for a woman who has been the victim of violence to speak out and seek help. It can be even harder for elderly victims, who may feel they face more social or financial roadblocks to leaving an abusive situation. That's why it's key to support organizations like the Atira Women's Resource Society, which provides direct services for women facing violence, including operating a transition home for women 55 years and older.

Some of the stories of Atira's clients are heartbreaking. One is from a 69-year-old woman who was assaulted by her companion after refusing to give him her pension money for drugs. With some help, she was able to kick her own addiction problem and move on into a new home.

This is what she said: "When I was at the door in distress and crying my eyes out, there was always someone to talk to. I am so thankful, as I probably would still be in that ugly life. I am so happy to be where I am today."

Thanks to the work of government and community partners, there is now support for women and children fleeing violence in over 100 communities in British Columbia, and 95 percent of women can find this support within an hour of their homes. But we must continue to build this support network and raise awareness across the province. All British Columbians deserve to live a life that is violence-free.

G. Robertson: Yesterday was Earth Day, and though I think that every day offers opportunities to cherish and value our planet, we designate April 22 to inspire awareness of and appreciation for the Earth's environment, which wholly sustains us.

On Saturday Evergreen hosted its seventh Annual Earth Day Vancouver Celebration at Jericho Park. Evergreen is a non-profit environmental organization that envisions a sustainable society where individuals live in harmony with and contribute meaningfully to their local environment. This free family-oriented event featured live music and performances and a variety of activities for both kids and adults.

People put their hands in the earth on Earth Day and rooted out invasive plant species, replacing them with native plants. It was a day of celebration, restoration and hands-on participation.

Earth Day is also about education. Last week Tides Canada Foundation announced that they are donating a DVD of the award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth to every public high school in B.C., making our province the first jurisdiction in North America to do so.

We need to equip our children in the best way possible to clean up the mess that we're making. We need to take action now, immediately, to take care of this planet for future generations. While Earth Day is about celebrating the bounty offered by our planet, it is ultimately about taking action to sustain our planet so that it will continue to sustain us and that Earth Day can be celebrated for centuries to come.

J. Rustad: This week is the eighth annual Arts and Culture Week in B.C. Throughout the province, arts and culture groups are holding events highlighting the talent and richness of our society.

I'd like to highlight one such event in Prince George which not only promotes culture and arts in Prince George but recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of individuals that have contributed so much. On April 21 the Community Arts Council held their biannual Arts Gallery of Honour awards. The event recognized the achievements of people who helped to inspire others through displaying outstanding leadership and creative success, and through good, old-fashioned hard work and commitment.

This year's awards went to eight individuals. Jacqueline Baldwin for the literary arts category. She's a poet, activist, mother, grandmother, actor, organic farmer, volunteer and winner of ten literary awards for her poetry.

Colin Dix for theatre arts. He's an actor and director and has devoted hundreds of volunteer hours to community theatre in Prince George.

Sandra Nahornoff in the visual arts category. Her paintings and photography of wildlife are outstanding.

Maureen Nielsen is the Alice Box Memorial Award winner. She's inspired people for years through teaching piano and through her work in choirs.

Des Parker for architecture. He's been an architect in PG for more than 50 years.

Judy Russell in the performing arts category. Through her Enchaînement Dance Studio, she's nurtured generations of performing arts students.

Noreen Rustad in the fibre art category. Throughout the long years her commitment to volunteerism for the betterment of the community is a priority that she continues to this day.

Penny Stewart as a supporter of the arts. Since 1977 she's worked to help groups become more organized for the betterment of the arts community.

Please join me in congratulating these individuals for all they've done to help enrich our lives.

A. Dix: During introductions I noticed the presence in the precincts today of students from the civics 11 class at Windermere Secondary School. Part of their work has been to take an issue of interest to them and seek out ideas and solutions to address the problems they've identified.

The class has chosen the issue of homelessness and asked me to read a portion of their proposal to the House today. They say:

On behalf of us, I'd like to thank the Windermere Community School and all the students in British Columbia for their participation and for coming forward with concrete ideas. The Minister of Housing and I will have the opportunity to discuss all of their proposals and ideas during our upcoming budget debate on the Ministry of Housing.

D. Hayer: On Friday I had the privilege of joining our Premier and many other dignitaries for a very special event — the opening of the new Surrey Cloverdale Trades and Technology Centre for Kwantlen University College. This new state-of-the-art training centre will provide advanced trades and technical training for British Columbians who wish to pursue a career in areas such as automotive, electrical, carpentry, building trades and engineering technology.

My constituents of Surrey-Tynehead are particularly pleased with this exceptional new training centre as it allows their children to go to school and learn in-demand skills very close to home. This new centre offers skills training on leading-edge equipment — the best in North America — so that when students leave the Cloverdale Trades and Technology Centre, they will be able to compete among the best-trained people on earth and will be able to take advantage of the great employment opportunities our powerful economy has made possible.

This centre is all about excellence. It provides leadership in post-secondary education. That has been the goal of our government from day one.

I want to congratulate our Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education as well as our other government MLAs from Surrey who have worked very hard for this over the past six years. I also want to thank the board of governors, the faculty and staff of Kwantlen University College, as well as many others, for their effort in this, and also the students from Kwantlen University for creating this exceptional training facility.

There will be demand for thousands of new jobs created in the next decade for the service of this new trade and technology centre, as the economy is booming. This training centre is going to provide excellent training facilities for all the students. I want to thank everybody who helped with this.

J. Kwan: We know that Ken Dobell registered as a lobbyist in October 2006. We also know that he backdated his activities to April 5, and the Privacy Commissioner is now reviewing the matter. But what we don't know is what Mr. Dobell was doing in March.

Through an FOI we've learned that the Premier met with Mr. Dobell and the Vancouver city manager, Judy Rogers, on March 9. Immediately after that meeting, the Premier met with the Deputy Minister of Tourism, Virginia Greene. On March 21 Vancouver city council, at an in-camera meeting, accepted $5 million from the province to establish the 2010 cultural precincts fund. Ken Dobell later got that contract, paid for by the same fund, to lobby the province on behalf of the city.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Precisely when did his ministry approve the $5 million grant to the city of Vancouver, and what role did Mr. Dobell play in this creation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Here we go again — assault by innuendo. Ken Dobell has served this province and the people of this country extremely well. Any speculation or allegations are totally inappropriate. We all know that a proper review is being undertaken. If the opposition wants to continue down this road and make accusations, they should make them out in the halls where they'll be held accountable.

J. Kwan: Let me just say this. The timing of the decisions made by Mr. Dobell's participation makes the Privacy Commissioner's review even more critical, and it raises serious questions around perceived and actual conflict.

The Premier gave millions of dollars to the city of Vancouver, and subsequently a contract was signed and awarded to his friend and special adviser, but only after the Premier met with two signatories to that contract.

To the Minister of Tourism once again: the timing of this mess raises serious red flags, so will the minister push to expand the Privacy Commissioner's investigation into all of Mr. Dobell's lobbying activities?

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess it's on the record now. One of the MLAs from the city of Vancouver is against $5 million going to the city of Vancouver for cultural….

I say again to the member: if the member has any accusations to make, let her make them out in the hall where she'll be held accountable.

J. Kwan: How predictable from the minister who refuses to answer the questions and tries to deflect it onto another issue. The issue here is around the timing of Mr. Dobell's lobbying activities. The issue here is around the commissioner's review and the expansion of that investigation.

The evidence suggests a serious breach of the Lobbyists Registration Act by Mr. Dobell. Mr. Dobell didn't register as a lobbyist until October. He backdated his activities to April 5, the same day that the Premier announced the cultural precincts fund. It is clear that Mr. Dobell was likely engaged in the creation of the project that paid for his lobbying activities.

Again, to the Minister of Tourism — and please focus, because the question is this: will he ensure that the March activities of the Premier, the Tourism deputy and Mr. Dobell are fully investigated as part of the Privacy Commissioner's review?

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that this is inconvenient when members of an opposition are seeking to perpetuate some sort of political conspiracy theory, but the fact of the matter is this. Under the provisions of the Lobbyists Registration Act, the registrar, who is the Privacy Commissioner, has a role. He is playing that role. He is conducting this review, this fact-finder's review.

I understand that it is inconvenient and doesn't fit with the opposition's schedule to await the results of that, which will be made public, but I strongly suggest that the precepts of fairness, of natural justice, require that that happen. If the member has a more specific allegation that she would like to make, then she should do it outside where the parliamentary privileges do not extend.

R. Fleming: Well, it's not that this matter is inconvenient. It's that the potential of it is to be downright conflicted for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Ken Dobell is a man of many hats, it's been said — given the mess of the convention centre, maybe too many hats. He's a special adviser to the Premier. He was the head of the Vancouver Convention Centre board and still sits on that board today. He's handling the coastal forest and softwood files for government.

He's the chief lobbyist for the city of Vancouver, lobbying the Premier and the Minister of Tourism. He represents the province with VANOC and chairs its finance committee. With that much access and inside information from all of these jobs, it should come as no surprise that he was awarded the lobbying contract for the $5 million cultural precincts project.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Does he believe that Mr. Dobell has taken sufficient measures to avoid the appearance of conflict?

Hon. M. de Jong: Lots of words, Mr. Speaker. If the member has a specific allegation to make about whether or not….

Hon. M. de Jong: If he has a specific allegation to make concerning the awarding of any contract under any circumstance, then I would suggest that he make it outside of this chamber where parliamentary privilege does not extend and, in the meantime, do the responsible thing and await the results of the review that the commissioner is working on.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, these are legitimate questions that the opposition is asking. While this government may not be worried about the appearance of conflict, Mr. Dobell apparently was concerned about the optics of his conflict.

On October 3, 2006, he sent a letter of disclosure to Jessica McDonald and Judy Rogers, stating: "There may be a perceived conflict that should be addressed." He then asked them to sign a letter to record their acknowledgment of the perceived conflict.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Did anyone in government seek any third-party advice, or did the

Premier's office just take Mr. Dobell's word at face value about the concerns of a conflict of interest?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it seems to me that the member can't have it both ways. On the one hand, he chastises Mr. Dobell for his behaviour in these matters, and on the other hand, he says he seeks defence in his allegations from conduct by Mr. Dobell.

Look, there is a Lobbyists Registration Act. It provides for certain requirements that lobbyists are obliged to follow. The registrar in this case has agreed and is in the process of conducting a review of this matter. If it is inconvenient for the member to await the results of that, that's too bad. But that's what we're going to do on this side of the House, because that's the responsible thing to do.

M. Karagianis: Last week this side of the House pressured the government to take action on what appears to be a blatant violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act. On Thursday morning the Attorney General tasked the Information and Privacy Commissioner with conducting a fact-finding action into the Premier's special adviser, Mr. Dobell. I can appreciate that the Attorney General and the government would want a quick answer on that, but it has been suggested that this fact-finding mission could take up to two weeks to complete.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Did the Attorney General set the two-week deadline, or was the deadline suggested by the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. M. de Jong: The registrar, who is the Privacy Commissioner, will conduct his work thoroughly, as he always does, and release his report.

The fact pattern in this seems very clear to me. Mr. Dobell registered as a lobbyist more than six months after he began lobbying activities. Here we are a year later, and it's been a year since Mr. Dobell started his lobbyist activity for the city of Vancouver.

British Columbians would like answers. They deserve answers. So the question is: before the Attorney General or government referred this to Mr. Loukidelis, did anyone consult on the implications of the Statute of Limitations for pursuing this investigation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'm having difficulty. The member seems to be saying: "I don't want to prejudge, but forgive me while I prejudge this matter." I don't know what part of this the member is having difficulty with. She is claiming credit for a particular course of action. If that makes her happy, then let her claim credit for it.

The Privacy Commissioner, in his role as the registrar under the Lobbyists Registration Act, is conducting this review. That is as it should be. He will examine to ensure that the requirements of the act have been followed. That report will become public, and the member can then review that document. If questions follow from it, in her mind, she may pursue them in this House, which is also her right and quite proper. But in the meantime I'm afraid she's just going to have to cool her heels and resist the temptation to draw political conclusions for political gain.

B. Ralston: An investigation is underway, and obviously the government takes this seriously. Because the matter is serious, the Attorney General must have consulted with ministry lawyers before agreeing to ask the commissioner to conduct a two-week investigation.

Can the Deputy Premier tell this House whether the government discussed the implication of the Statute of Limitations with Mr. Loukidelis when he was asked to investigate Mr. Dobell?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the extent that I think I understand the question, I'll take it on notice for the AG.

N. Macdonald: The government has decided to ask the Information and Privacy Commissioner to investigate the Premier's friend, Mr. Dobell. The question for government is: in making the decision to investigate, who in the Premier's office besides Ken Dobell did the Attorney General consult before launching the fact-finding investigation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, you know, members may not want the…. They keep asking these questions, and we try to answer them as best we can.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this again so that the member will at least hear it in direct response to his question. There have been questions raised around the Lobbyists Registration Act and a particular individual. The registrar under that act, who is also the Privacy Commissioner in this province, has agreed after discussions with the Attorney General's ministry to review that matter, and he will prepare a report.

That report will be made public. The member may then read the report and pose whatever questions logically — or in the case, illogically — arise from that report. They will have ample opportunity to do that not just in the public domain but right here in this chamber if they so choose.

G. Gentner: Now for something a little different, relative to ICBC. The question will be to the fender-

bender minister of transparency. According to ICBC's media relations officer, ICBC will no longer disclose the size of its bonuses to executives. Also, in a story in the reputable Vancouver Sun, CEO Paul Taylor made over $60,000 in bonuses and earned a base salary of $300,000 for last year.

Since the Crown corporation will not disclose executive bonuses, will the Solicitor General explain to this House what criteria are actually used to establish Mr. Taylor's bonus package for 2006 and beyond?

Hon. J. Les: I should make it very clear, first of all, that ICBC discloses all of that type of information in the same way that all other Crown corporations do as well. They publish that information completely in compliance with the Financial Information Act. So if the member wishes any detailed information, that is published, as he knows…. I think it's usually about June of every year, and he's free to access that information. We are completely transparent in terms of how ICBC releases that information, Mr. Speaker.

G. Gentner: Yes, hon. Speaker. I was a little worried that the minister's response — in that ICBC executives would receive Olympic perks such as box seating for figure skating, etc., now that they are the official sponsors of the Olympics….

G. Gentner: Nevertheless, on March 20 the Premier's office launched an investigation on the conduct of ICBC CEO Paul Taylor. On March 30 an article appeared in the Globe and Mail detailing allegations concerning Mr. Taylor's relationship to and with the B.C. auto dealers association. Three days after that, on April 2, ICBC announces through its media spin doctor that executive bonuses will not be disclosed.

Does the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for transparency, apparently, Paul Taylor's boss…? By the way, Mr. Taylor received more bonuses than anybody else in the corporation. Does the Solicitor General agree that these bonuses should remain secret?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, ICBC fully discloses all executive compensation — period.

G. Robertson: In 2005 the government immediately disclosed the details on the bonus information through ICBC. What's changed? It's 2006. What possible rationale is there for failing to disclose this immediately?

Hon. J. Les: I guess I'll just have to repeat again that ICBC fully discloses all remuneration information completely in accordance with the Financial Information Act in the province of British Columbia and completely in accordance with the way that is done by other Crown corporations. I'm not sure what it is about that answer that the member opposite doesn't understand.

G. Robertson: It doesn't make any sense. The Solicitor General claims that they're following due procedure, due process and that everything is fine and dandy. Well, the chair and CEO of ICBC is under investigation. According to the Finance Minister, KPMG is working on this. That has changed. That's changed a great deal.

Last year you disclosed immediately the bonus compensation due to Mr. Taylor. This year you don't. The only change that the opposition sees here is that the same chair and CEO is under an investigation from this government. Is that the reason this information is being withheld?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, more drive-by innuendo by the members opposite. That's all I'm hearing. What I am pleased to say is this. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is being well run and is being well directed by its CEO, Paul Taylor, as a marked contrast to 2001 and before that, when ICBC, frankly, was in the ditch. It was being manipulated for political purposes, and it sent out $100 cheques that it couldn't afford, at political direction.

Today ICBC is being well run. It is there for the benefit of all British Columbians, helping to keep auto insurance rates low and stable.

S. Simpson: Last year it was good enough for this information to be released in an expeditious manner right away. What's changed, Mr. Speaker? Can the minister tell us what is different this year that this information about compensation is not being released now?

Hon. J. Les: Since we came to power in 2001, nothing has changed. ICBC is being run professionally. It's being well managed. It is not being politically manipulated. It discloses everything that it's required to disclose, and it is keeping rates for all British Columbians low and stable.

S. Simpson: It was released last year. It's not being released this year. The question is simple. What's changed that the government will not release this information?

Hon. J. Les: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Everything that ICBC is required to release will be released completely in accordance with all provincial legislation, completely in compliance with the way that is done by other Crown corporations as well. We have nothing to hide. In fact, we have lots to be proud of when it comes to the administration of ICBC over the last number of years.

C. Wyse: The dispatch station for ambulances in Kamloops yesterday suffered a mishap. That mishap was very significant. The Kamloops dispatch station covers the dispatch of ambulances for three-quarters of British Columbia. There are reports of stories of confusion for dispatch and other related types of stories that apparently have affected the health and well-being of the workers there.

My question to the Minister of Health: would he assure British Columbians that ambulance coverage was not interrupted, and further, will he agree to table a report explaining how the emergency backup plan worked in Kamloops?

Hon. G. Abbott: The incident to which the member refers, I gather, occurred as a consequence of a sewer backup at the station that had some health implications for some of the workers there. I understand that the transfer was made smoothly and effectively to adjacent premises, where that work continued to be undertaken.

The reason for the event is unclear to us at this point. I'm sure that the city of Kamloops and others are investigating why that event occurred. But I do want to thank the member for raising the question, because I want to thank all of those who were involved for conducting themselves in a most professional, capable and thoughtful manner during a remarkably difficult situation.

C. Wyse: Indeed, we too would like to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts that were put into place by everyone who was affected yesterday. There are further stories that also come around and out of this particular situation. It is very new; it has just occurred. The question that I asked of him was whether he would table a report on this incident so that all of the information would be available.

It is important to once more remind this community that many parts of British Columbia are not covered by ambulance for different reasons. If the dispatch station is out of service, it means that nobody gets that service area. We need the report, and we need assurances that in actual fact there is an emergency backup plan for all dispatch stations in British Columbia that send out ambulances so that the entire province is covered.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm having some difficulty following the chain of thought that is being presented by the member. The event that occurred earlier this weekend was a most unfortunate event. It appears to be an event that relates to the infrastructure of the city of Kamloops, and there was an extraordinary event that occurred there, which disrupted the operation of the dispatch centre.

Those involved, by all accounts that I have heard, followed appropriate procedures and behaved in a calm, professional and straightforward manner in attempting to deal with the situation at hand. I think what it does is underline just how well we are served by the extraordinary people who work in our emergency services in this province.

C. Puchmayr: As the flooding risk increases in the Fraser Valley, the city of New Westminster is told that they are not able to get funding for prevention measures in a most critical goods-movement corridor in New Westminster.

Can the Solicitor General tell this House why this area, which is a main transportation corridor and residential area, does not qualify for adequate funding from the government's alleged flood protection plan?

Hon. J. Les: I have no knowledge at this moment whether New Westminster in fact applied for funding or not. But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. We have just finished allocating some $33 million, and we made that commitment unilaterally, because we recognize that there is potential risk coming up this spring. Many communities are very productively putting that funding to work to mitigate the flood hazard. If New Westminster has issues, I am sure they are in discussion with our staff, and they will be dealt with the same as everyone else to try and mitigate the threat that we might be facing this spring.

C. Puchmayr: The city has been in contact with the head dikes inspector, and they have asked for the funding. That funding is not coming forward. If only the city could afford to hire Ken Dobell, maybe they could get some funding where they need it.

Mr. Speaker, tens of millions of dollars of goods travel along that corridor. There are three railways. There is the north Fraser River perimeter truck route. There are residents that live in that area. There is also a $15 million environmental mitigation project that is not yet completed, which is going to contain rainwater in a holding tank right by the Fraser River. That area is not mitigated. It's not protected from a flood. There could be not only the tens of millions of dollars of loss per day in goods movement; there is a $15 million environmental project that this government and the city and the GVRD jointly funded.

I ask the minister: will he commit to make the resources available so that we can avoid the serious economic catastrophe that is looming in New Westminster, should the water breach the dike?

Hon. J. Les: I guess thanks to the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, for a completely rhetorical question — whether we're going to make the resources available or not. We've made $33 million available. For the member's information, that is four times the amount that

Hon. J. Les: If the member opposite has particular concerns with respect to the protection of his riding, I am surprised that I have not heard from him until just this afternoon. One of his colleagues had some similarly unenlightening things to say, and the mayor of that community responded by saying: "Please apologize to the minister for me on behalf of my citizens for the MLA's uneducated and non-productive comments." I think that member could have been the author of some of those questions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 16, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; S. Hammell in the chair.

M. Farnworth: My question to the minister is under section 1, where it says "other than a privileged communication…." I presume that means specifically lawyer-client but would not mean, for example, a spouse. Is that correct?

M. Farnworth: Can the minister outline for me how this definition has changed, how it's expanded and what it will accomplish in terms of what offences are listed? And are there any offences that will not…?

This section repeals the definition of "conviction" under the old act and substitutes a new definition of conviction. Can the minister tell the House what the differences are between the old definition and the new definition?

Hon. J. Les: I suspect we might have one or two questions on this item, so I'll start out by saying that the new parts of the definition, under what constitutes a conviction, are (c), (f) and, under (g), the section 810.2 peace bond that is sometimes employed upon expiry of sentence.

M. Farnworth: I wonder if the minister can explain the rationale for subsection (c) being part of the change to the definition.

Hon. J. Les: I think it's important to do a little bit of distinguishing here between different types of pardon. First of all, there's the general pardon, which is issued by the National Parole Board. Under a general pardon, a conviction is not erased; only the record is erased. So the conviction still stands.

Under a pardon that is, on the other hand, issued by the federal cabinet, it is then deemed that the person never indeed did commit the offence, so there is quite a distinguishing feature between those two types of pardon.

Clearly, it is the former that we're dealing with here — the general pardon. As I've already said, in that case, although the record is erased, the conviction still stands. That remains part of CPIC and those kinds of records and is already disclosed by consent even today.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the general pardon, does this particular definition in this type of legislation exist in other provinces, or will British Columbia be the first province to have this particular definition in this particular format?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's safe to say that we in British Columbia have taken a more comprehensive approach to full disclosure of all relevant issues relating to people who are working with children, with vulnerable children. We are not aware of other provinces that provide access to the information behind pardoned offences, but that doesn't take away from the legislation. It is important that those factors are known. We want, I think, to be absolutely as sure as we possibly can be that young children and vulnerable people are not exposed to potentially dangerous situations.

M. Farnworth: I agree with the sentiments of the minister. We want to see that, and I want to ensure that this legislation is able to do what we all want it to do. That's why I'm asking these questions. I want to make sure that when this goes out there, it doesn't end up being struck down because of a court challenge or something like that on what could be perceived as an expansion — many people going: "You've now had a pardon, and here we are putting that back out."

Has the ministry had any legal advice in terms of how this particular section…? Is it vulnerable to a

potential Charter challenge? Has the ministry had any legal advice on that particular section?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the caution of the member opposite, and I'm happy to say that we've consulted extensively with legal counsel. There are no difficulties with this approach.

It's important to remember that a pardon — a general pardon is what we're talking about in this case — does not obviate the original conviction. That conviction stands. It is the record that is erased. Quite often that is simply done so that people don't have issues, for example, if they wish to travel to other countries. Sometimes if that record is out there, it can in fact be a tremendous impediment in those kinds of situations.

We have been reliably informed by our ministry legal counsel that having access to those convictions behind the pardon is completely appropriate and should not be subject to challenge.

M. Farnworth: The minister raises an interesting point. I'd just like, if he can answer it…. By doing this, does that then make those convictions open to other jurisdictions to look at in terms of deciding whether or not to allow people to travel? Seeing that you apply for the pardon and you get the pardon, so that is no longer reported. A conviction still stands, but you have the ability to travel. By implementing this section, will that change that?

Hon. J. Les: I should point out clearly that the access to that previous conviction information is only as a result of this legislation. This legislation also provides that it is not to be shared with others, so there's a very narrow purpose and scope for this provision.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister explain, under subsection (f), how that differs from…? What will subsection (f) allow, and how does it impact with section 717 of the Criminal Code of Canada? What is it intended to do?

Hon. J. Les: Under subsection (f), a conviction is defined as the use of alternative measures under section 717 of the Criminal Code, and there are a number of examples of where alternative measures are used. They are used, for example, in a case where sentencing is deferred and restorative justice measures are put into effect. That, too, is useful information, particularly when it occurs repeatedly or several times, to establish a pattern of behaviour that might be a matter of concern as these matters have occurred in the past.

M. Farnworth: In terms of restorative justice, I guess the question that comes to mind is that restorative justice is intended as a way to deal with something outside the traditional court system, usually for more minor offences as opposed to a very serious offence, particularly when it comes to involving children and young people.

Has the ministry done any work on what type of sentences they see being caught up in this restorative justice or what type of situations would be included in this? It strikes me that a serious offence is going to be documented as a serious offence. I'd be interested to know the ministry's rationale or further thinking on this.

Hon. J. Les: Perhaps I can provide a little extra clarity here. What is intended in (f) is that if alternative measures have been used specifically in relation to the designated offences that we are interested in checking for, that is what we need disclosure around. So it would relate to those 56 offences, I think it is, that are currently listed. We are adding six additional by virtue of this legislation, so there's a total of 62 types of offences. If alternative measures were used in dealing with those, then we want to know about that.

M. Farnworth: That's the clarification I was looking for from the minister. What we're not looking at is…. If you're sentenced to something and you're getting alternative measures, it's not captured on there but is in fact the ones enumerated on here. I thank the minister for that.

M. Farnworth: I have a series of questions on this particular section, and I guess it revolves around…. This is not the right section to apply to…. The general issue is applying to the whole…. We can get through things fairly quickly.

In terms of the issue around the criminal-records check and moving from an initial of one to five years, what was the ministry's logic around choosing five years? Why not ten years? Why not three years? Why not every year?

Hon. J. Les: Pretty legitimate question. You can put in there any number you like, of course. When you're writing the legislation, you actually have to put a number in. We chose five years because it corresponds pretty closely to current practice by the RCMP. For example, when they do criminal-record checks, they employ a five-year interval. That is not to say that's right or wrong, but that is the standard practice. Based on that and similar provisions, we decided to use the five-year interval in this legislation as well.

M. Farnworth: Is this standard in place in any other provinces that the minister is aware of?

Hon. J. Les: I stand to be corrected on this, but we are not aware that there's any requirement for repeated checks in other provinces. In that case, they would simply check once a person was becoming certified to become a professional relating to services to children.

But of course, we are implementing repeated checks — in this case, every five years. If that provision is not found in any other province, clearly, then, we have no comparison.

M. Farnworth: In terms of issues around cost of the records checks, the ministry is saying that it's currently borne by the teacher and that under this…. Actually, regardless of whether it's a teacher in a public school or a private school — wherever in the education profession — that cost will continue to be borne by the individual. Is that correct?

M. Farnworth: In terms of cost, has the ministry looked at what the cost is in terms of implementing the background checks?

Hon. J. Les: The intention is that this would be implemented on a cost recovery basis. The infrastructure, of course, is there to do this kind of work. The estimated cost on a five-year basis is $20 per check — in other words, $20 every five years, or $4 per year.

M. Farnworth: So the minister is satisfied that the actual cost recovery of the background check is that $20?

M. Farnworth: Has the ministry looked at what the costs will be to the individual police detachments themselves in terms of doing the background checks? Right now you have teachers coming on…. They do a background check when they're first employed and then every five years after that.

You're increasing the workload that needs to be done, and I'm wondering: has the minister looked at that impact in terms of our police resources in communities from a bureaucratic nature — just the increase in backlog and the increase in time it takes to get these checks done and that you're going to have individual members of police detachments looking and doing this kind of work?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question, because additional administrative burden is, of course, always an issue. We are working hard with the College of Teachers to ensure that this is done as smoothly as possible. There will clearly be 20 percent, roughly, of the teaching and other staff who will require criminal-record checks every year. In police detachments this work is typically done by civilian employees. These are usually retired ex–police officers.

We have calculated that the $20 charge will, in fact, pay for the time without the imposition of any further financial burden on the jurisdiction in question.

M. Farnworth: Has any discussion or consultation taken place with local governments on the potential impact on the administrative staff who are going to have to do the checks?

Hon. J. Les: I could have perhaps been a little bit more clear in my previous answer. The civilian personnel who will actually be doing this work — these ex–police officers that I talked about — are actually located within the ministry. They will coordinate all of this work and ensure that it gets done. As I said, it's going to be cost recovered.

M. Farnworth: Just so we are absolutely clear on this. This will not result in an increase in workload at the local government level for their administrative staff that are working in police departments, and it will not result in an increase in cost in an administrative way to local government police departments.

M. Farnworth: Are there any differences between the way that teachers in independent schools are being treated as opposed to teachers in the public school system? Have there been any changes in this act, from the old act, that would have dealt with these types of issues?

Hon. J. Les: Previously, under current legislation, teachers in independent schools were only required to submit to a criminal-record check after they had achieved their certification. Under this legislation, they will be required — the same as teachers in the public school system — to submit to a criminal-record check before they get their teacher certification.

M. Farnworth: This section, part 4.1, deals with registered students working with children. Could the minister define what is meant by registered students working with children? I take it this means at an educational institution and nothing outside of that.

Hon. J. Les: The intention here is to deal effectively with registered students — students who presumably would be on their way to becoming full-fledged teachers. We're trying to capture post-secondary students who "work with children." In the definition when we say work with children, we mean during the course of an education program, to capture post-secondary students doing a practicum or other work experience required where they would have unsupervised access to children.

M. Farnworth: So this would not, for example, deal with student teaching assistants in classrooms — say, at a university or college, for example?

Hon. J. Les: The principle to keep in mind is this: if student teachers and others have unsupervised access to children, then they must submit to a criminal-record check.

M. Farnworth: This section makes it an offence for…. "A minor commits an offence who, for the purpose of purchasing or attempting to purchase liquor or of gaining or attempting to gain access to a licensed establishment, presents identification, proof of age or any other record to establish his…age or identity if that identification, proof of age or other record…."

That's pretty straightforward in terms of if someone's a minor and they're presenting false ID, it now becomes an offence. Clearly, it is an offence if an adult makes false identification. Is that correct, Minister?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, that certainly is an offence under the Criminal Code. I think it's called false pretences.

M. Farnworth: Now, I asked the question because, while it's an offence for a minor to make or to use false identification…. How is a minor who is making false identification treated? Are they covered by this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. J. Les: The minor who is actually producing the false identification would be dealt with under the appropriate legislation, whether that's the Youth Justice Act or the Criminal Code, as appropriate. I don't believe that is in any way affected by this legislation. This legislation deals with the minor who presents in a licensed establishment and then utters false identification to attempt to obtain access to those premises.

M. Farnworth: What I want to make sure of is that while we're closing a loophole, we're making sure…. Let's close all the loopholes or as many of the loopholes as possible. I think this section, hopefully, will do that.

One question is: have there been any studies that look at or any work done by the ministry in terms of how large the problem of minors using false identification is?

Hon. J. Les: In this particular case we're not aware that any formal studies have been done as to the extent of the problem, but our liquor inspectors around the province have accumulated quite a pile of fake IDs over the years. Clearly the problem is more than anecdotal. It's quite real.

This legislation, of course, attempts to balance responsibility and accountability. Clearly it is inappropriate for people who own licensed establishments to allow minors to attend there, but it's become increasingly apparent that there is a need to balance those accountabilities and have some sanction apply to minors who would fraudulently attempt to access those premises.

M. Farnworth: This deals with the always thorny issue of consular licence plates, and I know that a large part of that is outside of provincial jurisdiction. So my question to the minister is: are the proposed changes unique to British Columbia, or do they exist in other provinces as well?

Hon. J. Les: With this legislation we are bringing the practice in British Columbia into line with what is done in all other jurisdictions, certainly, in Canada.

M. Farnworth: Are there any exceptions as to which there would be an exemption granted, and if so, to whom and for how often or long?

Hon. J. Les: The provisions of this legislation apply equally to everyone. We're not aware of any exemptions. If someone presents who has a valid driver's licence from another jurisdiction, they will receive a B.C. driver's licence in exchange for that. If someone, a diplomat, from another country presents who has no proof of any licence anywhere, they will enter the graduated licensing program.

The same is true for dependents. We will treat everyone the same to ensure that we have better recordkeeping of the driving behaviour of these people. Because of the fact that they will have a B.C. driver's licence, it will enable us to do that more effectively.

M. Farnworth: On the thorny issue of penalties levied in terms of motor vehicle infractions, we have no jurisdiction, I take it, in our ability to collect those fines if consular officials decide not to….

M. Farnworth: I wonder: would that apply to British Columbia residents who act as honorary consuls? We have a number of them in B.C. They act as an honorary consul for the republic of, you know, Obscuristan or wherever — it's not a real country; some obscure state. They are a citizen of British Columbia, a citizen of Canada. They act as an honorary consul. They get the consular licence plates. Do they have to pay the fines? Is there a mechanism to make sure they pay the fines?

Hon. J. Les: For the member's interest, there are apparently about 53 of these types of individuals in the province. I've often wondered about that particular type of designation, but in any event, they of course are British Columbians and Canadians first, and as such, they must comply fully with provincial and federal legislation and are not eligible for the provisions of this particular act.

M. Farnworth: And that would mean the paying of speeding tickets and parking violations, I take it.

Hon. J. Les: In the same way that the member opposite and I would be obliged to do that, Madam Chair.

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

Bill 16, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 19, intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; H. Bloy in the chair.

G. Robertson: Questions on section 1 related to the homeowner grant. In 13.1(1), in reference to the definition for shared information, it specifies "personal information that is collected as a result of a disclosure" and that that "information or a record that is collected as a result…." Does that refer to all personal information that is collected through that process or all the personal information that is disclosed, or is there a subset of that that is made available for sharing between the different acts?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to recognize staff that are with me and have worked very hard: Janet Baltes, Sally Chaster and Parveen Niijar.

G. Robertson: I had a question related to the definition on shared information in section 1.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm sorry. I thought that I said that all information that we collect is shared.

G. Robertson: All information. Does that refer specifically to personal information that is filled out through the process of applying through the variety…?

Maybe I'll take a step backwards for a moment here. In terms of the disclosure, access and disclosure to records and the sharing of personal information come up a number of times through this act. So for the purposes of this committee stage and simplifying what we're doing here, I was going to basically ask all questions that seem to be relevant to information-sharing throughout the bill for the various acts: the Home Owner Grant Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

I'll just condense my questions around personal information sharing and disclosure within the ministry in this first section on the homeowner grant. I'm curious. In terms of the information that's provided, is it specifically what is on a single form, or are there a number of different forms that are different for each of these acts?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The reason — the member may recall this when we were provided the briefing — that we're proposing this legislation today is because, currently, residents of British Columbia, with respect to these acts that we're talking about — I think it's the Land Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act — have to now provide that information three times. For the purposes of the information we've collected with respect to the acts that are specified, that information will be shared. That's the proposal.

G. Robertson: Just so I have it straight, that means there will now be one form related to personal information that's utilized for all of these different acts, and that one form will be shared between the acts in terms of how it is used by the ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: At this point in time we will continue to use the same forms we have. But the intent is, once we have that information, to share it through the different acts so that we don't have to go back to an individual taxpayer resident to get them to fill out

different forms. Staff does envisage somewhere down the road in making sure, within the parameters of safeguarding and never compromising the integrity of personal and private information, that the possibility does exist that one form is down the road, but not at this time.

G. Robertson: Therefore, there are several application forms in place now that will continue to be used. Are those application forms requiring personal information standard? Or are there contents within some of those forms that are not currently in the other applications?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The overall answer to the question is, yes, but you may need a specific question answered with respect to a specific program. That would be specific to that particular program. But the overall intent is to have a common set of questions.

G. Robertson: My concern here and where I'm headed with this, is that there's information currently being provided for one of the acts that is not actually required in some of the other acts in terms of how the information is referenced. Does the minister or staff have any concerns about a sort of generic form that has all of the required information and may be too much for some of the acts as they are now existing?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the member has heard me say many times, personally as the minister responsible, I consider the protection of personal and private information to be my primary responsibility. I will not tolerate compromising the protection of personal and private information. As importantly as that, I can assure the members of this House that my staff and our ministry understand their obligations. They are very dedicated public servants and understand the protection of personal and private information, and they will not compromise the protection thereof.

With respect to if we ever get to a generic form, such a form would only ever be put in place with the provisions that it had the safeguards built into place with respect to the protection of personal and private information. Of course, that would always be done with a privacy impact assessment and also in consultation with the commissioner who protects this information on behalf of British Columbians — or oversees the protection of that.

G. Robertson: I appreciate the minister's comments regarding the integrity of staff on this.

Maybe one final way to ask this question would be: is there material difference between the personal information collected on one form versus the others relevant in these different acts at this time, or are they materially the same?

G. Robertson: Moving down to (2) in section 1, a question on the reference to: "a ministry person may use or disclose personal information collected under this Act." Can the minister clarify: is that specifically a full-time staff member of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, or does it refer to other ministries as well?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It is individuals employed to discharge the responsibilities that they have to discharge under the administration of the applicable acts.

G. Robertson: Does "ministry persons" specifically mean within the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, someone who has responsibility for this within that ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: If the member is trying to ask if this work is done inside or outside the ministry, it's all done inside the ministry.

G. Robertson: Within the ministry. So "a ministry person" specifically refers to staff within the ministry. Is there anyone outside of ministry staff that may have access to this personal information?

Hon. R. Thorpe: There may be, of course, from time to time, when systems work is required. As every member of this House can appreciate, we do not have all of those experts on side within the ministry on a full-time basis, and staff does advise me that from time to time they may have to do systems work. But staff also advise me that safeguards are in place at all times with respect to contractors to ensure that the protection of personal and private information is not compromised with those, for example, system contractors.

G. Robertson: The minister has segued into my next question around those safeguards. Can the minister elaborate on what safeguards are in place, particularly given that there is information-sharing? I believe that — and the minister could correct me — is a precedent in terms of sharing information between applications for different acts.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, again let me say that all of this is within the ministry. Within the ministry today we do share information on tax statutes. This has been through, staff advised me, a privacy impact assessment which ensures that all of the requirements of FOIPPA are at least met, if not beat, in the protection of personal privacy information.

G. Robertson: The privacy information assessment — is that a public document? Is that something that the public can access to be certain that the appropriate safeguards are in place?

G. Robertson: Is that subject to freedom-of-information requests, or is it publicly available without all that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, it is according to the freedom-of-information requests. With respect to this, it shouldn't take us too long to pull that together, should he make that request.

G. Robertson: I think it would be useful to have that on hand just in case there are concerns from privacy watchdogs out there as to how this has been put together.

The minister mentioned that information is shared within the ministry on tax statutes. My understanding is that this is moving up a level and sharing information between these acts. Is that the case? Is this a whole other level of information-sharing, or is this already being done?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I said earlier, we do share within the ministry between tax statutes. This takes the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Home Owner Grant Act, which are non-tax statutes, and shares the information. Because they fall under the property tax act or part of the property tax act, that's why we're doing this. Again, we're trying to streamline and simplify it for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Are all of the acts currently administered by staff within the ministry, or is anything within the scope of these four acts administered by an outside contractor?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The direct answer is no. But we must make sure that the member does realize — and I'm sure he does — that with respect to the Home Owner Grant Act, municipalities and regional districts are involved.

G. Robertson: I have a question specific to that very issue flowing from subsection (5) in section 1, which states that subsection (3) does not permit a disclosure to an employee of a municipality or government agent office.

I'm not clear what disclosure does take place, particularly specific to the Property Transfer Tax Act. What is disclosed to municipalities or government agent offices?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member for that question. First of all, the information from a local government feeds up to the provincial government for management by those that look after this. Information does not flow back down to local governments once it's up at…. Unless, of course, we have a taxpayer or a homeowner that has some questions or concerns, who's raising issues….

Then we have to go back with the local government in question to try to clarify the situation on behalf of the taxpayer. That's the only time I've been advised that information would flow back down. As a regular course of business, information flows up, is managed once it gets up and only flows down on a very exceptional basis to clarify issues and concerns on behalf of individual taxpayers.

G. Robertson: At this time, in terms of what Bill 19 lays out here, there will be no personal information sharing with municipalities except in exceptional circumstances, as the minister has just mentioned.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That is correct — of course, an exceptional basis being when a taxpayer has a concern about his or her particular application, timeliness, etc. Then we would work with the municipalities or regional districts to get clarification for the taxpayer to ensure that fairness takes place.

G. Robertson: Following up on a previous question, in terms of that information potentially being available to a contractor, does the ministry foresee any of these administrative services being contracted outside of the ministry to be performed and that personal information therefore being available to an outside contractor?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This information here today is to streamline the act to provide better services to the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's what is contemplated in this legislation today.

G. Robertson: Is it possible for the ministry to contract out, outside of the ministry, services that are relevant to these four acts and thereby access the personal information? Is it within the realm of possibility that those services could be performed outside of the ministry?

G. Robertson: I understand that it's not directly contemplated here. My question is in terms of the safeguards with the personal information of the citizens of B.C., some of which, given the nature of these acts and in particular the homeowners act…. Their information must be held confidential, and there must be appropriate safeguards to do that.

Given that we are increasing the ability of the ministry to move that information internally to and fro and simplify it, which makes eminent sense, the danger is that the information is also potentially available to an outside contractor who may not have quite the same scrutiny that the ministry performs its duties with. Members of the public certainly are entitled to know whether this information could potentially be administered outside of the ministry.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I thought we were actually here to debate the legislation, not to debate hypotheticals. This information is protected by the personal and privacy laws of the province of British Columbia, and those will not be compromised. I have said that for my staff that work on this, this is of paramount importance. I have mentioned that from time to time we use system contractors, and every safeguard is taken to ensure that the protection of personal privacy information by staff will never be compromised.

That is our goal. That's what they work hard for every day, and that's what we try to do. Hypothetically? We're all human beings, but they do their very best, and I do my very best to protect the personal and private information of all British Columbians that we administer.

G. Robertson: We'll dive into questions related to tax rulings from here, as did my questions on section 1 related to personal information, that apply to four different acts throughout this bill. My questions related to tax rulings in the same way apply to wherever these tax ruling amendments show up throughout the bill.

Just to clarify, in section 3 in the definition for proposed transaction: "…is proposed to be undertaken by an identified person…." I'm curious if a corporate entity has the ability to apply for a tax ruling without a person's name identified to it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to advise the House that Joel Fairbairn, who works diligently on this, has joined us.

G. Robertson: Chair, I'll take your guidance on a number of questions that are general to the initiative around tax rulings. I can go ahead and start in on them in section 3 relevant to the tax ruling definition, or I can apply them throughout section 4, where there are more specifics.

G. Robertson: I'll go ahead with tax rulings. Can the minister just clarify on the record what the government is currently doing in terms of tax rulings, what is taking place now and some information relevant to the scale of tax rulings that are going on right now?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's ranging between 6,500 and 7,000 that we're doing in tax rulings now. What we are striving to do and making great progress…. Again, there is a requirement of the individual, the identified person — when we give the rulings — to give us the complete picture. If they do not give us all of the facts and details, then the binding ruling is not going to be in place.

Our intent here is to make it easier for small business, medium-sized business and other businesses in British Columbia to make decisions based on information that they have received from the government and not in a written form and not to have issues pop up four and five years later. That is contingent upon those individuals supplying all of the pertinent and detailed information, which would certainly justify our written binding recommendation ruling.

G. Robertson: Some 6,500 to 7,000 tax rulings currently…. The minister just commented that there are tax rulings being amended through these four acts here in the bill. What specifically are those tax rulings currently being made for — the additional acts? Where are they taking place within the ministry right now?

G. Robertson: Currently the four acts that are being amended with tax ruling sections here…. Is there anything taking place currently around tax rulings?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Virtually all of our binding rulings are under these four acts.

G. Robertson: And in terms of the language currently within those acts — the improvement, I suppose, is what it can be called here — can the minister just describe the limitations of the current provisions within these acts for making tax rulings and why, more generally, all of this amending is necessary?

Hon. R. Thorpe: These amendments give us the legislative authority to stand behind the written rulings that we have committed to under the taxpayer fairness and service code.

G. Robertson: And that authority to do written rulings does not currently exist?

Hon. R. Thorpe: What this does is give a legal authority, as opposed to a policy authority, for the effectiveness of the binding ruling that we have given out.

G. Robertson: Why is it only for taxes in advance of a transaction? Can the minister clarify that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Because we cannot rule on something that's already happened.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just briefly describe what protocol exists for tax appeals?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Currently the taxpayers of British Columbia, once they receive an assessment, should they not be in agreement with that assessment, have 90 days in which to appeal to the minister. The minister then, through the appeals branch, which is completely separate from our other tax areas and reports directly to the deputy minister….

I might add: thanks for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognize the appeals division. Some two years ago the appeals division had a backlog of 13 months on average for processing appeals. We set upon a very ambitious program — one that was led by Janet, who is here — to reduce that.

Our first goal was to reduce it in year 1 to six months. Our second goal was to reduce it to five months on average for the period ending March 31.

Staff advise me that they have achieved an average — and I have yet to receive the report, but I know it's coming — of 4.9. That's surpassing their target, and our goal for the coming year is an average of 4.5.

When the minister has made the decision to support, amend, alter or agree with the taxpayer, that is given in writing. The taxpayer then has another 90 days to appeal to the courts of British Columbia.

In the briefing that was generously provided by staff, we had some discussion about the experience in other jurisdictions around tax ruling. The federal government has a tax ruling system for the federal Income Tax Act, I believe, and Ontario, as well, for the corporate income tax. I'm curious if the government is looking at bringing in a similar program related to income tax and tax rulings specifically around income tax.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We have an arrangement with the federal government. The CRA, Canada Revenue Agency, looks after that on behalf of the province of British Columbia.

In terms of these tax rulings, can the minister clarify what oversight there is? You describe the appeal process, but the specific oversight within the ministry for the tax rulings as they are being issued….

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the cornerstone of providing a binding ruling is to ensure that we have all of the information. If staff do not feel that they have all the information, they go back and get information. We are not going to get ourselves into a situation where people are giving us half of the information and then expecting to receive a binding ruling.

Staff will pursue that, to their professional comfort level, to ensure that they have all of the information. They will then review the pertinent statutes, administrative practices and policy issues. They will talk to tax administration in social services and hotel tax areas, program areas.

In very complex issues we will seek professional — whether it be professional legal or other professional services, to ensure before a ruling is issued…. Staff are very well aware and becoming increasingly aware of complex situations. We will not rush our rulings on information to taxpayers unless we feel very, very comfortable that we have all of the information and have done a thorough and thoughtful job.

G. Robertson: My question related to oversight perhaps falls more directly into section 1.4 and the exclusive jurisdiction of the director. Is the director in fact the statutory decision-maker in terms of these tax rulings, or is it further up into the minister's office?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, they are the ultimate decision-maker. But in the day-to-day workings of the ministry and making sure that we're as efficient and effective as we possibly can be, the director — the commissioner — does have the ability to delegate that to staff to discharge those responsibilities.

G. Robertson: Back to a more general question. Does the minister foresee a change in the nature of the applications for tax rulings, given we're doing about 7,000 a year right now? With tax rulings gaining legal standing with Bill 19, does the minister anticipate an increase in volume — and with what kind of tax ruling applications?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think we have to recognize the fact that the marketplace around us changes at a very rapid pace. Again, I believe the taxpayers, the citizens of British Columbia, are well served by the public service in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

One of their responsibilities is to keep the commissioner, the director, the deputy minister and eventually the minister apprised of what's going on — and of shifts, if they see shifts taking place. Our challenge and goal is to make sure that we're staying up with the curve, not falling behind the curve.

We're going to adjust ourselves to meet the needs of the marketplace while at the same time making every effort to ensure that we are not compromising the tax revenue situation for British Columbians.

G. Robertson: I'm not totally certain. Is there an anticipated surge of activity in tax rulings that the ministry is bracing for with this legislation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Staff advise that we're not expecting growth that we can't manage. We have no knowledge of a tsunami around the corner with respect to binding tax rules.

G. Robertson: I guess in a related question: does the minister see, with the passage of this bill, any change in revenues related to tax rulings and the number of tax rulings that the ministry has to perform?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. The only thing we anticipate is that as the economy of British Columbia continues to grow and more and more British Columbians are employed, we expect the tax revenues from reduced tax to continue to flow into the province — a great place to invest.

G. Robertson: What kinds of transactions in terms of applying for tax rulings are off limits? Is there any specific type of transaction that does not qualify for a tax ruling?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hypothetical or, as they're sometimes called, fishing expeditions.

Listen. We have professionals working in our ministry in this area that are dedicated to providing timely binding rulings to individuals, but it's incumbent upon them to supply all of the relevant information in a timely basis. That's how we are going to move forward, and that's all I can say.

G. Robertson: So if I understand the minister correctly, there are no limitations in terms of the nature of the application for tax ruling. It can be anything and everything in terms of a transaction, and the ministry will provide a tax ruling, provided the appropriate information is included.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm not sure exactly what point the member is trying to get at here. First of all, if someone asks for a ruling on a particular situation, staff is going to make sure that we can take that situation and ensure it is a real person, a real situation, and that we have all the facts. We are not going to be giving binding rulings on illegal activities or hypothetical activities without all of the facts that we have.

G. Robertson: On section 4, in terms of the application for tax ruling, the bill describes a fee that is prescribed and that all that fee must be paid in advance of the ruling. Can the minister clarify the fee and the nature of how the fee is determined?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, as the member has noted, subsection (2) says "if a fee." So that's the first question — if.

Secondly, if a fee is brought in, that fee will be under scrutiny to ensure it is competitive with other jurisdictions. We take the putting in place of fees as a very, very serious matter. So we will be looking at this as part of the regulatory framework, which I think we're currently scheduled to look at in the fall.

Again, it will come up through the ministry, through the deputy minister, with recommendations. The minister will have to sign off on it, and it would be part of our annual fee in the budget process, should there in fact be a fee.

G. Robertson: The minister certainly highlighted what my next question is to be about. If a fee is required, what will determine whether or not a fee is required for a tax ruling?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, since we formed government, we have established a set of criteria for the establishment of fees. I don't have it at my fingertips right now, but it ensures that British Columbia fees are competitive with other jurisdictions and that service is there. The application of fees, the introduction of new fees, is taken as a very, very serious part of the annual budgeting process.

G. Robertson: I'm concerned here that there is a lot of effort and energy going into making the system of tax rulings more transparent — obviously, adding some legal standing to it within the ministry — and that, at the same time, there doesn't seem to be any clarity here about if a fee is required to get a tax ruling, which sounds like we're going the other direction.

At this point, are fees charged for all of the 7,000 tax rulings that are taking place right now, and, if not, what percentage?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'm sure the member has noted that this part here is enabling legislation which would allow the government, when and if it should so desire, to bring forward regulations. That's what enabling legislation is. At the current time government does not charge for rulings within the ministry or our government with respect to tax rulings.

G. Robertson: Government currently doesn't charge at all, and yet we are undertaking about 7,000 tax rulings a year. Does the minister consider this a subsidy to business — to provide those tax rulings without any fee attached? If an accountant was retained to provide tax advice, it clearly would be anything but a free ticket. What is the rationale for providing free tax rulings currently?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Of course, my comments pertain to the statutes that we're talking about here. Our overall goal with these is to strive for increasing voluntary compliance. That's our goal. That's the way, we believe, we are driving cooperation between taxpayers, fairness between taxpayers, and better results for the citizens of British Columbia — by driving for voluntary compliance and not relying on audit functions after the fact. Of course, we will maintain our audit provisions after the fact, but we are driving here for voluntary compliance.

With respect to the member's question, the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue will continue to provide these binding rulings within our budget framework, which we debated with the member some weeks ago. With respect to our estimates, we can do the work we're doing within our ministry budgets at this point in time.

G. Robertson: Can the minister clarify what's in place within the ministry right now in terms of staff and cost to administer tax rulings and what is anticipated with this bill? Will there be an increase in the FTEs or the budget in order to carry out these tax rulings?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We currently have eight FTEs in this area. We anticipate having eight FTEs as we move forward.

G. Robertson: My recollection from the briefing is that there has been significant year-to-year growth in the number of applications for tax rulings. A 30-percent-to-40-percent increase is the number that sticks in my head. Can the minister confirm that we've seen

that kind of growth in the applications year to year, and does he anticipate a change to that growth curve?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I believe I said earlier, no, we do not anticipate a tsunami coming around the corner with respect to this. You know, one of the things that we do in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue is look to the changes in the marketplace. We look at the services that are required, and we establish our priorities.

A few years ago we had three individuals in this area, I understand. Now we have eight, and we believe that can fulfil our needs for the current three-year business cycle that we've tabled our service plan for.

G. Robertson: Again, the question of how much growth is anticipated. I would contend that 30-percent-to-40-percent growth is significant in terms of its impact on any staff, however worthy and capable they are, and I'm sure the ministry staff are that.

I am concerned, though, that that magnitude of growth continues. At this point the minister is saying that no further staff or expense is required to administer that, despite formalizing the tax ruling process through this act. I'm concerned that the minister believes it's going to be status quo, when clearly the data thus far has indicated that there already is a tsunami of increase in terms of requests for tax rulings.

Is the minister going to stand by that — that there will be no more staff and expense to administer these tax rulings?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The staff at the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue take very seriously their responsibilities to develop and build the three-year service plan, led by my deputy minister and assistant deputy ministers. The service plan that has come forward, which I recently debated with the member, lays out our plan for the coming three fiscal years.

I have the greatest confidence in the ability of our management team and the employees in each one of the areas of the ministry to look at, anticipate and create innovative approaches, streamline processes and build efficiency. Therefore, the plan that has come forward, the plan that we have debated, the plan that was passed in estimates to be in effect….

I have every confidence in the entire team at the ministry to discharge their services in a timely and efficient way. I am advised that currently in the Ministry of Small Business — with respect to the appeals, rulings, etc. — we have, if not the most efficient system, one of the most efficient systems in Canada.

G. Robertson: In terms of the tax ruling administrations in the rest of Canada and other jurisdictions, my understanding is that there are fees charged in other jurisdictions.

The minister mentioned earlier that it's not known what fees will be charged, and the big "if" of whether fees will begin to be charged. Frankly, I don't have a lot of comfort around what is going on in terms of the fee structure here, as we look at section 4 and its mention of a fee being prescribed.

We know other jurisdictions do charge. I'm curious if the minister sees moving to a system where market-based fees are charged for tax-ruling services, in effect. For businesses to come forward and request binding tax rulings, obviously it can save them a lot of time and money. But it comes at a cost to government, and it comes at a cost to taxpayers. Clearly, other jurisdictions recognize that.

Does the minister see implementing a more market-based system of applying fees at the cost — a fee-for-service within the ministry, which the ministry bears to perform this administrative function?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, this is enabling legislation. I did think I had answered this question before. It says "if," and that means exactly what it says — "if a fee is prescribed." I've also described the fee process that takes place in the province. I have not seen or had any discussions with staff with respect to: will there be fees or not? This is a provision, in the "if" instance they come forward.

Let me say that our government has been very clear in its approach to fees — that they will be competitive, they will be fair and they will be done on a cost recovery basis should they happen. It's purely hypothetical, and at this point in time I have seen no work that would suggest that a fee is around the corner with respect to binding tax rulings. In fact, if the member takes the time to look at the fiscal plan which was tabled by my colleague the Minister of Finance on February 20, 2007, the member will clearly see there is no fee anticipated in the coming service plan cycle.

G. Robertson: Will individuals and their businesses have some forewarning if fees are implemented? Are they going to get some advance warning that all of a sudden there will be a fee for tax rulings, or is this going to be a surprise when and if it comes?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Apparently, hon. Chair, the member wasn't listening very carefully. I do not anticipate any fees in the current service plan cycle.

G. Robertson: A question. In section 4 on tax rulings (2)(b), there is reference to publishing a tax ruling. Will the rulings in fact be made available to the public, or will there be some way for the public to access tax rulings?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The question in tax rulings (2)(b), "publish a tax ruling," pertains to our tax information manual, known in the ministry has TIM. This is information that is published there for information purposes only. It is stripped of all personal and identifying information. We currently have that available for sale. Each manual, as I understand it, has a price of around

$500. We currently sell about 600 of those a year to interested folks who have interests in taxation in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: For those watching at home, riveted by the action here in the chamber, I'll just clarify we are working our way through Bill 19 and the tax-ruling elements of Bill 19 that actually apply. We are in the Hotel Room Tax Act, but they also apply to several other sections within this bill, which we will not be going through in grinding detail unless the minister really wants to.

These general questions on tax rulings also apply to the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act through the rest of this bill.

A final question on section 4. The last piece of it relates to the length of time taken to reject an application or issue a ruling. Has the ministry set targets or goals here, in terms of individuals or businesses knowing when their application will be rejected or approved and issued? If so, what are those targets?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The taxpayer fairness and service code, the third edition, was published in February 2007. On page 10 are sales tax inquiries and rulings. The first point is: "Respond to…general e-mail inquiries regarding sales, hotel, fuel and tobacco tax sent to" — da-da-da — "within two business days of receiving all…information."

That's when they'll hear back. "Respond to…complex e-mail inquiries and written rulings on sales, hotel, fuel and tobacco taxes within 20 business days of receiving all of the necessary information." Of course, when a situation is more complex than that, the individuals — the identified persons requesting that — are notified that it will take longer, again dependent on us receiving all of the pertinent information to ensure a binding ruling.

G. Robertson: I'll just correct myself. I reeled off several of the wrong acts that are affected by these tax rulings, and I'm sure that staff caught it. In addition to the Hotel Room Tax Act, it was the Motor Fuel Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act and Tobacco Tax Act that have the tax rulings. We will not be asking all the same questions for each of those acts.

G. Robertson: Just a few questions related to the implementation of the international fuel tax agreement, IFTA, through the Motor Fuel Tax Act.

I've raised this issue with the minister previously around the implications to government revenues with this implementation of the international fuel tax agreement. Can the minister comment on how implementing this will affect government revenues?

Hon. R. Thorpe: B.C. first became party to the international fuel tax agreement, commonly known as the IFTA, on January 1, 1996. We do not anticipate or have any knowledge or concern that these amendments will have any fiscal impact on the province. They are solely intended to clarify the legislation.

G. Robertson: So I understand from that that the changes canvassed in the ministry's estimates a few short weeks ago related to revenue stream, specifically on the Motor Fuel Tax Act and international fuel tax agreement, are totally unrelated to this legislation.

G. Robertson: In terms of what is before us here in Bill 19, will this potentially affect our ability to independently set fuel tax rates, for instance — say, for example, when the trucking industry is in dire straits?

G. Robertson: Maybe just another point of clarification about where this may impact us. Does it have any bearing in terms of raising fuel taxes, for example, to address concerns with global warming and the impact of greenhouse gases?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the members on the other side of the House know, our government has taken a leadership position with respect to the climate action plan, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent as we look forward, but this does not limit in any way a government's ability to decrease or increase taxation.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, for second reading.

D. Hayer: We have two very special guests here today. One is Mrs. Rani Narayana. She is the wife of the high commissioner of India to Canada, who just recently arrived here. Also with her is Mrs. C. Malhotra, who is from the Indian high commission. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, be read a second time.

This legislation will help improve student achievement by working with school boards to improve student results, providing students and parents with more choice and increasing support to school districts. The legislation also delivers on government's throne speech commitment to introduce education reforms that focus on improving quality, choice and accountability in British Columbia's education system. The legislation also supports our government's new literacy plan, ReadNow B.C.

We are proud of the fact that British Columbia students are among the best in the world. On the 2003 international test for 15-year-olds, no country outperformed B.C. in math and reading, only Finland and Japan performed better in science, and only Alberta scored higher than B.C. on the 2004 student achievement indicators program, SAIP, in science tests for 13- and 16-year-old students.

However, we have become concerned in recent years as results have levelled off and in some cases even declined. Secondary school completion rates haven't changed for the past four years. Last year completion rates for aboriginal and English-as-a-second-language students dropped. More than 11,000 students a year are not graduating from British Columbia's schools. If this continues between now and 2010, the number of students who do not graduate will be equal to the population of a city the size of Penticton.

Moreover, many children are arriving at the door to kindergarten without the skills they need to be successful in school. Without a solid foundation on which to build their reading, writing and study skills, many of our children are falling behind in school. In fact, one in four students started kindergarten this year without the developmental skills needed to succeed. That's nearly 9,000 students.

These facts make it clear that we cannot continue to do things the way we have always done them and expect to get different results. We need to find new ways to improve student achievement.

This legislation introduces a number of new measures that will help move our province's education system forward so that it remains among the best in Canada and the world, and helps B.C. achieve its goal of becoming the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America by 2010.

One of the cornerstones of this legislation is increased accountability for student results. School boards and the province need to work together to improve how students are doing in their schools. Under this new legislation the focus will be on improved student achievement. To help boards do this, accountability contracts will be replaced with achievement contracts.

We recently met with the B.C. School Trustees Association and school boards, and we will continue to meet with them to find ways to improve student achievement in their districts. These achievement contracts will require each board to look ahead and set specific measures for student improvement. Boards will also be required to prepare achievement reports in which superintendents will look back on the previous year and report how their district did in reaching its achievement goals.

The role of the district superintendent of schools will clearly be articulated to include their responsibility to school boards for student achievement in their districts. This will help reinforce the fact that student achievement is the superintendent's number one job.

We are also increasing school board accountability for student achievement, but with that we will increase support for school districts. To help districts reach their goals, we will create superintendents of achievement. Four superintendents of achievement are part of our plan to build additional capacity in school districts. These superintendents will inform and advise and work alongside school boards to help them develop school and district achievement contracts.

They will also find new ways to use existing data and evidence in order to evaluate student achievement. They will foster connections between school districts that are taking similar approaches to improving student achievement in their schools. They will also identify best practices in school districts by encouraging those districts to share their successes with other districts, including those that are struggling to meet their achievement goals. They will also, and importantly so, connect the ministry and field resources. Superintendents of achievement will also help to determine whether levels of student achievement are what we would expect, whether it is improving and whether we're doing the right things to improve student achievement throughout British Columbia.

The superintendents of achievement will also provide parents with a new avenue for appealing decisions. The scope of the appeals and the process involved with appeals will be outlined in regulation in collaboration with school trustees.

Parents want to have more of a voice in how the education system in British Columbia is being delivered. One of the ways boards can improve student achievement is by making sure children are developmentally ready when they start school. We know that

when young children get a great start in school, they get a great start in life. However, the reality is that some children are better prepared than others when they begin school. That's why it's so important that families with preschool-age children get additional support and tools they may need to help prepare their children for kindergarten.

We've already put a number of programs in place to help children begin their school year. For example, the LEAP program is designed to promote literacy in children up to age five by integrating reading and language skills with play. Ready, Set, Learn is a kindergarten readiness program for three-year-olds and their parents. Ready, Set, Learn open houses have been operating for three years now, and they help ensure that parents receive the information they need about their child's learning and development. Last year the program was offered in 1,071 schools and served more than 17,000 soon-to-be students.

Just this fall the province embarked on an ambitious program to open up 80 StrongStart British Columbia centres in schools throughout our province. These StrongStart centres help young children grow linguistically, physically and socially through age-appropriate activities like stories, music and art. Caregivers are actively involved in the StrongStart centres so they can use the same activities at home to ensure that children are being better prepared for kindergarten.

Currently, the province provides every school-age child with a personal education number, or PEN, to assess student performance over time and to help teachers develop educational programs. Now the province will also provide PENs to preschool-age children enrolled in ministry early learning programs. These PEN numbers will help educators assess those early learning programs and make appropriate changes.

This legislation also requires boards to develop literacy plans to improve reading skills within the school system by working with their communities. We know that reading is a fundamental skill for every British Columbian, and it's necessary to be successful, whether in school or in life. We also know that one in three British Columbia adults struggles to read something as basic as a restaurant menu or a bus schedule. It is essential that we work together with school boards and communities to change that.

Because school boards will have a broader mandate which includes early learning and literacy, this legislation will change the name of school boards to boards of education. We want to improve literacy rates for all British Columbians so they can achieve their very best.

Under this legislation, we also will have the capacity to create new provincial demonstration schools, and that right will be broadened to provide students and parents with more choice. Some examples of provincial demonstration schools may include schools that offer training and trades, technology, languages and the arts. A provincial demonstration school could be a stand-alone school or a school within a school.

We intend to consult with our partners before making final decisions on any proposed provincial demonstration schools. These schools will give us the opportunity to develop the very best educational practices that can be shared with schools throughout British Columbia and also, most importantly, to respond to families' desires to see more choice within public education.

This legislation also upholds the School Act and the principle that school boards should provide programs leading to graduation free of charge. It is clear from discussions with school boards, parents and students that they want choice and flexibility within the public school system. That's why we're introducing amendments to the School Act. We want to enable school boards to offer more choice to students in their educational programs so that our students can achieve their very best.

The amendments to the School Act set out the following: school boards may charge fees for specialty academies. The amendment permits a school board to offer a specialty academy, following approval from the school planning council, which must in turn consult with parents in the community. The specialty academy must comply with the requirements set out in regulation. Boards and school planning councils must also annually approve fees for specialty academies.

The amendment permits school boards to charge fees to defray any non-instructional costs incurred in offering a specialty academy or costs that are in addition to those incurred by providing regular educational programs. This means that the core courses will be offered free of charge, but students may be charged fees relating to the rental or purchase of necessary tools, materials or equipment.

For example, students who participate in a hairdressing school may be required to purchase tools that will take them through their program and well into their careers. Students in carpentry and other trades or apprenticeship programs may need to purchase their own tools as well.

The amendments permit school boards to require students to provide their own musical instruments or to charge a fee for providing an instrument for a student's personal use. Those students who can afford to buy their own instruments can do so, and others can be charged a rental fee for personal use under the new legislation.

A very important point. Hardship provisions would apply to all fees charged by a school board. School boards must have a policy in place to ensure that students who cannot pay the fees will be able to enrol in specialty music or trades programs.

Our government is working to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. I began by talking about the need to find new ways to help our students succeed — new ways to ensure that 9,000 children without the developmental skills they need to succeed in school are developmentally ready when they start kindergarten; new ways to ensure that 11,000 students who do not graduate every year, finish grade 12 and move on to a job, a trade school or university; new ways to improve student results. The changes we are introducing with this legislation provide us with those new ways.

D. Cubberley: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to respond on second reading to Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007. I thank the minister for her comments, and I would say that at one level, at least, on this bill we would agree, and that is that we do need to find new ways to improve student achievement.

Having said that, I think a number of the things that are embedded in this bill are not going to be the ways to accomplish that outcome. In fact, they will have other kinds of consequences, which may actually be further undermining to student achievement in the province.

One of the things that I personally find interesting in looking at the bill overall is it creates substantial new layers of bureaucratic control over the public education system. It's interesting to think about how government's mind appears to change on this matter depending what the topic is.

I know that in many areas of government initiative the pattern has been to cut controls and loosen things so that innovation at a more local level has been enabled to show. But interestingly, with regard to public education the approach appears to be, generally speaking, to find new ways to try to control especially what school districts do. In this case the model is one of bureaucratic control.

The real question is whether the things embedded in this act in fact constitute a direction that will allow us to do better with students. The problem the minister elaborates is a real problem. We have far too many kids who are arriving at school unprepared for what the curriculum will ask of them. We have too many kids who, close to becoming adults, drop out of school without graduating, effectively, and we have another group of kids that for reasons we canvassed during our estimates process, we are still not measuring. Those are kids who are graduating — or being passed through the school system — but who have levels of literacy that are too low to allow them to participate effectively in the economy, other than in the minimum-wage sector, by and large.

In any case, what we have in front of us is an omnibus bill that's going to amend the School Act and other acts. It's going to change the name of school boards to boards of education. But it's also going to substantially change elements of their mandate. It is, as the minister says, going to make them responsible for achievement contracts, which in turn are presumed to have an impact on student performance.

This is interesting. It may just be something at the level of language, given that it was very fashionable for a long period of time to talk about accountability contracts. Almost like the graduation portfolio, those appear to have sunk like a stone. We have a new form of contract, which it's interesting for us to consider — the use of the term contract — and how that will work.

This legislation also proposes creating an über-superintendent of achievement with powers, in some cases, to overrule school boards, to hold them to account and to hear appeals of school board decisions. In expanding the mandate of boards, it's becoming more explicit and directing them around responsibilities which are the concern of the minister and the ministry, and it's also making them responsible for literacy and early learning programs.

It's mandating the preparation of district literacy plans. It's providing definitions for early learning programs — what they are and what they aren't. It's making participation in those contingent on ministerial approval.

It also, as the minister mentioned, mandates provincial schools, which are going to operate outside of school district control and report directly to the minister. They may even, for all we know, operate entirely outside the school system.

Finally, as was mentioned, the bill allows fees, in defined circumstances, for specialty academies, for musical instrument rentals and for tools for apprenticeship programs, and it sets up a requirement that a school planning council approve those fees before a board can bring them in.

There is a lot to comment on in this bill. Even though I have some time available to me…. I have tried to make it relate to themes a little bit. We'll certainly have an opportunity to go over all the specifics when we go clause to clause.

I want to start just by saying that it's interesting to me that I've heard on more than one occasion the Premier talk about the idea of subsidiarity and the value of driving decision-making down to the lowest level, to get it closer to the communities that are affected by the decisions that are going to be taken.

When I hear the Premier talk about that on the one hand and then look at the direction of this bill, I see something else happening. The government may talk about local control, but this is a bill which is about enabling more control from above. In a number of instances it will set unelected officials up over elected officials, which in effect contradicts the direction of public education in this province, historically.

Typically, we have had a framework. It has worked differently under different governments and in relation to different stresses and strains with changing demographics and other factors. Ministry elaborates a policy framework, government gets to create a fiscal envelope that embodies that, and boards deliver programs within that mandate, with discretion over spending and with some considerable ability to shape programs for their local communities and to tailor teaching itself to individuals.

Accountability flows in two directions, and democracy is enshrined in the process. It's an imperfect system as we all know, because we've all dealt with school issues at the local level. We know that the squabbles can be as noisy in that domain as they are at any other level of government, particularly one where the public has access to the legislators — unlike the legislators in this chamber, who are handily removed from that direct level of public influence and who don't take their decisions in the public presence but who do it in this chamber. It's always interesting that that level of government likes to generate the controls on a level of government that has to make its decision in the public

realm and debate it publicly and provide reasons in front of a live audience for what it is that it's going to do.

Anyway, there are a lot of things in this bill that are very good at the level of language, if one left it at that level. I mean, who could object to literacy planning and school districts becoming involved in early learning initiatives?

D. Cubberley: Certainly the member opposite agrees with me, and that's a rare occasion, so I'm pleased.

Things are good at the level of language, possibly some of them at the level of intent, but I think that when we look into them a little bit further, there are things that are, in practice, going to be bad. A number of those things could in fact compromise elements of the delivery of public education in a way that's got to be concerning and should be concerning for members on the government side as well. So there is some good in it, and I will try to speak to that. Unfortunately, there is a lot of bad in it, and some of it is just fatally flawed.

I tried to draw it together a little bit to give a sense, in thinking through, about my own concerns about this bill, and to generate a few themes that I see running through it. I want to outline those before I go into specifics.

One theme of the bill is the imposing of new ministerial controls on locally elected governments. It provides ways of transmitting direction from above to school boards. You see that in the über-superintendents. It is embedded in the achievement contracts, in the performance requirements and the reporting of superintendents now to the minister.

A second theme in this — and it's a theme of this government throughout the course of both this mandate and the prior mandate — is to add new program responsibilities to school districts and public education without adding earmarked resources. We see that around the literacy mandate in the bill. We see it in relation to the achievement contracts. We will see new public costs in relation to the über-superintendents and the operation of their offices, but we also see it around the early learning mandate.

A third theme that I see within it — and I see this, generally speaking, as the way government is operating these days — is the application of it within the public education system, which I decry. That is to make fundamental policy change without discussion and consultation and without giving a clear sense of direction or potential direction to affected parties. That would apply to any number of things within this, but to canvass a couple: the provincial schools or model schools or demonstration schools element of it, something conceived pretty much entirely behind closed doors; the absolutely rigid control over the definition of early learning programs; the responsibility for achievement being visited on school districts; and the über-superintendents themselves.

The fourth theme is elevating unelected bodies and bureaucrats into roles where they have powers over elected representatives. The über-superintendents are obviously the biggest one there, but it's also true of the school planning council and in the role that is intended there in relation to school fees.

To me, the bill as it is written embeds certain key misconceptions about public education and about how we would go about optimizing its outcome for communities and for individuals. I know the minister outlined — and I would agree with her, because I think it's correct — that we have certain populations who are at-risk populations and for whom the achievement levels are not what we would like them to be and are in some cases, as the minister mentioned, actually declining.

Aboriginal students are not able to achieve within the existing framework in the way that they should be able to, especially in light of the commitments that we collectively have towards our first nations. ESL students who are not succeeding in the kinds of numbers that they have in the past, and about whom we are becoming better educated…. As ESL researchers are able to tell us, subpopulations within that overall population are doing very poorly compared with provincial outcomes for the whole population of B.C. students.

Then of course, there are the poor — those who live in impoverished circumstances and who tend to be at risk at all times in the school system and outside of the school system. As we know, over the past number of years the number of kids who are poor in British Columbia has been increasing, and we now have the highest level of child poverty in Canada. Because poverty and impoverished circumstances are indeed a risk factor, and a very considerable one, for how well kids do ultimately at school, we have a significant challenge in front of us in order to deal with that.

One of the questions is how well these kinds of measures embedded in the bill will do at helping to improve the lot of those kinds of populations. So let's look at a few them a little bit and just ask ourselves how they would do.

The achievement contract idea is being proposed as the way to improve outcomes for those one in five who currently drop out; as part of a way of dealing with the one in four who arrive at school not ready to thrive, who are not developmentally ready; and then, indeed, as a way of dealing with — although no one talks about this — the grey-area students, the ones who graduate with level 1 or 2 literacy skills from which point they go on to underachieve as adults and have difficulty participating effectively in the knowledge economy.

What's the flaw in thinking about using a device like the achievement contract as a way of getting at these problems? One of the flaws is that the achievement contract is talking about what the school can do within existing resources to try to affect that situation. So it's placing the responsibility for dealing with those who arrive not ready to go to school and who don't thrive once they've arrived on the school district, the school and the educators.

Is it placing enough responsibility on society for the fact that these kids arrive as they arrive? Is there a

recognition of the fact that, for example, low socioeconomic status is a very good predictor of the likelihood of success? Is there enough account being taken of the fact that, to use another language, kids arrive with differing levels of social capital when they come to the school?

The school in turn struggles to try to offset that, and schools have no control whatsoever in the K-to-12 system over who will arrive at the door or what degree of readiness they may have. So the redeployment of tools within K-to-12 is an important thing to be able to affect. But it certainly isn't going to be the larger part of — in my view, in our view — the answer to how you improve those outcomes.

Let's talk a little bit more about that. The principal determinants of failure to thrive in schools are socioeconomic status, the presence of a foreign language spoken in the home and being of a first nations background. Those are the things.

A combination of them would be, as it often is, being first nations and having a low socioeconomic status — being impoverished. That places you at greater risk of failure to thrive. One of the questions is: will any of those things be able to be effectively addressed through new program initiatives sponsored through achievement contracts?

Of course, the internal organization, reorganization, of the school system to do better, which I think is an ongoing work of the public school system, will have an impact on how well we do. As the minister says, we have very, very good outcomes from the system that we have in place.

In all likelihood, in order to begin to affect these kinds of populations that arrive and then don't thrive, or that arrive not ready to thrive, we are going to have to do some things that are different from what we're doing now. I'm optimistic, actually, about our ability to do that — very optimistic. But many of the levers that we will have to use to accomplish those outcomes lie outside of the K-to-12 classroom, and if they don't lie outside the K-to-12 classroom, they require new approaches and additional resources in the existing classrooms.

One of the things this bill does not do…. It expands mandate in some very important ways, but one of the things it does not do in any significant way — outside of the StrongStart centres, which are a good direction, limited as they are — is expand access to resources.

From the perspective of somebody on a school district, an elected trustee; from the perspective of someone who is an educator in a classroom struggling with the constraints of the classroom, struggling with the mix of students in the classroom — whether that mix be from too many English-as-a-second-language learners in a mixed classroom for the existing arrangements to enable optimal outcomes or whether it be because the cap on special needs kids in the classroom is so exceeded that the teaching conditions mean that outcomes cannot be optimized for all students in the classroom….

Whatever the constraint, it stretches credulity to think that creating some superintendents of achievement at the level of the ministry and sending them in to try to improve practices is a contribution of resources to the public education system. I personally find that very, very hard to see.

I think that a stronger argument, although I think it's one that's on an equally weak foundation, might be to say: "These folks are intended to be change leaders. We're going to send them in, and they're going to help the system do the things it's not currently doing." I suspect that argument will come out a little bit in the course of our discussion.

I find it hard to believe that the über-superintendents will function as change leaders. I get no sense from looking at the enabling language, which is around achievement contracts, that the über-superintendents will have any set of ideas that will enable better outcomes.

I do, however, see in the expanded mandate that's being given to them — and the powers of intervention in what goes on in classrooms, schools and school boards — a new transmission mechanism for periodic deposits of ministerial intent about what should happen with schools. At that level, I don't buy the argument. I think the scaffolding that it rests on is pretty weak at this point.

Access to resources is an enormous problem in the school system today. One would pretty much have to forget the history of the last number of years, with the cuts in the first term of this government in office and the stripping-out of capacity within the educational system in many areas: specialist teachers for special needs, school librarians, the support of cadre for ESL teaching and counselling services in schools — all kinds of apparatus required in the school today that was stripped out during the first term of office.

To think that access to resources is not an issue and to think that we could wander into an expanded mandate at this point in time and not support it with new resources is, I think, elevating language over reality to a rather extreme degree. It's not unprecedented in the way the government operates to elevate language that far. But it does mean that it's substantially decoupled from reality, and it does lead us to question whether, in effect, it could gain any of the outcomes that it claims it is being invented for.

I suspect that the über-superintendents, rather than being involved in a productive way in transmitting novel ideas for the delivery of programs, are much more likely to be fixated on figuring out how to link achievement contracts to FSA test results and on trying to use that crude tool, which is not producing outcomes but is draining resources, to force change of some kind. [Applause.]

Members, I warn you. You will wake them up on the other side if you keep this up.

If we want to do better — and we do want to do better — we've got to design new interventions. We have to circulate new templates for literacy and reading recovery. We have to instigate leadership in

schools. We have to give schools the resources to carry out those new initiatives.

There is a limit to what teachers can do off the side of their desks. There's a limit to what principals and administrators can do off the side of their desks. That's how they're working now. So bringing in new initiatives is a real challenge without new resources. Again, über-superintendents are not new resources to the public education system. They may be new resources to the minister's office but not to public education.

We need to encourage processes of sharing best practices within the system, and that's absolutely true. But I've had the opportunity — I'm sure the minister must have done this, and if she hasn't, I would urge her to do it — to go and spend some time on a Pro-D day at one of those — I don't know what you would call them — educational confabs. They're like fairs around best practices, where teachers talk to teachers and to other educators, and they share best practices and circulate templates.

The biggest limit that I would see on innovation and change in the school system is that we don't support the transmission of the best practices from the place where it occurs to other school districts. Educators, principals and school trustees find themselves trying to find ways to introduce these things without the resources to support the programs.

I know that probably members on the other side are thinking: "There it is. He's telling them you've got to spend some money to get outcomes." You know, I am saying that. In order to get the kind of outcomes we need, we are going to have to spend some money. But it would be worth spending that money because there is an incontrovertible economic yield from investing that money.

That's an argument that should appeal to people who are of a free market persuasion because, typically, investing money and gaining a yield is what it's all about. The fact of the matter is that a cost-benefit analysis will show you very quickly that finding the way to catch and lift at-risk populations with the school system as it is today and with a more elaborated school system — reaching down into the early years in ways that support developmental education — is the best dollar that you can invest. For every dollar invested, there will be an enormous multiplier, a return to society in forgone costs as you go down the road.

If we want to gain these outcomes, then what we need to do is resource the existing infrastructure that we have in place — an infrastructure of school districts, superintendents, principals, schools, educators and support workers. Yes, supply direction in a way of helping transmit ideas that work, but don't be directive and prescriptive from outside of the classroom and without taking account of the conditions that people who are currently very well trained, highly committed and work magic in the classroom every day can only resent. I love change. It's comforting to see it, but change needs to be worked out with affected populations, not imposed on them.

What I see here appearing through the bill as I peer into it…. It is always difficult to parse a bill, especially for a layperson, because there are no Cole's Notes. You know, the words on paper — you have to imagine what the impact will be when that drops into a living system. So that's what we try to do on this side, without the public affairs bureau and all of the aides and others who might help us to see the meaning.

What appears to be happening here to this layperson is that there is a displacement of the intervention to a new level of oversight, which is going to be bolted onto the system and could, in some important ways, cancel some of the things that the school districts do or can do to make things better for kids, to improve the teaching and the learning environment.

So what do we see? Well, we see — and we hear this echoed in those groups who are stakeholders in public education and are expressing concern about it — that the combining of these achievement contracts, with über-superintendents to quarterback compliance and with ministerial discretion to intervene and direct change within boards, could set up an equation where central authority increasingly prevails over locally accountable school trustees. Or schools and educators are expected to achieve arbitrarily accepted outcomes, without being given the resources that they need to get there. It becomes another transmission mechanism for directives.

A second misconception that I see embedded in this is this whole idea that what's needed — the solution to the problem of at-risk populations in school and of underachievement — is more intervention and more oversight to tell boards what to do with scarce resources. What that suggests is that what's wrong currently in the schools…. There are many things that are wrong in the sense of challenging, for which there isn't an adequate response, and what's wrong with class composition today with the level of special needs kids that are showing up in the classroom.

What it suggests is that it's not inadequate resourcing in the current environment in public schools, but the lack of something like boards developing the appropriate approach and taking resources from somewhere else.

A. Dix: I believe the member for Saanich South is the designated speaker for the opposition on the bill.

I just wanted to touch on this idea of where I think the bill goes, where it can go. The suggestion at the level of achievement contract, without resources to support change, is a suggestion that the priorities

school districts have now are not the right priorities and that if they rewrite what they're doing and give it different direction — if they reassign resources within the existing funding envelope — the problems they're encountering today will disappear and achievement will improve.

There are some fallacies in that. When you think that Bill 33 mandated a cap on special needs and presumably required adjustment when classrooms went above that level of special needs kids in the classroom, you would think there would be some recognition — in the fact that there are nearly 10,000 classes in excess of that cap currently — that there are perhaps some problems with resourcing of those kids within the existing blended classroom in the public school system.

We certainly think there are, and we certainly hear that. I know the minister hears it as well. She has to hear it because it comes from educators. They will tell you regularly about the frustration and the difficulty of dealing with the teaching load within a blended, inclusive classroom. But we also hear about it from parents of special needs kids, who find that they have a great deal of difficulty getting the resources mobilized around their child to ensure there is a tailored program — which is what you'd expect from an IEP, a tailored program — in place for their child.

I think any suggestion — and I believe the achievement contracts suggest this by their very nature — that it is a resource allocation issue within existing budgets that is a problem is bound to both incite some resentment and discourage those who deal with it on a daily basis and believe they can see quite clearly that it's lack of resources in certain areas that impacts the outcomes.

Then what does the bill propose? The bill doesn't propose working on that relationship to change the ratios where supply resources at the level of the classroom. It suggests that what we need are model schools at the provincial level as a way of dealing with it. This is a disturbing side of the bill.

I mentioned that one of the themes is that the bill introduces major changes without discussion in society, without discussion with stakeholders and without any kind of warning that it was coming. I think in this case there are going to be a lot of ramifications from this, not least of which is that it has agitated parents who have invested tremendous energy in making the existing K-to-12 system — these are parents of kids with special needs — more responsive to the needs of those kids and who know that the system needs additional resources.

To see a bill come up and suggest that the answer to this problem is to get kids out of the classroom rather than a focus on resourcing those kids in the classroom is clearly going to be disturbing to a lot of people, and it is already.

I think I've touched on the fact that there's a misconception embedded in this bill that über-superintendents will oversee change effectively and that they should be able to intervene to mandate change — suggesting that the ministry knows how to solve the challenge of poor performing subpopulations within the overall student body.

That's absurd. I have never heard a serious conversation, since being elected, on the part of minister and ministry about the challenge of affecting those subpopulations — one that looked openly, publicly at what succeeds and described accurately what the challenge is in socioeconomic terms.

The challenge can be described. It has a face. It lives here in British Columbia, in our communities. It's amongst us, and many, especially educators, have a very good understanding of what will be required to address it.

Speaking of absurdity — and this is something I'm moderately hopeful that we can convince government of — the idea that you would want to use über-superintendents to initiate a new appeal process within public education is just that. It's absurd. If you think about it a little bit, you will realize that this has the potential to open up a Pandora's box, which — no matter how wedded you are to trying to describe what you're doing in terms of broadening public choice — is not a wise avenue to go down.

Through democratically elected trustees and structured processes of decision-making and appeal, things are handled in the local communities in a way that I think stands up to scrutiny, unless there is something that the public isn't aware of — some flaw in the process which is systemic and needs correction by introducing a new level of appeal.

I would ask: is there is a systemic flaw? If the premise behind this bill is that there is, then articulate that. Bring it to public attention, because the public hasn't brought it to my attention, so I see no rationale for going down that path.

I think really in this case we have to try and save government from itself. I have to believe you only think you want to do this as government. Therefore, I'm going to remain optimistic that when we try to dissuade you, we will ultimately be successful on this one. It doesn't appear to be thought through, and the issues it could open up are charged.

There is an agency in place that handles it now. There was no public discussion of need, and it will unleash — unless you place so many constraints on it that it's meaningless — a tsunami of demands, which is the last thing you would want to handle as a provincial minister.

Another embedded misconception in this bill — and one of the more disturbing ones the further into it you look — is the way that early learning is being described and the way that school boards are being given an expanded mandate for literacy and early learning and, at the same time, virtually have both hands tied behind their back in a way which, if our reading of the bill is correct, could effectively prevent them from intervening early in children's lives in order to actually address the developmental deficit that one in four kids have when they arrive at the door.

StrongStart, as it's described by the minister and from what I've been able to read about it and glean

from people who are acquainted with it, is a good idea. It's a good program area to be involved in. It has some potential — I don't know how well it's described — to positively affect parenting skills. It has some potential, although the exposure would appear to be fairly limited to individual kids, to help them acquire some of the skills and attitudes that will be helpful to them when they eventually get to public school.

But place it within the context of expanding a mandate to literacy, without defining what that actually is going to be, giving boards responsibility for early learning and then introducing a definition of an early learning program that essentially restricts them to doing only this. Now, you have to ask yourself where this one came from. This has to be a product of silo thinking. That's the only thing that I can see.

Number one. You might wish to start up StrongStart centres, aiming them at this population of people because you see a need there. It's related to the need you've acknowledged to try to get kids developmentally ready, which is based on early interventions — far earlier in childhood than kindergarten.

How would you get from there to thinking that this would affect even a significant portion of those kids? I mean, the presumption of the program is that it will be on a drop-in basis and that it'll be caregiver- or parental-accompanied. What portion of the population of kids who need access to early childhood learning and who need social and spiritual development in order to be able to flourish in the public school system are going to use that program? Very, very few. Why is that? Let's introduce rocket science into this. Why is it that they're not going to use it?

It's simple. It's because it requires a parent available to bring them there. Do you know what? The implication, in a society where better than 70 percent of families either have two people working in the economy or are lone-provider families — which need to be supported and who will generate a portion of those kids not ready to thrive — is that those families are dealt out of the equation. That can't work; that can't even begin to work.

You could have enabled StrongStart without getting into this absurd and restrictive definition of early learning — a definition of early learning which would set us apart from virtually every other advanced society in the world because it won't stand up to any scrutiny.

It's a bureaucratic idea. This is an idea that we don't want to involve ourselves in any kind of a turf war with the Minister for Childcare. That's what this is about. It is not about what the best approach is to get kids ready for school. It's certainly not about how school districts should be involving themselves in the continuum of care and development that leads to children who are ready to thrive when they come to school.

What's worse in all of this is the message it's sending to the existing child care sector. It's telling them that developmental education, that early childhood education delivered in a care setting doesn't qualify as early learning, when it in fact is the backbone of early learning and when the simplest way to improve outcomes in this province — to have more kids ready to thrive and do better at school — would be to simply dramatically increase licensed child care spaces with developmental education taught by early childhood educators. That's the policy, and yes, involve school districts. Involve them. They're involved already. They have at numerous locations working relationships with not-for-profit care providers.

What does it mean to have legislation with a clause in it that says early learning is this and this only and that within six months any existing program that deems itself to be early learning is going to be wrapped up if it doesn't have ministerial approval? What does that mean? Why would you do that? Is preschool not early learning? Well, it is. By any accepted definition of an early learning program, preschool would qualify as one.

Does that mean that all of those schools that have preschools will be wrapping them up because they're not StrongStart centres? I can't imagine that's what it intends, but it could certainly work that way as it's written — because it narrowly defines early learning and restricts what boards are able to do. It does it arbitrarily, and it does it for very poor reasons. We need to increase the potential for partnerships between school districts and child care providers, and we need to put a developmental focus into it.

It's ironic, you know, in one regard. The answer to the problem that the minister very reasonably and responsibly wants to deal with — and I will credit her with wanting to deal with it — is to affect those kids who don't thrive at school — the ones who drop out, the ones who become low-literate adults. She wants to do something about that.

From everything I have read, it's pretty much all over by grade 3. The pattern is set. You know who those kids are, who they are likely to be. Yeah, there's some change, but the cost of trying to change the equation after grade 3, compared with the ease and cost of doing it prior to that, is astronomically higher. The likelihood of those resources being available in a system that is suffering from scarce resources is low to nil. The early childhood intervention direction is excellent, but you had better take the chains off it, if you want to see gains. Trying to do it in the way that it's being construed under this bill is not going to make substantial change in many of the lives that need it.

I've been going on a bit about something that I'm passionate about: developmental child care and the fact that it's not envisaged in this bill. I want to pass on to one of my other themes, which is actually to come back to it, and that's to mention…. I'm getting fairly close to giving you folks a reprieve, but I had mentioned the elevation of unelected authorities to positions of power within what's being proposed in this bill. One final thing which causes me and many others across the province significant concern is in the area of the fees for specialty academies, for music programs and in apprenticeship programs for tools.

The mandatory reference to the school planning council, which essentially has a veto on what can occur, is a completely inappropriate direction to take. By all means, have a reference to a school planning council and to PACs to ask them what they think of things, and take what they tell you seriously. But why elevate a school planning council to a role of having a veto over whether a school district or a particular school has access to this kind of program? It could be seriously distorting, and it's not hard to imagine how that could happen.

If it were a school district initiative to create an academy at a particular school that was intended to serve a district, why would you allow a small group of unelected people to have a veto over whether that occurred or not? That simply, to me, appears to be inappropriate. What is truly troubling about it is that school planning councils are not exactly flourishing at this point in time. We have a system of democratically elected trustees who are accountable. If they take decisions that the community doesn't like, the community has an avenue of redress. It can deal with that on an ongoing basis. There is really no way that the broad community can get at the school planning council, so why give it a veto? It makes no sense.

Overall, the bill doesn't meet the tests of a democratic society with democratically elected local school boards. There's a directive quality to all of it. Embedded in it is, I believe, a fairly deep lack of respect for local government, and it can only lead to some undermining of confidence in that level of government with potential damage to relationships. In some ways, the very introduction of the bill out of blue with all of this stuff built into it has already started to do some of that damage.

The other thing is that education needs champions and leaders in the province. It's very hard to see bureaucratic über-superintendents as the champions and leaders on behalf of public education. It's too big a stretch.

My last point, which I've made and want to end on, is that this is about expanding mandate — but controlling what that will mean and not putting any accompanying resources into play. That's a wrong direction.

J. McIntyre: I rise in support of Bill 20 on second reading. I think this bill is very much part of our government's push to support students and to support student achievement in this province. We have been listening, there has been much discussion, and now we're taking action.

If our government's transformation of education, which we have been talking about for some time…. We have been raising questions even going back to the throne speech in 2006. It's all about reaching higher. It's all about striving for excellence. It's aiming at being the most educated, literate jurisdiction in North America by 2010. If we're not pushing school trustees, administrators and our students to higher levels of achievement, then I believe we're failing society.

We should not be apologizing. Nor should we be deterred by those ideologically opposed to our government from doing what we know in our hearts is on the right path. This does meet the test, unlike the member for Saanich South said, and it certainly shows leadership and vision.

This is about trying to do something positive for the 11,000 students who don't graduate high school in B.C. It's about trying to do something positive for first nations students, who are typically well behind non-aboriginal students in their graduation levels. This is about assisting new immigrants to our province to settle in and to maximize and use their talents to fullest advantage.

What this is not about is being satisfied with student achievement that has plateaued or, in some cases in this province, declined slightly. This is about dealing with the one in four students who is not fully prepared to enter our school system — in this day and age, with all the resources that we have as a province. This bill, as the minister so well put it, is about quality, choice and accountability. These are the themes of the legislation, and I'm sorry, but if the NDP opposition doesn't like those themes of quality, choice and accountability, I for one am certainly not apologizing.

This legislation honours and supports the expanding role of school trustees and superintendents in looking after such things as early learning and community literacy, before and after K to 12. The name change to boards of education reflects and reinforces this very new and valuable role in the community. We want our children to come to kindergarten well prepared, and we also want to encourage lifelong learning.

The accountability component of this legislation seems to disturb our opposition so much. We're replacing district accountability contracts with achievement contracts, under which boards will be required to set specific goals for achievement. These include specific goals for aboriginal students as well.

We want to support boards in meeting their performance targets, and we're creating these new superintendents of achievement to do just that. We'll be supporting districts with leadership skills, providing and enhancing leadership skills. We're also going to be helping them with ways to enhance student achievement in this province. They will and can be agents of change, as the member before me said. That's an important role in assisting our teachers, our people in the classroom, and our administrators and trustees. That's a positive.

Another element I am particularly happy about, and one we've been talking about, is that this legislation is giving parents more voice and more choice. Again, if our opposition doesn't agree with that, good luck.

We've heard lots about the school fees. I was listening, certainly, in my district. I heard from many, many parents that it was very important that we as a government act in some way. I totally appreciate what a fine line that is and what a balance that is between ensuring that all our students in the public system get all the tools they need to excel and to graduate…. But we also want choice. There are also ways of keeping students in school through the special academies and

through other things — through apprenticeship programs, through music and band programs, where students can excel and have a way to stay in school, enjoy school and thrive, all at the same time. I heard loud and clear that we needed to act, and we're acting with the introduction of this legislation.

I'm particularly gratified that it has given us an opportunity to emphasize that there are hardship provisions. Every school will have to have a hardship provision. No student will be prevented. As I said, it is a fine line, but I really believe this legislation walks that line.

Parents will also have an appeal process for those who are dissatisfied with the board ruling. They can go to the new superintendents. There are many occasions when it's very important for parents and students to feel they have some recourse in the system and they're not totally bound by existing bureaucratic rules, and systems like that. I think it was an important step in that way too.

I know the member for Saanich South, before me, seemed to have a lot of problems. He was talking about embedded things, and he was talking about contracts. He didn't like the word "contracts." He didn't like the word "control." You know, this is a fine line between autonomy for school boards…. He talked about the balance between autonomies for school boards, on the one hand, and also this "control" from above.

J. McIntyre: Yeah, überly concerned. Thank you. I agree. I thought he was very überly concerned.

Anyway, it is a fine line, and I appreciate that, but again, I don't apologize for our government's role in pushing those that are charged with the responsibility of delivering public education in this province to strive higher — to meet rising targets, to make a great system even better. If we just sit around and be complacent and say, "What we've got is fine," we're going nowhere as a society. We owe this to the public.

If there are deficiencies or some lagging behind or some students who are not getting a chance to thrive, then we have an obligation and a duty not just to accept excuses and provide excuses for what's not working, as the NDP seem to be. We shouldn't be turning a blind eye or we shouldn't be blaming somebody else. We are here to support and to insist on better performance in this province.

We have a duty to provide tools and guidance to achieve and to set consequences for non-performance. I believe this bill does just that. We need to think about our education system outside of its confines, stop the silo thinking, stop being bound by the vested interests, and work towards providing more and expanded opportunities for all our youngsters, all who want access to education and all who want to excel in life.

D. Chudnovsky: I feel a particular responsibility in responding to Bill 20 because Bill 20 is one of those pieces of legislation that bears on the public education system. From my point of view, at least, the public education system is that institution in our community which most builds democracy, most supports democracy and most deals with the issues of equity.

When we look at the building of and the reforming of the public education system, which needs to go on all the time, it seems to me that we have to go back to first principles. We have to ask ourselves: what is this institution about which we are talking, and what is its function in our community? When we think about that, I think we need to look back to those who wrote about the principles and who talked about the principles.

In Ontario and Canada, for instance, Egerton Ryerson spoke about the tremendous need to build an accessible, free public education system so that all of our children find a place in our community. We can look at Dewey, who taught us the same kinds of lessons, speaking more about curriculum and methodology in the States. We need to look at Freire as he developed those ideas in Latin America and, back to Canada, at John Ralston Saul.

All of them talk about the importance of a public education system because of its profound contribution to democracy, its profound intertwining with everything that we believe in when it comes to providing as much as we can for each individual student. Not just equality of opportunity, which is a precondition, but equality and opportunity for outcome so that every student no matter what their abilities, their disabilities — we all have abilities and disabilities — can find the best possible outcomes for herself in our education system.

These reforms that are put forward need to be looked at in the context of that basic understanding of an institution which is all caught up and intertwined with our understanding of what we mean when we talk about democracy and equality and accessibility and universality in our communities. Those are the tests that have to be put to the reforms that have been put forward by the minister. When I look at those reforms in Bill 20, I say to myself over and over again: who comes up with this stuff? Where does this stuff come from?

It starts at the very beginning. If you look at the beginning of the bill, there's a definition of literacy that comes straight out of the 1940s. It's as if somebody went to sleep and didn't wake up for 60 years. The definition: "'Literacy' means the ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities, at home, at work and in the community."

I spent a little time, because I've done some work in the area of literacy over the years and I think a lot about literacy. It was at the centre of what I've done, and many, many friends and colleagues across the province and the country and internationally. Literacy is an important concept. I look at this definition of literacy, I scratch my head, and I wonder what the heck's going on.

I did a little work looking at what others who care about and think about education and literacy have to say about it. UNESCO — that's the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — is

a source that I think we should take some help from as we look at the definition of literacy.

They say: "Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute" — compute somehow got missed in this definition that came out of the ministry — "using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve his or her goals, develop his or her knowledge and potentials, and participate fully in the community and wider society."

That, hon. Speaker, is the definition of literacy that comes from the 140-some countries that are members in UNESCO. It comes from a serious discussion based on a serious understanding of what literacy means, can mean and should mean for people internationally. Certainly, we shouldn't be behind and short of the definition of literacy that's provided to us by UNESCO, based on serious discussion among the countries of the world. But not ours.

Ours comes out of the 1940s. Pre-TV is the definition that this government puts forward to us in this bill. I think it's important that we go back to those first principles.

Maybe you don't like UNESCO. After all, it's some kind of NDP plot down there at the United Nations. So the Centre for Literacy in Quebec — how about their definition?

That is a definition of literacy that we could really build a system on in this province. It's not here in Bill 20. That's a 1940s definition.

Maybe Quebec's not good enough for you. This is a government that takes their cues from south of the border, so how about Tennessee? "Literacy means being able to speak, listen, read, write and view; thinking is an integral part of all these processes."

I could go on and on with definitions of literacy. You've got to go back to first principles. You've got to ask: what's the task? What are we trying to do here? What do we understand by the task that's put in front of us?

This minister and this ministry fails on that count from the very beginning in the definition section of the bill, although it's a clue. What we need to do is ask ourselves: how come this definition of literacy? As I said before, where does this stuff come from?

I'll tell you where it comes from, hon. Speaker. It comes from an understanding of the system based on a misreading and a misunderstanding about what achievement is. There's a kind of circular argument that goes: achievement can only be understood on the basis of simplistic, standardized tests, and simplistic standardized tests can be written, can be created under this definition of literacy.

That's one thing you can do under this definition of literacy. You can create simplistic, narrow, standardized tests. That is where this definition of literacy comes from.

It doesn't come from the 21st century. It doesn't come from a complex education system with a tremendous diversity and with an understanding of the wealth and breadth and richness of literacy. It comes from the 1940s, and it comes from people who want to tie everything up, measure everything and define all of achievement on the basis of narrow, standardized testing.

It's the same folks who claim that those of us who want a broader definition of literacy and a 21st-century understanding of literacy are somehow against achievement. No, not against achievement, but we want achievement that matters, that is broad and rich and that brings to the students in our schools all of the tools they need and deserve to have if they're going to be successful in this world — not the world of 60 years ago.

Again I have to say: who comes up with this stuff? Achievement superintendents. What's their job? You've got to scratch your head again and try to understand this. They've got a whole bunch of jobs. One of them is appeals from School Act appeals from parents — the next level of appeal, the supreme court of School Act appeals — and the achievement superintendents are going to be in charge of this.

There's a whole lot that's wrong with this notion, and I want to get to it. But what about the process? I was at the B.C. School Trustees Association annual general meeting last week, and the minister got up and said: "I was advised that I should put on my flak jacket before I speak to this group." She talked about that. I didn't invent it. She got up and made her speech, and she said: "I was advised by trustees that I should have brought my flak jacket."

No wonder. Without talking to them about it, the minister invents — or somebody invents and the minister puts forward — this motion of achievement superintendents who are going to be the supreme court of School Act appeals. I don't know whether the folks who invented this stuff have ever operated in a school or a school district, but there are a bunch of School Act appeals. There are quite a few School Act appeals.

If you multiply that times 60 — all of the school districts — these four so-called achievement superintendents are going to be busy. They're going to be busy with the inevitable onslaught of appeals from people who aren't happy with what the elected school trustees had to say. That's unfortunate.

I've been involved in working in school districts, and it's a difficult, tension-filled, unfortunate situation when a parent has a question to ask and asks the school district. The school district, through its processes,

comes up with a decision, the final appeal of which is to the elected school trustees. Sometimes people aren't happy with that. Sometimes people are uncomfortable with that.

Now we're going to have unelected folks who are chosen by the Ministry of Education. There are going to be four of them, and they're going to deal with all of these School Act appeals? I think they're going to be busy. I think all of the other things that the minister suggested those folks might do are going to be left in the lurch, which is maybe not such a bad idea.

What it says about the relationship between this ministry and school trustees is very instructive. It's the kind of thing that this government has done with municipal councils over and over again over the last number of months, and we've seen it in a whole number of areas. This is now doing it when it comes to school trustees.

You take away their power — the elected folks, the people who were elected by the people, the only ones in the province who are elected by the people of the province to deal with education — and you say somebody else is going to deal with these appeals. Not a good idea. It insulted and insults the school trustees.

That's what they've been saying. That's why they told the minister to put on a flak jacket, among other reasons, and that's why maybe she should have.

I wanted to comment briefly about the issue of fees. There are a number of real concerns that I have about what's happening with fees, and we'll no doubt have an opportunity to talk about it in more detail in clause-by-clause debate and further along. I wanted to make two points, at least, with the issue of fees.

What's clear in this bill is that the school planning councils, many of which don't exist across the province…. The school planning councils by themselves — that could be three people — can create a situation in which students and their parents are required to pay fees. We've got to think about that. We've got to think about that notion.

That's a notion that should be of great concern to people across the province because it is, in my view, inappropriate for three folks who happen to get themselves on a committee at a school — or not — to have the power to make these kinds of decisions. It doesn't make sense. It's not democratic. It's not the kind of school system that we should be supporting and nurturing. That's the first problem. There are many.

I wanted to mention a second one because I think it's very important. That is that this is in effect a step backwards, in my view. It is the codification for the first time that I know — I stand to be corrected but, in my memory, the first time — that we have codified, legislated school fees. There have been school fees in the past in this province, and there's a big debate to be had about that, and no doubt we will have that debate. No doubt we will have that debate here, but never in my experience have we legislated the ability of school districts to charge fees.

That, in my view, is taking us back generations in our understanding of what we're talking about when we talk about a universal, publicly funded, free public education system. It takes us back generations in a formal way, in a way that I think has some real dangers attached to it and one that we need to look out for and be very, very careful about.

I also wanted to know what the score in the game is, and I may have something to say about that momentarily.

I did want to speak for a minute about the issue of hardship cases. I want to say this, and I say it with real seriousness. I have been a school teacher for almost three decades. I have implemented hardship policies — not in theory, not some theoretical "printed on a piece of paper in a bill" hardship policies.

I'm talking about hardship policies that really exist. The phrase itself gives me the willies, as it should for all of us — hardship policy. I've implemented those practices in a school when students aren't able to afford some program, some item, something that's presented in a school to all the rest of the kids. There is no one in this room or in this community who can convince me that that's a fair way, that that's a way that doesn't demean those kids and those families. I haven't seen one.

People can talk, if they want, theoretically about the proposition that there's a "hardship policy" and that's going to make everything good. Well, I've been there, where the rubber hits the road, and it doesn't work like that. It doesn't work like that at Bridgeview Elementary School in Surrey underneath the Pattullo Bridge where I taught for nine years — not a chance that the so-called hardship policy works there.

It doesn't work for a huge percentage of the kids at North Surrey Secondary School where I taught for nine or ten years — not on your life. It's demeaning. It expects of those kids and their families that they make public — in a way that is inappropriate and uncomfortable and undermines their integrity and dignity — personal information that shouldn't be there. It undercuts our fundamental understanding of what public education is.

I recognize that somebody thinks genuinely — this isn't some fake — that this is what's going to fix what everybody understands and knows in their hearts is a problematic situation — fees. But I want to tell you that where it really happens, it doesn't fix the problem.

This bill is shot through with bureaucracy and reports and planning documents and new relationships between different levels of the bureaucracy. When we identify — and the minister has identified correctly some of the challenges, but only some, though — some of the challenges that we face in what is a tremen-

dously good public education system…. She has identified some of the real challenges, and then she has presented us with a bill that is nothing but reports and paper and documents and superintendents and new relationships that have to be worked out.

Where are the resources for the classroom? Where's the support for students with special needs and for ESL students? Where's the support for reducing class sizes so that teachers and students can spend more time with one another? Where's the support for the….

D. Chudnovsky: Apparently, I'm getting on somebody's case there on the other side, which of course is my job, so I'm doing it well.

Where's the support for the music and the art and the drama and the home ec and the shop and apprenticeship programs that have been cut over the last five or six years? Where's that? Not here. Don't see that here. What I see is more and more bureaucracy and more and more centralized control.

You've got to ask yourself: who comes up with this stuff? I've got it noted — just to let you know, hon. Speaker. I know you want to know that when it comes to a clause-by-clause debate on this, I'll be itemizing — and I'm sure my colleague from Saanich South will as well — time after time in this bill where unelected folks trump elected people over and over again. You know, if it's a choice between the folks that we elect, even the ones I don't like….

As I've said before in this House, I taught in Surrey for 25 years. I'm not a big fan of the Surrey school board. Unfortunately, a former trustee isn't here, but you know what. Better than unelected people. I'll take them every time over somebody who is appointed, because there's another election coming, and hope springs eternal in the human breast.

You know, even the Surrey school board will eventually be defeated. Democracy should trump bureaucracy every time, not the other way around, and this document time and again puts those who are appointed ahead of those who are elected.

Now, hon. Speaker, noting the time…. Not yet? I'm not going to note the time yet?

I want to speak, if I may, for a minute about what's referred to on page 2 as early learning. It's interesting the way that the bill is structured. It doesn't say…. For people who put forward choice and flexibility as one of their principles, it's an interesting structure here: early learning program.

It doesn't say that among the choices of early learning programs, here's one. It doesn't say that. It doesn't say: here's an example — even a best practice, for gosh sakes. It doesn't say that. It says early learning program. So this government has a message for us. Its message is that an early….

Hon. Speaker, it's great to see you. I need to tell you that your predecessor, the Chair, wouldn't let me move the obligatory motion a minute ago, but I'm hoping that you will let me move that motion.

D. Chudnovsky: Noting the time, I move that we get to do this again tomorrow.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
(continued)

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to introduce the staff who are with me today: my deputy, Moura Quayle; Ruth Wittenberg, assistant deputy minister, post-secondary; Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister, students and learning; Brent Sauder, our latest arrival, assistant deputy minister of research and innovation, who's

been with us, I believe, two months; Neil Matheson, ministry executive financial officer and ADM; and Susan Brown, director of policy and system quality.

I've got a couple of corrections to make for the record. They are minor in nature, but I'd like to make them before we continue the debate.

Since 2001, the amount of grants for the B.C. knowledge development fund plus other funding leveraged through the grants has totalled approximately $850 million. I think I said $750 million, so that's to be cited.

The capital budget for the next three years is $700 million, not $800 million, which I mentioned. I obviously had those two somewhat backwards.

About 26,000 students took advantage of the student loan reduction program in 2008, and the number cited was 28,000. There were funds for 28,000, but that was the estimate. Final numbers for 2006 are still to come in.

I also offered to make available to the opposition critic the Student Transitions Project highlights, which I have a copy of, and the post-secondary institution 2007-2008 operating grant summary. I've got that and also the analysis of Campus 2020 — the costs. I have that.

Also, BCIT. We had talked about programs that had been suspended with board approval and, also, ones that had started up or had launched within the last two years. I have copies of all those, if I could get those to the member. I believe there are still a couple more to come.

R. Fleming: We left a number of topics sort of open for further discussion. Last week we were talking about program cuts on an institution basis towards the conclusion of Thursday afternoon. I want to come back to that and also to talk about student financial aid and maybe a little bit on adult basic education. I know we've canvassed that, but I think there are some additional questions there.

Also, skills training. I'll try and keep it as it relates to the community colleges that fund them and not get into the Minister of Economic Development's role in funding the ITA. Then we also have some discussion for today around private post-secondary education.

On the cuts to a number of institutions. One of the ones that I wanted to pick up on was physical therapy — which we were talking about — at UBC. It is a concern, I know, for the health authorities, all five of them around the province, and just for British Columbians that need access to these services — and the projected shortfall in skilled physiotherapists going forward.

As UBC is the only school that has the capacity to graduate people in these programs, I wonder if the minister could comment and just inform the committee if he has had discussions with the Minister of Health or any of his other colleagues about the difficulty this is going to present.

Hon. M. Coell: My latest information from UBC is that they believe they have it sorted out with the accreditation body.

R. Fleming: I think the problem, as it has been presented to me and that I want to get the minister's comments on, is the budget cuts going on in the institution. We've talked already about UBC's substantial operating deficit and what some of the sources are around that, including unfunded portions from the Public Sector Employers Council for wage settlements, which is causing cutbacks to this faculty and to others on that campus.

Maybe if he could comment to me, not on an accreditation issue but on the 7-percent cut we're seeing at UBC as it relates to physical therapy. I hope he'll comment around the 40 students that that program currently takes in. If he could just tell me what UBC's capacity will be for an intake of students in physical therapy following the cuts.

Hon. M. Coell: I have the consolidated statement of operations for 2003, through here, to give you an example for UBC. One year they were forecasting a deficit of $52 million. They came out at a surplus of $13 million. One year they were forecasting a surplus of $75 million. The actual was a surplus of $122 million.

They have a $1.5 billion budget. We fund at $430 million from this ministry, but they have funds from a number of sources. I don't believe they have a problem. I believe that the $36 million projected deficit will probably come in above — into the black, not into the red.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that answer, and I wonder if that's the same answer that was given to representatives on this issue that met with the minister or with staff in his ministry. I'm not sure which.

There was a proposal to have an $800,000 one-time contribution to keep the program alive. That's the language that was being used. I think the approach was, in fairness, both to Advanced Education and to the Ministry of Health. I'm just wondering if the minister has in a sense said to the school of physical therapy that they are to eat the costs because UBC may not in fact have a deficit. Is that the answer that he gave them?

Hon. M. Coell: We feel that UBC is fully funded, and that they have the ability to get the accreditation approved. As of Friday, the 20th, they've submitted a report to the accrediting body, and they expect to hear back in a month. But all signals look good.

R. Fleming: On other health professions, training programs that are being cut. I wonder if the minister could update the committee on medical lab technicians, MLTs, and medical lab assistants — which are the other kind of MLAs, I suppose — that are being trained at CNC, College of New Caledonia, and UNBC. My understanding is that, again, deficit pressures and staff layoffs at UNBC are compromising the ability to deliver that training, and this is going to have serious implications on the health authority's ability to address the huge shortage for these two specific occupations in those fields.

Hon. M. Coell: I have spoken to the president, and I know my staff have spoken to them.

But we talked, I think it was last Thursday, about how campuses change and how programs change. Just to give the member an idea, at UNBC since 2004, they have developed a master of arts in developmental economics, a bachelor of health sciences, a master of arts in English, a master's science degree in interdisciplinary studies, a master of science in nursing, a master of business administration, and a bachelor of science in biochemistry and molecular biology. Things are changing on campuses. Sometimes you may have some courses that change in content or even, as we talked earlier last week, may just disappear because of the irrelevance of the courses.

We feel that the funding levels in the universities and colleges are at a good level to continue this sort of growth and expansion of programs. There are over 120 new degrees offered. That means new staff, new buildings, new programs and new money. So I think that in many instances you have to look at the big picture, not just the individual programs.

R. Fleming: Well, I think the other thing that the minister will want to keep in mind is that there are many programs that are offered in the course guides of a variety of institutions, but not in fact delivered. So my concern in this section of the estimates is that we are losing programs that in some cases have a 100-percent rate of employment. They're in high demand and are deeply tied to developing a functioning health care system that can fill the areas of greatest need in terms of skilled professions.

Just back to…. He assured the committee a moment ago that the school of physical therapy had achieved accreditation. I think that was an assurance. My understanding is that there are three issues that threaten the school. One was that it had no permanent department head for many years. So has there been a department head that has been successfully recruited, appointed and hired?

The other issue was their substandard facilities there. Is there a new building that…? Sorry. Is there accommodation in this academic year and the next that deals with that issue?

Then, the third one was chronic underfunding. The minister has said that he is not going to deal with that directly. He's just going to simply direct UBC to figure it out for themselves. So maybe he can tell me if the president of that institution has told him that, in fact, he will do so.

Hon. M. Coell: Generally, the ministry does not get involved with individual department heads. That's something that UBC, if they want the accreditation, will have to address.

The facilities. We've put, I believe, about a hundred million dollars into UBC renewal. All of the buildings that are substandard on that campus…. You have to remember, that campus is 100 years old, so there are lot of buildings that will need replacing.

UBC is doing that, too. As a matter of fact, the UBC renewal was…. UBC put in $60 million of its own money and we put in $60 million from the Ministry of Advanced Education to make up the $120 million. But you just need to go to that campus right now and see the number of construction cranes. There are literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of buildings being built on UBC right now to replace some of the aging buildings that were there.

About the accreditation. My information is that they have submitted a report to the accreditation body, and it looks like they're in a good place.

R. Fleming: Okay, well I'll take that assurance. He says that normally his ministry doesn't get involved in that level of decision-making, and that's fair enough. But in this case he had a specific representation to his ministry, and I think it's important that, in those cases, there be follow-up.

I guess I'll have to take it as a complete answer at this point in time that it's his understanding that the accreditation issues are resolved and that the program will continue without cuts.

I want to ask him about some programs at BCIT. We talked about a few of them just peripherally last week. Again, there are some programs there where there's an expectation of 100-percent employment upon graduation for students, and yet these programs are scheduled not to be on offer next year.

One of these is the forest technologist program. Again, I understand that because of this crisis around the uncertainty and whether this program would have a future, there have been representations by industry and by that department to the ministry to allow it to continue. I understand there has even been money put on the table by industry to continue that program. Can the minister update us during the estimates process on whether he has an answer, and if he can provide any assurance that that program will be offered next year?

Hon. M. Coell: My understanding is that it wasn't a problem with the course as much as that we just didn't have students showing up for that course. So the forest industry, in working with BCIT, is designing a new program that hopefully will be more attractive to students and probably give them a better program than the one that is there now.

Just to give the member an idea of the new programs that have been launched by BCIT over the last three or four years, they've got a civil engineering degree, degree transfer in science and technology, a forensic science technology degree, network administration and security professional certificate, computer information technology diploma, graphic communications diploma, a Volvo and Mack truck commercial transport diploma, industrial wood processing and management certificate, airport operations associate certificate and non-profit management associate certificate. It goes on and on and on.

When you look at the broad range of programs in any one of our institutions, they change every year. The

demand for some of these — glazing module apprenticeship program — wasn't there ten years ago. It's there now, so they've put on a program. The forestry one wasn't attracting students so they are going to redesign it and work with the industry to hopefully make a better one.

R. Fleming: I'll just pick up on the last part of the minister's answer because, indeed, the instructors and the department there want to redesign the forest technologist program to become a natural resources technologist type of program that is more comprehensive and perhaps more marketable to attract students.

But my understanding is that they aren't being given that chance. Again, the funding squeeze at BCIT is leading the institution to make decisions to cut programs like plastics engineering. There are about seven others that I'm aware of, and most importantly around the forest technologist.

Given the provincial mandate that BCIT has and that this training isn't really comparably done anywhere else, has the minister been able to give assurances to the forest industry, which has made representations to his ministry, that this program will survive in some form — in fact, that it will be able to prosper in a new, redesigned format? My understanding is that there will be no redesign. The entire program is slated for elimination.

Hon. M. Coell: My understanding is that there is a redesign. It may not take place this year, but there is a redesign.

The other thing is that within the province, if a student wanted to deal with forestry, you could still go to Selkirk, CNC, Malaspina, UBC or UNBC to get similar programs. So it's not as if the programs for forestry aren't available at other institutions.

R. Fleming: I think the minister is probably aware that the field training involved in this program is unique, that the provincial mandate of the institution, the focus it provides are unique and that it will be a great loss. He's probably also aware that shutting the program down for a year or two to redesign it means the loss of faculty and all the accumulated knowledge and expertise in that department.

I'm not satisfied with that answer. Again, where we have an industry that is willing to come to the table and provide dollars to allow something to survive and prosper — because it depends on those skills being transferred to a new generation of workers — I would think that the minister would show some urgency and be able to give direction to the president of that institution and, also, give a proper answer to the industry about whether the program is going to continue. Instead, he's basically admitted that he's not sure what lies ahead next year.

Does the minister have any additional comments about how he's going to reply to the forest industry, which has asked his ministry to step in and ensure that this program survives?

Hon. M. Coell: BCIT is delivering the second year of the diploma program so that students can complete. There will be no students adversely affected. But they want to double or triple the number of students in the program, and if you're getting fewer and fewer students every year, I think that says something about the program as well as the industry.

The industry has come back and said it would like to work to redesign, and I believe that's what they are going to do.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could provide a snapshot of exactly what is occurring in the community college and university college sector — the community college sector in particular — around university transfer courses and enrolments. I know there has been a lot of concern. Certainly, he will have information about trends that are occurring in a number of regions in the province at various institutions.

I wonder if he can update us this year. What his concerns are with that decline and whether there has been any attempt to work out a strategy of the ministry between the institutions to try, first of all, to get an accurate assessment as to why that's occurring and then, secondly, to get an action plan occurring.

He'll know that we started off these estimates by talking about how disappointing B.C.'s participation rate is, especially in university enrolments. Certainly, community colleges, because of their regional accessibility, would play a tremendous role in addressing that.

Hon. M. Coell: A couple of things. A couple of days ago, I think, I did share with the member the lists of all of the FTEs in the universities, university colleges, and colleges and institutes. This year the colleges are getting $23 million more as a total.

What we are seeing is the softening of some of the FTE figures in the college sector. We were talking about what the cause is, or at least the correlation, last week. Of course, some of that correlation is the economy, in that there is an opportunity for potential students to go and work in British Columbia and make a good wage right now.

I guess the other thing that maybe warrants a little bit more discussion is that the universities have brought their grade point average down for entrance. That may be a correlation as well. As I say, I don't know whether it's a causation, but it's definitely something that we could talk about.

I think, too, that the partnerships that have taken place between the universities and the colleges…. I can give you a couple of examples. There is the nursing program that is at Selkirk. It's a UVic nursing program but is delivered at Selkirk. SFU has partnerships with the Kamloops Indian band. SFU is right on the reserve.

There are a lot of ways that I think the college sector can work with the university sector and not compete with each another for students. I think we can help in that.

We may talk a little bit later this afternoon about Campus 2020, which we released this morning. One of the recommendations is that there is more cooperation with the entire sector, rather than just the college sector working by itself, or the university sector and then the institutes. I think there's some value to that as well.

We've seen some softening. There is no college that will get less money this year than they got last year. Most of them, if not all of them, are getting more money.

R. Fleming: A letter that was addressed to the minister, dated April 18, from the board of Capilano College. I wonder if I could just ask him, because the questions are raised in that letter…. It was cc'd to many MLAs, and I had some questions about it myself. It has to do with the Perrin report and with the funding issues that we've kind of discussed. This is a specific case within that.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the assertion by the chair of the board that though salary inflation is covered, other costs are not. Capilano has estimated that they will be $500,000 short each year over the duration of the service plan and that this is going to present challenges, like the ones found in the Auditor General's report, around actually creating new spaces, rather than taking new money and using it to cover for inflationary costs.

It's "funded seats versus created seats" that is at play here, I think. But also, the funding provided to the college sector is actually one-time. Can the minister share with the committee whether the additional funding for the college is actually going to be put into base funding or whether it is intended as a one-time allocation?

Hon. M. Coell: For that particular college…. They'll be receiving $1.2 million more this year than they received last year. The $20 million package that went out in December was one-time funding while we review and work with the college sector to see what their proper funding level should be.

R. Fleming: Does the $1.2 million additional, then, cover anything beyond salaries? Maybe you can tell me what percentage of that $1.2 million is consumed by salaries in the case of Cap College.

Hon. M. Coell: It's block funding on an FTE basis. All the salaries from the settlement that was negotiated on the 31st of March are covered by the Ministry of Finance.

R. Fleming: The adjustment to the block funding amount — is that for new spaces inclusive as well as costs that you've indicated to the base amount? Maybe the minister could tell me if that is just a result of more students times the same funding formula or whether we're actually talking about a per-FTE lift in funding to cover non-salary inflationary costs.

Hon. M. Coell: It's based on the FTE negotiations that we have. That's their projection, so they will be getting $1.2 million more. I don't have the access to what the settlement is for that college, but I can assure the member that the settlement that was negotiated with their faculty will be 100-percent covered by the Ministry of Finance.

R. Fleming: I'm aware of that commitment. It's the non-salary costs that I think are at issue here. Did the minister just say, then, that the $1.2 million is basically status quo funding that incorporates only the extra students? Is that what we're talking about here, in the increase?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure I follow the question. They have $1.2 million more this year. They have a set number of FTEs that they have agreed they can produce out of that, and all of their salary costs are covered by the Ministry of Finance.

R. Fleming: My question is really the same as the one that was raised in the letter. It is a plea, really, that non-salary inflation is real at Capilano and at other institutions. It says that their own estimate, assuming salary inflation is covered — and the minister has confirmed it is — and allowing for a maximum 2-percent tuition increase — which his legislation does — is that the college will be short $500,000 each and every year because other aspects of rising costs within advanced education are not covered in this funding formula. That's what I want the minister to try to give some transparent assurances about here.

Hon. M. Coell: That's why we sent out the one-term block of funds, the $20 million, in December. That gives us some time to work with the colleges to see what their actual costs are. Again, Campus 2020 makes some recommendations around that. I will review that recommendation with the colleges as well. But I think it's important to note that the colleges, as well, are increasing programs, increasing opportunities for students and growing at the same time.

R. Fleming: I want to ask, then, about Camosun College, because they are apparently in the same situation, really, as Capilano College. I asked the minister last week about budget letters for the institutions, but I haven't got a response to that quite yet.

I'd be interested to know in the case of Camosun College, because there is a recent memo circulated to all the department heads there that each of them is to submit an immediate plan to trim expenses by $400,000. That is in excess of a $2 million shortfall projected within Camosun College here on the Island.

Can the minister explain why the board of governors keeps returning to this question around non-funded inflationary costs, non-salary inflationary costs, that are occurring and some of the choices that are resulting from that in terms of eliminating programs?

Hon. M. Coell: Camosun College will actually receive, probably, a minimum of $1.35 million more this year than they received last year. I can tell the member,

too, that they received $6 million in capital funding for a new building a month ago. Last year they received $20 million for a new sport building. Those funds are the first major building construction in five years for Camosun, so I think they're doing well.

I think the member and I both know Camosun better than most members of the Legislature, because we live in this area. I can say that Camosun has done a great job in fundraising for some of its projects. It has fundraised over $3 million for that one building alone.

R. Fleming: Actually, I'm glad the minister brings up the Pacific Sport Institute. I wanted to ask a question about that, because I know that it's a public-private partnership. I'm not familiar with all the details about community use and student use of the sports facilities there, as well as the educational classroom components.

Can the minister confirm that in that new building there are, in fact, no classrooms available and that students studying, I guess, the academic portions of those programs that may be delivered out of those facilities are going to have to study in other buildings at the Interurban Campus?

Hon. M. Coell: That's not my understanding. It has classrooms in it. It will have the gymnasium, fields and sports centres, but it will also have classrooms and meeting areas as well.

R. Fleming: Okay. Well, I think that's something worth maybe checking into. I don't know if the minister could confirm that he will look into that. Part of the problem is that if it doesn't have classroom space within the building design, it will occur on the rest of the campus, because right now they are at 100-percent capacity at Interurban for class space. To accommodate it now would mean either having the classes at very difficult hours of the day or displacing other programs off that campus.

Can the minister confirm that he'll provide an answer about the building and about whether it specifies for new classroom space?

Hon. M. Coell: The report that I have in front of me says that there are 7,200 square metres of the facility for institutional space, including two gyms, sport education classrooms and sports science labs. The building itself, in the planning, will direct 510 full-time-equivalents for students at five programs within the college.

I can tell the member that this is an exciting opportunity for Camosun. We're going to become a national centre of excellence for sports in the greater Victoria area. It's a natural growth from Pacific Sport and Saanich Commonwealth Place and the Elk Lake rowing centre, all centres of excellence for swimming and rowing. This is, I think, going to put Camosun College on the national stage for decades to come.

R. Fleming: No, I can appreciate the minister's excitement for the project. I want to maybe move into some other topics currently, and we'll build on answers for that specific project at a later time.

Something that's in the ministry's service plan I just wanted to ask about. It jumped out at me over the weekend. I had a good weekend. I just wanted that on the record. Anyway, it is this commitment to maintain a zero net increase in regulatory requirements through 2009-2010.

We had some discussion on Thursday and Wednesday about the minister's own willingness to look at stopping — by regulation, by legislation — abuses of ancillary fees to circumvent the intent and the performance of the tuition cap that he has brought into being. Am I interpreting this correctly, then — that while you would consider the ancillary fees, this commitment would prevent you from acting on them?

Hon. M. Coell: No, I much prefer to do things with goodwill, and I think that I wanted to not regulate or legislate a tuition cap. I thought that if we could have agreement…. I was a new minister. I didn't want the first thing that I did out the gate to be to say: "I don't trust you." I wanted to say to our partners, "I trust you to do what you said you were going to do," and they've done that.

R. Fleming: Well, they've done many things, and I think we've provided some examples of where, in fact, ancillary fees have increased in violation of the intent of the minister to include them in with the student tuition fee cap. In some cases the message is not being received.

I know the minister said he would be following up on that. What I want to ask is if he's precluding any regulations at all around the tuition fee cap or ancillary fees, or whether he's just going to continue to have it done through…. I don't know whether it's a handshake agreement or what kind of voluntary manner he uses.

Often these things happen too late in the game. The fee schedules are printed, they're collected, and they're brought to the minister's attention after the money has been paid by students, and the intent and spirit of his tuition fee cap is already broken.

How does the minister square those occurrences with his assurance that the way he's doing it, without regulation, seems to be his preferred method of proceeding?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually it's a good discussion. Out of the literally hundreds and hundreds of fees that have been approved in the college, university and university college sector, I believe there have been one or two that have actually gone over it. When it's been brought to my attention — and I draw it to their attention — they've been rolled back.

I think when you can accomplish that in a manner of partnership rather than authoritarianism, as I would call it, that's better for me. I work better where I can say to someone, "I'm going to do this," and if they say, "I'll do this," we keep our word. They've kept their word, and we haven't needed to do it.

R. Fleming: I think the evidence is to the contrary. They have not kept their word in all cases. If their word was given and abuses of ancillary fees have occurred,

the minister has no means to redress the students. I'll give him the examples later. I'm shuffling through my notes here, but I can tell you that there are a number of them.

I think he's given me an answer. He doesn't believe in regulatory requirements to enforce either his tuition fee cap or to ensure that ancillary fees are covered. Does this prohibition, this zero net increase, also extend to private post-secondary education?

The minister has been on the record saying that in response to world attention of the negative variety on private post-secondary institutions in B.C. — some of them; some glaring examples — his government is prepared to toughen up legislation and to reverse some of the controversial and ill-considered elements of the 2003 deregulation of that sector.

How does that square with this very clearly stated commitment in the service plan to have a zero net increase in regulatory requirements?

Hon. M. Coell: That was a goal we set for ourselves as government in 2001: we would roll back unneeded regulation by 30 percent. We're actually at 42 percent right now. The economy obviously appreciates that, because it's booming as well.

I think the member will remember that we actually reduced regulation by eliminating the Music Teachers Act in the Legislature a number of weeks ago. We've added regulation with Thompson Rivers University. That was one where we added regulation — and legislation, for that matter. With the Music Teachers Act, that took regulation away.

What we're doing as government is being conscious that regulation affects everyone. It affects businesses. It affects universities. But this ministry, for the most part, is right on track to be at zero growth in regulation.

R. Fleming: That explains why music teachers were being picked on a couple of weeks ago. I didn't realize that it was to help the ministry get to keep this zero regulation requirement. We on this side of the House were wondering why the changes included that that act can be repealed now and in future just by cabinet regulation. It doesn't have to come before the Legislature anymore. I'll thank him for that answer, because it wasn't there in committee stage of debate on that legislation.

I want to ask a couple of questions about adult basic education. We did talk about this last week, and the minister did give some discussion and acknowledgement that the issue is one that his government is looking at carefully and closely.

I think that what has changed since the government specifically allowed tuition fees back into community colleges that administer or provide adult basic education training…. A couple of things have happened. One is that enrolment has severely declined. Fee barriers have, I suppose, proven to be a real disincentive for those students who wish to access ABE programs.

Something else has changed. The government has tried to suggest that one of its golden goals or great goals is to have the best literacy rates in Canada as a jurisdiction. Maybe some thinking is changing there — that you can't even get near that goal by putting up barriers to achieving functional levels of literacy amongst adult learners.

Can the minister share whether during the service plan there is any scheduled, I guess, budget item to eliminate tuition fees for all adult basic education students, regardless of whether they have a Dogwood certificate or not, who are trying to obtain upgrading in pursuit of further post-secondary studies?

Hon. M. Coell: We did cover this topic, but it's one that I'm quite willing to discuss further.

We spend about $95 million a year on adult basic education in the province. What we had done, a number of years ago now, was to say that if you didn't finish grade 12, if you got to grade 10 or 11 and dropped out, you could go back and finish, and that would be covered by the education system either in college or in high school.

The change was made that if you finished grade 12, you had to pay for any upgrades that you took if you were wanting to upgrade your system. One of the areas — and we talked about this — is that some of the colleges don't charge for it and some do, so it makes it inconsistent throughout the province.

Over the last year I also had a number of groups lobby me for a change — very persuasive arguments. I think some of them may be here today. The Canadian Federation of Students met me on a number of occasions, as this was their top priority. I notice, in reading Campus 2020, that's one of the recommendations that Mr. Plant makes — to make a change there.

I've asked staff to look at our priorities for the year, and how much this item would cost. It looks like — I think I mentioned it before — it would be in the range of $4 million to make that change. So we are considering that at this point.

R. Fleming: Let me just pick up on that last part of the answer around the $4 million. That's the total amount of money received currently by institutions that charge fees for adult basic education. Is that where the minister derives that figure from?

Hon. M. Coell: The actual fees raised are about $2 million, but I think, in being fair to the system, that if you were going to make this change, you would not want to punish the institutions who didn't charge, so you would want to cover their costs. That would be another $2 million as well.

R. Fleming: No, I think that would be the fair course of action, because there are some institutions — we talked about the patchwork of fees that exists out there, ranging up to almost $600 being charged — that laboured to keep adult basic education free of any fees under any circumstance for those students.

So $2 million is the amount of tuition that those institutions would be compensated. At the start of this

discussion the minister stated that the province spends $95 million overall for adult basic education. I wonder if he could tell me how much of that spending is within his own ministry.

Hon. M. Coell: It's $57 million from the Ministry of Advanced Education and $38 million from the Ministry of Education.

R. Fleming: Okay. Can the minister then give some kind of time line? He's got recommendations. This has been a longstanding issue in his ministry. It's been controversial since the fees were introduced shortly after the change in government in 2001-2002. Can he give any indication now? Is this something that could be accomplished if you were to…? You have recommendations now from various reviews. There is longstanding interest in this issue from all sectors — the Progress Board, as well, I would note.

Is this something that could be accomplished? The minister has acknowledged that this is not in his budget currently, but is this something that could be accomplished outside of the budget process? Is this something that the ministry could fund and implement for September 2007, for example, within the existing funding envelope?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the short answer to that would be that government has to make the decision, and government hasn't made that decision at this point.

Just to get back to Camosun College, I do have that number for the member. Forty percent of the building space is for instruction space, so that's 40 percent of 7,200 square metres.

R. Fleming: Thank you for that answer and for the answer to the question I just asked too. I think there really was a suggestion, then, that the government could — for September 2007, for example — announce that it is funding the elimination of adult basic education tuition fees. Is that what I heard accurately from the minister?

Hon. M. Coell: The problem is that government hasn't made that decision. We'll be passing a budget shortly that we have to adhere to. Of course, the member has asked for a number of additions. I hope he is going to support the budget when it comes up. Then we can talk about those additions after that.

R. Fleming: There are going to have to be a heck of a lot of additions into that budget, as the minister knows, to gain my support and my colleagues' support.

I guess what I heard from the minister was that on the issue of tuition fees for adult basic education, there is the potential to eliminate it for September 2007. I hope he will do that, and I hope the government will support it.

I wonder if he could — maybe just in one final elaboration on this topic, and then I'll leave it — suggest if he has plans to take that to cabinet and Treasury Board. I mean, there was a missed opportunity, I suppose, in the printing of this service plan to make that policy choice. But I'm hearing that there's a capacity there to fund it in this fiscal year still.

Does he expect to be talking to his cabinet colleagues, making a submission later this year and getting that funding so that it could occur within this fiscal year?

R. Fleming: I'll just ask a few questions about skills training, and then one of my colleagues would like to ask about an institution in his constituency.

The lead question for me is if the minister could give numbers around provincial certificates issued in the 2006-2007 year for completions of apprenticeship programs. We've seen a precipitous decline in completion rates for training programs in B.C. It's almost half of what it was a decade ago. The numbers I have most recently are 2005-2006.

Alberta seems to be managing to graduate substantially more apprentices each year. They have a red-hot economy where they manage to actually increase the training they're doing in that jurisdiction.

It's been an excuse that this government has used, that in fact the economy is keeping people from training in the labour market in which they're employed. I think it's a poor excuse. So if I could get numbers on 2006-2007 completion rates for training programs from the minister.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have that information with me. It's really one that Economic Development could answer. So that might be the best route for the member to go.

R. Fleming: I want the minister, though, to give me…. I mean, I would assume that there would be some answers. The vast majority of this training is completed at our system of public colleges where there are hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure to train people in the various skilled trades. So it seems to me that he should be able to provide some basic answers on numbers and that his ministry would insist and collect these numbers from the various college presidents.

Could he at least give this committee an indication of what the global numbers are for completion?

Hon. M. Coell: I will commit to getting that to the member, but it's information we don't have with us because it is an Economic Development responsibility.

But just to round out what we were discussing, as far as trades training, we've invested $6 million for a new oil and gas centre in Fort St. John, $6.5 million for the Brink's trades-training centre in Prince George, $15.4 million in capital funding for College of the Rockies for a trades-training facility, $29 million for the

trades and technology training centre at the University College of the Fraser Valley, and $42 million for Kwantlen University College's new campus at Cloverdale, which opened on Friday.

We're expanding the opportunities for trades training. As the member knows, the economy is hot right now, and if a young person starts an apprenticeship program, they're quite often reluctant, and their employers sometimes are, too, to let them go back to do their training. It's one of the problems with a hot economy, and that's been seen historically in B.C. as well.

I will get the member all that information from Economic Development. I don't believe those estimates have been done yet. You would be able to ask the minister those questions and have the information at hand.

R. Fleming: I have just a simple question around the Industry Training Authority and its governance. It has been the case — and I think it's been a sore point and, maybe even more generously, a significant oversight — that there are no seats on that board, currently or in the past, occupied by college presidents. So none of the people charged with responsibility for and for whom a budget is assigned to provide trades training have had any input in the governance of the training authority. I wonder if the minister could confirm that that situation is being perpetuated for the upcoming year.

Hon. M. Coell: With regard to trades training, we have the Trades Training Consortium, which has members on it from the college system — some of the college presidents and university college people as well. They are sort of the interface between the board and the college system. If you wanted more information on that, that would definitely be an Economic Development responsibility.

R. Fleming: I can see the reluctance to answer questions on trades training, but I think it is appropriate that the minister be armed with some of the facts and be able to supply this committee with answers, because the schools that his ministry is responsible for are funded through this ministry. I will maybe revisit this, but I'll move off it for the time being.

I think it is important that…. Maybe the minister is aware of criticism that the split between the two ministries is not working well. Certainly, the results around completion rates, which have declined by almost 50 percent in B.C., would speak to that. The amount of ground that we've lost to Alberta in terms of trade and apprenticeship students would also speak to that poor result of splitting up responsibilities for planning, disbursing and funding in trades training in British Columbia.

I will move on to something that very clearly is the minister's responsibility — that is, English-as-a-second-language training in the province — and ask him a few questions about that. I wonder if he could just start by commenting on a paraphrased quote that was reported in one of the papers and attributed to the minister, which was that he has argued or stated that ESL schools won't be re-regulated in British Columbia and that he believes this will harm our ability to compete for students.

Is that the minister's current attitude, and are there no plans for re-regulating ESL schools in B.C.?

Hon. M. Coell: I can't recall stating that. If the member has the newspaper, I'd like to know which one it was.

R. Fleming: It's a friendly paper. I think it's the editorial of the Vancouver Sun that I have before me, but leaving aside the newspapers entirely, can the minister just answer the question and tell this committee whether there are plans afoot to bring some measure of regulation to the English-language school sector in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows we're reviewing that. That is one of the considerations — I would say an active consideration — for bringing some sort of national accreditation to English-language schools. That's one we've been working on for a number of months now.

We're getting closer to seeing completion on some of the areas that will enhance the private sector and make it, I believe, more credible for students overseas when they are looking at British Columbia as part of the Canadian English-language system — as a second language.

R. Fleming: That is the position of this minister, then — that we will not pursue anything in British Columbia until there is a national strategy?

Hon. M. Coell: No. I'll clarify it for you. The regulation of English-as-a-second-language schools is under active consideration by this ministry as one of the options in making the private sector more credible.

R. Fleming: Can the minister comment on whether he has had information from Ontario — I think they passed Bill 9 in the fall of 2006, about that legislation — and about concerns, maybe briefing notes, that came in the wake of some of the concerns expressed internationally by the Chinese government and other Asian governments about ESL and other private, unregulated institutions in this province?

Hon. M. Coell: I have asked staff to look at how the private sector is regulated in all of the provinces and also internationally — the States and especially Australia, and New Zealand as well. For the member's interest, Ontario isn't going to regulate ESL schools.

R. Fleming: Has the minister had discussions with any members of the Progress Board about their recommendations regarding regulation, accreditation of the ESL sector? Has he responded in writing to that report? If so, would he be able to provide the committee with a copy of his response?

Hon. M. Coell: It's one of the pieces of information that we're considering as we go through the process of making some recommendations to government.

R. Fleming: As part of the minister's attempt to gather information about the ESL sector, he has previously stated, I think, that they don't know exactly how many schools there are in the province. Has there been basic information-gathering done, at least to get a size on how many international students are coming to this province to pursue ESL training? Does he know how many schools there are in the province, where they are concentrated and those kind of basic facts? Could he share those with this committee?

Hon. M. Coell: That's actually a good question. They're not regulated; we can't track them. The industry itself…. Their estimates are between 130 and 200 schools that are ESL schools.

R. Fleming: I think the minister has confirmed what I thought the situation was. There is very little knowledge and, I think, very little interest in getting more information about the sector because there has been a belief that it doesn't need to be regulated, which this government has held to.

It once was regulated. He knows that. It was deregulated in 2003. It certainly isn't the official opposition that is calling for a more serious look into this; it's the Premier's own handpicked Progress Board, among others.

The minister said, "We don't know the information about how many schools there are or how many exact students there are," but he did see fit to comment in the Vancouver Sun. Hopefully, this was an accurate quote, Minister. The minister said: "We have upwards of 100,000 students coming each year, and for the most part, they seem very pleased with the programs they're getting."

While the basic information about how many schools there are…. I guess they are more accurate than a ballpark number about how many students are coming. I'm just wondering how the minister seems to have an indication that most of the students coming here are very pleased. If he could suggest if there is any methodology behind that comment.

Hon. M. Coell: British Columbia's reputation, I think, is pretty good internationally. But it shows you that a few bad actors can tarnish the reputation of literally hundreds of people, including the public system. So in many instances you are regulating a very small group of people, and a large group of people are actually doing a very good job. That's what regulations are usually all about, in any event.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister has made the point on many occasions that he believes it's more important to be consistent with other jurisdictions that don't have regulations, rather than to have student protections for ESL students in British Columbia. I've mentioned the Progress Board and where their opinion is on this.

I wonder if he could also comment now that the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, the very body created by deregulation…. The registrar there, Mr. Jim Wright, is now calling for regulation of the ESL sector.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell this committee whether he has had meetings with Mr. Wright, whether he has talked about this being a feasible course of action, how it might be accomplished and if he could provide as many details as possible. He knows this is a serious issue. He quite rightly said that just a few incidents could tarnish the reputation of any jurisdiction globally.

Right now I would suggest that to a certain extent that's happened in B.C. — from some unfortunate incidents, for which there still has been no action taken. Can the minister confirm whether he has had those discussions with the PCTIA and with its registrar about the feasibility of regulating ESL schools?

Hon. M. Coell: I've met with Mr. Wright on a number of occasions and value his input. He's made some recommendations that are also being considered, along with the Progress Board's considerations. The member of the opposition, the critic, also made a number of recommendations, I believe, that are under consideration, and I appreciated those.

R. Fleming: I think I might have a couple other questions about ESL schools, because we do get these specific examples — and horror stories, if you will — about students who have been taken advantage of in terms of fees paid not meeting the quality of programs delivered. They may in some cases be things that he's already aware of.

We're starting to get into private post-secondary education here. I wanted to just give the floor over to my colleague from Surrey to ask a few questions about something that's specific to his constituency.

H. Bains: I want to draw the attention of the minister to one of the private colleges that existed in Surrey. I believe it's no longer there. Either they merged with another one, or they shut down.

I also was advised, I think, by the minister in the House that there is an investigation continuing into that college. The college I'm talking about is the Barkel Business College.

First of all, when he said that there is a continuing investigation, can the minister tell us what this investigation is? Is it by the ministry, or is it by the external agencies?

Hon. M. Coell: I do remember the conversation that we had in the House. The last information that I conveyed to the opposition on this file is that it had been referred to the Ministry of Attorney General for advice. I can update the member now that I have received that advice, and I will be referring the file to the RCMP. Given that, you would understand why I

wouldn't be able to answer any further questions on that. It will be referred to the RCMP.

The question and the concern that I have, I guess, is emanating from a number of students who were new immigrants, relatively speaking. They were here to upgrade their skills so that they can be productive members to the potential of their education and move ahead in their lives here in a new country.

They went through the system, looking at the advertisement that was there in the local community newspapers, giving them all kind of promises. "This is what you could achieve by coming to this college." They were manipulated into signing certain agreements, wherein the ministry would send the funds directly over to the college on their behalf, as far as the fees and student loans were concerned.

The question here is that these students received very little, if any, of the money that was directed to help them. It went to the college. The college is no longer there. It's under investigation. In the meantime, these students are left behind holding the bag, and there are collection agencies going after them on behalf of the ministry, charging enormous amounts of interest on top of what they owed.

These are new immigrants. They can't afford to buy the basic necessities of their daily lives, never mind paying something that they never received. On top of that, they are charged a huge interest.

My question is to the minister. Why wouldn't we come to the aid of these students who got, basically, lured into this system? They ended up not getting the education that they were promised and ended up, rather, under huge debts. My question to the minister is: why are we going after these students when they never received that money?

The Chair: Just a reminder to the member that all remarks should be addressed through the Chair.

Hon. M. Coell: If students are having difficulty paying back money, we have a broad array of programs that could help. If the member has names of those students, we would be willing to look into it and contact them directly, if they haven't already discussed it with our staff, on the array of programs to help with student loan repayment.

H. Bains: My question, Minister, is this: if they actually received money from the ministry and somehow they defaulted, then I could understand the ministry going after the students. But this is something, as you know, that was serious enough that you chose to forward it to the RCMP. The students in all of this exercise are being asked to pay for something that they never received. That's the question. They never received the money.

If very little was received, I could understand that portion being re-collected. I'm told that there are students out there that never received a significant amount of that overall entitlement that they were given, but they are being asked to pay for the whole thing that went to the college on their behalf, rather than the amount that actually went to the students.

Hon. M. Coell: If the member can give me the names of those students, we would attempt to contact them and help them the best we can.

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister. I'm in the process of gathering, and I've had a few meetings with them already. I just want to make sure that the minister and the people that deal with this issue know that they are being asked to repay the amounts that they didn't even receive.

Grant you, like I said earlier, that how they were lured into this whole thing…. I guess the investigation will come out, and the RCMP will come out with some recommendations, or however they want to proceed with it.

The issue here is these students who signed off the authority to send money on their behalf to the college. Some of them told me that they received maybe one payment of the portion they were supposed to receive. The rest of it was supposed to go to the college, which means the tuition fee and the student loan.

Then they were going to receive regular payments of the student loan part of the money. Some of them received one payment, the initial payment, and then this thing fell apart. I guess there was an investigation by the ministry, and now they have received letters. Some of them are being asked to pay $35,000; others, $20,000 — based on whatever they were entitled to, not on what they actually received.

That's what I want to draw your attention to — that they are being asked to pay the entire amount, an amount they never even saw. They were entitled to that amount. I guess the money went to the college, but the student never saw that money. That's my question.

Immediately, I think, one step we can take is…. The ministry can take some steps and instruct the collection agency that we are only, at this point, talking about the portion they actually received, not the portion they were entitled to. Until the investigation is complete and we see whether they actually are at any fault of their own, they should be dealt with so that these folks can get on with their lives, rather than worrying about these escalating loans, which they are being asked about on a constant basis.

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate the member bringing that point up. The member is obviously having some meetings with these students and gathering their names. If you could share those with me, I would have staff look at them individually, as to what their situation is, and deal with them on an individual basis to the best of our ability.

H. Bains: I will gather the information. If there is a way to have someone appointed to sit down with us,

we can bring all the information. I could bring it directly to you, and then you can pass it on, or whatever else is available. I'll do that. Hopefully, the information is clear enough for the staff to understand exactly what they are being asked to pay, what they actually were entitled to pay and where the difference is.

Let me move on to another question. Kwantlen College — the trades centre campus that was reopened in Cloverdale. I just want to thank the minister. I was on the board when the decision was made to purchase that land, and finally, this came through. I'm really delighted to have that campus over there, because it's very close to me — trades and training.

Many people in the region that I represent will benefit from it. I've seen the old facility. Compared to that one, I think that at this one here, at least, there will be something they would really appreciate.

The question is that…. I guess there were budget restraints. There was some point…. Listening to some of the folks at Kwantlen, they understood that they had to scale back either the building or some of the programs. Are you aware of any of that being scaled down because of the budget constraints?

Hon. M. Coell: A number of points. The building code did change, and there were seismic upgrades to the building over its planning process, but the total cost didn't change. It's $42.3 million, of which the government contributed $39.2 million. It's in compliance with the new building code. Actually, in some respects, it's overcompliance. It registers as a silver LEED. It will achieve at least a silver, if not a gold. It's a magnificent building.

With regard to the number of seats, they were, I believe, getting close to 300 new seats. We've deferred 100 of those, so they'll be getting 200 new ones this year. But they are also eligible because Economic Development has 300 trades seats that they can apply for. I think one of the things is that with it being a new building, it'll take them probably a couple of years to build up to where they can get as many students in as possible.

I have confidence in their board. I think that they have great staff, as well, and that they'll get to where they need to get.

The deputy mentions that there are trades seats — the 300 — not Economic Development. I think that with the 200 new ones they're getting this year, the deferral of 100 and then the ability to apply for those 300 as they see that they can deliver the programs, they'll get there.

H. Bains: My understanding was that the original budget for the building was $39 million, and then it went up to $42 million. Who is paying the additional funds? Who is paying the additional $3-some million?

Hon. M. Coell: Kwantlen is contributing that from funds raised, as well, in the community. With 95 percent of the buildings we build on campuses, the institution raises money, usually from the private sector or individual donors, to contribute to the project as well. That's where their money would be coming from.

H. Bains: I think one of the programs, if I understand it, that they were going to start in the new building was autobody repair. It got cancelled because of the constraints on the budget. Perhaps the minister could advise us what the state of that is and whether the ministry will look at funding that one.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't know whether the board has made that decision, but when I was in the other day, there were quite a number of cars and all the equipment in that facility. I will check and see what the state of that particular course is.

H. Bains: I think that at one time, speaking to one of the administrators, I was advised that autobody shop repair was a new program they were going to start. Rather than cutting back on other areas because of the budget constraints, they've decided not to go with this program. That's what I would like to know: whether it was brought to your attention or whether there is any initiative by the ministry or any requests from the board to have that thing funded in the near future.

Hon. M. Coell: Again, that would be a board decision, but they didn't apply for any of the 300 trades positions or trades seats that were available. So I think it may be just a fact that they're moving at the pace they're comfortable with in opening up new programs.

H. Bains: One of the other areas that I wanted the minister's comment on is that in the new campus there was some indication that the student association may not have an office — again, because of budget constraints. Then there were some meetings, and the president at one point said that they would look at a different way of accommodating that. Then we were advised that that was off again. I wonder if the minister has any comment and any update on that.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not aware of that issue, and I will look into it. The students and the institution need to work that out themselves, I think, but I will look into it for the member.

H. Bains: Thank you very much, Minister. Those were some of my questions, and I would appreciate it if you could get that information to us about the student building at Kwantlen. I will try to get the information a.s.a.p. into your hands about Barkel students and what they're going through.

I just want to say one more time on that issue: these are relatively new immigrants, and they are hardly in a position to pay any loans that they never even received. I would urge the minister and his staff that perhaps we could stop the collection agencies going

after them until a final decision is made. If there is something that can be done in that regard, I would really appreciate that. Thank you for your information.

R. Fleming: I want to talk a little bit about student financial assistance and then maybe conclude the day with private advanced education. There are some other examples that other members might want to talk about.

Just one question that's sort of on its own. It's not related to student financial assistance, but it deals with student associations. The member for Burquitlam and, I believe, the B.C. Liberal Party has passed policies stating that they favour that student association fees of all kinds only be collected on a voluntary basis. They are opposed to fees being collected in the manner that they are now. Is the minister or anyone in his government advancing an agenda of decertifying, in effect, student associations at the public post-secondary institutions?

R. Fleming: That was the answer that I was hoping to hear, and I'm glad it's on the record now.

I want to talk a little bit about student financial assistance, as I mentioned, and just ask some questions around the loan program in particular. Reviewing the ministry's service plan through to the 2009-2010 year and the estimates for this year, there are a number of transactions listed for B.C. student loans, and one of them shows increased revenue or receipts collected from student-loan debtors for the coming year and in fact shows collections increasing for each of the next three years. I wanted to ask the minister why his department is expecting to collect more debt payments from post-secondary students in '07-08 and the following years in the service plan.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the short answer is: because we'd only started the loan program a few years ago. There are now people coming out of the education system, and more of them are starting to repay their loans.

R. Fleming: Okay. I wanted to ask some other details, then, on the financial transactions around this program. The number of students repaying student loans — could the minister give that number?

Hon. M. Coell: If the member would give me a couple of moments, I'll see if I can get that information.

Currently, there are 88,000 students in repayment. That's people who have finished their courses and started to repay, for the most part.

Hon. M. Coell: There are currently 88,000 students in repayment, and that mostly would be people who have completed their coursework and have begun repaying their loans. That's why the increase.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could give the total number of student loans currently being issued, which includes both loans in collection and loans for students active in their studies.

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry processed 64,000 applications, so I would imagine that's 64,000 individuals. That was last year, '06-07.

R. Fleming: That's the number of new student loans that were issued? Okay. And loans in collection was 88,000? Sorry, if the minister could see the numbers I'm looking for, in different categories….

Hon. M. Coell: That's 64,000 applications last year. That may be someone in third year who's applied in second and first year as well.

R. Fleming: That number of applications is the same as approvals? Is that successful applications, or are we talking about different things?

Hon. M. Coell: I will do a breakdown for the member and get it to him. I'll give you an example. Simon Fraser University is trimester, so you might actually have three applications from one person that year, and the actual students awarded may differ. The actual for '05-06 was 57,295, and the projection for '06-07 is 63,578, but there may be instances where you have two or three applications by the same student for different semesters. I'll get that information breakdown. It may not be an important number, but I'll get that breakdown for the member.

R. Fleming: I think the fact that that stuff isn't fingertip information…. I'm glad the minister answered the question, by the way, because I was going to ask this anyway. If he and the ministry have considered putting in one place and issuing annually a robust reporting around student financial aid from the student services branch or StudentAid B.C., as it's now called…. Has he had any discussion about issuing those kinds of summaries? It is a public program, and a significant amount of the population — tens of thousands of individuals and many, many more tens of thousands in repayment — should be able to transparently find that kind of information. It would be very valuable to the public at large in terms of tracking longer-term trends.

It seems astounding to me that we would make loans in that kind of volume and not publish reporting about that on an annual basis in a robust manner. Maybe the minister could suggest if that's an issue that has been raised in his ministry and if there are plans afoot to change that practice.

Hon. M. Coell: I generally agree with what the member is suggesting. I think Campus 2020 makes

similar recommendations that we need to review student financial assistance. We would be looking at something like the rights and responsibilities of a student as well as a complete annual report from the student financial assistance branch. So the tenor of the member's comments I agree with.

R. Fleming: Going back to the service plan, then, around the student loan programs, I want to get the details on the expected decrease in the amount of student loans in this year's estimates. We've sort of talked, maybe in different terms, throughout these estimates about what's going on in post-secondary, what the mix of students is attending now, declining enrolment, and those kinds of things.

This is really just to get some insight and also to get some real numbers around this decrease. I'm looking at page 38 in the service plan and the decrease there for student loans in this year's estimate. Maybe the minister could start there, and we could look at the subsequent fiscal years thereafter.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm glad that the member brought this up again. We discussed it, and I probably didn't give as full an answer as I could have. The budget for '06-07 was $306.9 million, as the member said. The actual used from that account was $207 million. When you look at the actual and then look at next year, 2007-2008, it's actually an increase of about $63 million more in the budget than was used.

I said to the member that I could guarantee that anyone who applied and qualified would get the loan they needed. That's the reason why you're still going to have $63 million more available than was spent last year. I guess you could say that my staff are being very, very, very conservative in their budgeting.

R. Fleming: That wouldn't be a first. Within that number can the minister then tell me…? There must be an explanation, and I want to get some of those factors that are leading to this change. It is kind of a counterintuitive number, especially with a government in the middle of a space expansion. The government is insisting that the result of its tuition fee policies and student financial aid policies hasn't needlessly turned away underrepresented groups in advanced education. Why is the student loan program then undersubscribed?

Hon. M. Coell: It's an interesting discussion. We talked about causation and correlation a bit the other day with regard to this issue. When you look across the country, there is obviously a correlation between economies that are hot and softness in students in institutions.

I think, too, that the mix…. It's not just in British Columbia. There are more part-time students, or more students in British Columbia choosing to be part-time and working part-time as well. That's the same in the rest of the country as well — in many parts of the country. You are seeing those people possibly not taking student loans but paying as they go.

The correlation — we might want to discuss it a little deeper — between the economy and students showing up at the door is not new to this economy. When the economy has boomed, historically, people showing up for education goes down. I'd be willing to talk more about that as well.

R. Fleming: I want to look in terms of the projections based on that explanation for the next two years. Again we see that when it comes to student financial assistance, the anticipated net provision of those programs declines in every year, and then it bumps up a little bit in 2009 and 2010. It doesn't begin to get back to…. Well, it sort of gets towards the restated estimates for last year.

The minister must have a reason as to why he mentioned conservative budgeting practices, but this carries on for three years recurring. What does that mean in terms of the horizon? What's going on within that number of students on loans in repayment as well as new loans coming onto the system?

Hon. M. Coell: I think there were three questions there. As far as loan forgiveness in '07-08, '08-09 and '09-10, it's $72 million per year in loan forgiveness.

The reason, when you look at the bottom of page 38, the "Net cash-source requirements" — and that's going down — is that's again the people finishing university, because this is a new program. You are getting people now in their fourth and fifth and sixth year who are coming out, as well as people who were in shorter programs, and starting to repay their loans.

It should start to level off once you have what they would call the fund in maturity. So there are, we believe, enough funds available for the students over the next three years so that if anyone applies and qualifies, they'll have funds available for them. At the same time, the $72 million loan forgiveness is in effect in every year as well. I hope that has answered the member's question.

R. Fleming: On the loan forgiveness program. It's budgeted at $72 million per annum. Can the minister give a number as to what that actual amount was for last year and how conservative that figure is? Is there a trend there on the total value of that forgiveness program?

Hon. M. Coell: We raised it. It was $67 million at the beginning of the year, and we raised it to $72 million for '06-07. The program is designed to spend its entire budget. It depends on how many qualified students are there. So it may be that if there are fewer students, they would get more money each, and if there are more students, they get a bit less. But the budget will remain the same at $72 million.

R. Fleming: Okay. For the next years of the service plan, does that remain a constant number?

Hon. M. Coell: For the foreseeable future that's what we see in the three-year plan. It would stay at the $72 million level.

R. Fleming: I'm just trying to get a handle on whether any regulations around the debt forgiveness program have changed. The minister talked about today's students in terms of working part-time more and more and earnings changing, perhaps. I think it's well known that students today are in a different situation than 15 years ago and completely different from 30 years ago in terms of how they access and get through university and college.

The forgiveness program — if the minister could tell me what disqualifies people from receiving it. What are the timely completion guidelines and those kinds of things? If he could refresh my memory on some of those guidelines and also mention whether any of those regulations have changed. If this program is undersubscribed, is one of the options available to him to broaden the accessibility of that loan forgiveness program?

Hon. M. Coell: The eligibility criteria would be…. The program is designed to assist students most in need and would include students with loans in excess of the loan threshold established each year.

Full-time students in undergraduate programs of at least two academic years. Students who are in their first, second, third or fourth year of borrowing — fifth year for students with dependents. Students who complete at least 30 weeks of study during the period August 1 to August 31 of the following year and successfully complete at least 60 percent of the course load.

Students that aren't eligible at this point are graduate students; students enrolled in professional programs, including medicine, dentistry and law; students who are enrolled in programs which are less than two academic years, which is calculated at 68 weeks; students who are restricted, in default or have provincial or federal overaward restrictions; and students who have completed less than 30 weeks of study between August 1 and August 31 of the following year. That's the basic eligibility and non-eligibility requirement.

R. Fleming: So a student that, instead of…. I'm trying to think of how many semesters are in four years. Somebody who went and — this is one with no dependents — completed their degree in four and a half or five and a half years would not be eligible for the loan forgiveness program? Also, when do they apply for the fund? Is it on an as-you-go basis or at the final completion?

Hon. M. Coell: It's actually quite an interesting system. They don't have to apply. It's done automatically, and you would get loan forgiveness in your first, second, third, fourth years. At the end of the year part of your loan would be forgiven for that year. So at the end of fourth year you would have completed your program. If you have dependents, you would have that extra year, but other than that, it's taken care of every year.

R. Fleming: If you were a person without dependents and you finished your degree — if it's a degree; a four-year program, whatever — in five years…. We've just talked about the profile of today's students and the reality that really, as a debt management tool, many of them choose to work. I want know if in this program you have to take out the maximum of student loans each year. And do you have to actually have completed the program within the four years of the program requirements?

Hon. M. Coell: Again, it's a program where you're going to get loan reduction in four years. If you take six years to do it, you'll get loan reduction in your first four years. But if you take two years off and travel the world and then start and do your four years…. Let's say you did one year and then you took two years off, you wouldn't get any loan reduction in the two years. But you'd get it over the six-year period. You'd still get four years of loan reduction, which would be about a quarter of the four years.

R. Fleming: B.C. student loans are means-tested. You have to show income, and if you are below a certain age, you have to look at the family income. Is there a discrepancy with that test as to whether that person qualifies for a loan and those that can access this loan forgiveness program? In other words, what are the numbers at the front end of the system that are able to access loans, and what are the numbers like for the percentage of those that can then get the loan forgiveness program?

Hon. M. Coell: There were 23,000 students that benefited from the loan reduction program. The application form is the same. You fill out the same application form for a student loan as you would for the forgiveness program. Then it's just done automatically that moneys are transferred at the end of the year into the accounts to give the loan reductions.

R. Fleming: I think the minister gave a number in the close to 60,000 range in terms of the amount of loans issued each year, and now the suggestion is that only 23,000 of them qualify for the debt forgiveness program. Is that about right? It's about 30 percent or 35 percent of students on loans that will qualify for the debt forgiveness program?

R. Fleming: In other words…. Can the minister tell me: is it by design that two-thirds of students on loans are excluded from any sort of debt forgiveness assistance and whether the government has looked at changing some of the regulations around there to benefit part-time students and students that are in the workforce, I guess, and that are struggling to get through their studies on a combination of savings and borrowing from government?

Hon. M. Coell: The program is designed to effectively help the students who are most in debt because they seem to be the most in need. So it would be the people with the heaviest debts that are in the loan reduction program.

R. Fleming: My question earlier was about whether you have to take the maximum student loan available to you. Is it proportionate or is there a scale there? I'm just wondering what level of debt you have to take on each year, annually, to qualify for loan forgiveness.

Hon. M. Coell: Probably the best, simplest way for me to answer that question is with an example. The maximum a student with no dependents could borrow in last year's academic year would have been $10,880. What we would do at the end of the year is basically turn that loan into $7,990. The loan reduction would be approximately a quarter or a fifth of that.

R. Fleming: Okay. So in that example where a single with no dependents is borrowing the maximum amount and they are eligible for the loan forgiveness program, they can receive….

R. Fleming: Loan reduction. Yes. Sorry, I keep confusing them. Loan reduction. It's about 20 percent of the total amount.

What I want to get is maybe an indication of what would happen to an individual that is trying to combine their savings and come up with their own debt management strategies for their future at the end of four years and still has to maybe borrow…. Well, maybe you could give me a different answer. For somebody who is borrowing $5,500 and somebody who is borrowing $7,000 to meet those costs, would they be able to reduce their loans?

Hon. M. Coell: If the member could give me a number of scenarios, I could actually get staff to work that out for him. I couldn't do it here, but we could actually work out the loan forgiveness for a number of scenarios for the member.

Maybe you can answer now, though: is there a threshold that you go below where you're simply not eligible for any loan forgiveness?

Hon. M. Coell: I've got staff working on that answer for the member. You have to remember that this program is designed to help those students with the heaviest loans or the greatest amount of loans. But I will get that number for the member.

R. Fleming: I'm surprised that that's not explained in the application very clearly to students who are applying for student financial assistance. Perhaps there's a logarithm at work here that….

I'd like to get back into that again. The minister has said that only 35 percent of students that are on loans qualify for this program. I think the problem of student debt has grown significantly in B.C., to the point where it's now $27,000 for a four-year program. That has grown by $10,000 just in the few short years of this government. I think it begs the question as to how we might more effectively tailor our student financial aid and our debt reduction initiatives for students.

Out of the $72 million that the minister has talked about for this program, can you tell me what the federal versus the provincial contribution is?

Hon. M. Coell: We each contribute approximately 50 percent — the province and the federal government.

R. Fleming: What is the source or the means by which it is transferred from the federal government? If the minister could just tell me the funding umbrella or maybe the specific transfer that that is made under. Which program?

Hon. M. Coell: We forgive the loan. Then we send an invoice to the foundation, and they send us a cheque.

R. Fleming: This is the Millennium Scholarship Foundation fund, and they approve up to $36 million a year and then cut it off. Okay. The minister has said that the '06-07 number for this program was $67 million, so was the $5 million also a 50-percent share increase — that increase?

Hon. M. Coell: In '05-06 B.C.'s share was $32 million, and the foundation's share was $37.1 million, for $69.1 million. In '06-07 B.C.'s was $35 million, and the foundation's was $37.1 million, for $72.1 million.

R. Fleming: Is the sharing of this with the Millennium Scholarship Foundation done by an agreement, to which B.C. is a signatory, to disburse our — B.C.'s — share of the national foundation dollars? I'm just wondering if the minister could provide details.

I would just like to add that we find them an absolutely phenomenal group to work with. My staff cannot speak highly enough of this particular foundation.

R. Fleming: Could the minister tell me when that agreement was signed? I know that the way the Millennium Scholarship Foundation funds are used is flexible. Each province can use them, allocate them, in different ways, and they do. Can the minister tell me

when Millennium Scholarship Foundation moneys began to be directed into this particular program?

Hon. M. Coell: I may have to correct myself, but I believe that the federal government, in the year '98, did a $2.5 billion grant to the foundation and that it started in operation in '99.

June 15, 1999, was the memorandum of understanding that we signed with them. We've had, as I said, a great relationship with them.

As the member and I talked about, I think two or three days ago, it would be a shame to see this scholarship foundation run out of money and not be replenished by the federal government. I think we could both agree to try and encourage the federal government to be generous with this foundation, as it has done great work in Canada.

R. Fleming: I don't want to get into the details around the sinking fund and how that has occurred over the life of the program. I do want to talk, though, about how B.C. has chosen to work with the scholarship foundation, because I think we have used the money differently at different times in British Columbia. All of that has been aboveboard and okay with the foundation.

I wonder if the minister can tell me…. There was an agreement entered into in June 1999, but my recollection is that at that time, those funds were used as, if you like, a grant program for student loans that eventually became through years one to four. Now the same amount of money is put into a loan forgiveness program. Is that correct? Could he just go over when those changes were made?

Hon. M. Coell: He's correct. What has happened is that the same amount of money used to be in the form of grants at the beginning of an education. Now it comes every year in loan reduction. But you're right. It's the same amount of money.

I think that what we were trying to do is encourage people to succeed and complete programs, and then they would receive the grant at the back end. It's definitely a difference in philosophy as to how that money would be used, but they were in agreement in both instances if government wanted to use it as a grant upfront or as loan reduction at the back end of a year of studies, or the first four years of studies.

R. Fleming: Clearly, then, the changes occurred…. Was it 2002-03 or was it '03-04? I want my time line to be accurate before asking further questions on this.

Hon. M. Coell: It was as of August 1, 2004 that B.C. grants were no longer offered.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister then can comment…. The provincial share is today around $36 million. It has been even lower in the past several years. In the previous grant program that existed, for which the millennium scholarship fund was a portion of the contribution, could you tell me what the federal contribution was? What I am getting at is I now understand there is a 50-50 share in this program. This is the major grant program that we have.

I'm just wondering if the provincial share…. Could he give me those historic numbers going back to predating the changes that were made, so we can establish whether the funding contribution of the two partners has changed?

Hon. M. Coell: If you go back, historically, into the last year of the grant program, the province's contribution would have been approximately $72 million, and the millennium scholarship would have been approximately $36 million. What we did when we changed that program was take some of the money that would have been in there, and it went to the increase in classrooms to bring the average down. That money went back into the system. It came out of that portion of it and went back into the academic part of the programs, I guess, in those years.

R. Fleming: So $72 million used to be the provincial contribution. It went to…. I don't know if $32 million was the low; that was the figure that was used for the most recent year that we completed it. It's back up to $36 million — still at half of where it was previously. That significant share, then, of provincial money — maybe $35 million to $40 million that was cut and that went into grant programs formerly — actually went to fund student spaces. Is that what I'm understanding? Was the 25,000-space initiative funded by what was formerly a needs-based grant program?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's correct. I think you have to look at what government priorities are. We set out to expand the system, to try and do it in a balanced way with $1 billion in capital projects and with 25,000 new seats that are to be funded. It was a balance as to what government wanted to achieve. I think what we wanted to achieve was greater access for students and more opportunities from 120 new degrees offered to new university campuses.

When you look at the budget, we've never had a bigger budget than we have this year. We've never had more students in the system than we have this year. As the member knows, it's the priorities of the government of the day, but from my perspective the priorities are working well for students.

R. Fleming: Regardless of the size of the budget, I think what we're finding here is that the student financial assistance program has never been less generous than it is today. We've already talked in estimates about many of the problems associated with that.

I suppose the minister's going to have to reconcile the budget in this service plan with some of the goals that are included in the Campus 2020, which deal with underrepresented groups in post-secondary education.

Those trends have become worse, and money that was diverted from student grant programs that were needs-based went to fund student spaces. We now know in the Auditor General's report that those student spaces aren't in fact being created. They're being funded in many cases, but they're not being created.

Would the minister consider it wise to re-evaluate using money that was formerly allocated to student grants to create spaces that aren't being created? Is that something that's going to be…? I know you're inundated with reviews, but is that a specific issue that maybe the minister would look at re-evaluating — a policy decision that doesn't seem to be working very well?

Hon. M. Coell: I would disagree with the member. I think, when you're looking at post-secondary education in B.C., that you've probably never seen a more robust time for the number of students involved, the number of institutions, the number of new universities, the number of new campuses, the number of capital projects — reaching a billion dollars in the last five years and scheduled for another $800 million or $700 million over the next few years.

I think you have to look at the entire system. You can always do better, and we strive to do better. The recommendation that the member is making is also a recommendation, again, out of Campus 2020, that was released today — one that we'll take under consideration. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing reviews of systems that have been in place for decades, and I'll definitely take it under consideration.

R. Fleming: While there might be a lot of good blue-sky stuff in the Campus 2020 report, I think maybe one of the problems is that if you look at the goals that are stated in that document, which I don't think anyone would disagree with, that far a projection into the future…. If it's not spelled out — and there's no discussion of funding in that document — how you make targets and how you meet them in the intervening years, you are probably going to find that you are not making any progress at all.

I think that's what we're seeing regarding the 25,000-by-2010 spaces initiative — that combined with all the other policy initiatives around student accessibility, in fact it is hopelessly off target. I want to talk about some other policy options that are available to the ministry, because it certainly is in a tremendous position to effect change and to address the tremendously greater student debt levels upon graduation now. There are a lot of policy options at its disposal to help students and their families in this situation overcome the barriers, both financial and perceived, in accessing advanced education.

Just to look at one specific area the government might address. I need to get the facts first, but around student loan interest…. Could the minister tell me the current rate of interest charged for lending to students?

Hon. M. Coell: During a term of study, you don't pay any interest on the money you borrow as a student. The taxpayer pays the interest for the student. Once you've finished your course and you get into the repayment process, it would be prime plus 2½.

R. Fleming: I just wonder if he can tell the committee the basis for this rate. I know it's not new, that it has been pegged at this level for some time. In terms of when one looks at lending rates on the market…. I realize that there are some provisions during the study period for interest relief. But when one looks at the market on a ten-year loan product like this, it is well above what somebody could buy a car for, or a you-name-it consumer item typically out there.

I wonder if the minister can tell me how that number was set and how it continues to be defended.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the only comment I would make is it's been 2½ percent plus prime for many, many years. The interest rates are actually lower now than they were in the '90s, and the government of the day didn't change them at that point.

R. Fleming: It's because prime has gone down. It's not because government has lifted a single finger to do anything. It's because the Bank of Canada rate has changed, and even that is a….

The rate of interest continues to be high. I think that's the point I'm trying to get at, and I'm not trying to score points on that one. I'm trying to just maybe get the minister to agree with that.

I want to ask him: on the other side, what is the rate of interest that the government borrows at, to then make loans under this program?

R. Fleming: Okay. I think we have covered how much is loaned and the loan reduction program. I understand that. We know where the funding comes for loan reductions, such as they are.

I wonder if the minister could then tell me whether there is active consideration right now within the government to look at helping students that are repaying their debts. They're much higher debts — we've already covered that — than they were just a few short years ago. Has the government looked at a policy choice?

We're seeing it in other jurisdictions. I know recently the United States Congress significantly reduced

interest rates for students there. I think they cut them in half. Has the government looked at this in a policy sense, and are there any notes or reports to the minister that he could share with the committee?

Hon. M. Coell: The province is actually the lead in the CMEC study. It's called the affordability project, which is a broad definition for student financial assistance.

Some of the things we have done that we haven't actually talked about…. We've got interest relief as part of the package now; debt reduction and repayment to the extended amortization program; principal deferment; the permanent disability benefits program; the loan reduction, loan remission and then a loan forgiveness program as well. There are a number of tools in the toolkit for repayment of assistance.

If the member wants any more information on those, I have some, and he just need ask.

R. Fleming: Well, no, I asked about the general rate of interest, and whether there has been a discussion for all students and whether there might be permanent, I guess, interest relief and more manageable monthly payments for students that are in that phase of their loans.

Has the government received information? Are they aware of what's happening in the United States, and is there any policy advice that the minister has received that he can share with this committee?

R. Fleming: The minister has provided us with the rates at which it lends to students and the rate at which it borrows the money to do so. There's a 3½-point discrepancy there.

Given what we're seeing here in terms of the net cash source requirements going forward in the three-year service plan, it seems there is room for the government to be more generous than it has been with students. One way to do that might be to look at lowering that rate of interest.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell the committee how much it would cost to lower the student loan program by…. Maybe you could give it to me on a per-point basis, how much it would cost to reduce a full point of interest rate. What would that cost be to the Crown?

Hon. M. Coell: It's an interesting question. Maybe I can answer it in two different ways. I'm sure the member is not suggesting that if the interest rates went up, the amount of interest would go up accordingly. You're looking for, actually, the opposite way. In the program now the taxpayer subsidizes the interest for the first four years, which is substantial, even if you thought of that as a grant. That's a substantial amount of money to subsidize over four years.

The program sensitivity is probably in the range of $3 million per percentage point. So if the interest goes up a percentage point, then it would cost us an extra $3 million. Or if it went down, I guess, it would be approximately the same.

I have a feeling I haven't answered the member's question, so he might want to re-ask it.

R. Fleming: I wasn't asking the cost to government around changes to prime. I was asking what it would cost government to reduce the spread between the rate at which it loans and the rate at which it borrows for this program.

Hon. M. Coell: I think I understand the question, and I'm sure I didn't answer what the member was asking.

The problem we would have is that we're paying the first four years of interest for the student. We're paying the prime plus 2½ for four years. In any other loan that wouldn't be the case; you'd start paying the month you borrowed it. So there is that to take into consideration.

If we borrowed, let's say, $200 million last year, the sensitivity to that, moving at one percentage point, would be $2 million. I don't know if that helps the member. The program has costs as well that we try and recoup from the prime plus 2½ percent, so it would be worth it to spend a bit of time maybe discussing, fleshing it out a bit more.

R. Fleming: The program as it is costs what it is right now, and that's by design to the program. So my question really is how much would it cost to, say, have a loan system that would recover payments at prime and continue to, obviously, borrow at prime minus 1. I'm just wondering what additional cost that would have to the general cost that the system already has for the student loan program overall.

Hon. M. Coell: I understand what the member is getting at. I'll have to get staff to get that number and get it to you, but we will get it to you.

R. Fleming: Okay. I think that student loans are designed with a policy framework, and there has been a decision made long ago — and it pre-dates this minister — to charge something of a market-based rate. This is, of course, a government program, and there are other goals that we wish to advance through the student loan system. It may not all be just about rate of recovery. It may be about using it as an assistance tool to encourage students to attend school and to be able to afford to go to school. So I'll wait for that answer.

One thing I wanted to ask further in this section is just around Resolve B.C. I hope I haven't got the acronym wrong. Maybe it's Resolve Canada or Resolve Bermuda — who knows? If the minister could tell me about the private contractor that is responsible for loan recoveries, when that contract started and just as many details as possible about the terms of that contract.

Hon. M. Coell: The government entered into the contract with Resolve in May 2000, and it was originally a three-year contract. It has been extended a number of times and is extended to January 31, 2009. I realize that is a long, long time to be without a tender.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask, then, about how Resolve B.C. gets its customers, so to speak. If a student is making their repayments in the manner prescribed, then they have no reason to associate with Resolve B.C. Is that correct? What part of collections is Resolve B.C. involved with, and what part of collections are they not involved with?

Hon. M. Coell: It would be considered in Resolve's file unless the account went into default for 150 days.

R. Fleming: Okay. So any default between 30 and 150 days is a Resolve file. Following 150 days, what happens?

Hon. M. Coell: It's then turned over to the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, as they're the collection agency for government.

R. Fleming: Okay. When it gets to that ministry, I think there is another private, outsourced collection agency that government has a contract with.

If the minister could just tell me who that might be and how their collection efforts may differ from the way Resolve B.C. treats students that are in default.

Hon. M. Coell: The company that would be the contractor for Small Business and Revenue is EDS Advanced Solutions.

R. Fleming: Could the minister give details of Resolve B.C.'s contract — what they're paid annually or how the fee structure is that they are compensated for the work they do collecting student loans?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member actually has to go to Small Business and Revenue to get that. They would keep those records.

R. Fleming: I was asking about the contractor under the Ministry of Advanced Education, the Resolve….

Hon. M. Coell: The costs of the contract, our postage and application kits are all rolled into one. The number I've got is $9,756,000. But I can break that down into the actual costs for the contract, our postage, which is a lot, and our application kits — again, which is a lot. I can get that broken out for the member.

Hon. M. Coell: I think it may take staff a few minutes to get that number. If the member wants to move on, we can come back to that when they've got the answer. It's his choice.

R. Fleming: Maybe I could ask some questions around the terms of the contract, then. Is it a percentage basis, or is it per file dealt with? I'm just wondering how Resolve B.C. basically makes its money.

Hon. M. Coell: The contract stipulates that they're paid for the SIN numbers or application per person.

R. Fleming: And what is the dollar amount per application that is compensated to Resolve?

Hon. M. Coell: I apologize to the member. We just don't have that information. We'll BlackBerry the ministry and get that information for you.

R. Fleming: Okay. I'd appreciate that. I just want to try and get a complete picture as to what they do, how much they get paid for it and whether there's a solution that might work better for students or something that would save the taxpayers money by doing it in-house. As the minister has said, the contract is still due to go to 2009. It's long been an untendered contract, so whether we're getting value for money or not is, I think, important to review.

Once the loans are past being Resolve's files, after 150 days, does that mean that any recoveries when they're with EDS do not come back to the ministry or to the student loans program?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't mean to be evasive, by any means, but it really is a Small Business and Revenue file, and their staff would have that information at their estimates. I simply don't. My staff and I are just at a loss to give you that information.

R. Fleming: I don't want to get badgering or anything. I just want to know whether the global numbers being used on student financial assistance on the resource summary page of the service plan are inclusive of student loans that are at that stage of collection.

It is just a simple question as to whether students that get to that situation are now with the Ministry of Small Business. Do you know if money that's recovered transfers back to Advanced Education?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm informed that if they are successful in getting the loan repaid, the principal and interest would come back to the ministry, minus the fee that they would charge to have collected that. You could get the fee from Small Business and Revenue.

R. Fleming: Thank you for that answer. I wanted to ask a little bit more on collections. I'm just trying to find my way to the point here. Just so we know what we are talking about here, the percentage of students in

R. Fleming: It's 11 percent of students. Do you measure what volume of loans made that represents? I'm just wondering, so we can see amongst the most indebted students, if that number is spiking up.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the 11 percent of students are in default at any one given time. That's been fairly consistent. There are about 11 percent of the dollars in default as well, and those are pretty evenly spread along the number of people who borrow.

I think one of the big things, and we talked about causation and correlation the other day on student financial assistance…. One of the big indicators of default is the wage that the person is earning after they leave the institution, so a lower-wage earner is more likely to default than…. When you think about it, it's probably common sense. So that's about 11 percent. They track fairly equitably along the loan repayment program as well.

R. Fleming: Just a question. I'm not going to launch into the trades training again, but we do know that the completion rates are down something like 44 percent from 2001 and that many of those seats and programs are delivered in the community college sector.

Does the ministry have any role still in trades-training curriculum and development?

Hon. M. Coell: I have some information that I think will answer the question. Both our ministry and the Ministry of Economic Development staff have been working together to complete a review of the fiscal capacity of the post-secondary institutions that deliver any of the top trades programs, as defined by the Industry Training Authority.

The trades capacity review contract, through a request for proposal, was awarded in December 2006 to assist with this review. Our resource planning group will assess the current physical space capacity by visiting some of the institutions and also by undertaking a survey of the physical capacity of the existing trades-training facilities.

The information gathered through the review will be used as a background to any discussions and strategies to address the current backlog in training — as the member has pointed out. Currently, 14 institutions provide trades training throughout the province. The final review we have just received, and we're just going over it now at the staff level.

I think we talked earlier about the number of trades campuses that have been opened up in the last four years, and there are significant trades campuses in Williams Lake, Cloverdale and Kamloops. There are trades facilities at a number of the colleges that have been upgraded over that period of time as well. So there is a lot of capacity being generated in the system right now.

R. Fleming: Last year we talked in estimates, I think, about some of the wait-lists for trades programs at colleges. One of the figures I'm still informed of — which is close to the minister here, at Camosun College — is that there is a 22-month wait for electrical programs. I think systemwide you're seeing, on average, 18-to-30-month waits, in some cases, for trades programs.

There have been some announcements the government has made around training tax credits and other things that put funding into trades but aren't tied to the institution and the ability to address the wait-lists. I wonder if the minister can cite any performance improvements overall in the system in our community colleges around wait-lists for trades training.

Hon. M. Coell: It's an interesting problem. If I can give an example, it's sort of like doubling the number of doctor spaces in the province. You really take nine years before you see the benefits.

In the instance of trades training at Kwantlen, when we opened that on Friday, Kwantlen had had that in their plans for probably eight years. So by the time you have a project that's designed by the institution, funded by government and built, you have a significant lag in time.

One program in there, the welding program, probably doubles the number of actual welding spaces that they had in their program, so now they'll be able to address that.

That will help people from other parts of the province who are wishing to get a welding education. That helps. We've just announced in the Fraser Valley a very significant trades centre on their new campus in Chilliwack. The building is built. It's a former federal building, but it'll take probably two years to upgrade it before you can have students in it.

There are a lot of construction sites right now that will address that problem in the coming years. It's sort of…. You identify the problem, you identify the solution, and it takes you two or three years to have the building built and the staff hired. We're moving in that direction. I've been up to Cranbrook. They've got a new building on their campus as well.

One of the areas that I'm encouraged by is the relationship we're building with the Ministry of Education. There are a number of projects suggested around the province where we would deal directly with school districts. We'd have joint programs in a number of areas where you'd have someone, by the time they finish grade 12, who would actually have their first-year apprenticeship as well. There are those sorts of additions coming to the programs, which I think will help.

The other issue, I guess, is that students sometimes aren't willing to move to different parts of the province. If you're willing to move, sometimes there are fewer vacancies in other areas that you can move to. But the member's right. At Camosun they have a couple of areas where there is a long wait-list, which we'll be addressing through the 300 new spaces that are allocated to trades in this year's budget as well. We had

talked to one of the other members about Kwantlen, and they hadn't applied for the 300 — so those are still out there, which colleges like Camosun could use if they wanted.

R. Fleming: I think we'll leave the other questions around trades training to the Minister of Economic Development's estimates later. I appreciate the answers, but just as a comment on that answer…. The minister has suggested that it takes a few years to get the capacity up, and I think what we've seen in the community colleges is that the capacity has decreased.

There has been chaos in terms of the responsibility for funding and coordinating trades training in B.C. I just don't think that this dichotomy between the two ministries is working out. Presumably, the minister responsible for the Olympics also has this file because there is a labour shortage identified with the capital spending going on, mostly in the lower mainland, and the need for skilled and trained workers. Guess what. In a few years we are past 2010.

It's not good enough that we are seeing the dramatic decline in completions of apprentices in B.C. and that the government still, five years after dismantling the ITAC, can't get those numbers back to where they were, let alone keep pace with Alberta next door. I do appreciate his answers, and I suppose the place to get more details is in the other estimates.

I want to just maybe spend the balance of our time on private career training institutions and some of the problems we're seeing in that sector. I know the government deregulated that sector in 2003. There's obviously still a relationship with providing at least episodic oversight to private trainers, because the minister has been dragged in on a couple of occasions where laws have been broken.

I wonder if he could tell me — in the transition from the old PPSEC to the PCTIA; they're no longer your employees — how many FTEs you have in the ministry that provide supervision, if you like, of the private education sector today, and how many there were prior to the changes in 2003.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have the exact numbers. I will get them. The ministry branch has 14 FTEs. Staff believe they had 12 in 2003 and that there is approximately the same number of staff at the PCTIA board as there was previously, but I will check that and get the exact numbers for the member tomorrow. It's not likely I'm going to get anyone at their office at six o'clock at night, but I'll try.

R. Fleming: Sorry, there are 14 FTEs today in…. Which branch of the ministry is it?

R. Fleming: And those are solely dedicated to oversight of the private career-training sector?

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister about some follow-up to investigations that the government had to conduct on some institutions in this sector. One of them is Kingston College, and I know it's very familiar to the minister.

First of all, I actually want to ask because there was a conflict that arose, I think, in the PCTIA board itself. Because this is completely a self-governing industry body, there are feelings that there is really no early warning system, if you will. I wonder if the minister can tell me if he has considered expanding the mandate of the PCTIA so that it can actually receive and investigate and respond to student complaints about the institutions they attend.

Hon. M. Coell: That is one of the areas that I asked staff to bring forward in recommendations to me.

R. Fleming: Is the minister saying that they haven't done so yet, or has he received this information?

Hon. M. Coell: I intend to make a number of changes to the private sector in the near future, with some that would affect the board as well. I notice that Geoff Plant's Campus 2020 suggests that there should be laypeople on the board, like there are in many of the other boards throughout government, and that's also one of the areas that I have an active interest in.

R. Fleming: There are several areas in this sector where I think the deficiencies have become obvious around oversight and then accountability in terms of having students have clear avenues to make complaints — as they do, for example, at the public post-secondary institutions. There they're heard by various committees and complaints are adjudicated properly, and your ministry sees to it that that does occur.

It's not the case in the private sector. That doesn't need to be onerous. It just means the PCTIA needs its mandate to be inclusive of responsibilities for that.

There are some other areas, too, where I think clarity is required. I wonder if the minister would agree and would maybe elaborate on his feelings on the matter and on what advice staff may have given him on these situations.

One of the protections that students used to have around their fees was the right to have a complaint heard, and if there was a ruling in their favour by the old PPSEC, they could be compensated with a full refund of fees and deposits paid. My information is that this was guaranteed because there was a bond posted by the institution that was significant. Perhaps up to 75 percent of the tuition paid to the private institute was held by the government, and it was exactly for those purposes — to make sure that what they were delivering was what they were, in fact, advertising.

Is this something that the minister is considering, instead of the very small amount of tuition that's contributed to the fund that exists with PCTIA now? Is government prepared to look at being an arbiter and a collector of a bond, so to speak, from private institutions?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I appreciate that question because it's one that we had grappled with, I suspect, when we changed it. One of the problems with the bond system was that it became very cumbersome. It could take up to two years for the students to get moneys from the bond.

What we've got now is a fund of $6 million that is controlled by the agency. So we're finding that if a school closes, they can, within a week or so, actually get their money back. That's working out very well.

I think in the area — and the member and I have talked about this in question period — where maybe the student felt they were defrauded or it was a proven case of fraud, that fund doesn't cover that. That's one area that I'm looking into, and I've asked staff to bring me some recommendations back from other parts of the country and of the world as well.

R. Fleming: Maybe the minister could tell me more about the $6 million fund, because I understand it's accruing significantly. The restrictions are so tight and narrow on it that nobody can actually successfully — not very often, anyway — get a claim through on that.

It only, as the minister said, applies in the case where an institution closes, and that's usually at their own direction. It does not compensate students who are misled or defrauded, in some cases, of fees where the institution wishes to carry on and keep doing business like that as long as they can get away with it, which is exactly what we've seen in both the Kingston and the Lansbridge examples.

Those were not institutions that were going to voluntarily close. They were going to keep on defrauding students as long as they could. Those students had no avenue for complaint, and they had no avenue for making a claim against the schools. That's what led the minister to say that they should go to small claims court, which is totally inappropriate in these situations.

Can the minister tell me a little bit more about the $6 million fund — how much is contributed annually and how much is accumulated to reach the figure of $6 million?

Hon. M. Coell: A good example would be that in the last year there were six institutions that closed, and $537,000 was paid back to students.

One of the things that we have tried to do with the new agency is to have that agency work with students to have them transfer into another program so that just because the institution they're at closes, they don't actually close out their education. They move from that institution to another one. That's one of the main objectives of the agency.

The amount of money, we suspect, will grow probably for the next three years. You need a large sum of money in case one of the major institutions fails. I think it's very unlikely that would happen, but if you're going to say to students that they are insured and they're at any college, you have to be able to say: "What's your worst-case scenario?" That's why the amount of money is significant. I agree with the member that $6 million is a significant amount of money.

R. Fleming: I didn't say that it was a significant amount of money. I think, probably relative to the volume of tuition fees paid, that it's a very insignificant amount of money. I think it's only 4 percent of the tuition that is contributed to this fund annually. The other 96 percent is directly remitted to the institution, and a lot of it is remitted directly by this government, because at the accredited institutions, of course, they are able to be directly remitted student loans.

I want to ask the minister just about the Kingston students. The information I've received is that students have not been able to transfer easily to other institutions. In fact, most of them have not. I wonder if the minister can tell me if he's aware of a single student being compensated in the wake of the Kingston College episode for fees paid to that institution.

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, we had closed Kingston College and given them a train-out period so that the students there now could complete their studies.

R. Fleming: Well, I wonder if the minister could comment on the value of the train-out period. My understanding is that students who have tried to get credit transfer for what they earned at Kingston College to, say, Simon Fraser or another institution, have…. They have not been very successful in getting credit transfer for any of those.

What you did was allow the institution to continue to collect tuition fees and not have to pay a single dime back to students who were defrauded. Maybe the minister can comment on this. Was that institution not found to have committed fraud under advertising provisions? They were advertising that they were a bona fide degree-authorizing institution. They were found not to be and were repeatedly warned by the ministry to stop doing that. They did not desist.

Can the minister confirm that they have been able to keep every single dollar collected during that whole period where ministry warnings were issued, to the time at the conclusion of the train-out period? Is that the case?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I need to clarify for the member. Kingston College is closing. We allowed them a train-out period so their students could finish their course work. They were not allowed to bring any more students in or any more money in for new students from that time forward.

R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, my question was very specific. Is it the case that Kingston has not paid a single cent in compensation to any of the students which it misled academically, purporting to be a degree-granting institution, repeatedly warned by this ministry that it was not in fact and that it should cease and desist from advertising itself? Is the ministry aware of any single student being compensated for the misleading fraud that occurred in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: I am aware that some of the students are actually taking Kingston to court for that.

R. Fleming: What I want the minister to comment on is whether any of them have been paid a single cent out of this PCTIA fund that is supposed to help students that are victimized, quite frankly, by the private career-training sector in very — and, fortunately, infrequent — sad circumstances like the one we saw at Kingston.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the short answer to that is that the fund is there for school closures. The charges of fraud are dealt with through the courts in this instance.

R. Fleming: Maybe I could ask the minister, then, about Lansbridge University. In that case, I think, refunds have been ordered. But I am told that students are not eligible for, again, a single cent of the funds they paid into that school.

We're talking about tens of thousands of dollars per individual. Let's be clear here. Maybe the minister can confirm this for me right now. Is that institution still collecting fees until May from students?

Hon. M. Coell: I can give the member an update. I know we've spoken about Lansbridge University in the past.

Again, we have ordered them closed. I appointed Gordon Lee, who is the vice-president of strategic initiatives at Kwantlen, to work with students individually and directed that students be paid back funds they had paid. That is ongoing.

Some students have been transferred, and my understanding is that there are a number of options for transfer. They have been paying back some students. We also have a bond in the ministry of, I believe, $380,000 that can be used to pay back students at the end of the day.

R. Fleming: I wasn't aware of that bond, but I know that none of it has gone to Lansbridge students, so it begs the question as to what the minister will do in this situation.

What I asked the minister to confirm, because I want to make sure that this situation as I'm describing is accurate…. Lansbridge University was found to have advertised programs illegally. They were found to have lied to ministry officials on many occasions. They were found to have exposed students to financial risk. They kept atrocious, insecure records which your staff eventually discovered. They misled this government on an ongoing basis for years.

From the period predating the investigation but all through the investigation, through the findings, right up until now, can the minister confirm that that institution is permitted to keep all the fees it has collected during that period? In other words, refunds that can be applied for will not take effect until the following month from now.

Hon. M. Coell: Lansbridge is paying back students — and the member is correct — for anything they paid for courses after May 1. They are doing that. If they don't do that, we have the bond in favour of the ministry that would be able to do that.

R. Fleming: Yeah, in other words, only courses prepaid far into the future, after the closure date, are recoverable by students. Well, that makes sense. They're allowed to keep everything they collected during this period for which they were studying for unaccredited, fake degrees.

The minister is aware that there are a multitude of issues where the Degree Authorization Act was violated. He's aware of students being illegally ripped off, and this goes back some time. Yet they are not eligible under the system as he describes it — under his order of how to deal with this situation — for a single penny collected during that period.

The other thing the minister has been able to do is to impose fines for violations of this act — up to $100,000 per offence. Is the minister planning to assess any fines against Lansbridge or Kingston College or any other institution he is aware of that has misled and lied to staff or violated the Degree Authorization Act and other acts governing this sector?

Hon. M. Coell: What we're trying to do is to close institutions that don't meet the standards we set. I think the member may be a little bit confused as to the relationship between Lansbridge and degrees. They had the authority to grant degrees. It's Kingston that we closed because they were granting things they didn't have the power or the authority to do.

The ability for Lansbridge students to find placements is why I asked Gordon Lee to work with them individually to try and place them. I think what compounds the problem is when a student loses a full year of study. In this instance we're hoping that we can find replacement courses for them, and we're doing that to the best of our ability.

R. Fleming: Obviously, fines are contemplated in an act as a way to enforce compliance and improve behaviour and create a disincentive for defrauding people. This is a very lucrative sector, and some people have gotten away with making a lot of money here.

My question was very clearly to the minister. Has he contemplated using the powers at his disposal, allowed to him in the act, to levy fines against Mr. Lo or

To date there has been no action, and I think it's been widely commented upon that Korea, India and other Asian countries — China, most notably — are issuing warnings about studying in British Columbia. So when is the minister going to act? If he's not going to act when there are clear violations of the laws that exist, under what circumstances is he prepared to act?

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate that question. I guess you have two options. You could fine a company and let them continue, or if you felt they weren't doing what they said they would do and they weren't keeping up to the agreements they made, you just close them. I personally think you close them, and that is a much bigger disincentive for the future when people know that that is how the government is going to act.

R. Fleming: It's fine to close them, but in British Columbia right now you can go and open up a new school wherever you like the very next day. In fact, we've found examples of that happening in this sector, because that is how bad it has gotten under deregulation. People are getting away scot-free with these kinds of offences against students. There is no punishment in British Columbia. That sends out a message not only to the students who are ripped off; it sends out a message to the world, and that message has been received.

A question to the minister, then, is…. He's apparently unprepared to issue fines, even where there is a clear violation of the law. I don't see how closure precludes you from issuing fines. You can still do that. In fact, those schools that you mentioned are still in operation, so it's not too late to issue fines. I think it's a good idea, considering what's been gotten away with, there.

Has the minister prepared, or is he working on preparing, with the Attorney General or anyone else, charges pending against any of these companies that have committed these violations?

Hon. M. Coell: Those things are considered. My feeling was that we're going to have, and we do have, very rigorous regulations for the use of the word "university" in this province through the Degree Authorization Act. If a private operator doesn't live up to that, they will close.

R. Fleming: Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Advanced Education and ask leave to sit again.

I would move that resolution with thanks to the minister and with thanks to all of the staff at the Ministry of Advanced Education, who have been here for a couple of days of estimates. I appreciate very much the information they've supplied and the answers that the minister has been able to give to me during this process. Thank you.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd also like to thank members of the opposition for their questions. I made some commitments to get information to the member, and I'll do that as timely as possible.

R. Fleming: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Advanced Education estimates 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.