Hansard — Tuesday, May 1, 2007 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		7343

Committee of the Whole House		7343
	School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	L. Krog
	G. Coons
	C. Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7357
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	J. Horgan
	C. Evans
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
	Hon. J. Les
	M. Farnworth

Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to welcome a constituent of mine and a teacher-librarian from Parkland Secondary School in Sidney, Bonnie McComb. Would the House please make her welcome.

M. Karagianis: Somewhere in the precinct today I have visitors here from View Royal Elementary School — 40 grade 5 students with their teacher Miss Lynn Moorhouse. Could we please all extend them a great welcome while they're here.

Hon. L. Reid: I would like the House to welcome Karyl Mills, a dear friend and colleague who is today making her way to this place. I would like the House to please make her very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In this chamber, I call committee stage debate on Bill 20, the School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007. In Committee A, I call the continuing estimates debate of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, followed by the estimates debate of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; S. Hammell in the chair.

D. Cubberley: I wonder if we could begin by the minister giving us a sense of what the substitution of an achievement contract for an accountability contract means in practice. Why would we be moving to do that after a relatively short experience with accountability contracts?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's an opportunity for us to look at adding some additional expectations. Primarily, the name change reflects the intent that we have. We want to move to an achievement agenda that would certainly begin to, we hope, address some of the gaps that exist — especially for those 11,000 students who don't graduate.

D. Cubberley: Well, accountability was a very big word for a long time, and government led with this and I believe was talking about it even during the last election campaign. So I'm interested to know what happened to the accountability agenda. What didn't work in that? Why would we have this move now?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we're not moving away from accountability, and certainly, after listening to the members opposite for two days, that was a significant point. We are actually looking for more accountability.

What we're saying is simply that we have a system that is working very well for the vast majority of students, but for others it's not. We want very much to focus in on achievement, and that would be student by student. We literally want to begin to look at how we help every child in this province be more successful. We think that a contract that, in essence, focuses on achievement but does not move away from accountability is important.

D. Cubberley: I wonder if the minister would elaborate a little bit on what achievement means, just to give us a sense of what is in her mind by bringing these changes in. These are very large-scale changes at one level, and I'm assuming it's not simply a language change.

Hon. S. Bond: I think, first of all, clearly there is a measure that we are concerned about. I don't mean to say that there's only one thing we're thinking about, but certainly, one of the measures is high school completion.

We live in a world where…. It's a very changing world. As we move forward in this province, and we see that over the next 12 years we're going to add, you know, a million new jobs, the vast majority — 70 percent of them — will require some degree of post-secondary education. So obviously, one of the achievement measures that is pretty significant for students today is high school completion, and we have not seen an improvement in high school completion rates.

Having said that, achievement is also a day-to-day experience, child by child. One of the things we want to ensure is that as we are working in classrooms across this province, we're considering individual children and the levels that they are achieving. So it's very much a focus on individual children, but a significant measure will be completion rates.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to explore that a little bit further. Of course, the term "contract" is quasi-legal language, and I will want to get at the implications of saying it's a contract — who it's a contract between. It's presumably a contract between a school district and the minister, which will be administered or overseen by the proposed superintendents of achievement.

We'll get more to what may flow from it being a contract. But I'd be interested in hearing, in the minister's own words, in what sense it's a contract. How does she understand this to be placing a contractual obligation on school districts?

Hon. S. Bond: What it reflects is a commitment to work toward a particular set of outcomes. One of the significant concerns that we have is that we have seen a levelling off of completion rates in this province over the last four years. While there are excellent results for many students, we've not seen a significant improvement in those completion rates. Of most concern is the significant gap that we have for aboriginal children in this province. So in fact, it is a commitment that school districts will make to engage in a process of ongoing improvement.

D. Cubberley: The minister mentions a tapering off in completion rates in high school. My sense is that what we have is a plateau of some kind which hasn't been exceeded. One of my questions is: is that correct? Is it a plateau? But connected to that, have we seen in some other jurisdiction an ability to move beyond the level that we are at in terms of graduating — graduating four out of five?

Hon. S. Bond: It is a plateau, and since 2000-2001 we have seen an increase in completion rates, particularly on the aboriginal side. However, last year the aboriginal completion rates actually dropped a percent. They went from 48 percent to 47 percent. In the case of all of our students, if you look at that average, it's currently at 79 percent, and it has been there for four years — so a levelling off.

We certainly look at our competitors in terms of globally. We look at other countries and other provinces, and we do excel. Our 15-year-olds are the best in the world in math and reading. So there is certainly much to celebrate.

Having said that, I think it's fair to say that we're not satisfied that a 47-percent completion rate for aboriginal students is acceptable, and I also am concerned that 21 percent of our students don't complete high school. We think that means there's more work to do.

D. Cubberley: We would certainly agree around both completion rates and those students who underachieve and are passed through the school system, who may leave it having less than full literacy. We certainly share that concern. But what we're trying to get at is whether the mechanism being proposed here is a viable mechanism to actually achieve the outcome.

One of the questions that I had asked…. I did link two things together, and please forgive me for that. I'll try and keep everything separated out so that we can focus. Are there other jurisdictions in Canada that have avoided this plateau — that are above the level of achievement of graduating? If there are, what is there in the nature of what they're doing that might be brought to British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: When you look at completion rates, one of the challenges we face — or measures to look at achievement across the country…. There is no single definition that provinces use, so it's very difficult for us to say: "Here's what's happening in British Columbia compared to what's happening in Alberta or Manitoba."

Having said that, there are certainly other jurisdictions that set targets with school boards. The province of Ontario is a good example where boards working with ministries set targets and mutually agree to work toward those, not unlike what we're talking about here. But I can assure you of this, having been at numerous federal-provincial-territorial meetings with other ministers from across the country: all of the other jurisdictions are striving to see improved completion rates and significantly improved achievement in their provinces.

I think that anytime any province says, "We think we're doing just fine," and leave it at that…. I don't think that's an attitude you're going to see. Certainly, many other provinces are looking at ways to try to see achievement improve in their provinces as well.

D. Cubberley: Yes. Well, we would be among the first to decry any sense that that's being presented — that what we're doing now is as good as it gets and that it would be fine to just stay with the status quo. The challenge really, though, is to try to define whether the mechanisms that are being proposed are the appropriate ones and what may or may not be embedded in them.

The language in a bill is fairly dry and by its nature is rudimentary, if you will — perhaps a skeleton at best. What gets fleshed in onto that and the way it actually operates once it's unleashed in the world can be something entirely different, which is why we on this side of the House tend to pore over what government is proposing in a bill. That may appear excessive at some level, but at another level, that's part of our diligence on the bill.

Certainly, if we think about specific populations that are underachieving relative to the course results for the system as a whole…. There are a number of them that we could break out. One of the things that jumps out at you when you look at those populations is that, by and large, they have lower socioeconomic status, on average. One of the things there which is always a concern is: to what extent are we attempting to put the entire responsibility for lifting individuals, irrespective of their circumstance, onto the public education system?

I just want to introduce that, because I think that in looking at the ideas of contractual obligations for school districts, one has to be mindful of what's being asked by way of performance and achievement, and ensure that appropriate resources are being put in place to enable school districts to achieve those outcomes.

My question really is: is there a recognition on government's part that many of the disadvantages that have to be overcome in the school system are created outside the school system and are in fact reinforced outside the school system?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, classrooms are very complex places, and I very much appreciated the discussion that we had about this in estimates — about the influences of the world that end up in classrooms. I don't think this is about putting this all on the shoulders of the school board or the teacher or the school system. I think that's why we're trying to build a system of additional support. For example, we want to come alongside those school districts, with the use of superintendents of achievement, which I'm sure we will get to at some point in this discussion.

The reality of it is that we do provide supplemental funding for English-as-a-second-language students and aboriginal students, and we know that we can actually make a difference in the lives of vulnerable children with targeted programs and with specific, focused programs in classrooms. I have been in many of what would be considered the inner-city schools that are doing a remarkable job. We're seeing unbelievable improvement, particularly in reading and numeracy, with some very innovative teaching done by incredible teachers, so absolutely we can make a difference in the lives of those populations.

I should say, though, that one of the things around creating an achievement contract is that they're not all going to be the same. We will very much look at the context of that school, of that district, and work with the district to set reasonable expectations, understanding, hopefully, the nature of that school district. So they're not all going to be the same. They will have to address some similar issues, including literacy, which is pretty fundamental. They won't be the same. They will try to take into consideration context, but they will ask school districts to set goals for improvement.

D. Cubberley: I'm interested in exploring that a little bit further, and I think it's important: the notion that the expectations placed on school districts will be reasonable. Presumably it will be up to school districts, in some kind of dialogue, to establish what would be reasonable expectations. Perhaps you could give me a little bit of a sense of what that would look like. This is based on what kind of work: assessing the characteristics of the population that is failing to thrive in high school currently? Would it be setting a target for a percentage increase in graduates and then backcasting in some fashion? What's the expectation about how a district is going to go about establishing what the content of a contract would be?

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely, this will be done in a collaborative way. One of the things we would expect school districts to do — and they do it now, but we want to look at how that's being done…. That is the use of data, which includes far more than standardized testing. The member opposite will be happy to know that it includes all of those things that teachers do in classrooms. They use an incredible number of assessment tools, so it will be about data collection, but it will look at cultural context, socioeconomic context. We will look at seeing incremental improvement, and that may be percentage increases in a variety of things.

But it will be unlike the model that's been used in the United Kingdom, for example, where targets were set by government and, in essence, imposed on school districts. The suggestion was: "Here's your target. You need to meet this." We don't contemplate using that model. In fact, we want to work together with school boards, work alongside them to say what is reasonable, what the expectations are that you should have for students within the context that they live.

D. Cubberley: Typically, when the term "contract" is used, there are obligations placed on both parties to any contract, so I'm interested in exploring that notion a little bit. The way in which the direction of this contract is characterized in the legislation is essentially one way, from what I can see, which is that there will be a contract which a school district places upon itself, as a set of obligations upon it, to try and perform in a particular manner. Apart from the policing function of the superintendents of achievement, what obligation is placed on the government under the contract?

Hon. S. Bond: I guess I choose not to characterize the role of superintendents of achievement as a policing function. There will obviously be a responsibility to review the district plans to ensure that we're actually seeing progress. I would hardly characterize it as policing. I think that's certainly something we want to counter as we move forward with this model.

What it's about is finding ways of resourcing and working collaboratively with school districts to see increased student achievement. I'm not sure how that could be a negative thing. I think it is how we work that out. We're looking at not only having superintendents of achievement to be part of that process, but we're looking at the rural education network, at webcasting, at professional development and at additional resources.

We're going to work collaboratively with school districts to try to see an improvement for those students who are currently not finding success in public education.

D. Cubberley: I want to get a little more at whether there's some power being conferred on school districts to be able to negotiate with the ministry about changes that need to be made in order to attain the outcomes of one of these contractual agreements.

So let's use this as an example. Let's say a school district is struggling because it has a very high concentration of lower-socioeconomic-status students, and it would like to see improvement of a particular order. But it says that in order to do that, there are a set of changes that lie outside of the classroom that need to be supplied in order for the population coming to the door to be supported appropriately in making the changes.

What would the ministry's reaction be to that? Would it be that we are only concerned with the things that are internal to the classroom? Or would there be some basis for the minister to involve herself in attempting to negotiate the supports that the school district believed would be essential to attaining the outcomes?

Hon. S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite that school districts are constantly in two-way dialogue with not only the minister but the ministry about resources that are additional to outside of classrooms and the kinds of things that they would love to see from government.

This is about a conversation. This is about working with school districts more closely to sit down and have discussions about how together we improve student achievement in this province.

Obviously, one of the things that we are trying to do a better job of is sharing best practice. As a ministry, we have the ability to see across the province what works in some districts. We're seeing, for example, the incredible inconsistency in aboriginal completion rates. We have school districts in this province that have a 20-percent completion rate for aboriginal students. I absolutely know that the member opposite would think there's probably something we need to be doing about that, because we've had a lot of discussions about that.

We also have districts that have 65-percent or 75-percent aboriginal completion rates. What we need to do is be the conduit for bringing those districts together. We can do that with the use of a superintendent of achievement to say: "Look what this district is doing. Have you contemplated this as you create your achievement contracts?"

So in fact, it's a conversation — a collaborative process — that will ultimately end up in a reasonable strategic plan to say: "Here's how we think we can improve student achievement."

D. Cubberley: Well, I definitely think that the overwhelming majority of those who administer, are responsible for or deliver public education would agree that a collaborative approach is desirable. They would probably also say that we have not always enjoyed that in British Columbia and that sincere commitments to improve it are welcome at all times.

There is the challenge, of course, of translating intent into outcomes. While it is not always a question of resources, there are many questions about the adequacy of resources and existing skill sets and the like.

I was somewhat encouraged to hear the minister using language around targeted funding and tailored programs, but I have to say that the gist of most of what we have heard through the estimates discussion and the like can be summarized at two levels. One is that the money is the money, meaning that there's no more money available. The second is that we are avoiding targeting resources, because we want to leave school districts the maximum flexibility.

I'd just like to tease that out a little bit further, because to me it's not entirely consistent to hear that tailored programs and targeted funding are part of the answer. I would agree that they are, but I would like to hear more about it.

Hon. S. Bond: It is a consistent view, and the member opposite does accurately point out what we have debated in estimates. We have some targeted funding, and the area in particular that is noteworthy in this discussion is certainly additional funding for aboriginal education students. They receive an additional supplement, and so do English-as-a-second-language students. We have actually removed many of the targets on the funding to school districts so that they have more flexibility.

My comments around targeted programming are when those are made individually in school districts by school boards. For example, there are school districts who have chosen to provide additional dollars out of their envelope to specific schools within their school district because of the very complex nature of those schools. There would be specific reading programs. There would be targeted programs. We also, of course, have Community LINK funding that is very specifically targeted to the types of schools that the member opposite and I have talked about on numerous occasions, which provides for things like breakfast programs and additional supports outside of the classroom. So we do have that envelope of funding.

In essence, the principle is that while we don't target those dollars, other than the ones I've noted, school districts do. They make choices about focused programs — for example, literacy programs and reading programs, a broad number of them. School districts are using targeted programming to make a difference with those populations.

D. Cubberley: I just wanted to move into another area for a little while. There have been concerns expressed. I know the minister is aware of them because the documentation that I have around the concerns was sent to her, and I was simply copied on it. Certainly, the BCSTA has expressed considerable concern about achievement contracts, not at the level of identifying targets that could serve as a focus for efforts to improve achievement but a concern that there may be undue emphasis placed on the attainment of percentage or numerical targets.

One of the things that I'd like to get at a little bit…. I'm often struck, in looking at legislation, by what seems to be a certain decoupling between the overall aspiration — indeed, the commitment — expressed in the preamble to the School Act, which speaks much more to the whole person, and the language in bills, which tends to be more about measurable outcomes.

The School Act preamble gives us the purpose of the school system: "to enable all learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy." One of the challenges that I and many others see is that we move increasingly towards very narrow measurable outcomes as an indicator of how well we're doing in achieving this overall goal expressed in the preamble.

I'd like to get a sense of whether and how achievement contracts would be linked to these forms of measurement that we seem to prefer, which are largely based on testing individuals and testable achievements on the part of individuals and groups. I'd just like some comment on that.

Hon. S. Bond: My staff are actually having a debate amongst themselves. You've prompted some interesting thoughts on this side of the House.

We know that achievement is more than simply a specific measure on a specific test. I think it's fair to say that in the world we live in, one of the measures that people would assume should be an important part of any child's life is graduation from high school, in a day and age where we're actually moving toward a knowledge-based economy. Obviously, that is a measure that is important to us, and I think it's fair to say that it's important to most British Columbians.

The achievement contract…. I should point out, too, to the member opposite — and I know he's aware of this — that the word "contract" is not changing. We had an accountability contract. The achievement part is the part that's changing, so the concern about contract…. I mean, boards have actually managed those very well, and there hasn't been a lot of reaction to the use of that word.

Our achievement contracts have the opportunity for us to include things like school health, like arts, and like looking at safe and healthy schools so that it's really a comprehensive plan that says to a district and to a community: "Here's what our plan is." Obviously, it's important that the plan relate to the Ministry of Education. More importantly, perhaps, that achievement plan — that achievement contract, that achievement commitment — is something that the board has a responsibility to share with its community.

In fact, if I'm a parent and I'm in a school district and my children are attending, I'd actually like to know what the plans and strategies are to ensure that our students are receiving the best possible opportunities. So it's going to have a broad base of opportunities for school districts to set those plans, not simply limited to measures that are reflected from test results.

D. Cubberley: Well, I guess I'll take a little bit of comfort from that. But if we come back to an example that I raised in estimates, which is concerning to me…. We measure the number of people that drop out, and we're very concerned with that — and rightly so. We want people to graduate because, if they graduate, they have the opportunity to do post-secondary.

Even by graduating, they will in all likelihood do better in the economy. Certainly if they take post-secondary education, they will have a greater likelihood of prospering and being able to lead an independent and self-fulfilling life, which is the ultimate goal. They may even contribute to a democratic and pluralistic society, which is a whole other element that we don't spend much time talking about but is central to the purpose of our education system.

I come back to something that I mentioned in estimates, and I think it's a cause for concern because I don't see any focus on this at all. A significant number — I don't know what the number is because we don't measure this — of those people who drop out enjoy probably very close to level-3 literacy. Many of them are capable of graduating but don't because they go off for a variety of reasons to do other things.

A certain portion of those who are passed through the system and come out the other end — don't drop out of high school — may have low literacy. They may have lower literacy than some significant portion of those who drop out. We aren't focusing on that group of people. I don't hear any discussion of that group of people, those grey area kids that are passed through the system, who for whatever reason don't leave it and come out the other end. There's no discussion of them at all.

If we're actually talking about achievement and equipping people to be able to participate in the knowledge economy, they're every bit as important as those kids who drop out. In fact, they may even be more important, because the kids who drop out, rightly or wrongly, are expressing some sign of independence and are rejecting something and moving on to something else. There is at least some indication within them that they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can go off and fend for themselves.

The others in the grey area stay and are passed through. One wonders why there isn't the same concern about those kids and mapping of how many of those there are in order to better understand what we're trying to do by way of achievement for all learners.

Hon. S. Bond: I would disagree with the member opposite. I think there is that concern, and that's precisely one of the groups of people that we want to talk about. The achievement contracts are about individual students. Whether you're successful in some area or not, we want to work with our boards to look at those students, wherever they're at, and say: "What are we going do to help improve the achievement of this child?"

I actually think the member opposite and I agree on that topic. Whether or not the bill captures it in the way that the member opposite would hope…. Certainly, he makes a valid point about the intent and what happens with that. Our intent is that we want school boards to look at individual student success, and that certainly includes the children the member opposite refers to.

While 79 percent of our children graduate, there may well be issues about what that means when they actually leave our schools. This is a bill that we hope will address the 21 percent of our children, our non-aboriginal children, that don't complete and also those children caught in the system who need a specific strategy for improvement.

I'm not sure we disagree. Perhaps it's the inadequacy of language that's placed in bills, but certainly our intent would be very much to work with those students.

L. Krog: The effect of repealing the accountability contract talks about substituting an achievement contract, etc. The existing definition in the School Act of an accountability contract means an accountability contract prepared and submitted under section 79.2. Then you go to section 79.2, and it says: "A board must prepare an accountability contract with respect to improving student achievement in the school district and any other matters ordered by the minister."

With great respect, it's kind of like a character in Alice in Wonderland. I mean, it says what I mean it to say. In other words, the definition just takes us back to the section.

One of my questions is around the purpose of this change. Is it in fact acknowledging that the existing definition is somewhat inadequate, leaves it to ministry or regulations, and we're now, by the new definition…? I hesitate to jump ahead to section 16, which amends section 79.2 and sets out a number of components to the contract. Is this in fact what we're doing?

We've figured out that what we've got doesn't really work that well and isn't terribly defined, certainly by statute. Now we're moving to something that is hopefully an improvement that is clearer for boards so that they can manage this contract.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sitting here feeling rather remiss as I look at the great team of people sitting here with me. I neglected to introduce them in the House, and I apologize for that. With me today, part of an incredible executive team and ministry, we have Emery Dosdall, Rick Davis, Dave Duerkson and Peter Owen. They are an incredible team that help to work through these issues. I apologize for the tardiness in the introductions.

I don't think it's a case of abandoning ship in terms of the accountability contract process. It really is a sense of recognizing that we have more work to do in the area of helping our students be successful. There may have been some concern by boards around what an accountability contract really means, although I should say that I think boards manage that process very well. It was a change in practice.

The point is that we want to be clear that we want boards to focus on achievement. While it might sound unusual to have to say that, I think it is an important point to be very clear about.

The achievement contracts will specifically — the member opposite is correct — include some elements that will be required in that contract, including a literacy plan, which is articulated in the bill. It's probably accurate to describe the change as being more specific about what elements would be included in an achievement contract, but it is not moving away from the practice that was created through accountability.

L. Krog: If I understand this correctly, I take it this is about what I will call a general contract as opposed to submitting…. I don't understand perfectly how these things work.

A general contract as opposed to a student-specific contract. It's not that the ministry is asking the boards to submit a plan for little Johnny Smith in Nanaimo and how Johnny is going to do at the end of the school year. It is about an overall achievement based on statistical averages or whatever for that school district.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. This is about the general achievement process and strategy. Having said that, it will be incumbent on boards…. For the vast majority, they do that now. They will have to have a plan in place for Johnny from Nanaimo. They wouldn't convey that in the contract that's submitted as part of their documentation for ministry and for their communities.

The member opposite has captured the heart of what we really hope will happen. It is that every child — Johnny, Susie or whoever from Nanaimo or Prince George — has that individual plan, though not conveyed in this document to government.

L. Krog: One of the concerns expressed to me on various occasions by the members of my school board is the bureaucratization of the education system generally — that boards are expected to do more and more. What we're talking about this morning is an example of that. The ministry is trying to achieve goals and place this on the boards.

Is there any intention to provide any specific or targeted funding to deal with these issues? If the ministry is expecting this to be done, somebody at the bottom has to actually fill out the paper and do all the public service work associated with it.

Hon. S. Bond: I think this is one of the issues that we will end up debating from now until the end of time. In fact, we expect boards to be able to manage this not only within their fiscal envelope but also within the staffing complement that they have.

The member opposite is correct. I hear about that continuously as well. This may be a case of looking at how you do things and making some changes in doing that. We don't want to place additional pressures. We actually want to have the opportunity to work with boards to look at how we do things in public education. Are there things we can do differently?

I recognize the concerns that are expressed, because we hear them as well. It is not our intention to be overly bureaucratic. We think the processes that are in place now will allow us, with the accountability contracts that came before…. We don't see significant changes in terms of paperwork and all those things.

Having said that, as this process unfolds, one of the things we hope to do is engage in an ongoing dialogue about how best to move from intent to implementation. Those are discussions that I'm confident we will have with districts as this moves forward.

D. Cubberley: Just to follow a little further on that before we move on.. As my colleague has mentioned, the achievement contract sets out a number of areas of responsibility for school districts that the contract is to be elaborated around. A number of those, or elements of them, are new areas of responsibility for school districts — areas of responsibility that school districts welcome and that, on the other hand, they are pensive about because they're very seized of the fact that the money is the money and that in the eyes of trustees there aren't the resources to do the optimal job in some cases with the responsibilities they currently have. So they have an

apprehension around new responsibilities, and that is amplified around the idea of a new requirement in the form of an achievement contract.

My question to the minister is…. An achievement contract, which is looking for ways of improving outcomes within existing resources, coupled with new responsibilities without new resources…. Are you really convinced, Minister, that there is an ability to rearrange the existing allocation of resources to do all of these things?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, at the risk of getting eye-rolling from my colleague on the other side and repeating it again, we are at a very different place in public education in terms of funding levels. It is the highest level of funding that we've ever had in this province, and at a time of increasingly rapid declining enrolment. We have committed to continue to add funds to public education at a time when the number of students is dropping fairly dramatically.

I believe that school districts can manage through this process, and I think it's less about the money than it is about the focus and the process. We're simply saying we need to sit down and talk about those 21 percent of our students and, as the member opposite points out, those students who work their way through and in many cases still end up with low literacy levels at the end of their journey. We need to sit down and talk about how we better serve those students.

A lot of this, in my view and the view of a team of incredibly experienced educators in our ministry, is that much of that is around best practice and sharing information and strategically planning how we move those completion rates forward. So the simple answer would have been yes, but I felt that I needed to just provide some context around how we think that may be possible.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate that, Minister, because it would simply have led to another question. I think it's best to supply the context, especially with this questioner.

I just want to make a comment before moving on, unless there's anybody else in our ranks who would like to ask a question on this. One thing that strikes me is that there's been quite a bit of talk this morning about collaboration. I'm one of those who think that collaboration is a very positive word and that public education would benefit from even higher levels of collaboration than we have seen in the past. In fact, to improve outcomes will take more collaboration than we have.

In looking at the legislation and the far-reaching scope of what is in this act, one wonders why we didn't begin the collaborative approach prior to bringing in legislation. Why would we not have gone through some public exposing of a direction that was being thought about, allowed school trustees generally to reflect on that, begin the process of suggesting to people the kinds of contents that might go into this and allow for some grooming — if not redefining — of some elements of what eventually comes forward in a bill? Why not put collaboration before action rather than acting and then hoping for collaboration afterwards?

Hon. S. Bond: I actually don't think that's accurate. For over a year now we have been in conversation across this province in a variety of ways. While it hasn't been, "Here's what we're thinking. Here's the piece of paper. Let's all sit down in one room," it absolutely has been about meeting with groups that have never been met with before, regular attendance at workshops and AGMs, holding congresses with students and parents and teachers, visiting almost 50 school districts in this province — hundreds of schools, hundreds of parent meetings.

We've been very clear that we need to sort out how we make some changes in public education that will benefit all our students. I understand that once a bill is tabled and there's language around the discussions we've been having for a year, it makes people uncomfortable. Change does that.

Having said that, I think it's unfair to actually characterize this as a lack of consultation. We've spent the last year…. And in fact, our throne speeches two years in a row have been very clear about our priorities and our direction. It did not spell out the specifics, but I can assure the member opposite that in all of my meetings with boards and trustees and parents across this province — hundreds of visits — I've been very clear about the kinds of things that we have been considering.

I understand there is some concern about that. We did have a community consultation across the province with the Ministry of Children and Families in 2006. I think there has been much discussion. It's when it reaches the floor of the Legislature with specific language that uncertainty increases, and our intent is to continue to improve a collaborative working relationship.

I would agree with the member opposite wholeheartedly that in British Columbia, the relationships between partners in public education have been very difficult — and very negative in many ways — for well over a decade in this province. When I was a school board chair I remember feeling those same feelings. So do we need to do a better job? Absolutely we do.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that, and I believe that she has been out meeting with some and may well have gleaned some sense of need for change from those kinds of contacts. But I would suggest that this legislation has the potential to affect the relationship with the co-governors of education, the boards who are elected locally.

My sense is that this took them by surprise, especially the sweep and scope of the legislation. They have been placed in a position where they have to react to something which is imparting some significant additional powers, both to the minister and to superintendents of achievement, to intervene in various ways in the operation of boards, both via the contract and outside of the contract.

I think it would have been appropriate — given that they are the partners and effectively oversee the

delivery of public education and deal with all of the problems at the local level that we who happily enjoy positions at the pointy end of the organization do not have to deal directly with — to involve them in some discussion about direction. That would have been more fruitful than what we now have to go through, which, as the minister is aware, has led to resolutions calling for the withdrawal of this legislation. I think that more collaboration at the front end would have been useful in getting this bill to where it ought to be.

Anyway, I'm going to cede the floor for a moment to a colleague who wishes to ask a question or two.

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this. I have just got a concern, as many teachers do, with the new achievement contract — how the FSA scores and the program will fall into it.

Are there any proposed changes to the FSA program, in how it interacts with the new achievement contract?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite may know, we are contemplating when FSAs are administered. That's the only significant change that we're thinking of — when they might be administered, to try to fit them more appropriately into a school year.

In terms of content or frequency, things like that, there are no major changes intended with the FSA. In fact, we would expect what we already expect with foundation skills assessment results, so there would be no change. It would be part of a package of information that school boards and school planning councils use now to make decisions. The only pending change would be when in the year FSAs are actually given to children.

G. Coons: The minister mentioned that there will be a whole variety of data and those things in classrooms that are used by teachers. We look at this achievement contract throughout the province and how it can be facilitated to use best practices and get tied into what's best for an individual school district. As the deputy minister and the minister know, the north coast and that region, with the EDI scores, are one of the most challenging in the province.

I'm just wondering how an achievement contract may differ in a region like Prince Rupert that has a high first nations population versus some place down in West Vancouver or North Vancouver, and how socioeconomic situations and all the other factors that affect children in the classroom are going to be taken into account with these achievement contracts.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we've used the word "reasonable," and I want to reiterate it. We are obviously concerned about completion rates and want to make sure that we're focusing on those, but we also want to be reasonable and look at this in a proper context.

It is clear in the legislation that, in fact, achievement contracts may be different from district to district, and they will be. Perhaps I can use this example of how we might ensure that they're not going to be the same. I can't imagine us expecting that a school district that currently, today, has a 20-percent completion rate for aboriginal students…. One can't imagine that we would ask them to be at the provincial average within a year. That would be a completion rate that moves from 20 percent to 48 percent or 47 percent now, I suppose. So that's not reasonable, and that's actually not likely to happen.

We want each contract to reflect the context of the school district. We're simply saying that it's time we worked together to provide more of a focus on how we're going to see student achievement improve. So the contracts will be different, and certainly in the legislation, it makes it clear that that will be the case.

G. Coons: Just one last question before I pass it back to my colleague. How tightly will classroom assessment be aligned with FSA scores?

Hon. S. Bond: We know that foundation skills assessment results are only one small part of the information that is used to create strategies for improvement for children. So classroom assessment has today and will continue to provide a key component to creating an achievement contract.

We want to use as much information as possible, including those assessments that are used within classrooms and FSAs, to make sure that we are looking at individual success for our children.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to move on to the definition of "administrative directive." This definition refers to section 79(4) in the bill, which provides for specific powers to the minister to issue administrative directives. I'd like to know what powers the minister currently has to intervene along these lines and why there is an additional power that is required around achievement.

We've been talking about these contracts as being collaborative. We have been talking about school districts working together with the minister and the ministry to achieve mutually acceptable targets. The minister was very resistant to the phrase I used around the idea of a policing power, but this is in effect, as I read it, a power to police within a contract. I would like the minister to elaborate why she feels she needs this power.

Hon. S. Bond: Currently, the minister can actually intervene in two ways. We can appoint a special adviser, or we can remove a school board. Those are pretty dramatic circumstances. One doesn't go there easily, and one would hope not to.

The administrative directive, again, is a discussion we are currently having with school boards in terms of when and how that might take place. What it does is allow us to have the opportunity…. In the case that over a significant period of time there is an unwillingness or a lack of demonstrated ability to focus on student

achievement and if a board continues to be unwilling to deal with the fact that their students are not moving forward, it allows for there to be some direction about how student achievement may be undertaken within a district.

Let me make sure that on the record we are clear about this. It is not something that would happen quickly. It is not something that would not happen without a great deal of discussion with school boards. It certainly would only take place when we felt that students were not having the opportunities they need to be successful. So it provides another step, which is in our view far less dramatic or significant than sending in a special adviser or replacing a school board.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps the minister could explain to the House how it's different from a special adviser and why a special adviser is a more dramatic, or more draconian, intervention than issuing an administrative directive.

Hon. S. Bond: Let me walk through that language again, because I don't want it to sound like one is more draconian than the other. Ultimately, it's not something that one actually wants to have happen in any case. To be candid about this, we don't want to have to use an administrative directive or a ministerial directive either. But we felt it was important to have the opportunity that, in a case where a school board is unwilling or has not made significant efforts to ensure that their students are being successful….

Again, these are discussions that we are having with school boards as we speak. That would not be a regular or frequent occurrence. We know how hard boards work to make this happen. In this case the difference is that the special adviser goes in and obviously has the ability to make recommendations about a number of things. They make recommendations; they are not obligatory.

In this case, it might be a very specific direction about a literacy plan or something that has not been generated by the board. It would be a very specific direction related to the achievement agenda — but not used lightly, and certainly not used without a significant degree of consultation and discussion with a board before that were to take place.

D. Cubberley: It's interesting. Here we have legislation which is going to require boards to develop targets to improve outcomes under the rubric of achievement. If one accepts the premise around achievement, it contains some very useful requirements for transparency around the setting of the targets, the making public of elements of the plan. There is a requirement for the school boards to become boards of education to engage with their local communities around the expectations that are embedded in the plan.

My question would be: why is there such pessimism around the potential sorting out of failures to meet targets by a democratic citizenry which has the opportunity to select its trustees? Why would there not be a reliance on the democratic process to compel the compliance, and an opportunity for those populations — who receive the benefit and who pay the taxes towards the educational system — to be able to simply change trustees if they're unhappy with the way in which the trustees are operating the system?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't think it is about pessimism. I think we are optimistic that, by working with school boards with a renewed focus on achievement in this province, we can, will see and will make a difference, first of all, for those 11,000 students who are not successful in terms of the measure of completion. It isn't about being pessimistic.

It is about this: after all of our best efforts, if we work collaboratively with school boards and we still see that children are not having the opportunities they should have in order to be successful, our responsibility is to do something about that. In the event that that does not take place, we are prepared to indicate to a board, in that unique circumstance, that we would expect something to take place in a particular area.

I don't think that's pessimistic; I think it's called leadership. It says that if students are not being successful, we're going to make sure we help them to be successful.

D. Cubberley: I just want to speak to the fact that we do have a system of co-governance in public education and that the part of the system of co-governance that allows electors to have a direct say over who will represent them is the local school district.

It is not, by the nature of the party system, at the parliamentary end of our democracy. I mean absolutely no insult to the sitting minister or any other Minister of Education, but the electors do not vote on the ministers who oversee the systems, so they have no direct control over the way in which any of us comport ourselves should we happen to be given the honour of actually directing a ministry as the minister.

The part of the system where the electors actually do have control — and, given the nature of the business, relatively easy control — over who will represent them is at the local level. So it is, at one level, curious to see the pointy end of the system, which is very remote from any direct democratic control by electors, seeking to be the guarantor that locally elected boards will meet their contractual obligations.

I think it's worth noting, both for the record and for the broader public, on this issue of administrative directives, that the British Columbia School Trustees Association expressed profound concern. I will quote from the document forwarded to the minister:

"While we assume that the purpose of the administrative directives is to provide the minister and the superintendents of achievement with a mechanism to enforce the achievement contracts, we feel strongly that the provision is too sweeping and represents a violation of the principle of co-governance of the education system, in which each of the co-governors respects the jurisdiction of the other.

"Boards have a distinctive democratic responsibility, and the imposition of administrative directives changes the fundamental principle of local accountability. Any unpopular decision of a board that is overridden by an administrative direction would destabilize local decision-making and have no direct accountability back to the local community. Furthermore, there could be undue pressure exerted on MLAs and the minister to intervene on invariably controversial decisions such as school closures."

I think the image that is raised of an intervention under this power, which could actually destabilize local decision-making, is a real possibility. I'm not suggesting that it's this minister's intention, but I think you have to countenance, when you're considering passing any law that empowers the pointy end to be able to do these kinds of things, the circumstances under which the power will operate and what kinds of constraints are being placed on a future minister under it. I would ask the minister to speak to that.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite has quoted a paragraph in the letter from the B.C. School Trustees Association, and we are in ongoing discussion with them. I guess there comes a place…. We are co-governors, and ultimately our responsibility is to ensure that all of the children in this province have an opportunity to be successful.

Today in this province we have 11,000 children who do not graduate. We have 53 percent of our aboriginal students who do not complete what most would consider a basic measure in the public education system. In the event, after a significant amount of discussion, collaboration, time and effort in working together, that there is still a sense a board has not taken that seriously in the sense of looking at strategies, there may well be an opportunity for a minister to say: "We think you should concentrate on this."

At the end of the day, that is the responsibility that the minister — whoever sits in this chair — or government — whoever sits on this side of the House — has to the people of British Columbia. We understand that it needs to be exercised with care and caution, but ultimately, the importance is that students today deserve all of us to be working together to make sure that they have every opportunity possible.

I recognize the uncomfortable position that school trustees feel they're in. I should tell the member opposite that we had a very productive day yesterday — from our perspective and, hopefully, from the trustees' perspective — as we worked through the legislation with them line by line and walked through all of the discussions with them.

Obviously, they want to continue that dialogue. We're committed to doing just that as we look at the areas that would be outlined by this and several other concerns that have been expressed in this letter.

D. Cubberley: Well, I'm absolutely certain that trustees will work to make the best of whatever circumstance is visited upon them. But for our purposes today, we are looking at the wisdom of actually allowing this to pass as written.

I think that one of the distinctions we have to make as legislators in the chamber is between the minister's stated intention — which I believe is sincere and which I take as stated, around what she wants to see as outcomes — and the reason why she thinks she needs to have this power conferred.

This power is conferred for all time or until such time as another Legislature decides that it should be removed — if it is in fact put in place. I think we have to look at what could be enabled by the language — not what a stated intention for the language is, which is a far broader perspective.

This would, under any number of circumstances, empower a Minister of Education to intervene in the activities of a board without the kinds of constraints we would like to see placed upon the power. In fact, we have a significant concern that we are moving into a level of power which is surplus to requirements. The powers exist under current legislation to allow a Minister of Education to intervene in a way which is less draconian than this. She or he also has a power to intervene in ways that are more draconian.

I think that in the one case, the lesser power already available engages a process with a board which is a softer process, a less directive process, but ups the ante for that board, both vis-à-vis the minister and the local electorate, and has the potential to focus public attention on the fact that the board is in some significant way not meeting expectations. I also think that in the case where a board is remiss in its duty, the minister has the power to, holus-bolus, intervene.

We think that the creation of this additional power is not necessary, that it is an intervention that gives many actors within the system, who have responsibilities locally, grave concern. It is therefore my intention to propose an amendment to this section of the act that would delete the power for an administrative directive.

This being my first amendment, I will confer with the Clerk as to whether I'm doing it properly or at the right time.

D. Cubberley: I am. I'm deleting the definition and proposing the removal of the powers that would….

The Chair: The Chair will not accept the amendment at this time and will consider it at the appropriate time in the review, at a later section.

D. Cubberley: The next definition given is for a district literacy plan, which means a plan to improve literacy in a school district. Because of what is focused

under the achievement contract, which is responsibility for a literacy plan, and because the minister's title includes literacy, which is more inclusive than K-to-12 literacy, I would ask what is included in this definition of a district literacy plan. Is this a literacy plan focused on learners within K-to-12? Does this include learners prior to their coming to K-to-12? Does it include adult learners? Does it include lifelong learning?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think perhaps it's best to tackle this by looking at what the intent of a literacy plan is. In virtually all of the communities I have visited — and believe me, there have been a lot in the last year — there are enormous numbers of initiatives in the community to deal with the issue of literacy. There's incredible momentum. There are people working very hard across the province. The intent here is to have school boards create a literacy plan for the learners that they deal with and that it be done in consultation with community.

It's a chance for them to provide leadership and partnership. In fact, it's already happening today. I know that in a round table that I attended in my own community, the school district was one of the leaders in the creation of a community literacy plan. We simply want to make sure that we're coordinating our resources and efforts to tackle what is a challenging topic.

We think it's best done in collaboration and partnership with the community — not taking over the responsibility of those communities but working closely with them. The legislation articulates that boards of education will need to have a discussion with individuals and partner groups that might have similar interests or goals in mind when it comes to literacy.

D. Cubberley: Would it in fact include learners prior to their coming to kindergarten? Would that be part of the plan? Would the school district be responsible for those learners, or would they be responsible for engaging in dialogue with non-school entities who are engaged in preparing children for school?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I want to be very careful about making this clear. We're not at all interested in having the boards of education take over the responsibility for community literacy planning or anything of that nature. The work that's going on is phenomenal across the province. Many non-profits and agencies are very involved in this.

It really is about coordinating a school district's plan within the context of community literacy, and we think that's a pretty important thing for us to be doing. To better prepare our students, we're asking boards of education to develop literacy plans that, yes, actually do look at the interests of preschoolers in particular.

This legislation also, as the member opposite would know, looks at an expanded mandate that does include prekindergarten programs. We are looking at preschoolers, school-age children. As well, as the member opposite would know, school boards — boards of education after this — also do serve adults who are struggling with literacy. We do have programs. So it includes adults in that context as well.

D. Cubberley: I do think that's important, and it does make me feel that perhaps the definition should have been a little more expressive of what's involved in it. After all, we are going to, if this bill passes, place additional responsibility on boards of education. We are going to give them achievement contracts, and within achievement contracts part of their responsibility is to develop a district literacy plan.

Clearly, from what the minister is saying, a component of the district literacy plan — some several components — will lie outside K-to-12. Given that boards will be assessed in part on their meeting of contractual obligations under their achievement contracts on the basis of their literacy plan, which is named as one of the components, and will be responsible for making the document public and engaging with communities about it, I think it's important that they have some idea of what responsibilities they're being asked to assume.

Are they playing a coordinating role? Are they actually responsible? Could they be assessed, for example, on deficits in the continuum of services that help to build literacy in preschool populations, among low-literacy adults, in special populations and the like? Just trying to get a sense of what's loaded into something.

Hon. S. Bond: They are not expected to be the only service provider or would we ever expect that to be the case. It is very much about a coordinating role, and it is actually including areas that boards are currently involved in. Across the province we have boards involved with adult basic education. We have them involved with preschool programs already. So it really is not unlike what they're doing currently, and we believe that the new mandate in many ways captures what is current practice.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps we could pass into "early learning program" in the definitions section. The text suggests that an early learning program means "a program for children who are less than school age, or whose enrollment in an educational program has been deferred under section 3 (2), that (a) is designed to improve readiness for and success in kindergarten…."

My first question for the minister — I believe I know the answer to this, but I would like her to spell it out for me — is if the minister understands that there are a wide variety of programs that would qualify as designed to improve readiness and success in kindergarten.

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely, and I have visited numbers of them across the province. This is not about a one-size-fits-all model — absolutely not. However, government has a program in place which will be located in all of our school districts across this province, and that's only one opportunity for parents. I think that's an important note.

We have great work being done by organizations. This is to enhance opportunity. Of course, there are different options and models, and that will continue.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that response. It is a very important discussion, and I hope I won't incite impatience around this. While item (a) under early learning program gives a relatively expansive definition, item (b) gives a very tight definition of what would qualify as early learning.

Therefore, I wish to persist in asking some questions about the types of programs that qualify. I'm interested to know whether the minister would include developmental child care delivered in licensed centres by qualified early childhood educators as an early learning program.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I'm not quite certain how to approach this question, but let me try this. Learning takes place wherever children are, so early learning is provided in a number of models across this province. It occurs most importantly between parents and their children. They are the first teachers that children have. That will all continue.

The only thing we are clarifying here is that the programs that are funded and operated by school boards — which in this case, in terms of early learning, in terms of what government is going to provide resources for, is StrongStart British Columbia…. But that does not at all preclude school boards from providing space for providers who are currently in their buildings today. That will continue.

I certainly hope that the intent is not to cause concern with people who provide those services across this province, because this legislation does not mean change for them. What it means is that we're going to enhance opportunities by providing StrongStart centres in school districts across the province. This is not about taking away opportunities; it's actually talking about enhancing them.

D. Cubberley: I'm sure the minister would agree that early learning programs are probably one of the chief interventions that might be available to school districts to actually affect the 11,000 people who are not graduating and the unknown number of people who are being passed through with low literacy.

It is an area of growth throughout modern industrial countries. In fact, in looking at Canada and British Columbia in particular, if we were to evaluate ourselves against what other countries are doing, our system is stunted in regard to early learning programs.

One of the things that's very significant about this bill, and one of the things that I think is most positively greeted by educators and school trustees, is the recognition of early learning as something that can be part of their mandate — hence the importance of trying to get at the way in which the language of the bill has been designed and what it's actually intending to do.

Bill language can do a number of things. One of the things it can do is what those who champion it hope it will do or tell us it will do. But it can also do other things because, of course, it can be interpreted in various ways. I won't go into all the fascinating and creative ways in which bill language can be interpreted, but members who have been present here for more than one session will have an intimate knowledge of what I'm alluding to.

This is very important. One of the reasons that it's important is because while the legislation in front of us creates an expansive definition at the front end of early learning…. Having said that, it contracts it — as I read it — to a single option via a subclause.

I want to get to what that is about. Why does item (d) say that an early learning program "means a program for children who are less than school age" — that "(a) is designed to improve readiness for and success in kindergarten, and (b) requires a child participating in the program to be accompanied and supervised by the child's parent or other person designated in writing by the parent"?

This is defining an early learning program — what a board can involve itself directly in. It's defining it as requiring parental or adult accompaniment to participate in the program. So having opened it up, it is closing it down to a single option. What I want to know is: why is it designed in that manner?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I know the member opposite and I have canvassed this with other members in estimates. Let's be clear. This legislation talks about one model, and that's the model that we will be supporting in terms of StrongStart British Columbia. It does not and will not preclude boards from offering all kinds of wonderful programs in their buildings and in their particular districts.

What this says is that the model we will look at expanding across the province requires parent participation. There's a really good reason for that. This is one model. There are lots of other places that children learn. Those are going to continue and expand. This model is about resourcing not only a child but an adult in that child's life. Absolutely correct, member opposite, that this can make a difference for those 11,000 students. This is very good news, and it's exactly where we need to focus.

Our point is simply this. In the model that we are talking about — one model; others will continue — this one requires there be an adult there. I also want to clarify the record. It is not just about parents. It is about caregivers or, as the legislation points out, another person designated in writing…. It could be a caregiver, an aunt, a grandparent.

The criticism around who can be there…. This is a pretty broad scope about who can be there with that child, but the thinking behind this model is that you resource families in order to support children when they're learning to read and get ready for school.

D. Cubberley: I think the thinking behind all models of preschool is that you resource families in the process. I don't think it's any less resourcing of families to provide them with a care component in a developmental learning situation for children that enables them to participate in the economy. That's resourcing of families. It's certainly resourcing of women upon whom the burden for child care tends to fall in our society, and whose participation in the labour force is much lower than men's.

That certainly should be of concern to us if anything we're doing by way of legislation is sending a message that there is a single definition of what constitutes an early learning program.

What I don't understand is why it would be necessary to raise in legislation a limiting clause that says…. No matter how you cut it, if you look at this, it sets up a definition of early learning for the first time. This is significant. This is conferring an ability on school districts to participate in it and telling them that we endorse this direction, that this is part of your responsibility.

It's potentially very significant if one looks at other countries and the extent to which pre-K is already in place. Even to the south of us, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have universal kindergarten, full-day kindergarten programs and pre-K programs, and have had for a significant period of time. That's a model of early learning that is probably the most likely extension of the existing K-to-12 system. It's what is being done elsewhere.

Why would it be necessary to bring in a bill with language that essentially, if I'm hearing what the minister is saying, simply reflects the fact that the ministry's first priority — not school districts, not others — is to put a focus on the StrongStart program? Now, that to me is fine. Why would it show up in a bill? Bills don't typically deal with what is and isn't being funded. They deal with areas of responsibility. This would seem to be tightly prescriptive — in fact, almost siloed — and I'd like to know why.

Hon. S. Bond: If you actually look at a school board's mandate today, they themselves cannot offer an early learning program. They do not have the technical ability to do that. This legislation is required to allow them to offer an early learning program. That's number one.

Number two. The reason we've defined it in this particular way is that the model we will see expanded across the province includes parent participation. It also includes that an early childhood educator be in that particular position.

I'll say it again. Early learning takes place wherever children are and in various settings, and that will continue in school districts across the province. The difference is that school boards themselves do not offer those programs. Other providers do. They may provide space, and they certainly partner in very innovative ways to make those early learning opportunities happen.

This says that in British Columbia, school boards will be able to, when in an agreement with the minister, offer early learning programs — first time — and that the model will include an adult participating with that child.

D. Cubberley: Is the minister suggesting that with this early learning program definition brought in and this power extended to boards of education, if a school board decided that it wanted to involve itself directly in pre-K, that would be allowable?

Hon. S. Bond: What the legislation says is that school boards may offer an early learning program that is designed to improve readiness. If there's a parent involved in that process, then school boards have the legal ability, after this legislation is passed, to do that.

C. Trevena: I wanted to clarify this. I think that we're in agreement. We've talked to the minister before about the StrongStart program, and any opportunity children have to improve is great. From what the minister is saying, these programs will be run by school boards.

There will be other programs that still may be using school premises to have their programs. Does this definition allow those programs also — if the school board desires, if the school board has the money to fund those programs as early childhood development programs, early learning programs — without the parental involvement? You could have the StrongStart program working in one school and another school having an early learning program that is funded by the school board but is not tied into StrongStart.

Hon. S. Bond: This makes no change to the current practice for school boards in terms of what they offer today. They will be able to continue to do that in partnership. What this does allow is for school districts to offer early learning programs for the first time. If they meet the criteria outlined here, then they will be able to offer early learning programs. But there is no change to current practice.

C. Trevena: The only early learning programs that the school boards can offer, then, are those that require parental involvement or the signed authority from a parent for a caregiver to attend.

C. Trevena: I wanted to ask one question about this signed authority that a parent can give. Would that be for a caregiver who is looking after one child, or would there be a limit on the number of children? Can it be one child, two children, six children and a caregiver

coming along to a StrongStart program? Is there going to be any definition on the numbers there?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the intent is that families that have two or three children or four children or ten children…. If there is permission for an adult who cares for those children — the letter is signed — then that family can participate in a program.

C. Trevena: A bit of clarification on that. If a parent takes their child to basically a licence-not-required family child care provider, who may have six children, the parent signs the authority that that family child care provider can go to the StrongStart with the six children. That would be acceptable under the StrongStart designation as is provided.

Hon. S. Bond: The intent of a StrongStart centre — and they are fabulous; we have them operating in the province, and we're excited about expanding the number of them — is that families would be able to provide the name of someone who cares for their children on a regular basis. They would have that letter signed, and they would be able to participate fully in a StrongStart centre.

D. Cubberley: I would like to know what the rationale is for fettering school districts in this way — for saying not just that the minister is going to prioritize this class of program aimed at parent-accompanied children…. Why would the intent be to fetter school boards so that they cannot involve themselves in areas of early childhood development that will have a larger payoff in terms of affecting a broader range of families?

I would like to know why you would fetter them. Why would you not allow them…? Prioritize the program you want to prioritize, but why fetter them?

Hon. S. Bond: I hardly consider that giving boards of education the right to offer early learning programs for the first time in British Columbia is fettering a school board. What I would like to suggest is that this is the model that we intend to fund and expand across this province. It's going to give families new opportunities, and it does not take away from current practice.

There are school boards across this province that have amazing partnerships with other providers, where the partnership allows for other organizations to continue to provide services for children in British Columbia. Why would we want to alter that? That would be my question to the member opposite.

D. Cubberley: There are answers, and very direct ones, to that. That is because we are undersupplied with those very opportunities you are admiring. We are absolutely deficient in this province and in this country and in the entire western world in the provision of opportunities for developmental child care. British Columbia is at the bottom in Canada, which is at the bottom of industrialized countries.

D. Cubberley: Well, check the OECD, Minister. I'll bring you the studies. I know you have time….

D. Cubberley: It was just a little bit of collegial banter, and I will refrain in the future out of respect.

The point still stands — and I did not hear an answer to this — that the minister could prioritize any program that she or her ministry care to prioritize. They can do it by funding it and suggesting to school boards that that is a direction they want to move in. Why would she fetter boards by providing them with the enticement that they are going to be allowed to involve themselves in early learning? For the first time in the history of this province, boards will be enabled to catch up to our U.S. cousins and involve themselves directly in early learning.

I know members opposite listen to these kinds of things. The example south of us is very important to them, and it's important to be mindful of that example because it can cut both ways. Why would the government choose to say: "Boards of education, we're going to allow you to assume responsibility for early learning, and in fact, it will become part of your mandate, and you will be judged on it"?

Having opened the door, immediately contract it down to a single form of program, which — and this is the key thing — will only ever deal with a tiny, tiny minority of adults. There are very few adults who are at home with children, and there are very few — in fact, in my experience, none — day care providers who have staff available to ferry children from a day care centre to a StrongStart centre in order to learn parenting skills.

Early childhood educators do not need to learn parenting skills. They're in the business of supplying it, so they are not going to be attending these centres. I have not heard a rationale for fettering school boards in this manner, and I would appreciate hearing that addressed.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, the member opposite did hear that answer. The fact of the matter is we're not fettering school districts. We're giving them something that they haven't had the ability to do before. Why in the world would we stifle the opportunity for community partnerships, which school districts have engaged in for a long time in British Columbia?

As I travel across the province, there are amazing early learning opportunities that already exist within school districts. School boards do not provide those services; other providers do. We welcome the opportunity

for other providers to work in partnership with school districts. We think that's fantastic. We don't want to detract from that, and this is about giving school boards a new opportunity.

In fact, as a government we are very proud of the fact that StrongStart B.C. is new to this province. It will meet the needs of families for whom, perhaps, there has not been that opportunity. We look forward to expanding them across the province and giving school boards that opportunity for the first time in this province.

D. Cubberley: Well, I haven't heard anybody quibble with the value of the StrongStart program, although a great deal of emphasis has been laid on it by the other side of the House. I think everyone accepts that it's a valuable program. The question which has not been answered….

This is especially true, given the fact that a majority of working families are either two-income families or lone-provider families. Some 70 percent of families in this province are in that situation. None of those families, unless they're well-enough off to have a nanny, are going to be able to participate in the one offering that the minister is saying school boards will be allowed to engage in as part of their mandate.

I'm not talking about being able to formulate agreements with not-for-profit providers off the side of everyone's desk. Of course that's being done, and it should be expanded. The question is really: given that you could fund and quarterback this program without restricting "early learning" to this definition in the bill, why would you choose to fetter school districts in this manner?

Why would you not say: "We recognize that 11,000 kids every year are dropping out of school and that many of those kids are arriving developmentally not ready for school. We as a government recognize that we have to open up early learning because the whole rest of the industrial world is involved in early learning"?

Why would you not say that, which you have said at the front end of this? Then what you have done is contract it down to a tiny little program — an important program, but not one that addresses the needs of the overwhelming majority of families in British Columbia. Why fetter the boards?

Hon. S. Bond: I will comment and then…. Mr. Chair, I just have to say this.

This is a government that for the first time is actually putting an emphasis on early learning in British Columbia and allowing school boards to take that role as part of their mandate. We think that's great news. This is the beginning of looking at programs and how we address those needs.

I can assure the member opposite that we think there are great community providers of resources for children. They're partnering today with school boards across the province. That will continue. This is not at all about fettering school districts. It's about serving children in the province.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I ask that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yesterday we left off the debate in regards to coalbed gas and some of the new policies that this government brought forward in the new energy plan. There was a discussion between me and the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

It seemed to me, after leaving, that the member didn't understand what I was trying to explain or put on the record. If that's because I didn't explain it well enough to him, I want to get it on the record now so that he can have a read of it and maybe understand better, or I will put forward better, the position that this government has taken on coalbed gas.

The discussion revolved around produced water, both from coalbed gas and from conventional natural gas and oilwell operations. Prior to the new energy plan, firms could apply to surface-discharge water,

which is common practice across North America. There are different rules in all jurisdictions in regards to that — what you can release and how much.

I won't go into that, but we have a code of practice for produced water. We still have that code of practice, obviously, but what we did change — and I'll read it directly out of the energy plan — is: "Companies will not be allowed to surface-discharge produced water. Any reinjected produced water must be injected well below the domestic water aquifer." That's what I was trying to say to the member.

The member had questions. Is this done anywhere else in North America? My response was that, as far as I know, this is the only jurisdiction in North America that actually has a policy that reads as such. I think what the member didn't understand was that we actually do produce water out of coalbed gas wells today, as we speak, and haul that away and reinject it in a disposal well.

He seemed to think that wasn't happening anywhere in North America, and that's where our opinions differed. Today there is produced water that's highly saline that cannot be released to the environment and that actually is trucked.

I'll explain a little further. It's pumped off the coal to release the gas. It would be stored in tanks. Tank trucks would move it from those tanks to a site where there is a disposal well that allows the reinjection of water — whether it comes from coalbed gas or conventional oil and gas — deep into the aquifer. I hope that explains maybe a little bit of the misconception from yesterday. I'll leave that with the critic.

J. Horgan: I know that the member for Vancouver-Hastings will get access to the Blues. If he has any issues with the minister's comments, he can take them up directly.

We have just a little bit of time left to conclude the estimates on Vote 27. We're spending $44 million, and that's not an unreasonable thing for us to do.

We have already talked about the return to the treasury from activities within the ministry. We talked about oil and gas. We talked about electricity. I raised an issue just at the end of the day yesterday about what the Vancouver Sun said in a headline was the "hydrogen hype." We've had a series of announcements just in the past 24 hours about new vehicles being tested in Vancouver.

I wanted to ask the minister…. My information is that we are a generation away from this technology being commercially viable. Yet we do know that electric cars or hybrid cars or variations on that — biodiesel and other fuels — that have less impact on the environment are available today. The technology exists today.

So why I hear concerns about the hydrogen highway is that we have expertise available to us right now that can have an immediate impact on climate change. Yet we're investing many, many millions of dollars in hydrogen.

My question to the minister is: what analysis has the ministry done to support the hydrogen highway?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, as I said yesterday, British Columbia is known worldwide for its hydrogen expertise. Ballard fuel cells obviously set us on the map across the world.

There have been, as I said yesterday, at least a billion dollars invested in British Columbia. Thousands of jobs depend on hydrogen development in the province. There is no one item that actually will be the silver bullet for all of us to use.

So the hybrid car is not the total silver bullet for vehicles. They still have emissions, although admittedly their emissions are lower than other vehicles. But the member argued the other day that there are some other small cars that actually have just as low emissions as hybrids. So that's part of the answer for transportation.

Biodiesel and, I'd add, ethanol are part of the answer to tailpipe emissions in British Columbia. But we also know that to develop biodiesel or ethanol will probably create, at some point in time, some emissions into the atmosphere, some CO₂ that will have to be dealt with. Obviously, when you go on the farm and start planting canola or use corn or use cellulose, which is another form of ethanol — cellulose ethanol — there will be some activity on the land base.

Hydrogen or electric cars — let's think about electric cars. You're right, tailpipe emissions, I guess, from electric cars are zero, but you have to generate the electricity. We talked at length about that, about how British Columbia is short of electricity right now. We need to actually build more generation in the province, and that has an effect on the atmosphere.

No one here is trying to say that any one of those is a silver bullet, but they certainly will help us. Obviously, the development of hydrogen will either come from electricity — and, again, then you go back, and you have to build more generation — or could come from natural gas, which it does right now.

How you actually look at hydrogen in a bus system and in a transit system in the lower mainland or other places in the province, probably, later on is that there are zero emissions from that tailpipe. Now, converting natural gas to hydrogen obviously will create some CO₂. But if that's done at a plant site, you could actually sequester that CO₂. It's tough to sequester the CO₂ out of every tailpipe or every bus that drives around the city of Vancouver.

I'm certainly not here to say that hydrogen is the silver bullet. I don't think biodiesel or ethanol or hybrid cars or electric cars are the silver bullet, but a combination of all of them to reduce our footprint as far as CO₂ is concerned is something that we should actively be looking at and exploring as we move forward.

J. Horgan: I would call hydrogen perhaps the platinum bullet, based on the investment that we've made in that technology. The minister quite rightly said that the

most likely feedstock for this technology is natural gas. We're going to be creating greenhouse gases in producing the hydrogen to drive the vehicles. So none of these activities are without impact, and the minister is right. We agree on that.

I know that the government in the 1990s invested in this technology, and I'm not saying that we should down tools. I'm concerned, however, that the government is holding this up as a salvation when there are biofuels, hybrids, electric cars — and the other issues that the minister and I both acknowledge — available to this generation so that we could make an impact now and start changing behaviour now.

So I ask the minister…. I was watching a news clip last night, and the news announcer said that the expectation was that this technology wouldn't be commercially viable until at least 2015. Can the minister confirm that there will be no commercial access to hydrogen vehicles until 2015, or is that an optimistic date?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The ministry is participating, along with Fuel Cells Canada and Ford of Canada — or Ford Motor corporation — in a test of five Ford Focus vehicles in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island as we speak — hydrogen-powered with Ballard fuel cells.

Yes, when you listen to Ford of Canada, they will clearly tell you that this isn't new. This isn't a news flash from yesterday. This is something from quite a long time ago. In fact, when the program was first initiated…. If all things go well, probably by the time you see commercialization and cars sitting on a car lot for sale that are powered by hydrogen, it's probably 15 years way. Ten years away, I would say now, because it was awhile ago when they said that. That all has some probabilities. It's newer technology.

But hydrogen-powered buses are not new. There are a number of hydrogen-powered buses around the world, as we speak today, being tried in different climates, in different cities, to see how they work. These hydrogen buses that we'd have in British Columbia…. I think it's great that we're looking to the future for hydrogen buses in transport, in the lower mainland, where most of the CO₂ is produced from vehicles. They will be there by 2010.

There will be 20 of them, and I think we ought to be proud of that. I think we ought to be able to say: "Hey, a lot of that was developed right here in British Columbia. A lot of that was jobs right here in British Columbia. A lot of that was economic development here in the province, and there are zero emissions from those buses." I think we should be proud of that.

Do we take advantage of the things that are already there? For instance, the member agrees with me that it doesn't matter what you use; whether it's electricity or biodiesel or ethanol or all of those kind of things, it will have some effect on the environment. Every time we get up in the morning, it doesn't matter who we are or where we live or what we think politically, we have an effect on the environment. We just do. That's a fact of life.

To respond a little bit to what the member said about hybrid cars and biodiesel: we reduced the taxes. In fact, the sales tax on hybrid cars has been reduced, and it's been extended so people are encouraged to buy hybrid cars. I think that's taking advantage of something that we can take advantage of right now.

Motive fuel tax on biodiesel or ethanol is not charged in the province. I think that's great. That's something we initiated a while ago that's ongoing. I think that's taking advantage of something that is good for the environment and things that we can look forward to.

I would agree with the member when he says he agrees with me that there is no silver bullet in any one of them. There has been a lot of investment in hydrogen, and I think that it's well worth it. We should look seriously at what we can do to advance that.

I would say that when you listen to the Governors of the western U.S. states wanting to actually have a hydrogen highway south of us, that's encouraging. When that will happen, I don't know. I think that's great.

But 20 hydrogen-powered buses working for B.C. Transit in British Columbia on a hydrogen highway that will be in place for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games I think is wonderful news for the province.

J. Horgan: The minister made reference to thousands of jobs in the hydrogen sector in B.C. I wonder if he could outline just where those jobs are?

J. Horgan: In one particular place or in a number of places, or are there a host of companies involved? Could he break that down for me?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are quite a number of companies that are involved. I don't know them all off by heart, but there are quite a number of companies in the lower mainland investing in hydrogen and IT.

J. Horgan: Is there any way that the minister could provide that list to me so that I can have a better understanding of the success of the investment we've made over time?

Just on the notion of the hydrogen highway. Again, I understand through media reports that there is interest in this and, of course, there would be. We're looking for technological solutions to our dependence on, our addiction to, fossil fuels and the damage that they create over time around the world. If we were to be successful and B.C. was to lead the way, as it has up to this point in time, I would be delighted.

But there are concerns. I raised those today so that the committee and the minister has a better understanding of what I hear. I know that he is not immune to the e-mail that I receive, and it's coming to his mailbox and to his deputy and to others.

I wanted to flag that we're spending a good deal of money on hydrogen. If we were able to invest half of that…. This is more of a question for the Minister of Transportation who, sadly, has had his time and has come and gone. If we could invest in more transit with biofuels, electricity and hydrogen, we'd all be the better for it.

The public sees a massive investment in a Whistler corridor for a highway and a massive investment in a Whistler corridor for hydrogen, and they have to wonder out in Coquitlam and Maple Ridge: "What's in it for me?" That's why I raise the issue.

Certainly, here on Vancouver Island we've had minimal investments in transit until just this past budget, and I know that my constituents are curious as to when the payback will come to them. With that, I'll move on.

Before we get into Columbia Power, I just have a few questions about communications. I raised the issue yesterday with the Minister for Mines. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me how many communications staff he has working for him.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Not to belabour it, but the member did acknowledge that developing hydrogen in the province is good and having some buses run on hydrogen in the province is good. It's for the Olympic and Paralympic Games that we're targeting to get Vancouver, Whistler and Victoria…. Victoria has a fuelling station already. There is a fuelling station in Vancouver. What we need to do is finish it off to Whistler. That certainly allows…. That doesn't mean that's going to be the only fuelling station in the province.

There are opportunities to have fuelling stations in other parts of the lower mainland. Places like Maple Ridge and Coquitlam, which the member brings up, could benefit from those same things, from expanded transit with hydrogen buses. Like I say, there's already a station on Vancouver Island.

J. Horgan: Is that a director, assistant director and five communications officers?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are seven that help within the ministry. Whether they're called directors, assistant directors or all those kind of things, they report to the Minister of Finance. I'd encourage the member to ask the Minister of Finance about those issues.

We have seven people from PAB that actually provide us with the services we need. The rest of the questions, actually, the Minister of Finance could answer for you.

J. Horgan: Are there any other employees of government that don't report directly to the minister who are doing work for the ministry, as these seven individuals are?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We share services with the Minister of Economic Development. Doug Callbeck is responsible in both of those ministries and provides to us financial, IT and human resources. That is shared, like I said, with the Ministry of Economic Development.

J. Horgan: Are there individuals within the Crown agencies secretariat that do work notionally for the Ministry of Energy when in fact they report elsewhere?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Crown agencies secretariat reports to the Ministry of Finance. Does the Crown agencies secretariat do work directly for the ministry? We get information from them, the same as we may provide information to Crown agencies secretariat if in fact they need it for some things. But they oversee mainly the Crowns that operate in British Columbia, overseeing them from a high level.

I'm responsible for them at the end of the day, so we share information. It's not as though they provide all the information to us.

J. Horgan: In addition to the FTE count for the ministry — for those who are keeping track — there would be seven at the public affairs bureau who are also doing work or are dedicated to the Ministry of Energy. We have people in Crown agencies that are doing work on energy-related issues. We have shared IT, financial and human resource issues being done jointly by the ADM for two ministries, Economic Development and Energy.

My question now is: are there any other agencies of government that have employees doing work that would assist the Ministry of Energy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In government — and I know the member knows this — there are services provided to us from the Ministry of Attorney General. Are they directly employed with the Ministry of Energy and Mines? No, they're not.

Are there services that we get from the Ministry of Environment from time to time in regards to environment and how we deal with things in Energy and Mines? Yes, there are services. Are they employees of the Ministry of Energy and Mines? No, they are not. Do we provide information to the Ministry of Environment at times for them to actually reach some of the goals they have to reach? Yes, we do.

Actually, this is a government that's not in silos like it used to be. This is a government that works across. We want to provide information to one another so that things can be done in government a lot more effectively, and we work hard at doing that.

Going back to the number of members from the public affairs bureau for what services they give us,

there are seven. Is there information provided to us from different ministries, the same as we provide other ministries with information? Yes.

J. Horgan: I would like to move for a moment, to get on the record…. Last fall I had the opportunity to question the CEO of B.C. Hydro, Bob Elton, about the impact of storms on my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

He undertook at that time to provide staff resources to better advise the people in my community of what steps Hydro had taken to address the storm damage.

We had a meeting last Thursday — the rationale for me leaving very briefly before the end of estimates. I just wanted to acknowledge the staff that came from B.C. Hydro — Ted Olynyk, Klaus Kreye, Neil Sharpe, Linda Sartario, Martin McMinn, Don Callawaert and Scott McLean. They're outstanding employees of B.C. Hydro who did tremendous service here on southern Vancouver Island in November, December and January to keep the lights on, to keep people warm, and to ensure as little damage as possible to property and to individuals during that horrific period.

I wanted to advise the minister that those Hydro staff did come to my community. We held a public meeting. Sadly, as they rightly expected, if we had the public meeting the day after the storm, we would have had more people. But four months later the lights haven't gone off, the trees are off the roads, the lines are up, and life is good. The next time we'll see people is when we go to clear some brush, when they say: "What are you doing cutting down those trees?"

I wanted to acknowledge that Mr. Elton was good to his word and sent out some fantastic staff, who did great work on southern Vancouver Island.

My colleague from Nelson-Creston has a number of questions for Columbia Power. Before we get to that, I was wondering if I could briefly ask some questions about the aboriginal affairs work that's being done by the minister and the ministry, particularly with respect to independent power producers and also the oil and gas sector in the northeast. I know the minister is well versed in that.

Could he give me a sense of whether he believes that the Treaty 8 bands in particular and others in the oil and gas community are satisfied with the level of consultation and cooperation, and if there are any problems that he may want to flag for us now so that we can address them in the future?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I actually think, if we're referring to Treaty 8, there is a well-understood process ongoing there. New MOUs have been signed with the bands, including the Dene Tha centred in High Level, but their traditional territory goes into northeastern British Columbia.

We have, as far as I know, a good working relationship. It's normal, if you ask the Treaty 8 bands or the chiefs, that they may tell you they have all kinds of problems. I understand that, but generally speaking, I think the MOUs are well adhered to and that industry is working well on the land base.

Under this part of the ministry, we also have NEEMAC out there for the last year. That's a group of people working on issues about access to private land in the northeast part of the province, a whole mediation arbitration board and a whole host of other things.

Are there some discussions and differences of opinion there? Certainly there are, and they expect there to be. I appreciate that, but what we need to do is try to resolve those to the best of our ability with both the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people.

J. Horgan: With respect to two issues in the northwest — coalbed methane in Telkwa and the Wet'suwet'en response to that as well as Tahltan concerns about mining in their territory — I've had representations from both of those groups about those issues, with mixed reviews.

I mentioned to the minister the electrification of Highway 37, as well as to the minister of mines that certainly the Tahltan are welcoming Galore Creek. There is a good working relationship with the company and a good working relationship with the ministry on that file. There are multiple opportunities for the mining sector in and around Tahltan territory, and there is some concern about how that's unfolding.

Could the minister advise me how the ministry is responding to the Wet'suwet'en concerns around Telkwa and also how they're proposing to manage the Tahltan people with respect to mining in and around Highway 37?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have a policeman in here now to make sure that we get this done right.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm just answering questions. I have no control over the time frame.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I do, but I have to make them full. As we witnessed yesterday, they have to be full and complete answers, or they're taken out of context.

In any event, as to the Wet'suwet'en, we have had a working group with them for about a year or better and have provided capacity funding in regards to coalbed gas. We continue to work with them — the ministry staff do — to provide them the information they need, and they think it's going on relatively well. Does that mean that we're at any kind of a conclusion? No. I'll give that answer now.

Secondly, as far as the Tahltan go, we work together with MARR, but MARR leads the discussions on the issues around the Tahltan and what's happening in there, although, as I said earlier, we'll provide some

C. Evans: Would it be okay if we moved to questions about the Columbia Power Corporation at this point?

C. Evans: Last year during these estimates we were able to canvass a little bit of the history of the Keenleyside project, the power plant at Castlegar and the Brilliant project. We established that Keenleyside was profitable and that the construction problems were coming to some resolution concerning the spillway issue. Can you advise whether the Keenleyside or the Castlegar power plant project is now finished, or where they stand in their restoration?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Arrow channel has been fully remediated as of May of 2006 and has been in full operation since then.

C. Evans: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the insurance and contractual relationships with the contractor paid for the cost of remediation, or whether Columbia Power Corporation is out of pocket for that work.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The insurance policy paid a large part of it — $34.5 million, as I understand. The total cost, including lost revenues, was $51 million. To get the project on and going, CPC actually paid to make sure that they could get the project generating electricity again.

They will be pursuing the prime contractor on the job for the balance between the $34.5 million and the $51 million. That is ongoing.

C. Evans: Would I be correct in assuming that should there be a difference, say, between $35 million and $51 million — should there be an unpaid balance — that cost will then be shared, essentially, by Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power Corporation?

C. Evans: That brings up the larger question and a concise answer. But just for the benefit of MLAs who are here and who perhaps may not understand, could the minister explain to the assembled folks here how Columbia Power Corporation and the trust are structured, who owns the assets and who profits from the electricity?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I think most of the people here understand that. For the ones who don't, you can have a quick meeting with them afterwards.

I'm responsible for Columbia Power Corporation, and the Ministry of Economic Development is responsible for Columbia Basin Trust, but there is a sharing of the net revenue from the operations that Columbia Power Corporation has in the Kootenays from a high level.

I think the critic has actually encouraged me to hurry along. I'm not trying to be curt or short, I'm just…. Instead of reviewing a world that happened in 1995, somewhere in that era a long time ago…. I don't know. If you want to explain it, go ahead, Member. It's your time.

C. Evans: I was of the opinion that we were reviewing a world that is ongoing and is approximately 50-percent finished, if you see the Arrow project, the Brilliant project and Waneta project as a set of work that we are not yet finished with.

Can the minister advise the group what the sum of revenue was that accrued to the Crown from Columbia Power Corporation last year?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you go to the service plan, you will find that the net profit for Columbia Power Corporation — although the financial statements aren't completed yet — is $11.694 million. You would double that, because that same amount would go to the Columbia Basin Trust. That's available on the website or in the service plan.

C. Evans: I'll move to Brilliant. I wonder if the minister would tell us the state of completion of the Brilliant project and the ribbon-cutting date. When is it intended that Brilliant will be operational?

Hon. R. Neufeld: They inform me that it will be sometime this June. All things being equal, they anticipate to have commercial operation likely closer to the end of June. When the ribbon cutting is…. We'll make sure that we invite the member. I'll make sure that we send a letter to the member so he understands. He can put it in his calendar so he can be there.

C. Evans: That's very kind. Maybe the minister can do that some weeks in advance, because I'm not so good at short-term….

Back to the Brilliant project. I wonder, in a general sense…. It will begin this June, which will be a shortened fiscal year, but it is the estimate of Columbia Power Corporation that the Brilliant project, when operational and running for a full fiscal year, will return what revenue to the Crown?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll try to get as much advance notice as we possibly can to the member, understanding that his calendar is relatively tight. But sometimes I've got to let you know that my calendar…. I find these things out just a few weeks ahead of time. I'm sure it's important enough to the member that he will be there regardless if it's just four days ahead of time when

As I understand from Columbia Power Corporation staff, the total net after a full operation, all things being equal, on average, depending on all kinds of things — water, the price of electricity — will be in the neighbourhood of $10 million net.

C. Evans: Will the Brilliant project be completed within the original budget — contractual intentions — of Columbia Power Corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hopefully, it will be in the original budget. The contractor is claiming some extras, which Columbia Power Corporation is dealing with the contractor on. Those numbers won't be known for a while, so I would rather not speculate on them.

C. Evans: Will they be completed within the original time estimate of the Columbia Power Corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The original time frame that Columbia Power Corporation thought that the project would be finished, and I'm sure the member is aware of this, was September of '06. As we spoke just a little while ago, all things being equal, June of '07 is when it should become commercial.

C. Evans: I would like to say congratulations, through the Chair to the minister and through the minister to Columbia Power Corporation. It would appear, then, that the Brilliant project will be the second project finished more or less on budget and within one calendar year of its original time of operation. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I would say that Brilliant will be almost a year late. I think, before we jump on that bandwagon, we better make sure we find out what the exact numbers are out of Brilliant and what the contractor is claiming for in Brilliant.

We don't know all those numbers yet. So before we get real happy about dancing on the table, we should make sure we have all the numbers. I'm not trying to be elusive. I'm trying to be honest and straightforward with the member that until we get those numbers, we shouldn't say that it's meeting the completion date and the dollar amount.

C. Evans: Yes, I appreciate that. The minister's caution is in order, and I don't wish to exaggerate success before we get there.

Obviously, where I'm going here is pretty clear. It would appear that the Columbia Power Corporation — in spite of some high-profile Crown corporation overages, both in terms of time and dollars of both the previous government, the New Democrats, and the present government, the Liberals — is now on track to finish its second major project, more or less within its original estimates of budget.

I accept that there may be disputed charges on overages; that's within our experience on just about everything that happens. I accept that we may be as much as a year late or close to it. But there would appear to be tremendous success in two areas in which we don't have a lot of experience in recent years.

One is Crown corporations doing their job without failing to meet their targets, and second is the creation of new power into the provincial grid, which is utterly green and celebrated by everybody, because as everybody here knows, both the Castlegar project and Brilliant are essentially technological upgrades of historical operations which flood not one acre.

The Castlegar project. I was some time ago in discussions with Seattle City Light about whether or not that power might have a "green" price advantage to them.

My next question about Brilliant: is it possible that the power at Brilliant would enter the grid or be sold in future anywhere and get a price advantage as green energy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I want to caution on the "let's jump on the table" effect. We still don't know what's going to happen at the end of the day with Brilliant. Arrow — not any fault of CPC — had some problems and was shut down for quite a while to have a $51 million repair done to it not long after it started generating electricity.

Columbia Power Corporation is a great corporation, if that's what the member is getting at. I agree with that. B.C. Hydro is a great corporation. British Columbia Transmission is a great corporation. They all do solid work for the province and provide us with some of the greatest green energy that most other jurisdictions can only dream about. So it's great.

In fact, if you look at what you get for electricity, there is a green premium for green electricity, regardless of where it's produced. It doesn't have to be produced by CPC. Even though your party has rejected and outright said that we shouldn't be doing some of the run-of-the-river projects, they are fully green — no different than Columbia Power Corporation's.

I would say that not everybody celebrates green energy. At least it seems to me that that's the way it goes. But I would say it doesn't matter who generates it. As long as it's green electricity, we should be happy, whether it comes from CPC or some other independent power producer — which CPC is — from someplace else. So yes, it could demand a premium, and the majority of it is sold to B.C. Hydro.

We've established that Columbia Power Corporation has a pretty good track record in terms of actually building what they say they build, building it for what they say they'll build it for and building it pretty close to the time they say they'll get it done. There is a third project we hope to begin, which I think will also be green power, that being the upgrade of the Waneta power plant.

I wonder if the minister could inform us where the Waneta project stands in the regulatory process.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Waneta is in the environmental assessment process. The member is well aware of that — British Columbia's environmental assessment process. DFO has some concerns about sturgeon, which the corporation is trying to address to the best of its ability, and no decision can be made on the environmental assessment process until that's completed.

C. Evans: The minister is quite correct. I am aware somewhat, at least in terms of gossip. I talk to people involved in the regulatory process from the outside periodically, because everybody is hoping that Waneta will proceed.

I don't, however, have an understanding of the time frame. I don't know whether it's the expectation that the sturgeon issue is resolvable or, if it is resolvable, whether it is resolvable in the short run, and I don't know whether DFO is participating in the process in a pragmatic, problem-solving way or whether it's a roadblock. So I wonder if the minister could give us some time frame of how long the regulatory process is expected to last and, also, on the record, a bit of a critique about whether or not we need be concerned about DFO's participation and whether their participation is in a problem-solving mode.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know that Columbia Power Corporation is doing its best to get the issue resolved in regards to sturgeon that they're dealing with now. I don't think DFO is blocking anything that could be happening. The member refers to gossip, and I know we can always hear all those kinds of things at Tim Hortons, but I don't think anybody is trying to actually delay the project — not that I'm aware of, or not that the corporation is aware of. They would like to be able to get through that process.

Do I have a time frame? Well no, I don't. If anybody in this room can give me a time frame for what DFO requires and how long it takes and then to finish the EA process…. I don't have that time frame, and I would be surprised that CPC does. I'd rather not put on the record a time frame because guess what happens when that time frame arrives and you haven't completed it. You're on me. "You haven't done your job."

I think we need to let the process roll out the best we possibly can. As the member said, and I agree, we've got some good people working as hard as they possibly can to make sure that the issue is resolved.

C. Evans: I want to move on to the buyer of the power, quickly. Because of the nature of Waneta and its seasonal production, it seems to me — again as a bit of an outsider — that as a power source it would command a low price unless mixed in with other power that could guarantee a firmer total amount in all seasons. That would suggest to me that the most logical buyer for the power ought to be B.C. Hydro, who is able to create the best mix of availability and drive up the price. So my question is: is CPC engaged in discussions with B.C. Hydro to buy this power?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We haven't even got through the EA process yet, but I know that the Columbia Power Corporation is in discussions and works with B.C. Hydro on a constant basis to purchase that energy.

The member is correct. Waneta would produce a lot of electricity only at a short-period time of the year when there happens to be a lot of surplus in the system in all of B.C. and just south of the border. It makes it a type of electricity that has to be looked at carefully. How do we actually work that into the whole thing?

I would think that probably B.C. Hydro and Columbia Power Corporation will have some good synergy in how they deal with this, if in fact at the end of the day Treasury Board and all those involved actually approve the building of Waneta.

C. Evans: That would conclude my questions for this year. I appreciate the opportunity to get this dialogue on the record every year until we get the project built.

I want to make one comment about the opening of Brilliant. The minister advises that he'll give me plenty of notice so I can attend. This is a statement, not a question. I would like to attend as a member of the citizenry, and I would like the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Environment — and every other minister of the Crown and MLA who would be willing to attend — to take credit for this.

I do not wish to stand there, thinking this is a project in which I have involvement. It isn't even my constituency. I want the government of the day to see the wonder of the creation, in order to inspire them to move on to the next project and get Waneta started by the time we meet again.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I certainly didn't want him to think that he's the only one that's getting an invite. We want to get that on the record too. Actually, Columbia Power Corporation will be responsible to make sure that there is a public process that's ongoing about the opening of Brilliant. I think it will be well known in the area when that time comes.

I appreciate the member's comments about the citizenry coming and talking about how great dams are. I'm sure the member will be in the Peace country at some time — maybe when Site C is built — saying those same words.

J. Horgan: I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Nelson-Creston talk about the Columbia Power Corporation. I had the pleasure to be in the middle of the penstock in Brilliant last fall, and it was a humbling experience. I

think if you could walk all members of the Legislature deep into the heart of the Kootenays, they'd have a better appreciation, as well, of the enormity of the task that CPC undertook and also of the importance to the local economy and to the provincial economy of that undertaking.

We're at the end of our time, and I know that you've had a wonderful time here as the minister and I have exchanged questions and answers — some long, some short. I want to make a few comments before we conclude.

The minister said just a moment ago that this side of the House was not a fan of green energy. I know that he was just having some sport. I know that he recognizes that all of us in this place support green energy. It's the backbone of the B.C. Hydro system. It has always been so. This is not a new phenomenon. It's been the case since the 1960s. The issue of where to locate run-of-the-river projects is at issue.

I think where the government and the minister, in particular, got the impression that this side of the House was opposed to run of the river or micro-hydro or small energy projects was our strong opposition to Bill 30 last year in the Legislature, where the government usurped control and power over land use decisions from local governments. That was the issue.

We are of the view — and I think most folks out there watching today would accept the view — that local individuals should be making land use decisions. That's how our system operates. It has operated that way very effectively for many, many decades, and when it comes to small micro-hydro projects clustered into one particular regional district or one municipality, that causes concern for locals. We were defending those individuals and those issues.

We weren't opposed, at any time, to green energy in and of itself. As with real estate, it's "location, location, location," and that's also the same with the independent power producers as well as micro-hydro and small hydro.

The minister and I agreed on many things, and certainly there is a success story to be told with respect to energy in British Columbia. The minister and I are on the same page on that. We do differ, however, in a number of areas, and I just wanted to outline those so that the minister is clear. I'm sure that he will, perhaps in his closing remarks, confirm that as well.

This side of the House has serious concerns about coalbed methane and its application, or its industrial activity, in communities that are not accustomed to that activity. I articulated those during the back-and-forth of questioning. I believe the minister may well say that my desire to have that activity take place in the Peace country is unfair, but I believe that's a community that has embraced oil and gas development, and coalbed methane would be no different in this instance.

But Vancouver Island, although it has a long history of coal, has no history of coalbed methane. I know that certainly individuals in and around the Comox Valley and Campbell River have serious concerns, and I think the minister should be cognizant of that, and that's why I raised the issues.

Another area where we have concern is worker safety, and I know the minister shares that. However, we believe on this side of the House that we need to redouble our efforts, particularly in the oil and gas sector, as well as forestry, mining and other industrial activity, to ensure that workers can come home from work every day having done a good day's work to support their families and to build the economy of B.C.

I don't think we have any dispute on that question, but it is the focus of attention on this side of the House. We're going to continue to raise it in various forms in this place to ensure that the minister and the ministry are doing everything they can to protect workers in their sector.

The last issue where we appear to have a significant divide is on public ownership of hydroelectricity in B.C. Certainly, I support independent power producers. There is a role and function. There has been in the past; there will be in the future. But my concern stems from decisions that the government made early in its mandate to outsource public sector jobs to private contractors — offshore, in this instance — with respect to the Accenture deal.

That still troubles us to this day. I don't believe the government got the payback that they were anticipating. Certainly, the public and those workers did not. I think it's incumbent upon us in this Legislature to ensure that we're constantly, vigilantly, protecting people in the workforce from contracting-out, which in my view was unnecessary and was driven by an ideology that is not consistent with my own.

With respect to public ownership, by prohibiting B.C. Hydro from generating its own sources of new supply, I think that the minister would agree that we disagree on that.

I don't have a problem with laying the foundation to develop a strong independent power sector in British Columbia, but I do have some concerns when you take the jewel of the crown, the envy of North America, and you tie both hands behind its back and say: "You shall buy only from one source." I think that's wrong-headed. I think that's interference in the marketplace, and I would think that is inconsistent with the ethic on the other side of the House.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks on behalf of the official opposition and thank the minister and his staff for their time. I know that the estimates process, when I was in government…. The end was always well received. I know that the minister and his staff have done a good job preparing for this. I want to thank them on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I'll conclude with that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think we had a good estimates debate. I think there were good questions back and forth, and some good answers, I would say, to those questions. We did commit to provide some information

to the critic. You can rest assured that that will be forthcoming. The ministry staff have taken note of that as we moved through the process. So we will get that to you as soon as possible.

I want to just touch on a few of the things that the member talked about — one being Bill 30 and local decisions. I think that when he says that's the only place that the NDP is opposed to green power generation in the province, it's just not quite exactly what I've heard on my side of the House from the NDP. They've opposed other things. It's not just the regional district that the discussion was mostly about. There are projects with some green energy across the whole province that are coming to fruition that all of us can enjoy.

I encourage the opposition to think about green energy across British Columbia, whether it comes from small processes or from larger ones like the member for Nelson-Creston just talked about. They're good for British Columbia. We should be proud of those things. We should talk about those things.

We did not rule out the ability for regional districts to have input. In fact, regional districts have a huge amount of input and will actually benefit greatly. Part of it that's missed is through the taxation process. Those regional districts will receive an awful lot of money in taxation off those independent power producers, and in fact they'll get the maximum off those independent power producers.

So I want to maybe read into the record, because the member's House Leader is here, just a few quotes from not that long ago when the discussion was about IPPs and their importance in the province.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, it's interesting. I know you don't like to revisit what you said before, but it in fact is something that is on the record and will always be there.

So this is a quote from the now House Leader, when he was the Minister of Employment and Investment, on the issue of markets. Get this: "We're moving to a more open market." This is the NDP. "The generation is now becoming a competitive generating market. In terms of the business plans it's not the government that's building the plant; it's an independent power producer." Fully supporting it I have dozens of quotes, not just from that member but from others.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member claps. He was a special adviser for a long time to Mr. Clark, so I'm sure that he provided some of these quotes to Mr. Clark when he was out there talking.

This is from Glen Clark: "An IPP could now build a plant in British Columbia and export down to Bonneville through the B.C. Hydro system, and we'd allow it." That's from a previous Premier of the NDP.

Then I hear lots of talk about how we shouldn't be using independent power producers. I can go back in history and pull out all kinds of quotes where the NDP were all about independent power producers and signed contracts with some of them — some of the large American companies, some of them that generate with natural gas. Talk about being concerned about green. Let's remember what their green agenda was. It's in a press release that says: "We're going to actually require B.C. Hydro to get 10 percent of its electricity from clean sources and the rest from natural gas generation." That's not that long ago. They actually embarked down that path.

I want the member to remember that. I want the member to remember coalbed gas. We had that discussion. There they are, saying we shouldn't have coalbed gas. Well, there are first nations on Vancouver Island that want coalbed gas. They've been in to see me. There is a willingness on Vancouver Island to actually explore for that.

Here it is.… An NDP government in the '90s actually initiated coalbed gas drilling in the province as much as we have in the first six years that we've been here. They did it by stealth. They didn't tell anybody. They didn't say: "We're coming to your place to drill for coalbed gas." They just went ahead and did it. They sold the rights, and people drilled. No one told anyone, and there they were out there, the big purveyors of economic development, and probably under the leadership of the Opposition House Leader now.

Today they say, "We shouldn't be doing it anyplace else than northeastern British Columbia," yet it happened all over the province under the NDP.

Revisionist history is actually good for each one of us. I can imagine some of this would be thrown back at me at some period of time, and I'd appreciate that. It doesn't matter to me. I can take it. You folks have a record. You actually need to be reminded, once in a while, of what you've done.

B.C. Hydro is not actually eliminated from new generation across the province. They're actively talking about Site C, an issue that that side of the House has problems with. One day the Leader of the Opposition says: "I'm not sure whether we should do it." The next day the critic says: "We should do it." The next day I hear from someone else: "Well, it's not party policy that we should even look at it." You're all over the place. I guess what you'll do is try to land on the right place at the right time instead of actually coming forward with a stand on whether you should be doing it or not.

B.C. Hydro is doing all kinds of work and is encouraged to do work on all their plants across the province — unlike before, when they were encouraged to leave the country and build a plant and not actually

I appreciate the questions; I appreciate the answers. I think it's a great dialogue. I look forward to next year when we can do this — or in the House, when the member wants to ask me some more questions about independent power producers, and I'll have a few more new quotes for you there.

The Chair: The estimates for the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General will begin shortly. I declare that we take a small recess so that the officials can take their seats.

Hon. J. Les: I am pleased to start the estimates process for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. There have been a few times in the last day or so when I wondered if we'd ever get on. But nonetheless, here we are.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the work of the members of the staff of the ministry who, day in and day out, do a lot of work. We have several staff here today that I'd like to take a moment to introduce: my deputy minister to my left, David Morhart; chief coroner for British Columbia, Terry Smith, to my right; behind me, Rod Seginson, ministry finance; and Wes Shoemaker, who is the associate deputy minister responsible for emergency management in British Columbia.

As I'm sure all members are aware, the operations of the ministry are quite diverse. They extend from law enforcement and corrections, crime prevention and victim services, emergency preparedness, the Coroners Service, driver safety, fire prevention, consumer protection, to liquor and gaming regulation. All of the programs are built on a vision of British Columbians working together to make our province the safest place to live in Canada.

We're guided by innovative planning and thinking, leading-edge technology and effective service delivery. We've achieved a lot in the past year to enhance public safety. We're going to continue to build on the cornerstones of integration and innovation.

Police officers in our communities today are backed up by integrated units that investigate homicides, gangs, cybercrime and identity crimes. We have more integrated operations and joint forces operations in British Columbia per capita than anywhere in Canada. These integrated teams avoid duplication, and they optimize efficiency of operation. As of January 2007 there are nearly 600 provincial and municipal officers on ten major integrated teams in British Columbia.

We've also given police the latest in public safety technology, like the automatic licence plate recognition system, which we just announced about three months ago, as well as the police helicopter, Air One; bait cars; bait boats; and other, similar programs.

Police also now have the most advanced crime-fighting tools like PRIME-BC, which will ultimately — when it's completely in place by the end of this year — link all police databases throughout the province.

We continue to lead the country in combating the use and production of crystal meth by adding new treatment support, prevention materials and enforcement tools.

We're also using our resources effectively to plan for, respond to and recover from disasters, either man-made, like a hazmat incident, or a natural event like forest fires or flooding. Three provincial services — the office of the fire commissioner, the B.C. Coroners Service and the provincial emergency program — are now gathered under emergency management British Columbia.

EMBC coordinates emergency planning, response and recovery. They also work with public sector groups to make sure that vital government services are not disrupted by an emergency or disaster.

The best response, always, to an emergency is to be prepared ahead of time. That is why just six weeks ago the Premier announced $33 million in provincial funding for flood mitigation work. As we all know, we are potentially facing a difficult year in terms of flooding in British Columbia, and we need to be prepared.

It's the most money that has ever been provided proactively for emergency preparedness by any government in the history of British Columbia and four times what was committed in 1999, when we were facing a similar threat. Now an unprecedented number of projects to protect communities from flooding are on track to be completed by the middle of this month.

We're working hard to be prepared because British Columbians expect to be safe. They also expect to be able to feel safe in their communities. That ideal is at the heart of everything we do in this ministry.

It is what guides victim services workers who continue to support the families of the missing Vancouver women during an unprecedented criminal trial that is currently ongoing. It's what guides our corrections officers to supervise and manage offenders with a diverse range of needs. It's what guides provincial emergency program staff as they coordinated the rescue of 54 people stranded in a blizzard in the Peace region just this last winter. It is what guided security program staff to protect the children of this province with new, stronger criminal-record check legislation.

It is an honour to work with the dedicated public servants in my ministry. I am proud of the work that

they do and the achievements that they accomplish. I look forward to another productive year working cooperatively and collaboratively with them. With that, I would be happy to respond to questions from the members opposite.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his opening remarks and would like to echo his comments about the tremendous work that does take place from the staff within the ministry at all levels. I think overall it's important that British Columbians understand the type of work that takes place in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and that their role is not just to make British Columbians feel safe but to be safe.

I look forward to exploring a number of issues with the minister during this estimates process. I've outlined the areas that we want to touch on today. There will be other areas — for example, around ICBC, the Liquor Control Board, gaming policy and the lotto corporation — that will come later and tomorrow. My colleague from Delta North will be dealing with those particular issues.

For the moment, the order we are wanting to talk about are issues concerning the coroner's office, prisons, community policing, emergency preparedness, the crystal meth strategy, victims of crime, crime statistics and then, also, the minister's office.

I think before we get to the coroners question, there are some questions around the minister's office that I'll ask. Then we'll move on to the issues in the Coroners Service.

To the minister: has there been an increase in staff within the minister's office in the past year and going forward?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, there has been an increase of one person in my minister's office. That is the recent addition of an additional ministerial assistant.

M. Farnworth: What's the area of focus for that particular individual? In terms of ministerial responsibilities, are they focusing on any particular aspect of the ministry?

Hon. J. Les: As I've already outlined, the ministry carries with it quite a breadth of responsibilities. The additional individual that was allotted to my office just a number of months ago actually isn't specifically oriented to any one area of the ministry. Given the fact that he is a lawyer by background, though, there are areas of the ministry to which he will be more naturally inclined. We always tend to try to match people up with where their interests and their abilities are.

M. Farnworth: Have there been any programs moved into the ministry from other ministries or moved out of the ministry to other ministries?

M. Farnworth: In terms of the ministry's contracts for advertising and consultants — I won't use the term "lobbyists"; "content consultants" is permissible — how much has been budgeted for contracts in the coming year?

Hon. J. Les: In terms of the operations of the minister's office, we have a notional allocation of $2,000 for that type of work, but it's just a placeholder.

M. Farnworth: Within the ministry itself, does Mr. Dobell have any contracts, or is there any negotiation underway to have him do any contracts within the ministry?

M. Farnworth: In terms of contracts that have been awarded within the ministry, have they been by direct award or by tender?

Hon. J. Les: The vast majority of contracts that are awarded by the ministry are as a result of the appropriate tendering process. There will be times when contracts are awarded by direct award.

As I'm sure members will appreciate, from time to time, especially when you're involved in emergency operations, time is of the essence. There simply isn't time to go through the appropriate tendering process. So long as staff in those situations are satisfied that appropriate value for money is achieved, they do have the ability — necessarily, at times — to award directly.

M. Farnworth: The minister said in emergency situations. Could he just define what type of things that would cover?

Hon. J. Les: Those are not emergency situations in the minister's office. They are natural disasters, floods, fires — those kinds of things.

In terms of audits within the minister's office, have there been audits done in any area of the ministry or the ministry's programs or agencies in the past year?

Hon. J. Les: It's an ongoing practice of the ministry to audit operations. Although I don't have the specific list here of all the audits that were done in the past year, I can certainly undertake to make them available to the member.

M. Farnworth: Is it the practice of the ministry that the audits are made public without having to request, or do you need to request to have them made public?

Hon. J. Les: These audits are usually done through the comptroller general and are quite routinely made

available without resort to such things as an FOI process. We intend for these things to be as transparent as possible, and frankly, anybody who wants the results of any of those audits is welcome to them.

Hon. J. Les: If an FOI request comes in, it is referred to the appropriate part of the ministry that would have that information. That information is then compiled, and we then refer that package to the part of the ministry that has particular responsibilities for vetting the information.

As the member knows, there are certain requirements that guide the release of information, with respect to such issues as personal privacy and issues of that nature. Ultimately, before those items are released, they're signed off by my deputy minister.

M. Farnworth: How many FOI analysts are there assigned to this ministry and its operations?

Hon. J. Les: For the purposes of dealing with FOI requests, we have a group that deals not only with this particular ministry but also with the Attorney General's ministry. There are seven FTEs that deal with those requests.

M. Farnworth: Given the fact that they're sharing with the AG's ministry, has the number of analysts increased or decreased since 2001?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure about exactly how many people were there in 2001, so I can go back to it some other time and get that information if we need it. What I know is this. We added one FTE to that shop last year and an additional person this year. There is a significant workload issue there, and to try and keep abreast and deal with these requests in a timely way, we found it necessary to add two people over the last two years.

M. Farnworth: Speaking of that, how many requests are beyond the 30-day legislated time line?

Hon. J. Les: We're always so focused on how well we do that we're not quite as focused, perhaps, on where we're not meeting our targets. We don't have that information here with us, but I'm certainly happy to undertake getting that information to the member.

M. Farnworth: With that, I will start on the questions around the Coroners Service and then probably pick them up after lunch.

In terms of the Coroners Service over the past year, how has the function of the office changed? Has it increased in terms of its staffing levels? Has it changed in terms of its focus or the direction of its activities?

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member opposite will be aware, there were significant new resources added to the Coroners Service just in the past year and a half. That certainly is showing up in terms of how the Coroners Service is organized. I would say that it has been substantially professionalized by bringing more highly trained people to the core staff of the Coroners Service.

We see that in this fiscal year we have brought the number of full-time — FTE — resources in the Coroners Service up to 81 FTEs. We have increased the number of full-time coroners to 32. That's up from 24. That has also resulted in the number of part-time community coroners being reduced somewhat, but the net effect is that we have more coroner resources available — first of all, on a more full-time basis, and second, with more of the appropriate professionals being brought to the core staff at the coroner's office.

M. Farnworth: Along with that increase in resources, has there been a change in the way in which either training or policies have been implemented? I'm thinking in terms of how we keep track of things, how we approach the different types of activities that the coroner is investigating or not investigating. Has that changed as well with these increased resources?

In response to the question, yes, there has been significant improvement in terms of the resources and equipment available to the Coroners Service. We are in the final stages of implementation of a program called TOSCA, which is specifically designed to track coroners' information and to make the retrieval of that information available in such a way that we can extract different information, trends and issues of that nature when we need to.

We've also equipped the coroners around the province with a far better suite of equipment — things like digital cameras, ident kits, GPS equipment and laptop computers. They are significantly better outfitted and equipped today than they were just a few years ago. I think we've made some enormous strides, actually, in outfitting the Coroners Service with the latest in software and equipment on the ground.

M. Farnworth: Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and progress on the Ministry of Solicitor General 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.